Curtiz

I expected more of this great director's bio and not just his frustrations on Casablanca.

I'm not sure i get why this is panned as much as it is. What was the expectation? I mean anyone w/ an instrument can play 'Wagon Wheel'; but if they play it especially well, what's not to appreciate? It's monochrome to reflect the period & theme & the art form it is an homage to. It is stylized as such & states it is a work of fiction out of the gate. The lighting & cinematography is beautiful, the sound design & editing work hand in hand, & the performances are excellent- tho also a match to the period/genre's somewhat heightened sensibilities. Sure it could be called 'pretentious fim school' stuff; but if anyone can make a movie that looks & sounds & functions as well, they've done a fine job. I'd like to see any disparaging critic show something better. All art is subjective & a matter of opinion in the end. A critic can say the story worked & why; for me, I love the genre & the history, I appreciate the technical effort behind the shooting & editing. The actors are believable & expressive. The editing dialogue & sound all work to move things forward... A critic can point out what doesn't work. If the 'noir' genre &/or period or history aren't your thing, this might not be. If you're expecting a biopic, thisnt isn't that, as details of Cuttiz's life are left as ambiguous as his personal morals. If you're expecting a detailed 'making of' of Casablanca, it isn't that either. As a critic I can say, it is more about the ideas of art vs. artist, & those expectations surrounding the role of that art & those artists in the circumstances of war. So, see it, if that sounds in your wheelhouse & you can decide how you feel about it.

This Hungarian production focuses on an unlikely "local hero". Michael Curtiz was a very prolific director who arrived in the US in the late Twenties, after having directed over 60 films in Europe.

Besides being prolific he was also versatile. A true "studio system" director and not an "auteur" famous for a genre or style, he never achieved great fame but did achieve great financial success. He also had a reputation for being difficult and for his dreadful English. See the "poodles" scene :-)

The plot is a fictional tale about Curtiz's estranged daughter, Kitty, coming to Hollywood and wanting to get to know daddy, during the filming of Casablanca. It is interesting to see some Casablanca sets, like Rick's Cafe partially recreated and luckily we get only glimpses of main characters Bogey and Bergman.

For unknown reasons Curtiz doesn't tell anybody that Kitty is his daughter and, given his womaniser reputation, everybody - his wife included - thinks Kitty is yet another "dame". This create some friction and minor misunderstandings, while the twins scriptwriters are busy improvising new scenes, making it up as they go. Until the very last moment nobody knew how the movie would end and they finally came up with a great ending to please almost everybody.

Casablanca was supposed to be yet another wartime movie to boost moral and it's unlikely it received special attention from the secret service, although an agent plays the "baddie".

The movie has great black&white photography, an excellent soundtrack with period songs not overused and great costumes. Shame about the acting, barely decent. The actress playing Kitty is the worst of the bunch, totally unable to be convincing but she also has the difficult task to carry the secondary, absurd main plot.

With the right title, a different angle and better actors, it could have been a great movie.

The sets and costums were fantastic! I would give them credit for that. It was interesting in it's basics and I liked it a little, also I just loved the actor who played Kertész.

Now let's move on to the bad things. The movie was just a nonsense. There were some things that were indeed decided during the production but there was no such drama at all. I don't think they can make up a fake story like that..

The rest of the actors were not good. Especially the girl played by Evelin Dobos. She looked nice but she ends there.

The technical part.. The cinematography! TERRIBLE! There were some longer shots that were just ruined with that spinning camera. The camera was just spinning for no reason at all. HOW can they get a "cinematographer" and a "director" like that? Seriously.. Also, there was no push at all when it was needed..

The red color idea.. Stolen from an other movie. STOP IT. Don't mess with the red color in a black and white movie. It was done before with a much bigger meaning.

The sound.. I don't know how they recorded the sound but many times it was annoying. Did anyone paid attention what they were recording? Not really. Two talking to each other, one of them sounds weird because the sound is messed up (probably the guy with the boom can't even hold it properly and nobody noticed it) and you you can hear even when one of them grabs something in his pocket while they are talking to each other -.-

The music was ok, sometimes out of the world and way too loud..

And after all this I'll just lower my rating to 5, just because of the main actor.

(Worth to check out the ratings on this one. EU voters gave it 7+, most of them 10.. Real users gave around 5-6. That's more realistic.)

One of the few grinnable moments. Dark and confusing. No sympathetic characters. Depressing account of the greatest film ever made.