Opiniones de usuarios

Where 'Mon oncle' was Tati's initial statement on the modern and its collision with the old, here in 'Playtime' he reaches his conclusion. They can unite - there is beauty in the new, as well. Yes, what is new and alienating now, will soon be the old familiar tradition. Everything changes, but the spirit of things remain.

This he manages to show in a series of beautiful scenes, brilliant observations, in a Paris which has been rebuilt to the extent, where the old Frenchman doesn't find his way around it, anymore, and the Eiffel tower can only be found in reflections on shiny glass or steel surfaces of modern buildings.

This is a film language all of its own, and driven to a razor sharp perfection. Through Tati's eyes, we can see exactly what he both worries about and marvels at, and of course we feel the same. The love he does in all his movies show for people, no matter how silly they might be, he also shows the city itself, and its megalomaniac constructions. It's all crazy, he tells us, but isn't it great fun, too? Yes, Jacques, it is, indeed.

This is the first Tati film I've seen, but I've heard quite a lot about him. I saw the 70mm reprint with high expectations and was not disappointed.

This is a movie that leads the viewer where it feels like going. It has it's own rhythm and path. Just as circumstance beyond Mr. Hulot's control takes him wherever he may go, the camera seems to follow the same kind of path. The viewer doesn't know where it's going, and the viewer doesn't know where exactly it wants to go. The great thing about this movie is that it doesn't follow Mr. Hulot exclusively. The camera behaves the same way without needing to follow Mr. Hulot. He moves where he goes, the tour group moves where they go, and the camera moves where it may go. The world around them and the viewer dicates it in the most unconscious kind of way.

The first part of the movie is a satire on the inhuman world we've built around us. Mr. Hulot tries to navigate it, but the world won't sit still. Everything moves around without him and he can't find anything. Just like he is moved around, so is the object of his desire, whatever it may be at the moment. But Mr. Hulot doesn't mind, he goes along with it and enjoys it all the way, just like the viewer.

In another Tati movie, Mr. Hulot's Vacation, there is a scene where he's resting on a beach, and his drink floats away with a wave and floats back just as he reaches for it. That's how this movie is. Everything might not exactly go as people hope or plan, but it goes it's own way. Not everything goes as planned, but Mr. Hulot accepts it and so does the viewer. Rather than fight the world around him and force it to do what it wants, he takes joy in looking around and enjoying the ride, and what makes the movie so great is that so does the viewer. You might not know where things are going, but they do what they will and you enjoy watching things unfold.

You need to understand one thing. Playtime isn't a movie. It is a painting. A moving painting. Therefore you should see it as such and not as a movie.

Some people say it's not funny despite being classified as a comedy. And they would be correct if it was a movie. It's not. But among comedy paintings it might be the funniest one.

I wasn't amused during watching it. And you most likely won't be as well. Because paintings aren't amusing/funny/entertaining. Paintings serve a different purpose. Art serves a different purpose.

So if your favourite movie is from Marvel or any other mainstream studio, stay away from Playtime. It isn't for you. You won't enjoy it.

If you enjoy art museums give it a shot. You might like it.

The issue of viewing a film in the right format has seldom been more pressing than with this film. Although I've only seen it on DVD, it shows immediately that it's best seen in the original 70mm format on the biggest screen possible, because of the numerous subtle sight gags on screen, that go largely unnoticed when watching it on a regular TV-set. A treatment equally essential for films like "2001: A Space Odyssey" or "Lawrence of Arabia". Unless living in London, Paris, New York, or a few other places, chances of seeing this in the proper way in the foreseeable future are slim for most of us, so one has to cope with whatever is available.

At the time, "Play Time" was the most expensive French film ever made. Tati built an enormous set outside Paris, that included an airline terminal, city streets, high rise buildings and traffic circles, that was soon dubbed "Tativille". Three years in the making, experiencing numerous setbacks and financial difficulties and combined with Tati's perfectionist way of filming, the project could only have been saved - financially that is - if the film was an enormous success. It wasn't and "Play Time" bankrupted Tati, forcing him to sell the rights of all his films for little more than a fee.

Tati shot the entire film in medium-long and long shots, not one close-up. The result is a bewildering pastiche of people on their daily do-abouts in modern Paris (the old Paris, like the Eiffel Tower, is only seen through reflections in the glass facades) amidst flickering neon signs, voices through intercoms, buzzers, and through all this, Monsieur Hulot tries to find his way while stumbling across the urban frenzy surrounding him. The film is virtually dialog-free, and mainly serves as background noise. When watching a film by Tati, you expect Monsieur Hulot. Well, he is present in almost every frame, but he is nothing close to a real character, which is probably one of the reasons audiences didn't connect with the film. On an another level, the sight and sound gags abound. It's not particularly funny in a laugh-out-loud sense, but each viewing seems to reveal a new unseen joke or small detail, a funny sign or a person in the background, not seen before. Most of the gags only work because they are part of a carefully orchestrated ensemble. At the core, the kind of humor is the same as in "Les vacances de Monsieur Hulot" or "Mon Oncle", but here, the jokes are more subtle. It's an enormous canvas where there's so much going on, it's fascinating to look at, but can be a bit tiring after a while. However, the long party scene at the restaurant, when the crowds befall in a collective euphoria, is priceless.

I think for most people, it's all a little too much upon first viewing and in many ways it remains a bit of a folly, a director gone mad in making a film no audience was ripe for at the time, and perhaps never will be. Assesing this film by some of the more conventional qualities one can look for in a film is not a very useful approach in case of this film. Tati certainly made something completely unique. If anything, a work of art that poses more than a few challenges.

Camera Obscura --- 9/10

I comment 2 years after seeing "Playtime" at the Art Institute of Chicago, an event in which the film was presented in its original 70mm format for the first time since its debut. Over the years it had been cropped and recropped for standard prints and video leaving little of the original magic, which is the sheer SCOPE of this visual marvel.

Absolutely amazing sells "Play" short. The picture was so clear and the sequences so thrilling that I dare say this is Tati's Masterpiece. Apparently, he created an entire 1/5th scale city outside Paris and shot over the course of three years to get this honey in the can, and man-o-man, does it show.

This is the kind of film that reminds a viewer just how standardized modern cinematic narrative has become. Tati exists in an alternate plane of recorded consciousness; I walked out of "Play" as if hallucinating, having fully entered his perspective and adopted his suggestions as my own.

This is a film in balance with the nature of cinema itself; if Frank Lloyd Wright was a director, Tati would be his disciple: Tati's cinematic interpretations are in natural proportion to the distinctive elements of film. Visual dominance, sound hyperbarically in support of the image rhythm, help me I'm hallucinating again-thanks Jaques...

Don't miss this one, but don't see it in any other format than a special 70mm screening. Somebody put a screening together!!!

Don't see this film on TV. This film was shot on 70 mm and you should see it in the cinema on a LARGE screen. I've seen the film in the cinema first, it was brilliant. Later I saw it on TV, it was mediocre the most. Then I saw it in the cinema again, and again it was brilliant. Why? The quality of this film is in the small details. In some scenes, you just don't know where to look because so much is happening at once. On TV, all these details get lost. DVD won't help! A TV just has way too few pixels! This film relies not on story (there hardly is one), but on inventive and imaginative images. Watch the 70 mm version in the cinema, and enjoy the biggest film this genius ever made, with sometimes subtle, sometime hilarious humor!!!

The endearingly clumsy Monsieur Hulot as the principal character wandering through modernist Paris. Amid the babble of English, French and German tourists, Hulot tries to reconcile the old-fashioned ways with the confusion of the encroaching age of technology.



The first time I saw it was on a video tape with lousy quality

and the second time was on Criterion Collection and I thought it was great BUT why could not it be a little bit more funny????????? Then the third time I understand it:It´s ART. You can watch it how many times you want and still find new things in the film.

Also I saw how expensive it was to make.Jacques Tati must have build up a whole town because the set is so fantastic BIG!!!!

But when Monsieur Hulot comes to the nightclub it gets the same old hilarious Tati.

Rating: 5/5 Some day I hope that I will see this in 70 mm but untill then Criterion Collection is a good choice!!!!!

This is the right movie for anyone who is tired of "modern" comedies. Aside from its stunning visuals and extremely clever use of sound effects (the film has nearly no dialogue), its humour is highly intelligent, not always obvious, and i must say that i was delighted to see a film that did not try to be funny all the time. This is to say, most other comedies put gag after gag after gag, but to do so they usually stretch one gag for too long. Playtime (and nearly all other works by Tati, which are all must-sees), on the other hand, has long sequences with no reason to laugh, and then it hits the audience with a gag (or, in this film`s case, rather an anecdote) - which is only a few seconds long. So its not for fans of Austin Powers or Dumb & Dumber, but nonetheless very, very funny. 9/10

I've finally gone all the way through Jacques Tati's playtime. Hailed by some as one of the great films of all times its a trial for others. I don't know what to make of it.

The film essentially has no plot. People arrive in Paris and interact with Tati's Mr Hulot, sort of. Everyone ends up in a new restaurant where everything goes wrong. The next day the travelers leaves and life goes on.

Allegory or celebration? The choice is yours.

Shot in 70mm in medium and long shots (there are no closeups) in a city that was constructed especially for the film this is a movie that is meant to be seen on a HUGE screen. The frames are filled with odd details and actions on the fringes of the screen that you may not catch the first time you see it (or the tenth for that matter.) Certainly the film play better the more you've seen it. I've seen the first half hour on each of my three or four attempts to watch the whole thing and its gotten better every time I've seen it. The question is how many times do you need to see a film before you can say you like it? Clearly a masterpiece of construction and execution the film is very cold and distant. It also plays very much as a constructed piece of art- very artificial like the world in inhabits. I dislike the steel and glass sets which are very cold (part of the point) and I don't find them really giving any sense of anything more than a block or two of a film studio. It was never a real place for me and I know that hurt the film.

I don't know if I like the film, however I certainly can admire it even as I can marvel at the folly of its even being attempted (It bankrupted Tati and his extended family). Reading on the film is a blast and the commentary track on my BFI release is amazing and its its way I find it more interesting than watching the movie itself.

What can I say? Roger Ebert has placed it on his great movie list. I'd do the same but only on a technical level but not on an emotional level. Even if I warm to it through later viewings I don't think you should have to see something four and five times to before you fall in love with it.

Worth seeing now that Criterion is finally re-releasing it on DVD. This is a renter especially if you don't know Tati's work. (Personally a better introduction is Mr Hulot's Holiday y)

The only other movie I know that is as profound and beautiful and challenging as this is Tarkovsky's "Stalker." But "Playtime" may prove to be a better, more accessible example of what films can do. Tati so radically deconstructs space and depth within a film that it is almost unrecognisable: Spielberg doesn't have this level of craftsmanship, and not even Kubrick ever did. Virtually dialogue-free and spryly paced, "Playtime" works on nearly any possible level.

It can be seen as simply a superficial comedy, and as that, it succeeds because it is, well, very funny. (Modern technology is the golden cow that Tati playfully cuts down to size.) On the opposite end of the spectrum, however, is a work that stands the art of film on its head, commenting wryly on the nature of human beings, culminating to a party in a restaurant that gets completely out of hand. It's so beautiful.

Words really don't do justice to this movie. One last thing: The big screen is the ideal medium to see this film; that's true of every film, but this one more than most others. Unfortunately, I haven't had this privelege, and if you don't either, rent it anyway. It's too good to be missed.

Monsieur Hulot (Jacques Tati) curiously wanders around a high-tech Paris, paralleling a trip with a group of American tourists. Meanwhile, a nightclub/restaurant prepares its opening night, but it is still under construction.

"Playtime" is notable for its enormous set, which Tati had built specially for the film, as well as Tati's trademark use of subtle, yet complex visual comedy supported by creative sound effects; dialogue is frequently reduced to the level of background noise.

The office set anticipated the dominance of office cubicle arrangements by some twenty years. The set was redressed for the trade exhibition sequence. Tati wanted the film to be in color but look like it was filmed in black and white. He succeeded.

This is a great film. With or without the plot, with or without the comedy, it is great on the architecture alone. Few films really capture "architecture" in them, with only one other coming to mind: "Metropolis". That is how rare this film is, being the first of its kind in forty years.

Francis Ford Coppola recently reviewed this movie in comparison to his recent financial blunder and how there is a comparison to him and director Jacques Tati. The only difference between these two filmmakers is that Tati spent most of his own money on a movie that told an important message on modernization and how the individual is becoming lost in a world of mass mobilization and mass production. Coppola made a weird movie that had no clear message. Unlike Coppola's expensive confusion, Tati's message was clear and humorous to the point. The fear of becoming lost in a modern world where you don't fit in and get lost among the crowd is a constant fear for every older generation. What makes things worse, society rewards modern marvels in growth for both business and pleasure. However, the uniqueness is fading away. All the buildings look the same and people are blending in with their environment.

For 1967, the future has no hybrid work scenario or the internet that would make the un person travel and trade show world minimized. Other than this sad fact, the fear of the future is on full display for the audience to decide whether this movie is a comedy or a true drama. The second half goes into a different direction with the restaurant and the apartment building. A different theme which confuses the audience from the first part of the movie. This is why Playtime is a good movie but far from a classic.

I'm sure everybody enjoys actual playtime, but don't think this movie is for everyone. It's long, experimental, and can be quite a chore to get through. I can certainly see the appeal and why it has been so critically acclaimed, but after 45 years of culture and cinematic progression, I feel that whatever relevance/edge this film once had has been lost, and many modern viewers will not understand it.

The story, as minimalist as it is, features director Tati starring as Mr. Hulot, who has an important appointment in a retro-futuristic Paris but keeps getting lost and distracted through a long series of sight-gags and pratfalls. It's thin, and I believe it's spread rather far. It's the kind of thing Stan and Ollie would do in 40 minutes.

Stylistically, this film seems to be ahead of its time. The photography is highly visual and works symbiotically with the slick production design (the film is a mixture of various shades of grey however, which becomes quite oppressive after a while). The dialogue seems to be mostly irrelevant. Tati himself never speaks, but other characters come and go without much point.

Tati needed this film to be a success and after is flopped he was in debt for a long time. It's a shame that it did as Tati clearly lived and breathed this film for its entire production and cared about it a great deal. If it was too oddball for audiences in 1967 it just as niche for the ADHD audiences of today.

A well made film, but it takes some amount of patience to get through.

I have only seen Playtime once--in 1975 when I was a teenager living in Los Angeles. I, too, saw it at an art revival movie house (though probably not in 70mm) and remember it to this day! I recall the feeling of having entered a maze, or being lost and dazzled, of thinking how life was like a labrynth and how funny and touching Tati was. I still recommend it to people, especially if you like Fellini. Also, I think the film "After Hours" was based on this film, but the original is far more magical.

Jacques Tati's finest creation is a masterpiece of democratic comedy: a dense, plot less satire of modern times, in which no single character or joke is allowed to dominate. It's a film that has to be absorbed rather than watched, and seeing it can be like piecing together an elaborate jigsaw puzzle. Every choreographed rhythm, every odd visual juxtaposition, hides a gag, but the audience is obliged to scrutinize each image for the hidden pattern or inconsistency (Tati's camera is so impartial that first-time viewers may likely miss half the humor).

The meandering storyline follows a busload of American tourists around an unrecognizable Paris of uniform chrome and glass skyscrapers, moving eventually to a swank nightclub not yet ready for business, where all hell naturally breaks loose. Skirting the periphery is the director's comic alter ego M. Hulot, always at the mercy of his environment and never quite able to follow the upended anthill of activity around him.

In Tati's vision of city life the last vestige of old-world tradition remaining from his earlier 'Mon Oncle' has been totally eradicated, turning the City of Light into a hectic, synthetic metropolis where even some of the inhabitants have become artificial (look close at the background figures during the trade-show sequence). Beginning where the earlier film left off, Tati shows good old-fashioned humanity raising inadvertent havoc in a dehumanized world, with the mechanisms of progress proving to be no match for the unstable influence of homo sapiens, and as always Tati celebrates the (painless) chaos caused by our unsteady embrace of a brave new world.

Time and technological progress cannot be halted, but people, to Tati, will always be people: unorthodox, unpredictable, and gloriously fallible. The humor is often subtle enough to pass unnoticed, all of it choreographed into a dense, busy pattern of rhythmic behavior and creative sound effects, observed as if under a microscope.

Playtime is probably one of the best movies that is the most difficult to like. That's because it's very strange. Masterfully directed and photographed, but with a story that is as elusive as a greased snail. Long scenes, often with no apparent content or meaning, makes it difficult for the viewer. If you look closely, you'll notice little details that you love to giggle at, and one would more or less involuntarily make interpretations of what is really happening. Monsieur Hulot, who figures in Tati's films (Tati himself), pops up here and there in the film to a backdrop of a newly built and modernized Paris. There are certainly several interpretations of the basic plot, but my own is that Hulot represents a type of man who feel alienated in this increasingly technology-dependent world, where greyness and rectification is taking over and people are getting increasingly further apart. Hulot stumbles aimlessly about in this newly built world and messes things up most of the time. You get the feeling that all these career -seeking , money-driven people around him are unhappy and most of all looking for company. They grab onto Hulot in different situations, seeking contact, maybe because he is the only true original. The long restaurant scene is an example of how our true nature is revealed when the alcohol loosens the shackles of conformity and we begin to act like people. The orchestra, playing relaxed jazz in the beginning, gets more primitive the longer the evening goes, and eventually making the guests dancing like monkeys. No one is satisfied until half the restaurant has collapsed. The end is sad in an elusive way - it's like social progress has already dictated how we should live. The old, simpler, more human life lies behind us and will never come back .

This is not a movie, it's art captured in film!

Sometimes it's hard to watch and understand films from another time, but Playtime is a completely different concept and worth watching, but if you're expecting the standard "good story" style of 99% films today, you won't find it here, and should probably refrain.

It's a film to be watched many times, like a painting hanging on the wall. Every time you watch it, a different detail will come up, a different story will appear, and every scene is just there to tell you things. It's up to each one to interpret them and they can be as boring, interesting, funny or sad as you want.

It's also a nice movie to watch with other people: each one will laugh and react at different things. It's funny to interact and try to "recreate" the entire action.

Finally, I agree with people saying that it should be watched on a big screen with high quality. There's so much detail in the shots that you will miss a lot if you don't have the right setup. I would say FullHD is the minimum acceptable, along with a big screen.

Since I first watched PlayTime, I don't think there's been a day since where I haven't thought about it in some way. It's perfectly executed in every single way, so much thought and care went into everything from the comedy to the costumes to the sets to the social commentary and even background characters who reappear several times throughout the film. I don't know if there's any other film out there that uses extras in such a mind-blowing way as this one.

From the moment it starts, it gets you instantly pumped to see what's about to occur via the usage of a jazzy score, before submersing you into an almost otherworldly dystopian vision of Paris that severs that initial excitement in such a genius way. We as the viewer initially feel as lost and confused as Monsieur Hulot, Tati's beloved character, who leads much of the first hour of the film before being redefined as a background extra in the second half. When I first saw this film I was similarly left a little cold by this first act, before quickly realising the intended effect.

PlayTime is the perfect exercise in paying close attention to the screen - it holds near-infinite rewatch value, blink and you'll miss pieces of several ongoing subplots, several of which have some surprisingly heartwarming outcomes by the end. There's even a fun reference to Breathless hidden amongst the chaos during one scene. Tati's blocking is absolutely immaculate, there's not one close-up in sight and the choreography is just incredible with many of the characters deliberately acting like mindless passerbys who just consume whatever is presented to them. The production design is so detailed I can't even begin to list off how many inventive ideas this film is just exploding with. The 65mm cinematography paired with its cold colour palette is just perfect, the last 10 minutes have some of the most beautiful cinematic imagery I've ever seen.

The social commentary that this film is both making fun of and drawing attention to still rings true to the present day and, for the time, is actually very bold. It mocks consumerism by showing off these absolutely ridiculous inventions that seem to worringly become trendy to many background characters as the film progresses, it draws subtle attention to race issues whilst still maintaining a consistent unassuming tone and also brilliantly mocks over-simplified and unoriginal architecture through the usage of travel posters, where iconic locations are obscured by obtrusive skyscrapers. The sets of this film are just unbelievable, Tati bankrupted himself to ensure the authenticity of his world and it absolutely paid off.

And then we have the 50-minute long Royal Garden sequence, which to this day is my absolute favourite sequence in any film I have ever watched. It's absolutely perfect, not one thing needs altering. The chaos is built up in so many absolutely genius ways, through the joke setups, the pacing, the music - you have to see it for yourself to just immerse yourself in this masterful scene where basically everything the film has been setting up beforehand comes to a breathtaking crescendo, even before the film is over. It's also where one of the most defining highlights of this film is at its strongest - the sound design. The sound, like the perfectly choreographed visuals, draws your attention to several parts of the frame and it really heightens what would normally go unnoticed. The score is also wonderful, with many memorable motifs.

PlayTime is the most joyous city symphony I've ever watched. It's a film that demands your absolute attention. It's one of those films where everything about it feels so deliberate, precise and fine-tuned, with the director in absolute control of their craft. It's one of very few films where there is literally nothing wrong with it. I absolutely LOVE PlayTime, it's forever an all-time favourite of mine and there's still so much I haven't even mentioned. It's perfect, perfect, perfect.

This movie is the definition of a critics masterpiece but a viewers bomb. In fact, it was a total commercial failure in France and the U. S. This is a film director's movie made for movie critics and film school students, and others who may be interested in the "art" of film making. It is a technical marvel with so much going on at one time, which certainly adds visual interest. Not much comedy, some slapstick and absurd situations and events, perhaps it is dated. For most people who just want to watch a movie this will not be appealing.

It seems kind of funny to call this film economical -- considering how much money was spent just to create its enormous sets -- but that's exactly what this film is. Clocking at just over two hours (the original version was 155 minutes), it feels as if there isn't more than a shot a minute. Of course, there doesn't need to be. Each shot is so carefully composed and each setting so meticulously organized that all the information we need is there in the frame. And it's a lot of information. Things are happening in the foreground, in the background and everywhere in between. It's impossible to see it all in one viewing, or two, or three.

Some viewers might be bored if they only watch "the action," as in those characters that seem to be at the crux of a particular scene. But rather than simply watching one set of characters, the eye must wander from one area of the screen to another in an attempt to catch everything that happens. Tati is a master of the subtle joke: a toy airplane slowly melts in the background while characters complain of the heat; a travel agency containing travel posters for different countries, where all the posters features the same modern building.

Builders spent three years constructing Tati's sets, and it was time well spent. The movie shows a Paris of glass facades and transparent buildings. The lack of privacy is seen as modern and even futuristic as opposed to invasive, which it most definitely is. In all films, we are the viewer, with no true interaction between us and the media. (A film plays for us, and we watch and listen, with no control over the outcome. We can scream and yell and tell characters not to go upstairs all we want, but it doesn't change anything.) In Playtime, however, we're the voyeur, watching lives from a distance, through plates of glass and over shoulders. These are spectacles put up for our amusement; things meant to be seen but left unencumbered by outside influences.

Playtime follows two other films starring the same character of Hulot, Vacances de Monsieur Hulot, Les (M. Hulot's Holiday) and Mon Oncle. These other films also deal with the "advancement" of the modern world and are definitely worth checking out. But Playtime is truly Tati's opus, with the grandest settings and the fullest expression of idea. It's true that nobody makes films like this any more. I doubt that anyone could.

You know the feeling when a thing as a whole isn't as exciting as it's small (sometimes) genius parts? No? Well at least you now know how I felt watching this movie. Not a bad experience (although a coherent storyline would've been nice), but neither a great one (at least for me) make up for a 6/10

While the comedy bits do work alone and without a great deal of empathy to/for the "main" character (or any other for that matter) and are entirely founded by a cynical/satirical look at our society/mannerisms, it never develops it's full strength. At least it doesn't for me. And although I watched a restored french version (gladly they're not talking that much, but even if, there's as I wrote earlier not a plot to follow, at least none that I got aware of) in 70mm I wasn't as amazed by it as other clearly are (look at the higher average voting for example) ...

Soon after Jacques Tati's death in 1982 this was the first film I ever saw at the Barbican, and when the film was over I and the rest of the audience wandered about trying to find the exit in what seemed remarkably like a continuation of the film.

In keeping with his self-effacing preoccupation with detailing the funny side of everyday folk Hulot frequently spends long stretches at the periphery of the action; as a result of which audiences hoping to see the further adventures of M. Hulot left disappointed.

So having laboured long and hard on this dystopian attack on the impersonality of modern society Tati lost his shirt. Posterity however has confirmed the accuracy of his prediction. Even if his victory was a pyrrhic one.

Now re released in a 122 min form in Australia, this gorgeous chrome and glass farce is so boring one almost wants to leave; then......the imagery takes over are us demanding new century cinephiles get a serve of almost perfect cartoon buffoonery akin to Harold Lloyd and Jerry Lewis colliding. Paramount tech films of the 50s and 60s that starred Lewis (like Absent Minded Professor) were the same labored and slow vaudeville set pieces that are just plain tedious today....but in their time were celebrated. PLAYTIME in its tech glory is a delight worth sitting through and it takes some deliberate patience to get to the end.......but....it will resonate for days. Perfect? yes. Boring? yes. Worth it? yes. and.... Blake Edwards, now we all know where THE PARTY came from, because it clearly lifts the entire chaotic restaurant sequence form PLAYTIME............so tedious......so clever.....so French.....eek!

This is what happens when you spend so much time crafting the setting you forget that you have to put a story in as well. Play Time is another example of Tati's inability to mesh his visual skills with communication skills (does it kill you to interact with the gosh-darn audience!?!?!). While the movie looks fine and dandy on the outside, and features grand cinematography; it feels like an utterly incomplete film with its lack of plot, lack of direction, refusal to edit anything unnecessary, lack of memorable scenes, lack of memorable characters, and overall lack of mercy towards the audience by crafting a 120+ minute movie out of something that could have been told in a mere half an hour. Jaques Tati has an eye for the camera, but lacks the heart and lacks the edge that allows for him to excel in levels that Chaplin, Keaton, and then Chan achieved; the previous three actor/directors created memorable characters as well as good settings that allow them to compose their magic (in the case of Chaplin it's his bittersweet slapstick comedy, for Keaton it's his timing and slapstick, and Chan it's his fight choreography and incredible physical stunts).

Despite what the modern-day critics say, the audience during the 60s had it right when they refused to see it (resulting in the bankruptcy of Tati); they didn't like the total lack of story and the lack of the lead character. Come to think of it, there really wasn't a lead character. There wasn't a plot either, well, sort of. The movie follows tourists roaming around a technologically-advanced but emotionally-deprived Paris. The movie is split into five parts, with the insanely-long restaurant scene taking up half the movie. The rest of it are sequences of the tourists, and especially the main character Mr. Hulot having trouble adapting to the world he is visiting. The standout quality of this movie is the setting, which took years to build and perfect. Kind of like the architectural version of 2001: A Space Odyssey, it predated the lifeless buildings and plethora of spacious cubicles that we now see everywhere in businesses of America.

The sets look fantastic (and expensive) and ultimately becomes the most interesting aspect of Play Time, as the audience you are instantly engaged in the area as we see long shot after long shot of the major skyscraper-like structure where most of the movie takes place and the adjacent buildings surrounding it. The sound effects of Play Time are also ahead of its time, and they add to the ruptured realism of the soulless society surrounding the cast of characters.

The irony is, the film itself (which is about a lifeless assortment of buildings in an emotionally dying area) lacks any spice and life itself. What on earth did we learn about the characters? How did they develop? What did they learn? Did WE as an audience take away anything from this film? There was such a lack of Mr. Hulot, its almost pathetic to consider him the lead actor at all. The entire movie was a test of your patience as what you saw was not a film, but a man with a camera showcasing what he could do with a lot of money, what he could create with enough funding. Okay, the city looks great Tati, now what happens in it? 125 minutes later, you still don't really know. In Mein Onkel, you at least had some memorable characters doing memorable scenes and at least had some funny interactions as well as good scenery. In this movie, there just isn't much heart and just isn't that ability for you to sympathize with what's going on and who is being affected. Playtime was an expensive sandbox that Tati worked with, and it led to financial failure and the departure of a director that had so much potential but failed to evolve as a storyteller, instead being a director that loved the scenery around him. One would wonder what he could have accomplished as a cinematographer.

Bottom Line: It's just so boring from start to finish; luckily there was some eye candy to keep your interest up for a few extra minutes before hitting the big snooze and allowing the Zs to engulf the entire room. Great sets and eye candy is marred by the inability to tell a coherent story, the inability to fray off the random assortment of scenes, and inability to keep things short and simple. How can something so pretty be so dull at the same time? Once again looking in the other direction from other critics, Play Time is leagues below the best Tati film, and is leagues below the average film, yesterday, far yesterday, and today. The best that can come from this is good practice and teachings for aspiring photographers who need to learn how to take good shots and from what angles work best. This movie uses the camera well, but once the running time extends past 20 minutes, you realize you are pretty much watching a picture that moves—doesn't speak, doesn't evolve into something interesting..it just moves a little. Just take a random snapshot of Play Time, and you have the entire movie. Where is a good writing team when you need them (perhaps leaving Tati alone as he finishes building his massive toy). Sorry, but major thumbs down in this overlong, overdrawn production.