Strausszek
A rejoint le juil. 2005
Bienvenue sur nouveau profil
Nos mises à jour sont toujours en cours de développement. Bien que la version précédente de le profil ne soit plus accessible, nous travaillons activement à des améliorations, et certaines fonctionnalités manquantes seront bientôt de retour ! Restez à l'écoute de leur retour. En attendant, l’analyse des évaluations est toujours disponible sur nos applications iOS et Android, qui se trouvent sur la page de profil. Pour consulter la répartition de vos évaluations par année et par genre, veuillez consulter notre nouveau Guide d'aide.
Badges6
Pour savoir comment gagner des badges, rendez-vous sur page d'aide sur les badges.
Avis7
Note de Strausszek
This is one of the last of the Italian sword-and-sandal reels and like "Ercole sfida Sansone" it's one of those points where the genre crosses over into turkeyland. The fighting looks cheesy (check out the scene where the rebels, some of them dressed as women, wigs and all, get into a fistfight with the Roman soldiers - both the impact sounds and the movements are miles off any real fighting), much of the script seems more like Robin Hood than antiquity and it's all on a disjointed comic-book level.
The acting is generally dire. Fun at times because it's so utter carelessly done, but nowhere near real excitement. If you're looking for adventurous men fighting a tyrant, try "Flash Gordon" instead.
The acting is generally dire. Fun at times because it's so utter carelessly done, but nowhere near real excitement. If you're looking for adventurous men fighting a tyrant, try "Flash Gordon" instead.
Arriving at the dreary Busarewsky Hotel (the name, to Swedes, sounds both vaguely Central European and like a pun on 'busar', "goons") the young waiter Giliap soon finds himself in a maze of silent rules, gossip, violence and budding, pathetic revolt. But who can he trust? The film appears to be both absurd and over-the-top serious, and watching it you'll find yourself asking just where is it dead serious and where does satire or (self-)parody start? The slow tempo and long, brooding silences before sometimes outrageously weighted lines, the gloomy lighting and the sudden hysterical swings of the people in the film - all of this was certainly intended, but the purpose of the film is by no means clear, so the viewer has to decide for himself just what enemy Giliap is fighting or what he is searching.
If you've seen "Songs from the Second Floor" you'll recognize some of the style - the long, slow shots, the blunt, searching or unresponsive dialog lines, the dreary, somehow naked and unprotected facial expressions. This is the antithesis of "Beverly Hills 90210", but a very rewarding and sometimes weirdly funny movie experience.
If you've seen "Songs from the Second Floor" you'll recognize some of the style - the long, slow shots, the blunt, searching or unresponsive dialog lines, the dreary, somehow naked and unprotected facial expressions. This is the antithesis of "Beverly Hills 90210", but a very rewarding and sometimes weirdly funny movie experience.
This twisted cop mystery follows the efforts of the overworked Paris police to solve first, a murder in a couchette car, the dead body discovered only after all the other passengers left, and then the strange necking of many of the others before the cops can get to talk to them. There is great acting here from Signoret, Montand and others, and very amusing supporting parts (the seasoned crook and talker Bob will have you cracking up) but the film doesn't really hang together tight as a police mystery. I agree with an earlier reviewer that it spells trouble for you as a viewer that the passengers, whom we glimpse in half-darkness on the train, remain nameless for too long, and when they are identified by the police, the names are not steadily linked to faces.
It's confusing too that some of the characters suddenly muse into flashback kicking off from lines spoken to them on the train. This deepens them as characters but doesn't make the story concise. And at the police station, things are suddenly tossed in by phone calls in a way that looks haphazard. The root cause, I think, is that the film followed the book too closely, while Costa-Gavras knows how to create arresting, vivid scenes, he hasn't learnt at this point how to reimagine a storyline from writing so that it works on the screen, and so the movie seems a bit unfocused. When the final cause of the murders starts to crop up, it looks for too long like a joke element brought in for atmosphere.
It's not a bad movie at all; the photography is great, the final car chase is a winner (how often do you see a car chase in 1960s Paris?) and the acting is very good. Don't expect a murder story, though, with the tightness and relentless, upheld suspense of "Strangers On A Train" or even some episodes of "Columbo" or "Kojak".
It's confusing too that some of the characters suddenly muse into flashback kicking off from lines spoken to them on the train. This deepens them as characters but doesn't make the story concise. And at the police station, things are suddenly tossed in by phone calls in a way that looks haphazard. The root cause, I think, is that the film followed the book too closely, while Costa-Gavras knows how to create arresting, vivid scenes, he hasn't learnt at this point how to reimagine a storyline from writing so that it works on the screen, and so the movie seems a bit unfocused. When the final cause of the murders starts to crop up, it looks for too long like a joke element brought in for atmosphere.
It's not a bad movie at all; the photography is great, the final car chase is a winner (how often do you see a car chase in 1960s Paris?) and the acting is very good. Don't expect a murder story, though, with the tightness and relentless, upheld suspense of "Strangers On A Train" or even some episodes of "Columbo" or "Kojak".