Curtiz

I award this film three stars for its somewhat successful mimicking of Curtiz's technique, which in any case was a rip-off of Orsen Welles' techniques, but that is more stars than this film deserves.

Michael Curtiz was hardly an artist, he was a prolific but average studio owned director with a lot, a whole lot, of mediocre sentimental films but nothing notable with the exception of Casablanca.

Casablanca has a huge popular cultural impact, and it is a loved film, but it is hardly an achievement from a directorial point of view. The most notable and loved aspects of Casablanca are the score eg "as time goes by"/a kiss is but a kiss...", which Curtiz himself opposed; the dozen or so immensely notable one liners ("I am shocked, shocked) which were the sole creation of the writers, the Epstein brothers; the casting of Bogart who fit the role perfectly and which Curtiz had nothing to do with; and the serendipitous way the screenplay's narrative fit perfectly with Americana's view about their intervention in the war. None of those were the result of anything Curtis did or decided.

This film also invents a storyline in which Curtiz is harassed by some shadowy US government representatives trying to promote a patriotic message, when in fact the reason d'etre of the film was seen as a vehicle for exactly that by producer Wallis and by Wanrer brothers from the get go. There is no evidence Curtiz ever in the period had has patriotism questioned or that he was threatened by any government officials. He was hired as director because he had a record of getting things done quickly, adequately, and within budget, and despite that he went over budget and well outside of schedule. That garnered pressure from the studio -- nothing else did.

The only alteration by semi-government officials at all in Casablanca was removal of the direct reference to the Vichy French official trading visas for sexual favors out of standard prudery in film standards of the time. This is is a irony lost on the makers of "Curtiz" since they downplay the fact that Curtiz was top predator in the 'casting couch' tradition and he spent his career abusing his power over young actresses. The unintended irony is that Curtiz behaved like that Vichy official! Curtiz also left a trail of illegitimate children (when he could not convince the woman to have an abortion) whom he did not support.

Frankly this is a "message" film with a fake message. I get that the Hungarian makers of this tripe want to celebrate their native son who went to America and did well. But I suspect that they decided on the subject since making it about film-maker they are then guaranteed to get placement in the increasingly narcissistic and self referential film festivals. Frankly a story about Hungarian born Monica Selles, or Edward Teller would have been more interesting.

Lastly there are a few juvenile and artificial attempts to make the film timely. If you are unforgotten enough to watch "Curtiz" look for someone dropping the line "make America great again." That is so snarky and forced that it is beyond idiotic -- especially when we are talking about a time when the US did save Europe and people like Curtiz, and millions of Europeans fled the statist oppression of communism and fascism in Europe specifically because of its greatness.

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

I found the film one of the best Hungarian films of the last few years. This movie was truly emotional with wonderful music and appealing acting. The script is clever, does not only show the negative human character of Curtiz but also made him seen as complex as he must have been. I liked the acting of Lengyel in the lead role with his genious way of shaping Curtiz. I think the film is mostly about identity search of a man who is a Hungarian Jewish man living in America, who is a man loving women but also a father, so in this film I can recognise the problematic character of today's person, it is not a film about history, rather a film about human emotions, the complexity of a man's character, about us who try to find ourselves in this chaotic world. Multiculturalism in the 1940's did not differ from that of today. The film made me rewatch many of Curtiz's films, especially Casablanca. I definitely recommend it to anyone who loves the world of movies, who longs for sense and sensibility in films, who would like to see passion for profession.

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.

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.