AVALIAÇÃO DA IMDb
4,6/10
5,1 mil
SUA AVALIAÇÃO
Adicionar um enredo no seu idiomaKnight Godefroy de Montmirail and squire Jacquouille are stranded in 1793. Using trickery to break free from their shackles, both perilously partake in the Montmirail family's run away in th... Ler tudoKnight Godefroy de Montmirail and squire Jacquouille are stranded in 1793. Using trickery to break free from their shackles, both perilously partake in the Montmirail family's run away in the quest for an exiting time-shift.Knight Godefroy de Montmirail and squire Jacquouille are stranded in 1793. Using trickery to break free from their shackles, both perilously partake in the Montmirail family's run away in the quest for an exiting time-shift.
- Direção
- Roteiristas
- Artistas
Eric De Staercke
- Le duc hollandais
- (as Eric de Staercke)
Avaliações em destaque
Look, what did you expect? Les Visiteurs (1993) is one of the most successful, funniest French films of the 20th century, it couldn't be topped with a sequel, especially if it's part 3, 25 years later. At least it:
a) Stayed loyal to the timeline, giving us some closure on what happened after the end credits of the second movie; b) Brought something new to the mix; c) Some jokes were actually pretty funny;
It probably could have been done better if done with younger, more energetic actors, but then all the "familiar faces" gags go to crap, unless the movie's gonna spend a good portion of it establishing new actors in the roles of familiar characters.
It ended on another great chapter in French history, an interesting crossover, and it's fun to speculate what would happen to Godefroy and Jacquouille next.
All in all, I'm glad they made something with that cliffhanger they left us with back in 1998. They didn't mess it up too hard, it's part 3 for god's sake, for a part 3 it's ok.
a) Stayed loyal to the timeline, giving us some closure on what happened after the end credits of the second movie; b) Brought something new to the mix; c) Some jokes were actually pretty funny;
It probably could have been done better if done with younger, more energetic actors, but then all the "familiar faces" gags go to crap, unless the movie's gonna spend a good portion of it establishing new actors in the roles of familiar characters.
It ended on another great chapter in French history, an interesting crossover, and it's fun to speculate what would happen to Godefroy and Jacquouille next.
All in all, I'm glad they made something with that cliffhanger they left us with back in 1998. They didn't mess it up too hard, it's part 3 for god's sake, for a part 3 it's ok.
I've seen it with my daughter 12 April 2016 in a little country's cinema with no publicity (cool). (In France) What could we expect more than what we've seen ? Nothing, so that's a good film. We laughed all along the film. It's a comic film ! Story is good, actors play well. Frank Dubosc is very good as usual. Music is the same as the 1st film (Era). Colors and garments are beautiful. It's a well made film, it lasts 120 min, and it's not long. I don't know what it could be if traduced in other languages ? In fact, there are lots of jokes on the older french language. I hope the 4th film should be soon, in 1942 during WWII in France in Montmirail's castle ! We've seen the 4 films (add the version for USA, Visiteurs in America). So 7/10, no more, no less. I read the critics and i think they're cruel. Sincerely Emmanuel (from France)
Now in the 21st century, many people are criticizing movies for racism and the like. I'm not a racist, but I think all jokes have a right to life, it's just a joke (and yes, it was really funny to me). I really liked the third film, as well as the previous two. I don't understand why the film has such a low rating. So I just have to put 10/10. The situation needs to be corrected. Glory to French cinema!
The first one is surely a candidate for best French film of all-time for its pure thick comedy, the history, the emotions, the soundtrack, iconic actors, and one of the most celebrated directors in the country.
The second wasn't as bad as they say. This however, even with as much effort as it is fair to concede, still comes across as too weak.
The problem first of all is they focused too much on story, not enough on funny. It IS a Visiteurs film after all, not a historical document. They had much to work with as comedians during that rusty old time of post-revolution France, and yet they settled for a group of aristocrats as the main new addition as a source for humor; albeit well written, well acted out by notably Karin Viard who does fantastic as the uptight super hypocritical noblette.
No need to spend an hour here: not funny enough, did not exploit the potential of either the classic old elements or the new environment; story is alright but certainly forgettable and only a framework for a mediocre comedy movie.
Dubosc adds his own little touch, is funny on a couple of line deliveries, but nothing more.
4/10.
The second wasn't as bad as they say. This however, even with as much effort as it is fair to concede, still comes across as too weak.
The problem first of all is they focused too much on story, not enough on funny. It IS a Visiteurs film after all, not a historical document. They had much to work with as comedians during that rusty old time of post-revolution France, and yet they settled for a group of aristocrats as the main new addition as a source for humor; albeit well written, well acted out by notably Karin Viard who does fantastic as the uptight super hypocritical noblette.
No need to spend an hour here: not funny enough, did not exploit the potential of either the classic old elements or the new environment; story is alright but certainly forgettable and only a framework for a mediocre comedy movie.
Dubosc adds his own little touch, is funny on a couple of line deliveries, but nothing more.
4/10.
Eighteen years after "The Visitors II" left us with the cliffhanger, the third film comes as a total disappointment. The story is a direct continuation of "The Corridors of Time" and it's well conceived and written, but the film is not at all funny, and it seems to me that it's not even trying to be. By itself, it might be able to pass with a six, but after the previous two, this is totally lame and it would be better for the franchise if they didn't make it at all.
4/10
4/10
Você sabia?
- CuriosidadesFirst film directed by Jean-Marie Poiré since Ma femme... s'appelle Maurice (2002), 14 years from now.
- Erros de gravaçãoJacques-Henri Jacquart appears to be in his 30s or 40s in the 1990s; actor Christian Clavier was 40 when the first film was shot. However, he appears as a boy aged around 10 during World War II, which means he should be around 60 at the start of the 1990s.
- ConexõesFollows Os Visitantes: Eles Não Nasceram Ontem! (1993)
Principais escolhas
Faça login para avaliar e ver a lista de recomendações personalizadas
- How long is The Visitors: Bastille Day?Fornecido pela Alexa
Detalhes
- Data de lançamento
- Países de origem
- Centrais de atendimento oficiais
- Idiomas
- Também conhecido como
- The Visitors: Bastille Day
- Locações de filme
- Empresas de produção
- Consulte mais créditos da empresa na IMDbPro
Bilheteria
- Orçamento
- € 24.754.646 (estimativa)
- Faturamento bruto mundial
- US$ 18.552.314
- Tempo de duração
- 1 h 50 min(110 min)
- Cor
- Proporção
- 2.35 : 1
Contribua para esta página
Sugerir uma alteração ou adicionar conteúdo ausente