IMDb RATING
6.1/10
2.4K
YOUR RATING
CARMEN, a classic novel by Prosper Merimee, tells the story of forbidden passion between a young soldier and a spoken-for woman, Carmen, revealing its destructive nature.CARMEN, a classic novel by Prosper Merimee, tells the story of forbidden passion between a young soldier and a spoken-for woman, Carmen, revealing its destructive nature.CARMEN, a classic novel by Prosper Merimee, tells the story of forbidden passion between a young soldier and a spoken-for woman, Carmen, revealing its destructive nature.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
- Awards
- 4 wins & 10 nominations total
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
Before launching into whether this film is worth your time or not, I should inform you I've never seen another adaptation of Carmen, so if you're looking for a review on how it ranks amongst others, this might not be of much use to you.
The only time I've come across Carmen was on the car stereo when driving through Spain on a family holiday when I was a teenager. I didn't pay much attention to it because I didn't like opera at the time and I didn't know any better. The story has been around for 150 years or so. Do I feel I've missed out after seeing this movie? Yes, mainly due to the plot, but also because if all the actresses who played Carmen looked like Paz Vega, I would have all the adaptations happily sitting in my DVD collection.
Directed by Vicente Aranda (who also co-rewrote the story with Joaquim Jordà), the story is told through the eyes of the original author Prosper Mérimée, a French writer making his way through 19th century Spain. He comes across José (Leonardo Sbaraglia), a delinquent soldier and one of many men who fall in love with Carmen (Paz Vega), a sultry, sexy, bedazzling gypsy woman, who has the mouth of the devil, the temper of a 'toro' and who recklessly leads men to their doom. The moment she meets José, she is attracted by his stand-offish behaviour. But she hooks him, reels him in and lets him go, many-a-time. Until one day, José is wanted for murder. Carmen persuades him to join her band of gypsy smugglers. They seem to be settling, she's fallen in love with him, but she meets the charming Escamillo, the bullfighter. Can José hold his jealousy in check, or does it destroy him?
It's a beautiful,seductive story, something that resembles, almost, a Shakespearian or Ovid plot, with the portrayals of immense passion and emotion that can make or break us and transform us to do things out of character. It's poetic, fiery, and above all, slutty. I was left hanging on, I didn't know which way it was going to turn. I always hoped that José might change Carmen's dirty little ways. I won't tell you if he succeeded or not.
The above synopsis is what I took away from the film, but I was not impressed by the film itself. It was only after I watched it that I dug a little deeper into the story and I realised how much of a missed opportunity Aranda had made of retelling Mérimée's classic. It was a shallow, slutty period-drama blunder, that saw Paz Vega spend a lot of the time partially or completely naked (not that I'm complaining about this in particular!).
First of all, the acting was poor. I was not impressed by Sbaraglia as José. I'm still unsure whether he was a weak actor or José was supposed to be a weak character, I've not read the book. He's supposed to be a man who with burning desire for Carmen, but he spends much of the time looking confused, jealous and a bit dim. Paz Vega was slightly better as Carmen. I was convinced by her hardened, wicked character, although I have seen more convincing performances by her in other films, such as Zapping and Lucia y El Sexo. She seems too pretty to play a gypsy woman (not that I've come across many Andalusian gypsy women), so in a way, the role didn't really fit her. The other actors in the film weren't great either. They seemed to do everything half-heartedly. The story is passionate, emotive they looked half-arsed, as if they couldn't wait to get out the tight 19th century costumes they were wearing.
However, the costumes, I was impressed with - one of the redeeming factors of the film. I like Spanish culture, I liked the soldiers' uniforms, the top-hats and the women's Flamenco dresses. They fitted the time well. That's all I can really say about that. Sorry, back to the criticism.
The script, as stated above, was co-rewritten by Vicente Aranda and Joaquim Jordà, and done so badly, so much that it would leave Mérimée turning in his grave. It was boring. It didn't make best use of José's intense passion for Carmen (or maybe that was just the acting). There were cheesy lines piled upon one and other, Satan and devil connotations everywhere, amongst the millions of swear words. I know the Spanish are partial for the odd swear word, but the film was littered with puta, 'whore', in literally every line Maybe it was realistic in 19th century poverty-stricken Seville, but the story itself didn't need it.
The editing and camera work was dull and ordinary. There was only one bit I actually liked, and that was when the camera follows a fly close-up in mid-air, which lands on Carmen's face. That was good. But the rest? Boring.
To conclude, it is sad to see such a great story go to waste with unconvincing acting and directing. If you're a literature teacher, by all means let your class watch this adaptation to get an idea of the story. However, only the male half of the class will be paying any interest to the film, thanks to Paz Vega. Otherwise, stick to the opera version (even though I hate musicals). I give this film 4, just for the fact I love the storyline! And Paz Vega!
The only time I've come across Carmen was on the car stereo when driving through Spain on a family holiday when I was a teenager. I didn't pay much attention to it because I didn't like opera at the time and I didn't know any better. The story has been around for 150 years or so. Do I feel I've missed out after seeing this movie? Yes, mainly due to the plot, but also because if all the actresses who played Carmen looked like Paz Vega, I would have all the adaptations happily sitting in my DVD collection.
Directed by Vicente Aranda (who also co-rewrote the story with Joaquim Jordà), the story is told through the eyes of the original author Prosper Mérimée, a French writer making his way through 19th century Spain. He comes across José (Leonardo Sbaraglia), a delinquent soldier and one of many men who fall in love with Carmen (Paz Vega), a sultry, sexy, bedazzling gypsy woman, who has the mouth of the devil, the temper of a 'toro' and who recklessly leads men to their doom. The moment she meets José, she is attracted by his stand-offish behaviour. But she hooks him, reels him in and lets him go, many-a-time. Until one day, José is wanted for murder. Carmen persuades him to join her band of gypsy smugglers. They seem to be settling, she's fallen in love with him, but she meets the charming Escamillo, the bullfighter. Can José hold his jealousy in check, or does it destroy him?
It's a beautiful,seductive story, something that resembles, almost, a Shakespearian or Ovid plot, with the portrayals of immense passion and emotion that can make or break us and transform us to do things out of character. It's poetic, fiery, and above all, slutty. I was left hanging on, I didn't know which way it was going to turn. I always hoped that José might change Carmen's dirty little ways. I won't tell you if he succeeded or not.
The above synopsis is what I took away from the film, but I was not impressed by the film itself. It was only after I watched it that I dug a little deeper into the story and I realised how much of a missed opportunity Aranda had made of retelling Mérimée's classic. It was a shallow, slutty period-drama blunder, that saw Paz Vega spend a lot of the time partially or completely naked (not that I'm complaining about this in particular!).
First of all, the acting was poor. I was not impressed by Sbaraglia as José. I'm still unsure whether he was a weak actor or José was supposed to be a weak character, I've not read the book. He's supposed to be a man who with burning desire for Carmen, but he spends much of the time looking confused, jealous and a bit dim. Paz Vega was slightly better as Carmen. I was convinced by her hardened, wicked character, although I have seen more convincing performances by her in other films, such as Zapping and Lucia y El Sexo. She seems too pretty to play a gypsy woman (not that I've come across many Andalusian gypsy women), so in a way, the role didn't really fit her. The other actors in the film weren't great either. They seemed to do everything half-heartedly. The story is passionate, emotive they looked half-arsed, as if they couldn't wait to get out the tight 19th century costumes they were wearing.
However, the costumes, I was impressed with - one of the redeeming factors of the film. I like Spanish culture, I liked the soldiers' uniforms, the top-hats and the women's Flamenco dresses. They fitted the time well. That's all I can really say about that. Sorry, back to the criticism.
The script, as stated above, was co-rewritten by Vicente Aranda and Joaquim Jordà, and done so badly, so much that it would leave Mérimée turning in his grave. It was boring. It didn't make best use of José's intense passion for Carmen (or maybe that was just the acting). There were cheesy lines piled upon one and other, Satan and devil connotations everywhere, amongst the millions of swear words. I know the Spanish are partial for the odd swear word, but the film was littered with puta, 'whore', in literally every line Maybe it was realistic in 19th century poverty-stricken Seville, but the story itself didn't need it.
The editing and camera work was dull and ordinary. There was only one bit I actually liked, and that was when the camera follows a fly close-up in mid-air, which lands on Carmen's face. That was good. But the rest? Boring.
To conclude, it is sad to see such a great story go to waste with unconvincing acting and directing. If you're a literature teacher, by all means let your class watch this adaptation to get an idea of the story. However, only the male half of the class will be paying any interest to the film, thanks to Paz Vega. Otherwise, stick to the opera version (even though I hate musicals). I give this film 4, just for the fact I love the storyline! And Paz Vega!
Glamorous and brilliant rendition set in Andalucía, based on the classic story of love and jealousy.
Based on the melodramatic novel by writer Prosper Merimee, Carmen is the classic tale of forbidden passion between a young man , sergeant named Jose (Leonardo Sbaraglia) and a spoken-for woman, Carmen (Paz Vega). A beautiful but amoral gypsy , marvellous Paz Vega, falls in turbulent love for a soldier , ever-so-handsome Leonardo , but things go wrong when his superior , becomes involved into the twisted affaire. It is told in flashback as the young soldier, stripped of his decorations, explains all in a prison cell to writer Prosper Merimee (Jay Benedict). José tells of the love he had for Carmen and how it proved to be destructive. As Carmen is victim and protagonist of a fatalist chain of events , passional romance and tragedies . Aranda splendidly casts the Spanish main actress of the moment , Paz Vega (The Spirit , Spanglish, Lucia y el sexo) , to play the immortal figure of Carmen in the kind of steamy role she revels in , with one of the most important players in Latin American Cinema today, Leonardo Sbaraglia (Intacto, Utopia) playing the character of José. To want her was Torture.. to love her meant death ! A story of beauty and savagery.. love and hate.. splendor and shame...
This romantic costume adventure strikes some strong sparks and uncontrollable passions . It is a decent movie , though corny and extremely erotic at times , but still entertaining to see sparks fly between Carmen/Paz Vega as the wonderful vixen and an always angry and jealous José/Leonardo Sbaraglia . Paz Vega in her real splendor plays an immoral gypsy hussy who ruins life of a young Spanish officer. The free, enigmatic nature of a woman called Carmen , her southern beauty , she's the complete and gorgeous starring displaying jealousy , bloodshed and doom . Paz Vega looks brilliant and stunning as the tempestuous gypsy , but also Leonardo Sbaraglia as a Spanish dragoon is pretty well , playing a passionate, impulsive character turning into into the victim . Support cast is pretty good , such as : Jay Benedict as Merimee who on a journey through Spain is forced by fate to be the witness of a story of passion , Antonio Dechent as the jealous bandit , Joan Crosas, Ismael Martínez, Ginés García Millán, Maria Botto, Josep Linuesa , Susi Sánchez, Paula Echevarria, Julio Vélez , among others . And Georges Bizet music might have helped a bit, rather than the rousing soundtrack provided by José Nieto. Adding a glamorous and picturesque cinematography by Paco Femina. The motion picture was well directed by Vicente Aranda .
There are several versions based on Prospero Merimee tale : First silent retelling ¨Carmen¨ 1915 by Cecil B De Mille with Geraldine Farrar, Pedro de Córdoba, Wallace Reid. ¨The Loves of Carmen¨ 1943 by Charles Vidor with Rita Hayworth , Glenn Ford , Ron Randell. ¨The loves of Carmen¨ with Dolores Del Río, Don Alvarado. ¨Carmen¨ 1944 with Vivían Romance , Jean Marais. ¨The Devil made a woman¨ 1959 by Tulio Demicheli with Sara Montiel, German Cobos , Amadeo Nazzarí. ¨Man, Pride and vengeance¨ 1967 by Luigi Bazzoni with Franco Nero, Tina Aumont, Klaus Kinski. ¨Carmen Jones¨ by Otto Preminger with Harry Belafonte , Dorothy Dandridge . ¨Carmen¨ 1983 by Carlos Saura with Laura del Sol, Antonio Gades .¨Carmen de Bizet¨ 1984 by Francesco Rosi with Julia Migenes , Placido Domingo, Ruggiero Raimondi . And this ¨Carmen¨ 2003 by Vicente Aranda with Paz Vega , Leonardo Sbaraglia, Antonio Dechent . Rating : 6.5/10 . Better than average . Worthwhile watching.
This romantic costume adventure strikes some strong sparks and uncontrollable passions . It is a decent movie , though corny and extremely erotic at times , but still entertaining to see sparks fly between Carmen/Paz Vega as the wonderful vixen and an always angry and jealous José/Leonardo Sbaraglia . Paz Vega in her real splendor plays an immoral gypsy hussy who ruins life of a young Spanish officer. The free, enigmatic nature of a woman called Carmen , her southern beauty , she's the complete and gorgeous starring displaying jealousy , bloodshed and doom . Paz Vega looks brilliant and stunning as the tempestuous gypsy , but also Leonardo Sbaraglia as a Spanish dragoon is pretty well , playing a passionate, impulsive character turning into into the victim . Support cast is pretty good , such as : Jay Benedict as Merimee who on a journey through Spain is forced by fate to be the witness of a story of passion , Antonio Dechent as the jealous bandit , Joan Crosas, Ismael Martínez, Ginés García Millán, Maria Botto, Josep Linuesa , Susi Sánchez, Paula Echevarria, Julio Vélez , among others . And Georges Bizet music might have helped a bit, rather than the rousing soundtrack provided by José Nieto. Adding a glamorous and picturesque cinematography by Paco Femina. The motion picture was well directed by Vicente Aranda .
There are several versions based on Prospero Merimee tale : First silent retelling ¨Carmen¨ 1915 by Cecil B De Mille with Geraldine Farrar, Pedro de Córdoba, Wallace Reid. ¨The Loves of Carmen¨ 1943 by Charles Vidor with Rita Hayworth , Glenn Ford , Ron Randell. ¨The loves of Carmen¨ with Dolores Del Río, Don Alvarado. ¨Carmen¨ 1944 with Vivían Romance , Jean Marais. ¨The Devil made a woman¨ 1959 by Tulio Demicheli with Sara Montiel, German Cobos , Amadeo Nazzarí. ¨Man, Pride and vengeance¨ 1967 by Luigi Bazzoni with Franco Nero, Tina Aumont, Klaus Kinski. ¨Carmen Jones¨ by Otto Preminger with Harry Belafonte , Dorothy Dandridge . ¨Carmen¨ 1983 by Carlos Saura with Laura del Sol, Antonio Gades .¨Carmen de Bizet¨ 1984 by Francesco Rosi with Julia Migenes , Placido Domingo, Ruggiero Raimondi . And this ¨Carmen¨ 2003 by Vicente Aranda with Paz Vega , Leonardo Sbaraglia, Antonio Dechent . Rating : 6.5/10 . Better than average . Worthwhile watching.
If you start thinking about the set up in which this film is inserted, you will want to see it. At least i did it: This is an adaptation of a novel, by a french writer (immortalized in an opera by a french composer). The writer, Mérimée, was as well an historian-archaeologist-translator; meaning this, someone who cared for "exotism", in a time in which Spanish or Portuguese rural worlds were still considered exotic to the English and the french. That novel established the clichés and preconceptions regarding Spanish culture still considered these days (and efficiently exploited by the tourism industry). Bizet also helped establish other clichés, musical to that matter. But this film is Spanish, in production, creative minds and people involved. So this was a brilliant opportunity for a view into a distinct edge of Spanish culture described by a french and commented on by the Spanish. That was the motivation for me.
They started off quite well, and at least i think they gave a thought at what i mentioned. That's why they place Mérimée himself as a character, observing Andaluzia as a foreigner, and taking note of what he sees, even sharing space and scenes with Carmen and José. That was good, and i appreciated the audacity of crossing the line of the facts (if there ever was a real Carmen, Mérimée never got to know her).
But the problem is, they never step out of the very clichés Mérimée established. The film is visually as lush as the opera is musically. The sets are brilliantly baroque, the (excellent) production emphasizes passioned environments (operatic, as well), an orange/yellow deviating sexual mood. But they also emphasize the temperament of the characters a little too much, deviating the thing from what could have been better explored, something that could matter and that is in fact noted:
The drama is built around Carmen, and the inability for José to play the game according to her rules. Those rules are defined by cultural background, and that is where the frictions lie. Carmen comes from a branch of the Spanish culture, that transcends Spain. Gypsies, a group of nomads, a people that wouldn't, or couldn't adapt to the established norms the roman derived catholic based culture (that self and forced rejection still lasts today in most of the places). José is Basque, but that is little seen, he could be from Madrid, that in this case it would be the same, he is a cliché as well. So, it is those cultural differences that matter. This is, i mentioned, noted, but not made the center of the thing. They prefer remarking on the sensuality as the engine for the plot and sex as the motivation for the characters, that's why we have Paz Vega here, who had been in the brilliant sex-centered 'Lucía y el sexo' just 2 years before. Well she does deliver what they intended, and she is sensual for my contemporary and contextualized eyes. So it's not a matter of what they did here, but what they could have done.
Side note: one could also take Carmen as an early symbol for a female emancipation that would only really happen decades later. Is this something Mérimée observed, or something he included as part of his french more cosmopolitan way of thinking?
My opinion: 3/5
http://www.7eyes.wordpress.com
They started off quite well, and at least i think they gave a thought at what i mentioned. That's why they place Mérimée himself as a character, observing Andaluzia as a foreigner, and taking note of what he sees, even sharing space and scenes with Carmen and José. That was good, and i appreciated the audacity of crossing the line of the facts (if there ever was a real Carmen, Mérimée never got to know her).
But the problem is, they never step out of the very clichés Mérimée established. The film is visually as lush as the opera is musically. The sets are brilliantly baroque, the (excellent) production emphasizes passioned environments (operatic, as well), an orange/yellow deviating sexual mood. But they also emphasize the temperament of the characters a little too much, deviating the thing from what could have been better explored, something that could matter and that is in fact noted:
The drama is built around Carmen, and the inability for José to play the game according to her rules. Those rules are defined by cultural background, and that is where the frictions lie. Carmen comes from a branch of the Spanish culture, that transcends Spain. Gypsies, a group of nomads, a people that wouldn't, or couldn't adapt to the established norms the roman derived catholic based culture (that self and forced rejection still lasts today in most of the places). José is Basque, but that is little seen, he could be from Madrid, that in this case it would be the same, he is a cliché as well. So, it is those cultural differences that matter. This is, i mentioned, noted, but not made the center of the thing. They prefer remarking on the sensuality as the engine for the plot and sex as the motivation for the characters, that's why we have Paz Vega here, who had been in the brilliant sex-centered 'Lucía y el sexo' just 2 years before. Well she does deliver what they intended, and she is sensual for my contemporary and contextualized eyes. So it's not a matter of what they did here, but what they could have done.
Side note: one could also take Carmen as an early symbol for a female emancipation that would only really happen decades later. Is this something Mérimée observed, or something he included as part of his french more cosmopolitan way of thinking?
My opinion: 3/5
http://www.7eyes.wordpress.com
I, like one previous commentator, have never seen any other adaptation of Carmen, and, although the name rang a faint bell, hadn't really heard of the famous opera. Yes, I know, a total Philistine. I have to say that I liked this film. Of course Paz Vaga is beautiful, and I liked her interpretation of the fiery, part-Gypsy wanton woman in 1830 Spain. Although he seems to have received some criticism, I thought well of Leonardo Sbaraglia's performance. But, as a non-Spanish speaker, it is difficult to criticize an acting performance while reading subtitles. The photography, sets, and costumes all seemed to be done very well, and I hear that the actors did a creditable job with regional accents, something often laughable in American movies. Overall, it seems to me to be worth checking out.
There are several ways to misunderstand this movie and a couple of them have been shown in some of the past comments. This is a movie to be analyzed as a free recreation of a known subject and therefore not to be compared with the opera, the book or other Carmen movies seen before. It just stands for itself and I must say that this Carmen does it very well. It is a mistake to compare because that is the first step to deny movies the chance to be autonomous creative works of art. Vicente Aranda is a master of atmosphere and the art direction, the costumes and the photography are extremely well put together to achieve a pleasing aesthetic experience. Let's take it as it is.
And that brings us to the next misunderstanding. Someone complains about the typical Spanish clichés in the movie. Well, historically the movie is extremely well researched and you can see the results of that very serious work in every scene. It is not only an accurate portrait of the "black Spain" of knife and espadrille that Goya portrayed so vividly, but it's also of that part of history as seen by a foreigner fascinated with the folkloric side of that society. Honestly, anyone who doesn't want to see any cliché about Spain shouldn't buy a ticket to see Carmen, but in this case those clichés are presented before they became one and the way to see them is getting rid of our own prejudices.
Another important requirement to understand this movie properly is to speak the language. It is not acceptable to criticize any actor performance for not having understood his or her lines. If all the rest of the audience did, the problem most likely lies somewhere else. Paz Vega has an immaculate diction with her Andalusian accent and all she says is understandable and credible. Her Argentinian partner, Leonardo Sbaraglia, gives also a convincing portrait of the Basque officer that became a "bandolero", and her accent is very well learned.
No less important is to have a minimally open approach to the material. To say that Paz Vega is "horrible" suggests that the author of the phrase entered the theater for the wrong reasons. We already had in Spain a critic in one of the most prestigious papers that used to recommend us pictures he found homosexually arousing, without mentioning it explicitly. And that was not totally fair for the rest of us, especially for the ones that hadn't detected that the man was writing with parts of his anatomy that many readers didn't necessarily had to care for. I'm not suggesting at all that the reviewer had the same motivation, but the expectations must have been different as the ones of those among us that went to see a talented and beautiful actress play an almost classic role, because that's what we got. Paz Vega IS Carmen, and an excellent one, in Vicente Aranda's movie.
And that brings us to the next misunderstanding. Someone complains about the typical Spanish clichés in the movie. Well, historically the movie is extremely well researched and you can see the results of that very serious work in every scene. It is not only an accurate portrait of the "black Spain" of knife and espadrille that Goya portrayed so vividly, but it's also of that part of history as seen by a foreigner fascinated with the folkloric side of that society. Honestly, anyone who doesn't want to see any cliché about Spain shouldn't buy a ticket to see Carmen, but in this case those clichés are presented before they became one and the way to see them is getting rid of our own prejudices.
Another important requirement to understand this movie properly is to speak the language. It is not acceptable to criticize any actor performance for not having understood his or her lines. If all the rest of the audience did, the problem most likely lies somewhere else. Paz Vega has an immaculate diction with her Andalusian accent and all she says is understandable and credible. Her Argentinian partner, Leonardo Sbaraglia, gives also a convincing portrait of the Basque officer that became a "bandolero", and her accent is very well learned.
No less important is to have a minimally open approach to the material. To say that Paz Vega is "horrible" suggests that the author of the phrase entered the theater for the wrong reasons. We already had in Spain a critic in one of the most prestigious papers that used to recommend us pictures he found homosexually arousing, without mentioning it explicitly. And that was not totally fair for the rest of us, especially for the ones that hadn't detected that the man was writing with parts of his anatomy that many readers didn't necessarily had to care for. I'm not suggesting at all that the reviewer had the same motivation, but the expectations must have been different as the ones of those among us that went to see a talented and beautiful actress play an almost classic role, because that's what we got. Paz Vega IS Carmen, and an excellent one, in Vicente Aranda's movie.
Did you know
- TriviaMovie adapted from Prosper Merimee's 1847 novella, not Bizet's 1875 opera adaptation.
- ConnectionsReferenced in Aquí no hay quien viva: Érase una parabólica (2004)
- How long is Carmen?Powered by Alexa
Details
Box office
- Gross worldwide
- $8,132,397
- Runtime
- 1h 55m(115 min)
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.35 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content