An Officer and a Spy (2019)

8/10

louis101131 August 2019

This is a truely great film. The direction of this film is one of the reasons why as every scene is shot with such precision. Also the product design of this film was at the highest level which really helps the film to feel more real and authentic.

Overall this is a great film that I think people should see.

116 out of 150 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

8/10

another view of the Dreyfus case

dromasca14 December 2019

More than 120 years after the events, the Dreyfus case seems to never die. The story of the Jewish officer wrongfully convicted of espionage on the basis of false accusations is reminded every time the honesty, integrity or patriotism of the Jews who choose to live in the Diaspora are questioned. The anti-Semitic slogans propagated by the anti-Dreyfus press and chanted by the angry crowds then are reminded whenever the conspiracy theories bring the Jews to the center of current events. It is not forgotten that one of the side effects of the Dreyfus case was the emergence of the Zionist movement in Europe, which led half a century later to the founding of the State of Israel. Finally, France, the country of democracy and humanism, continues to keep the Dreyfus case as one of its defining moments, a historical warning about the dangers of prejudice and hatred towards strangers that can haunt the most enlightened society. Roman Polanski's 'J'Accuse' is a the latest film tin a series of cinematographic creations that have kept alive the memory and the interest for that moment which refuses to be buried in the oblivion of history.

The main hero of this version is not Dreyfus (played by Louis Garrel) who is little on screen and permanently in the background of the action, but is otherwise presented rather schematically and not in the most positive light. In the center of attention is Georges Picquart (played by Jean Dujardin), the officer who brought to public notice the anti-Semitic conspiracy and the judicial framing that led to Dreyfus's first conviction. His actions and his fight against public opinion, his superiors and a good part of the French political class saved the honor of France and of the army to which he and Dreyfus had dedicated their lives and careers. Far from being a schematic character, Picquart is represented as a complex man of his period, brave and idealistic on one hand, but not without prejudices and personal problems on the other. The titles of the film inform us that the related facts happened in reality, but we must still bear in mind that this is a version of the story based on a novel. Robert Harris's and Roman Polanski's version of the Dreyfus case.

Jean Dujardin's acting seemed exceptional to me. This actor continues to amaze me with each of his new films through the combination of talent and immersion in the roles he plays, with his charisma and personal charm. Of the rest of the distribution I especially notice Mathieu Amalric , another of my favorites. The editing is well filmed, the story runs flawlesly, in the style of classical cinema. It looks like Polanski wanted to make a sober film, in which the emotion derives from the actions of the characters. If we chose to put aside all the disputes regarding the person and the director's past, what we see on screen is a historical film about a crucial moment in the history of France and Europe, made and acted with respect and professionalism.

45 out of 63 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

8/10

You should definitly watch it !

valterpravnik4 February 2020

The story is nothing revolutionary, no extra twist or suprise but the real gem here is the way the story is told and the movie was shot.

In contrast to the oversaturated Hollywood exhaustive action packed style this movie manages to tell the intriguing Dreyfus affair in France 1895 without unnecessary overdone action scenes/music whilst maintaining the core tension of the topic that doesn't let you off the hook.

When the movie was finished I couldn't believe that over 2h were over and I felt pleasantly refreshed and renewed, although I was constantly focused on what will happen next. That's the level of smoothness we are talking about here.

A connection to past Polanski or french movies is definitly visible and this way of storytelling can be thought of as a new take on it.

If you like historical dramas with a good portion of crime you should definitly take a look at this gem.

42 out of 59 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

a gem

Kirpianuscus14 August 2020

You know the story. Roman Polanski explores its mechanism. And, scene by scene, the case Dreyfus becomes a contemporary story. It is a film with so many virtues than "see it!" remains the only reasonable advice. One motif - Jean Dujardin who gives an admirable proof of his art. And, of course ,Louis Garrel as Alfred Dreifus. A film about justice. Like each Polanski work, precise, slow and being more than a historical story but reflection of darkness behind and, for many reasons, around us.

25 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

First impression

kbimadod6 February 2021

A very important story, great actors but... can't forget the cheap looking CGI crowd and green screen keying. Some movies did better 20 some years ago. And the color grading makes me feel like I watch two different movies, sometimes it's dark toned and desaturated, other times colorful like a soap opera. If you pay attention, this could easily take away from the story.

3 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

9/10

FRENCH ( A+ Movie) My Ratings 9 /10

THE-BEACON-OF-MOVIES-RAFA13 March 2022

It's an absolute masterclass in how to make an historical film.

This subject has something very real and urgent to say about the world we live in today. It's kind of a shame you'll probably never get to see it.

12 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Perfectly executed 7/10

saadanathan18 October 2020

"J'accuse" is a good film that retells the famous case of french Jewish officer Alfred Dreyfus who was convicted for treason against France and sent to prison with no fair trial. This movie shows not only how much the French army was anti semitic. But also were wrong from the beginning and tried to get away without punishment. How the French high officers tried to hide the truth so they won't be embarrassed in public. Jean Dujardin Is a great actor, mostly known for comedic roles. Here he does a phenomenal performance as the officer who uncovered the real traitor in the army thus called for an investigation to be made in order to declare Dreyfuss innocent. I enjoyed the flashbacks to the moments prior to the film's plot. It was perfectly filmed and accurate to the history of the case. Roman Polanski is a great director and has done a marvelous job.

3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

9/10

A Must See

virginiebauer21 November 2019

A great film on all accounts. Fantastic direction and recreation of a terrible period in France. The sets, the costumes are just fantastic. Not to mention the actors, who for a large part come from the Comédie Française, a theatrical institution in France. In a time of intolerance this film reminds us that there are great principles that are worth fighting for.

64 out of 93 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

A subject that is certainly deserving of a movie

Horst_In_Translation11 February 2020

Warning: Spoilers

"J'accuse" (the title of an article by Émile Zola, good choice to name the film after that) or "An Officer and a Spy" (very misleading title, but I shall explain why in a second) is a new French film that premiered in 2019 and made it to German theaters now in 2020. At easily over 2 hours, it is a really long movie, but this is nothing too unusual because the director here is a certain Roman Polanski and he has many films in his body of work that cross the 120-minute mark. He is in his mid-80s now, but that won't keep him from coming up with quality films. This one here is the best example. Polanski was also in charge of the script as a co-writer next to Robert Harris, who also wrote the original novel this film is based on. It is never a bad thing if you get the original writer for an adapted screenplay. Polanski has mostly worked on French films in the last decade and here he adds another. And luckily, not too many great actors are worried about their reputation, but they agree to star in a Polanski film. The one and only lead here is Oscar winner Jean Dujardin and he was really good from beginning to end. He carried the film convincingly and it shows why Dujardin had been a star in France long before The Artist and now that his international presence has faded unfortunately again it seems, he still will be a big star in France for hopefully another 25 years. I like him and his inclusion in the cast made me especially curious about this one here. The poster is a bit misleading because it depicts Garrel (who was also in this awards season's big player "Little Women" by the way) next to Dujardin in a way where you could guess they are almost equals. But none of that applies. At least not by the numbers. Garrel may be really famous in France too, but he has very little screen time here honestly. And the two only have one real scene together, which is a bit of an epilogue at the very end that seems to take place many years after the key story. We also see in this scene that the main character has managed a career again, just like he did with the military and his prison days are forgotten. The movie is set in the final years of the 19th century by the way. Garrel looks so different though from what I remember him in other films. What a transformation and I read he really looked very similar to the character he portrays, so good job by the makeup people. I guess this transformation is also one reason why he managed to score a nomination at the Césars (the French Academy Awards you could say) because honestly, even if his character was talked about all the time in this film, I personally felt that the actual screen time and material he had were not sufficient for such an honor. The nomination for Grégory Gadebois I certainly like more. He was really good every time he was on and of course the fencing scene was truly spectacular. But so was his presence in the courtroom. In general, I would say that if we pick individual scenes, then these two I just mentioned are really very high up there in terms of the best this film has to offer. Gadebois I must admit I did not even know before this film I think, but he certainly won me over. Actors I knew that you also find in here, even if only for minor characters, were Poupaud, Perez and of course Amalric, who is always easy to identify. The only female character that appears on a regular basis is Emmanuelle Seigner and that is not a surprise either because she is Polanski's wife. Maybe to some, she will feel a bit too old to be romantically involved with Dujardin's character, but it wasn't that serious and her real life love story proves anyway that age is just a number, nothing more. She had a few good moments too, also the walk in the park near the end and his marriage proposal and what she makes of it.

I also would like to comment on the story and plot in general. This is about a man who was accused of and convicted for being a spy and this was really really a huge scandal back then in France when it comes out that he could be innocent. There is a mention that the government would be dissolved in this case. This shows you the gravity. However, it is also an event that really almost nobody outside of France knows about today anymore. But in France itself, it is still omnipresent and every child learns about it at school to this day. I myself only knew about it because I remember that filmmaking pioneer Georges Méliès from France made a collection of very short films about this scandal and that was almost at the very same time when it happened, which shows you how controversial this entire affair was in France back then, also that the short film was pretty unusual for Méliès in terms of the running time and also the subject because the legendary Méliès focused on magic tricks most of the time before that, but to his work there, there was a great deal of political gravity. I also remember the Île du Diable from this very early release. So without Méliès, I probably would not have heard about the background either. Then again, it is really easy to watch and appreciate this film as well without any background information. Honestly, had this been a totally fictitious film, it also would have been a convincing watch. But the actual historic references make it even more worth seeing. And with that I do not just mean the duel sequence that showed us how this was still a completely different era with men solving their conflicts in such a manner. And no surprise Dujardin's character wins the duel. He is a pretty tough guy for sure, also with how he defends himself against Esterhazy when he is attacked from behind. It was Esterhazy right? He was only in it for one scene. He decides to fire the likable old guy at the entrance early on because he constantly falls asleep, although the latter is probably a bit of an institution in this job. He's definitely not out there to make new friends. With the lack of family and a real significant other, his work is by far what matters most to him and he does what needs is necessary to get stuff done. He is also not scared of running after the guy who shoots the lawyer. So there is also a great deal of bloodshed going on with the people involved in said trial, be it the one soaked in blood inside the prison cell or the lawyer I just mentioned and his last words before the attack are pretty memorable too and quite ironic even given what happens to him next. So you see that it was a national affair for sure with how much drama and emotion lay in there that people got murdered in order to change the course of the trial. Hard to imagine it wasn't a hit with the powerful pulling the strings in the background and the guy committing the actual act was just a puppet. Aside from everything showy that is happening, it also must be said that obviously antisemitism was very very common at the end of the 19th century in France, more than I thought it would be. Even the protagonist says early on pretty explicitly that he does not like Jews, but also at the same time that he won't let this antipathy cloud his fair judgment. Of course, the rest of the film proves that with how hard he fights to get Dreyfus free. Still it is always about his principles. He said to a relative on one occasion I think something along the lines that he only does it because of his conscience and also earlier to his superior that he won't take this secret into the grave. The final scene between the two also shows that from Dreyfus' side, it is all about professionalism. He could have made a great friend there, but he never had the intention to.

I was actually a bit shocked how many people really hated Jews back then and were also ready to take violent action. So there is at least indirectly again a reference to Polanski's own past included here. We all know about his very young years because it was everywhere in the media when The Pianist came out. Let's mention that and not the aspects that make him such a controversial filmmaker and of course kept him from making more Hollywood films. What a loss though. Polanski also acts briefly in this film, just a cameo, and honestly I did not even spot it, but still. He has not acted in a film before that for over a decade I believe. I wonder how big the waves can be that this movie is going to make. The number of nominations at the Césars is really impressive and same is true about the wins at Venice. Polanski definitely still has it. I don't think this was a truly great film or anywhere near my favorites from the filmmaker, but there was not a single moment of hesitation for me when it was about deciding if I should give this film a positive or negative recommendation. Of course, it is the former. Definitely a thumbs-up and the story had me frequently enough on the edge of my seat to say that this film never dragged particularly and that is always a big success for a film this long. I am sure I could still write at least another two paragraphs here about the more/most memorable moments these over 130 minutes have to offer, but as my memory is not so strong right now and also the character limit is probably getting closer, let me leave it at that. You should watch the film for yourself anyway and make up your mind. Don't skip it because of the director's controversy. It deserves very much to be seen and talked about.

9 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

10/10

Superb direction, acting, photography; gripping script could have been shorter

adrianovasconcelos7 February 2020

The great Polanski is back. This is the inventive and talented director of ROSEMARY'S BABY and THE TENANT returning in style, after a series of minor and forgettable films since CHINAOWN (US 1974).And he does it without the gore of THE TENANT, but certainly with the pervasive terror of ROSEMARY'S BABY -- not because this is a horror occult movie but rather because of the immanent terror embodied by the power of government, and its underhand ways to hold on to power and avoid damage to its image, even if it means wrongly accusing a man of high treason, dishonorably discharging him from military service, and condemning him to an undeserved and long prison sentence.

Polanski has Jewish blood in his veins but, to his credit. he does not turn J'ACCUSE into a study of anti-semitism, which would have been too easy. Picquart (Dujardin) readily admits to Dreyfus at the start that he does not care for Jews but that that would not cause him to deliberately prevent a good soldier serving France to the best of his ability, regardless of racial background.

He lives up to his word and to his conscience - not least because Picquart realizes that his own life is in danger and he has no option but expose the government's ignoble cover-up -- which ultimately rescues Dreyfus from, Devil Island and allows him to recover his good name.

Picquart is superbly played by Dujardin but the entire cast is in top form.

J'ACCUSE also has the great merit of recreating the atmosphere of Paris in the late 19th Century. The attention paid to interiors, door knobs and bells, phaetons and other vehicles of the time, and the cobblestone streets, is awesome.

I certainly recommend J'ACCUSE as a much better than average history lesson, as a social comment that applies to today as it does to France about 130 years ago. It avoids making value judgements, preferring instead to present facts and letting the viewer interpret them. 10/10

56 out of 81 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

My experience as a spectator

borgolarici7 January 2022

This movie is grey: everything is either grey, dusty, falling to pieces or hidden in the shadow. It's extremely distracting and makes the vision of the movie even more depressing than necessary.

I'm not really complaining about the script (albeit the story feels a bit woody and very cold), but it's very unpleasant aesthetically speaking.

4 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

10/10

The last scene is revelatory...

Antoine-Leboyer30 November 2019

Warning: Spoilers

Polanski's movie is a very solid classic period picture with great acting.

The last scene between Dreyfus and Picquart echoes their first encounter at the beginning. It is a stunning scene (which I do want to spoil) which makes it a masterpiece and speaks suddenly of the France of today. Very highly recommended...

52 out of 75 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Good, but disappointing for a Polanski film

DLochner22 November 2020

A bit lengthy and with little tension for a Polanski film. The camera is kept unusually simple and simple and supports the calm overall picture. All in all, you need a lot of patience and nerves, but then a little gem develops out of the film. Good, but disappointing for a Polanski film.

3 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

5/10

J'Accuse the lack of passion of the movie

gcarpiceci19 November 2019

If there is one element that defined the Dreyfus case, that was "passion"; the whole affaire was permeated by several, very powerful passions: passion for power, passion for intrigue, passion for truth, passion against the jews, passion for honour, passion for politics. Well, the main flaw of the movie is its inability to deliver such an ordeal of passions and its tone of voice remains quite shallow all along the movie. Also, the movie is totally unbalanced: it's very thorough in the first part, looking at every details of the fabricated evidence case against Dreyfus; then the second half, that of the new trial, is incredibly rushed, so we lose a lot of the dramatic events of that phase of the affaire. From a director like Roma Polanski I would have expected a much higher standard of quality; to conclude on a positive note, Jean Dujardin's performance is very good.

39 out of 85 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

6/10

Confusing

hiba-akr11 March 2021

I'm dissapointed.. This really had potential but they kept moving back and forth in time it was too confusing to keep up

3 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

8/10

the story that ashamed France

pejoar8 September 2019

Based on the great book of Robert Harris. This is the story of a wrongfully accused army man,who also was a jew. And the thing is, that the people who decided what was good or bad in the army ,hated jews. If you have a strong sense of justice and you do not like racism this is your movie. Well made by Polanski but the story is the reason to watch it.

63 out of 93 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Technical department Excellent! but...

Antonio_Martilotti15 September 2020

Premise: I decided to view this work only and exclusively for third parties, therefore, no personal initiative of what led me to view it.

Since I was not aware of the story just told, first it was a duty to inform me, reading and viewing information documents.

Very good technical side. A scenography with attention to the smallest details, settings and perfect attires.

A rather ridiculous editing in some sequences accompanied by a mediocre script.

So, technically I find it a work studied in detail, but unfortunately I don't find any care of the plot and the various subjects.

Plot that in the long run gets lost, with the introduction of subjects that are subsequently not deepened enough.

Overall I consider it "not" a total failure, but a misinterpretation of an artifact with an excellent potential not exploited to the maximum by our dear Roman Polanski.

Thank you.

-Antonio

1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

9/10

Powerful and inspiring story set in a great city and told by the old master film director

mpadjasek29 January 2022

I enjoyed watching "An Officer and a Spy" in at least two planes, the first one being the story itself. I remember hearing about Dreyfus affair couple of times, first time when reading my Proust as a young man. But I did not remember the outcome of it, so the movie kept me glued to the screen. It was almost the same experience as watching "12 angry men" when I was a teenager. But Henry Fonda was playing a fictional character, and here Georges Picquart was a real hero who understood that individual justice of a single person was more important than all the pathetic words about the honor of the army or nation. It was also very interesting for me to learn about the positive involvement of Emile Zola in Dreyfus affair, which is one more reason to remember that outstanding French writer. Second plane was the portrait of Paris at the end of the XIX century. I think that it was very convincing and I enjoyed a rare glimpse into the world of some of my favorite painters, writers and composers. At the same time the film kept me aware that our own time and world was better and had more to offer. Looks to me like it was a conscious effort by Polanski and I noticed him modestly standing in a livery at the scene of chamber music concert, at the same time offering a great spectacle to movie goers. So paradoxically enough the film that is showing the pathology within French army is at the same time promoting the French culture. I disagree with people who see in "An Officer and a Spy" a reference to the controversies surrounding Roman Polanski himself. We have to remember that Polanski is a Polish Jew who survived the horrors of Holocaust. Yet when he touched the subject of anti-Semitism like here or "The Pianist" it was always in some balanced way of a person who understands that anti-Semitism is just one of many faces of human intolerance. Polanski is always slow in passing a harsh judgment in his movies, so maybe he deserves the same attitude towards himself. So to summarize for me "An Officer and a Spy" is a powerful and inspiring story set in a great city and told by the old master film director.

5 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Connection

kosmasp2 December 2020

So Roman Polanski did this - a movie about someone who gets wrongfully accused. Now ... I don't think I am or will be the only one seeing a connection to the private life of Polanski. I'm not saying he was wrongfully accused. I have not read too much about that. I couldn't give you any details. Not even in which states in America he can not be anymore (maybe even all of them), because he got convicted.

Of course he never really got punished (unless you count him not being able to go to certain places is punishment) - the main character or rather the one that gets accused of doing things here in the movie does get punished. Jean Dujardins character seems to be the only one who wants to find out about the truth. A well made thriller movie, with really good performances. The pacing may not be everyones cup of tea - if you dig it you'll be fine

1 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

10/10

The Polanski version of the Dreyfus case

clanciai16 March 2021

The story needs to be reminded of every now and then. This Polanski version is as eloquent and strict in restrained discipline as José Ferrer's version of 1958, and the same review that I wrote about that film could be written here. Polanski's version is more "photo-realistic" though, more exact and less theatrical. There are no dazzling prominent film stars here like in Joé Ferrer's film, where he himself played Dreyfus. The parts of Dreyfus and Esterhazy (Ferrer and Anton Walbrook in that version) are minimal here and reduced to no more than what's necessary. Instead this film is almost consistently documentary in character, with certain typical Polanski dramatic turns though. It is exquisitely made in its perfect discipline, and even Alexander Desplat's music is reduced to mere basics. It is built up as a thriller, and the great trial scenes are the dramatic highlight. This is definitely one of Polanski's best films, if not the very best, which is not a bad verdict, considering how many excellent films he has made. It is the perfect history lesson and paramount as such.

10 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Fairness above prejudice or the history of a high-profile lawsuit

lyubitelfilmov29 September 2020

Historical drama. The adaptation of the novel "I blame" by the English writer Robert Harris, in turn based on real events. Again, the Russian distributors decided to show off, and translated the title of the picture not literally "I blame", but "The officer and the spy." For a long time I have not watched the new items, and then a new picture of the eminent director Roman Polansky arrived, and just touching on an interesting topic. How could I get past? And here's my brief opinion - justice is above prejudice. Unfortunately, the picture was not without its drawbacks, so I intend to analyze both them and the advantages. Therefore, without further ado, I'm starting. So the pros: 1. The topic touched upon - the picture focuses on the Dreyfus affair - a high-profile social and political scandal of the late nineteenth - early twentieth century, when Captain Alfred Dreyfus was accused of high treason and espionage for Germany. An important role in the conviction was played by the captain's nationality - he was a Jew. Waiting for him: a shameful trial, demotion, exile and many years to restore justice. Of course, the real spy was installed, and the captain was acquitted and reinstated in rank and in the army, but the sediment remained. This process showed the depth of prejudice against Jews and a complete disregard for establishing the truth. The Dreyfus case was filmed for the fourth time. 2. The story told is a mixture of detective and forensic drama, a genre very popular in Western cinema in the second half of the twentieth century. The story focuses on Colonel Marie-Georges Picard, the new chief of military counterintelligence, who has barely started his duties when he begins to realize that the Dreyfus case is not as straightforward as it might seem. He begins his own investigation, until he realizes that by doing this he set in motion the forces that are not interested in discovering the truth, because otherwise heads will fly and shame will not come true. The colonel is forced to improvise, torn between duty and conscience. In a little over two hours, we were able to fully convey all the ins and outs of this matter and the mood of French society at that time. Shows the courage of the colonel and his associates in this difficult matter. The script arouses interest, captivates, and even intrigues the uninitiated. Well, the ending pleases. 3. Costumes, scenery - I'm sure that everything was filmed on location, so I'm calm about the reliability of the scenery. The costumes delighted me as a lover of historical and military films. Before us is the French army as it is, with familiar attributes, ranks, and so on. So the cons: 1. The protractedness of some scenes is exactly that of some. Like the initial one, which takes too long, and a few more. Reduce them and the painting or its story has nothing to lose. 2. The abrupt transition to the final - it stunned me a little. Only now there was complete hopelessness, and oops - an obvious and historically famous ending. What's that called? Who cut out a whole piece of the script? Find me please! 3. Understatement - why didn't they say that the disgraced military had shaken off the real spy abroad? And where is the story about the further destinies of the heroes of both the first and the second plan? The viewer has to find out all this himself or what? It seems that we have a historical picture, but at the same time they say A, and do not say B. A little about the main characters: 1. Marie-Georges Picard, played by Jean Dujardin, is a colonel in the French army and the new chief of military counterintelligence, who will have to establish the truth in the Dreyfus case. He will have to test all his qualities, including courage and courage, not forgetting about justice and truth, because he is driven only by love for his country and its national security. Jean perfectly played Colonel Picard, you believe in his emotions! Well done! 2. Alfred Dreyfus performed by Louis Garrel - the captain of the French army, because of his Jewish origin and as a result of false evidence, is accused of high treason. He will have to go through exile, many years of struggle to overturn the sentence. Louis quite successfully conveyed the emotions of this hero. I can't even imagine how much courage it took the captain to endure all the humiliation and restore his good name. This picture was released in limited rental, so it did not collect as much as it should have. They even brought a copy to our Russian province, although there was only one session, and that evening, so I safely ignored it. I can only praise Roman Polansky for this work, because his last "Based on real events" was, to put it mildly, average. As a result, we have a good historical drama by the eminent Roman Polansky about the Dreyfus affair, with a good script, excellent costumes and sets, not without drawbacks, but with good acting.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

8/10

A wondeful historical movie

chiaragiacobelli15 December 2019

I really loved this movie about an interesting story, well told by Polanski. There is an accurate research and a very good cinematographic transposition of what happened in France with the Affair Dreyfus, that many people still don't know. It is important to talk about it, especially with this pathos and care of the details. Definitely a movie to see.

38 out of 59 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

Fairness above prejudice or the history of a high-profile lawsuit

lyubitelfilmov27 September 2020

Historical drama. The adaptation of the novel "I blame" by the English writer Robert Harris, in turn based on real events. Again, the Russian distributors decided to show off, and translated the title of the picture not literally "I blame", but "The officer and the spy." For a long time I have not watched the novelties, and then a new picture of the eminent director Roman Polansky arrived, and just touching on an interesting topic. How could I get past? And here's my brief opinion - justice is above prejudice. Unfortunately, the picture was not without its drawbacks, so I intend to analyze both them and the advantages. Therefore, without further ado, I'm starting. So the pros: 1. The topic touched upon - the picture focuses on the Dreyfus affair - a high-profile socio-political scandal of the late nineteenth - early twentieth century, when Captain Alfred Dreyfus was accused of high treason and espionage for Germany. The captain's nationality played an important role in the conviction - he was a Jew. Waiting for him: a shameful trial, demotion, exile and many years to restore justice. Of course, the real spy was installed, and the captain was acquitted and reinstated in rank and in the army, but the sediment remained. This process showed the full depth of prejudice against Jews and a complete disregard for establishing the truth. The Dreyfus case was filmed for the fourth time. 2. The story told is a mixture of detective and forensic drama, a genre very popular in Western cinema in the second half of the twentieth century. The story centers on Colonel Marie-Georges Picard, the new chief of military counterintelligence, who has barely begun his duties when he begins to realize that the Dreyfus case is not as straightforward as it might seem. He begins his own investigation, until he realizes that by doing this he set in motion the forces that are not interested in discovering the truth, because otherwise heads will fly and shame will not end. The colonel is forced to improvise, torn between duty and conscience. In a little over two hours, we were able to fully convey all the ins and outs of this case and the mood of French society at that time. Shows the courage of the colonel and his associates in this difficult matter. The script arouses interest, captivates, and even intrigues the uninitiated. Well, the ending pleases. 3. Costumes, scenery - I'm sure that everything was filmed on location, so I'm calm about the reliability of the scenery. The costumes delighted me as a lover of historical and military films. Before us is the French army as it is, with familiar attributes, ranks, and so on. So the cons: 1. The protractedness of some scenes is exactly that of some. Like the initial one, which takes too long, and a few more. Shorten them and the painting or its story has nothing to lose. 2. The abrupt transition to the final - it stunned me a little. Only now there was complete hopelessness, and oops - an obvious and historically famous ending. What's that called? Who cut out a whole piece of the script? Find me please! 3. Understatement - why didn't they say that the disgraced military had shaken off the real spy abroad? And where is the story about the further destinies of the heroes of both the first and the second plan? The viewer has to find out all this himself or what? It seems that we have a historical picture, but at the same time they say A and do not say B. A little about the main characters: 1. Marie-Georges Piccard, played by Jean Dujardin, is a colonel in the French army, and the new chief of military counterintelligence, who will have to establish the truth in the Dreyfus case. He will have to test all his qualities, including courage and courage, not forgetting about justice and truth, because he is driven only by love for his country and its national security. Jean perfectly played Colonel Picard, you believe in his emotions! Well done! 2. Alfred Dreyfus performed by Louis Garrel - the captain of the French army, because of his Jewish origin and as a result of false evidence, is accused of high treason. He will have to go through exile, many years of struggle to overturn the sentence. Louis quite successfully conveyed the emotions of this hero. I can't even imagine how much courage it took the captain to endure all the humiliation and restore his good name. This picture was released in limited rental, so it did not collect as much as it should have. They even brought a copy to our Russian province, although there was only one session, and that evening, so I safely ignored it. I can only praise Roman Polansky for this work, because his last "Based on real events" was, to put it mildly, average. As a result, we have a good historical drama by the eminent Roman Polansky about the Dreyfus affair, with a good script, excellent costumes and sets, not without drawbacks, but with good acting.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

1/10

Baffling...

Xstal2 February 2022

So many contradictory elements about this film and the people who have made it leave you wondering more about its creation than the poorly performed and irrelevant tale it embellishes.

10 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

7/10

A detective story in the France of 20th century

stefanozucchelli2 February 2022

The true story of a court case based on anti-Semitism. The story, however, does not focus on the victim but on the man who will have him released against the interests of his own superiors. It is a good detective movie with a hint of love story which, however, only marginally speaks of anti-Semitism.

0 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

User Reviews

See also

Opinion

Details

Storyline

Did You Know?

Photo & Video

Related Items

User Lists

Recently Viewed