Reviews

Technically very well-made, with excellent performances by Michel Simon and Gérard Philippe- the rest of the cast is pretty forgettable. But somehow it sags in the middle and it all seems rather superficial and distant. You don't engage with the characters. The dialogue is too literary for modern tastes and the court scenes with their dances and music just fill up time. Smooth entertainment but it could have been much more gripping. I find Clair's next film, also with Gérard Philippe, funnier and better constructed.

The whole film lacks sparkle and pace. Dietrich and De Sica look elegantly frozen in time as they mouth a dialogue stuffed full of half-baked innuendos. There is absolutely no chemistry between them at all. Dietrich looks as though she had been on a starvation diet and wiggles her way across the screen in some extremely tight dresses without the slightest hint of sex appeal. Even when the film was made it must have seemed old-fashioned. Now it looks as though dinosaurs still roamed the land. Just about watchable for the locations and as a curiosity for Dietrich fans. Technically, the film is interesting as being one of the first to use the Technirama process, which rivalled Cinemascope but used a larger frame size, so the picture is much clearer. Whether this benefited the actors is debatable but the scenery is pretty good. The whole film is available on YouTube but of course the quality is nothing like the original.

This must be one of the worst films I've seen recently. Talky, pretentious, a quite unnecessary scene-setting exposition, totally illogical storyline and far far too long with many sequences simply repeating one another (e.g. all the fights with dinosaurs, insects, pterodactyls, swamp worms, spiders etc.). Unfortunately the animation in these often resembled old-fashioned back- projection. The visual style looks left over from the Lord of the Rings. As for the eye-rolling natives, we have seen these in too many Hollywood films already. On the plus side, the animation of Kong is excellent and his relationship with the girl provides some of the few unexpected touches. The film tries to stuff in far too many elements- sly reminders of the 1930s for the film buffs, video game sequences for the kids, arty dialogue to show it's really serious and has a message. Think of a potential audience and you'll probably find something in there which is supposed to appeal to it. When I went to see it on a Saturday night, there were about 30 people in the cinema. Word has got around. It deserves to flop because it is out of control. The idea that it could be for this century what the original Kong was the last is just too ridiculous.

After the near-disaster of Storytelling, it is good to see Todd Solondz return to form, with increased maturity and a sure handling of his material, apart from the ending, which is too preachy and not conceived visually enough. Praise be to those who finance this kind of film-making which stands far above the usual Hollywood pap. The device of having several actors play the same character works extremely well. There are many of the elements we have come to expect but they still have freshness and an ability to surprise. The Jewish humour reminds me sometimes of S.J. Perelman in his early and more surreal days. And there can be no higher tribute than that.

I first saw this film in 1955 at a tiny art cinema in Oxford. The print was in perfect condition and the shimmering dresses and art deco were fascinating. I sat through three showings and left on a wave of good feeling which has lasted ever since. (I can still sing "Three Times a Day" in which Chevalier as a doctor prescribes pills to his patient (with its the sexual innuendo). The comparison with Mamoulian's"Love me Tonight" with the same principals is very interesting. Mamoulian sends up the aristocratic Ruritanian musical comedy while Lubitsch adores the middle class. Both in their different ways are brilliant. Both use surrealist effects to heighten a sense of unreality. This is pure entertainment in a European tradition. Genevieve Tobin is a wonderful support but her career never really took off.

This film is almost forgotten but remains one of the most unusual in Garbo's career. It was daring to use a Pirandello play (what remains of it) and the stylistic inconsistencies are actually absolutely right for the theme that nothing is what it seems (but could be, if we so desired it). Compare it to "Two faced Woman" ten years later, also with Douglas and also about confusions of identity. You will see how much better is the earlier film and how much more beautiful Garbo was, even in a fright wig. George Fitzmaurice was a talented director with a great sense of style. Like most early sound films you have to see a good copy. Much of what we see now is just a travesty of the original and makes it very hard to appreciate its real quality.