User Reviews (70)

Add a Review

  • It's World War I, and a Scottish Private named Plumpick (Alan Bates) is ordered to infiltrate a French village and stop a bomb that the Germans have planted from going off. Upon arriving, Plumpick discovers the entire village deserted, except for the patients of the local insane asylum, who have been left behind. The patients soon escape the asylum, play dress-up with the various clothes they find lying around the village, and take it over. Not only this, but they crown Plumpick their king! With the German army still in the vicinity nearby, Plumpick must find the bomb, diffuse it, and save his "subjects" from certain death....

    An all-time foreign film classic, "Le Roi De Coeur," aka "King Of Hearts," is a marvelous movie, full of sweetness, charm, and both clever comedy & fine drama that also comments very well on the stupidity of war. Alan Bates, who sadly passed away recently, is simply wonderful as Private Plumpick, as is the lovely Genevieve Bujold as the young patient named Poppy that Plumpick falls for, and Adolfo Celi is quite funny as Plumpick's stuffy superior officer. The rest of the film's big ensemble cast, whether playing the asylum patients or various soldiers, are all excellent, too.

    The only thing that stops "King Of Hearts" from being perfect is that it *could* very well be argued that the insane asylum patients in this movie aren't...well, *insane* enough. They may speak strangely to one another or to Private Plumpick, but, for the most part, they act & behave quite coherently. But other than that, "King Of Hearts" is a very charming foreign film, and one of the very best films of the late, great Alan Bates. Definitely seek this one out.
  • writers_reign7 September 2006
    Warning: Spoilers
    The lunatic asylum as a metaphor is not of course original and has been employed in films as diverse as The Balcony and Folle Embellie but this one has an added element of charm that works heavily in its favour. Initially it's hard to accept Adolfo Celli as a Scottish officer or indeed Alan Bates as a Scottish soldier much less an ornithologist but as soon as the French actors are rolled out (almost literally) it picks up and is off and running. Micheline Presle is particularly striking and at one level the film is worthy of her daughter, Tonie Marshall, a more than accomplished director, but all the inmates have their moments - indeed De Broca seems to have deliberately provided each one with his or her moment in the sun so that the film is at its strongest as an ensemble piece although Genvieve Bujold's chocolate box beauty tends to catch the eye whenever she appears. The plot has been dealt with elsewhere but just for the record it's kick-started by one of those World War One blunders that were obviously commonplace and seem funny now but probably less so at the time especially to those on the receiving end; ornithologist Bates is mistaken by his Colonel for an explosives expert and ordered to diffuse the bombs thought to have been planted by the Germans prior to evacuating the town (along with the residents). Nothing Bates can say can deter the Colonel from sending an unqualified man to do a job for which he lacks both training and expertise and the upshot is that Bates inadvertently releases the inmates of the local asylum who then with the logic of a dream assume the clothes and roles of the townspeople. There's a fine sense of colour in the costumes, possibly inspired by Minelli but essentially it achieves its effects by a charm offensive. Highly recommended.
  • It would be easy to dismiss this anti-war film as naive and fey, but personally, I've had enough of sweaty, macho war pictures, and this candy-coloured fairy-tale suits me fine, with its echoes or foretaste of Fellini, Demy, Lester, Altman and Kusturica. The assumption that the mad are really sane is slightly dubious, and some of the more 'significant' messages are heavy-handed, while this paradise seems suspiciously white. Better still are the set-pieces which seem to erupt spontaneously from the narrative, as the fruitful chaos of the mad is asserted over the murderous order of the real world; the giddy Lesteresque farce; and the complex, bleak, inversion of traditional fairy-tales, involving time, midnight, kings, princesses and knights
  • Perhaps I am biased because the female lead, Genevieve Bujold (Coquelicot / Poppy) reminds me of a young French girl whom I fell in love with, and then lost, 40 years ago - the very same year that I first saw the film (1966 or early 1967).

    But personal memories apart, it is stunning to watch how French director Philippe de Broca managed to fuse hilarious fun and melancholy reflection in a mold that is an incredible mixture. There is fairy tale, commedia dell'arte, circus, slapstick, comedy, romance - and World War I carnage. Among the supporting roles, the cast features some of the foremost French actors of those times; and it is obvious that they enjoyed every bit of it, especially as they put in a number of biting quips along with marvelous cameos.

    This is what happens: For one day Private Charles Plumpick (Alan Bates) becomes, rather against his will, the mock king of a group of lunatics. This motley crowd have escaped from their asylum and have temporarily taken possession of a deserted town in Northern France between the 1918 front lines. Eventually Plumpick owes it to his lunatic friends that he survives when his Scottish battalion and their German counterpart meet in battle. There seems to be no way out of the madness of war. But don't miss the penultimate scene! (Rumour has it that it was censored in the American version at the time...)

    My favorite scene is when young, innocent Coquelicot takes the shortest way from the brothel (well - it's a French film, isn't it?) to the town hall to meet her loved one, the King of Hearts - using two telegraph wires as a tightrope.

    Why the film was a flop in its own country, and why neither a DVD or at least a video tape is available in France, I simply do not understand. Is it because only the French speak French but the Scots speak English and the Germans speak German? (Note de Broca himself, very early in the film, in a 5 second cameo as Private Adolf Hitler!) No need to worry - there are subtitles to help you along. Actually the DVD recently on sale in the USA *is* the original French version! Subtitled, and uncensored, to be sure.

    I cannot deny that the film does have its shortcomings. The story is somewhat inconsistent, there seem to be goofs galore, continuity is lousy. But then it seems that de Broca had to make do with a lousy budget, too. And what he has created is essentially a dream which opposes to the nightmare of war a vision of humanity. In such dreams inconsistency, goofs and lousy continuity do not really matter. So it is still 10 out of 10.
  • The King of Hearts should be seen by a new generation of viewers now in the

    summer of 2004. This is a great fable--which during the 1980s might have

    seemed dated, but now is more relevant than ever. It is a great meditation on war. As a movie, the circus-like atmosphere and characters combine to form a grand entertainment. We get seduced by the world of childlike imagination and sense of wonder we see in the inmates. We embrace them. Great

    philosophical moments abound--all surrounded by beautiful colors, wonderfully funny moments and a gorgeous music score. The final scene is such a classic-- and takes the audience by such surprise--one goes out of the film absolutely

    exhilarated. A funny, charming and ultimately profound film.
  • De Broca's delightful and surreal anti-war fantasy quickly attained a cult status when it was first released, but in recent years it has dropped more and more out of sight. A shame, because it is a charming film, the whimsical, romantic nature of which is entirely French. Even though the underlying message, that of preferring one kind of insanity to another is a simple, absurdist one, the viewer is still carried along by the Gaullic charm of it all.

    As the much-put-upon martial ornithologist, It's not just because Bates is the only English member of the cast that one is aware of some awkwardness in his casting. For English cinema goers in particular, familiar with his career, his usual jocular masculinity is hard to reconcile with an child-like character, swept along by events. Those who remember Bates and Oliver Reed wrestling nude in 'Women in Love' (1962) from the same period, or his cocky Vic in 'A Kind of Loving' (1962), may bulk at Bates portraying such a confused innocent. Having said that, Bates' actual performance is balanced and restrained, all of a piece with the rest of the cast.

    'King of Hearts' is primarily an ensemble piece. Many of the film's most delightful moments spring from the fancy-filled and flirtatious lunatics who quickly fill the streets, shops and occupations left by the fleeing villagers, their interaction with each other, and Plumpick. This world of fantasy is curtailed by the village walls, which physically as well as mentally encircle their environment. Outside is reality (no matter how ludicrously it is presented), conflict, death. Inside the walls is harmony of sorts, life celebrated. This distinction between outside and inside is made clear in the film. As soon as Plumpick attempts to ride a horse back into the real world for help, the music and the mass accompaniment of him by the inmates has to end until he is obliged to return.

    As the 'King of Hearts' Plumpick is at the center of his motley 'people', as well as of Coquelicot's (Geneviève Bujold) affections. Once he awards himself his name, in a panic and on the run, his 'subjects' call out for him. He is promptly 'crowned' (both by banging his head, inducing his initial confusion, and though acquiring his 'kingship'). He is awarded a bride, and accepted as an unique traveller into the society of the amiably mad. Their acceptance of him anticipates the final scene of the film, when a chastened Plumpick re-admits himself into their company, having rejected the larger insanity of warfare.

    It's fitting in a way that the least successful parts of the film lay outside of the village, where comic stereotypes replace whimsy and the comedy is drawn with much broader strokes. In particular Colonel MacBibenbrook (Adolfo Celi, better known as Emil Largo in 'Thunderball') is uncomfortably close to parody, and his part would have been much better cast with an actor like Trevor Howard who could excel with a line in ironic bombast. The Germans fare no better and, although amusing and lightweight in their capers, one misses the delicacy with which the lunatics are portrayed. One suspects that De Broca associates more with the geniality of the insane, as we all do given the options, and this sympathy is reflected on screen

    Tellingly, the lunatics are not completely oblivious to the hostile world which surrounds them, although they are content to ignore the immediate threat of destruction and Plumpick's warnings. At the end of the film, once the opposing forces have symbolically destroyed themselves, Marcel says:'I'm tired of this game, let's go back to our rooms'. With deliberate sadness, they divest themselves of their play robes and return to their asylum, a divestment scene at the same time quiet, serious and eminently sane. It is clear that they are mad - but not crazy.
  • In the waning days of WW l a retreating German regiment wires a French village with explosives, timing them to detonate when the Scots occupy the city. When the townsfolk get wind of this they flee, leaving only the residents of the insane asylum behind. Ordered to scout out the village Private Plumpnick (Allan Bates) mistakes the loons for the sane citizenry even if they are a little flamboyant in their actions. Meanwhile the clock is ticking towards zero hour, further complicated by stubborn officers on both sides willing to waste lives over the inconsequential parcel.

    Employing silent film technique and greatly assisted by Georges Delerue's touching music score director Phillippe De Broca carries King along with a well paced comic juxtaposition of the rational with the irrational for most of the film's length. Bates is an engaging everyman and Genieve Bujold as his love interest quite a knockout for an asylum resident. But after the raucous introduction of putting the inmates in colorful finery and having them stridently assume occupations of the towns people DeBroca runs out ways to keep them fresh relying more heavily on the already established bombast of the opposing commanders to hammer home the message and dilute the film's greatest asset, it's poignancy.

    The first time I saw King of Hearts was in 1970 at an east coast bastion of counter culture, The Rhode Island School of Design. With everyone on the same page we were not only as Jean Cocteau stated sharing the same dream but the same feelings and emotions as well. War was absurd and governed by vainglorious fools who quibbled little about sacrificing youth at its altar. With the conflict in Viet Nam intensifying and becoming highly unpopular King of Hearts spoke to the mood of the day with its sentimental tact but pointed condemnation of war. I was both touched and moved that night and in subsequent viewings over the next decade but like all Zeitgeist its shelf life eventually expired and the profoundity then comes across as a well intentioned simplistic approach today.
  • As I was reading through the comments here for "King of Hearts" I noticed two different schools of thought on the film. Many, like myself, have fond memories of seeing this film in the 60s and 70s and were delighted by it. The other comments come from younger viewers who see this film as being "dated" and not that funny, yet worthwhile viewing. At first I was a little miffed at this generations comments about a gem of my generation, until it dawned on me that they were somewhat correct. The film is a bit dated because they just do not make films like this anymore. It was never meant to be knee slapping funny. The humor was a non-intrusive "gentle" humor that seems to be a foreign concept in this day and age. Another reason many younger viewers do not "get" this film is because one of the themes here is non-conformity. This was a crucial concern of those growing up in the 60s. We wanted our individuality to show and not be just a number. Society has did a 180 since then. Today people are more concerned with fitting in than standing out. So yes, this film possibly is a bit dated. It is a bit of movie magic from a far simpler time and I have a feeling that there are a lot of people under 30 who would not see this as dated at all. King of Hearts is one of a small handful of films that celebrates the simple magic of being alive. Come and experience it.
  • Villagers in a small town North of France in 1918 believe their homes will be blown up by the Germans and quickly evacuate; Scottish soldier Alan Bates is "volunteered" to infiltrate, and inadvertently lets loose the patients in a lunatic asylum who got left behind. French-Italian co-production is a handsome little fairy tale with wartime satire and child-like whimsy, and director Philippe de Broca wastes no time setting the scene and getting right down to business. His approach is romantically silly and simple, but he's never simple-minded or pretentious. The filmmaker also uses Bates to his best advantage, keeping him running crazily like a patient himself, and he's careful not to overdose on Genevieve Bujold's youthful beauty (she's around just when she's needed). Funny and sweet, the movie was something of a slow-rising cult hit, and was back in theaters after some ten years had passed. **1/2 from ****
  • MarkMillman28 September 2002
    I saw King of Hearts on its original release when I was 15. For 35 years it has remained one of my favourite movies; perhaps the number one. Nothing in particular about the film so qualifies it. I like quite a number of "better" films, but KOH touched me in a way that stuck. It is an authentic movie; the reality is as simple as the english speaking english, the french french, and the germans german. The crazy people are sane, the sane people crazy. It is funny and tragic and perhaps a little too quirky but ... if you haven't tried it on you should.
  • In a small picturesque town established in France, towards the end of the First World War, a squadron of Imperial German troops implement an explosive booby trap in the conspicuous "blockhouse" that will obliterate the entire vicinity when the "knight strikes midnight". Its inhabitants desperately escaping in a flurry of fear. With the town now abandoned, a nearby Scottish French-speaking soldier is sent at the behest of his commanding officer to disarm the bomb before it detonates. However, in the midst of the mass scarper, the local asylum is left unlocked, resulting in the patients leaving their confinements and inhibiting the roles of the townspeople. The soldier, unbeknown to their mentalities, has no reason to doubt their way of living and must find the bomb swiftly whilst dealing with the surreal pageantry on display, whom crown him the "King of Hearts".

    De Broca's comedy-drama war feature Le Roi de coeur, is an absurdist's perspective of post-First World War disillusionment, and an extraordinarily phantasmagorical splendour at that. The cluster of joyous lunatics freely living their lives momentarily symbolise the societal impact that the war has had on several nations, France in particular. The British and German rivalry destroying the country whilst its inhabitants forced to watch their civilisation crumble, clinging onto limited cheer. However, aside from the introductory ten minutes that was unable to immediately establish a specific tone, de Broca alongside Boulanger's sparse screenplay manages to transform the bleak hostility of war into a slapstick-inspired comedy that harks back to the silent shenanigans of Chaplin creations. Think 'City Lights' meets 'Alice in Wonderland'.

    For the most part, King of Hearts remains uplifting through absurdism, providing distraction from terror by reinstating the colourful comedy of French cinema. Whilst not appreciated back in '66 upon its theatrical release, to which hardly anybody submitted attendance, it has since gained popularity in hindsight. Why? Well, to be honest, it's rather funny. The visual comedy alone has a unique blend of British comedy classics, like 'Dad's Army' and 'Monty Python' collaborations, and intellectual optical stability. It never resorts to pure slapstick just to conjure a laugh or two. The surreal lunacy of the entire situation and its eventual escalation, vivid characterisations included, exudes a prompt whimsicality that acts as a contagion for joy. Sure, performing acrobatic stunts on the town's clocktower ingrains Chaplin to a heavier degree. Yet the majority of the feature's runtime balances cultural significance with buoyant humour excellently. A few darker moments, such as mercilessly shooting various individuals at point-blank range, do not necessarily merge with the substantially larger comedic tones. However, they provide constant reminders that this is undoubtedly a war film at its core. Consequently, these acts of horror should be rightfully displayed.

    The inherent problem with an absurdist's joke like these merry lunatics, is that it's overstretched for an entire film. King of Hearts is a one concept comedy. There's only so many occasions the same gag can be repeated before it becomes exhausted. Unfortunately the second act traverses that monotony with Plumpick, perfectly portrayed by Bates with exquisite exaggerative body acting, adhering to the playful townspeople whilst adamant in locating the bomb.

    Still, despite the repetitive nature of its humour, King of Hearts remains a refreshingly absurd comedy on a devastating historical event. De Broca's clear direction cements the surrealist nature of said concept whilst ornately injecting culture and characterisation into its hilarity as well. That, right there, is a royal flush.
  • A timeless and exquisite treatment of profound and compelling issues, this 1966 International collaboration, was one of the few films ever to give tasteful testimony to being truly sane, or maybe I should say being truly (in)sane in a cruel and berserk world. If you liked Life Is Beautiful, E.T., Star Wars, The Great Dictator, Gandhi, Henry V, Blazing Saddles, or Rain Man... you will probably love this movie. It remains for me among the top three or four, of all movies I have ever seen.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    My wife and I just finished watching this film on DVD (or I should say I finished watching, my wife bailed 20 minutes into it). We watch foreign films, we watch old movies, we watch indie movies, we watch a ton of movies.

    This movie came to me as a recommendation from a co-worker who is old enough to have served in the Vietnam war. I was born as that war came to an end.

    This film was okay. It might have been great in its day, but it holds up poorly now. Why? Well, there are other films I feel that have stood the test of time much better than "King of Hearts". Aside from Genevieve Bujold and Alan Bates, the rest of the cast are unknowns (even today). Alan Bates is supposed to be this great English actor, but I had not heard of him. I understand he does non-mainstream films, but still, he isn't that good. If he was, I would have heard of him. I know his contemporaries such as Peter Finch and James Mason.

    The film is droll, sure, but I felt detached, which is the worst thing a director can do to his audience. I want to be able to experience what the main character is feeling, but "King of Hearts" is so simple, and Alan Bates so one-dimensional, that in the end, there were just moments that were enjoyable. To me, this is a relatively forgettable film.

    The story was not complex or engrossing. A soldier is sent to disable a bomb in a town whose residents have fled. The residents of the insane asylum escape and become the town's residents. However, Alan Bates character knows they are from the asylum very quickly. He has dialogue with the patients, and there's an attempt to highlight that war is more insane than the mentally ill, and that the mentally ill are more humane and sane. Some other reviewer mention the theme of non-conformity, which I suppose was Alan Bates' character not being a part of the military in the end.

    This didn't mean much to me because I'd rather watch "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" which deals with mental illness more accurately, and non-conformity more poignantly. I'd rather watch "The Deer Hunter" or "Platoon" or "Born on the Fourth of July" or "Schindler's List" or "Saving Private Ryan" or "The Thin Red Line" or "Apocalypse Now" for the insanity of war. I get that "King of Hearts" is a light, gentle satire, but that also makes it boring in my book. As I said, I want more from a movie, and "King of Hearts" is just average--not bad, just average.

    As for the reviewer who suggested that the younger generations (which includes mine) isn't concerned with non-conformity, I have to say that in my observation, the people I know who have tried not to conform end up being even more conformist than those who accept that life is inescapably conformist. Alan Bates' character may not have decided to conform to the military, but he decided to conform to be a mental health patient in the end, which has its own set of rules. I'd rather watch "Into the Wild" for non-conformity, and wonder about the sanity of that character. It's far more interesting to me.

    In the end, it's all a matter of perspective and opinion and taste. I'm sure there are movies from the 1980's that have nostalgic value for me that do nothing for the generations younger than myself (or older than myself for that matter!) "King of Hearts" seems to have a place in baby-boomer's hearts.
  • vostf11 September 2006
    Why did this movie flop the same way 'Bringing up Baby' did some thirty years earlier? Howard Hawks acknowledged that you can't have all the characters in a movie behaving foolishly. Foolish is funny when you are able to see at the same time what are normal people, i.e. you can't have a movie only with the Marx Bros. playing pranks on themselves. Name it comic discrepancy if you will.

    In The King of Hearts everything, everybody is supposed to be a comic character. The setup is already a carnival war before the lunatics are released in between. No question it is more difficult for a clown to be funny and steal the show if he goes on stage after another clown with the same kind of humor. So what? Director de Broca and his writer fumbled one interesting idea: a war satire with lunatics taking over Mankind's asylum. Remember that custard pie fight Kubrick eventually left on the editing floor for Dr Strangelove? Here we are desperately waiting for the images to be more than pretty: Alan Bates is handsome, Genevieve Bujold is beautiful and the whole cast is seemingly enjoying every bit of it. It might well have been a very funny shoot which is usually a sign the audience will get bored and here you do get bored as actors play for laughs and lines read for cleverness. From the very start the whole thing was way out of tune.
  • My mother had seen King of Hearts years ago, when she was in college. When I was about seven or eight (a few years ago, she rented the movie. Most of the movie is in French and it had subtitles, so even though I could just barely understand what was being said, I had a wonderful understanding of what was going on. It's the type of movie where what's on screen is enough to let a person get a gist of the scene. When I first saw the movie, I remembered how lovely the music was, how I grew to love the "crazy" people from the asylum, and how beautiful the movie was. When my mom bought the movie, we watched it constantly. I still watch it at least once a month. It's one of my favorite movies. I really do love the music. For me, it simulates fun insanity. I love every single aspect of King of Hearts. If you ever have a chance to see it, then go! Go see King of Hearts!
  • One of greatest movies of all time, it is charming and sweet, funny and romantic. It is a unique film that at once captures the best of humanity and the folly of war. Set in a small town in World War I France, it has a crazy premise that works because the film is true to that premise to the very end. Everything about it is superb: the acting, the direction, the writing, the score, the cinematography. Alan Bates and Genevieve Bujold are perfectly cast in the lead, but the entire cast is great. The music is beautiful. The ending is brilliant.

    If you rent it, be sure you get the subtitled version. It is in three languages (French, English, German), and the dubbed version loses a lot.
  • One of the great ones; makes you ask the question, " Who are the real lunatics?" Excellent cast and direction; done with rare humor, yet carries a profound message
  • SnoopyStyle14 September 2018
    It's 1918 in the last days of the war and the Germans are in full retreat. The British are advancing on Marville, France but the Germans have boobytrapped the town and the bridge. Topographer Private Charles Plumpick (Alan Bates) is volunteered into an impossible mission to infiltrate the town and disarm the explosives. He is chased by the Germans into an asylum where the inmates believe him to be the King of Hearts. Coquelicot (Geneviève Bujold) takes him as her fiancee. He tries to lead them out of the town but they are unwilling to follow.

    This is a dark war satire. I don't really understand why the Germans would abandon the town. The three British soldiers are too silly. It's a balancing act and the movie has to figure out the level at which it operates. Once Hitler is introduced, he has to be the villain. He can't be a side character or end up as a cameo. It would be great to have Hitler be the German soldier staying behind to set off the explosives. The fact of losing the town to crazy people could set him off on his historical path. As for Alan Bates, he's a fine veteran actor but the role is begging for a younger, more inexperienced kid. He's in his 30s and the private should be an innocent teenager. The final shootout is stupid although I get the point. I wonder if Hitler could elevate this.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I saw this at my college over thirty years ago, and remember it fondly. Made in the late 1960s, it became a hit with American audiences in the grips of our madness called "Vietnam".

    British soldier Charles Pumpnick (Alan Bates) is ordered in a typical screw-up to go into a French village to defuse a large bomb left by the Germans. It is World War I, and the British are led by Col. MacBibbenbrook (Adolfo Celi) who is actually sending Pumpnick for a second reason: he wants to know if the Germans have actually left the town, so that his soldiers can "reoccupy" it. Given the tedious and murderous stalemate on the Western Front between the Allies and Central Powers in their trenches, any temporary regaining of land is a great victory.

    The Germans are led by an officer as fully suspicious of the British as MacBibbenbrook is of them. So he decides to test the waters by pulling out most of the troops, leaving a trio to watch for the British turning up. Pumpnick, rather reluctantly, does pop up, and soon discovers that the French citizenry has long since fled the town in the wake of the massive warfare around it. The only people he find seem very eccentric types. They should be - they are the inmates of the local insane asylum, who were abandoned by the doctors and staff. They have now decided to take over their imagined roles in the new reality of the deserted village. Soon Pumpnick realizes this, but he soon finds himself protective of these lunatics. He also finds their gentle insanity has some real substance to it that moves him - much more than the intense insanity of the outside world does.

    Other writers and artists have tackled the idea of the madmen running the asylum. A good example is Edgar Allen Poe, in his short story, "The System of Dr. Tarr and Professor Feather". But Philippe De Broca's film compares insanity in two forms, and finds the form we normally "punish" by incarceration in asylums to be far kinder than the larger one. None of the madmen and women of the asylum threaten or hurt Pumpnick (a point which shows this is a fantasy, as in real life they would have some dangerous types). The ones who we reward with rank and power are far more willing to send the Pumpnicks of the world into dangerous (if not deadly) situations.

    The conclusion of the film is too well known for me to discuss. I will only say that when the more dangerous outside lunatics get rid of each other's threat, Pumpnick opts to stay on with his new friends. They will welcome him.

    Aside from this I like to comment on more point. De Broca had a bit part where he shows that things on the outside can only get worse, when he shows up as Adolf Hitler briefly, delivering the German officer a message. Perhaps I should say the intensely bad situation will get even more intensely bad in twenty years time.
  • I guess this passed for charming and profound to the French masses in 1966. Despite the bad Felliniesque carnival atmosphere, the movie is grindingly tedious. The "war is insanity" message is delivered in a shallow and superficial way that must have been considered cliche even then. The sexism is palpable throughout (all the women are represented by brothel prostitutes, and a naked man exposing himself to nuns is presented as amusing and, I guess, "defiant"). It took me two attempts to sit through the whole thing. It has its moments but it's like trudging through molasses to get to them. As much as I like Alan Bates, this was just not worthwhile.
  • Unfairly labeled a "hippy" film, this movie's message, although trite in it's general theme, is a masterpiece. I was moved by the unique characters and I was sad by their ultimate surrender. The story of this movie is secondary to the characters. It is the characters we remember. They are not merely characters, but "hearts"- people who respond not my logic but by feelings. The emotional impact of this film is still with me after all these years. It is very 1960s, when anti-war stands were commonplace in America, but is there ever a good war? Is there ever not room for pure innocence? I prefer the french version of this film with subtitles, the English version destroys the sensitvity of the voices that communicate the film's message.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    France, during World War I. Realizing that their city is facing a grave threat, the inhabitants flee in fright. Freed from their guardians, the inmates of an asylum invade the streets, returning to their former professions or pursuing their favorite hobbies. The lone British soldier sent to salvage the situation, supposedly an explosives expert, gets hailed as their long-awaited king...

    "Le roi de coeur" is an anti-war movie on the "war is madness" theme. Sadly enough, it confuses and dilutes its own message by turning a number of the characters into comic buffoons, where these characters would have worked better as (relatively) sane and straight-thinking persons. Many of the soldiers and generals seem to have tumbled directly out of a clown car, which means that it's hard to see them as warriors evolving against a background of death and destruction. Consequently the viewer finds it difficult to imagine the events as a desperate battle over life-or-death stakes.

    "Le roi" also tends to repeat the same kind of scenes, especially with regard to the inmates of the asylum. Madmen and madwomen dance, prance and caper around in colorful costumes ; they welcome their monarch, play with circus animals and applaud daring stunts. And that's it, basically. The cumulative effect isn't whimsical or poetic or unsettling, it's boring.

    Still, the movie is not without merit. Some of the satire still bites : for instance, is crowning a complete stranger more irrational than crowning some sixteen-year-old nitwit just because he's the only surviving grandson of the last king ? And is serving as a courtier to an imaginary king more irrational than hanging on to an old gala uniform and wishing for the triumphant return of the shah/the czar/the emperor of Vietnam ? Besides, the stunt work is impressive and the setting is both beautiful and memorable. (Am I right in thinking that the movie was filmed in the storied city of Senlis ? A most noble sight !)
  • cci_dc27 April 2006
    During WW1, an insane asylum is left between the German and French battle lines. The abandoned inmates get out and take over the town. This is where the main part of the movie deals with.

    At the end, the German and French armies realise the area is free and return simultaneously.

    A big battle occurs in front of the insane patient's eyes. They realise these people outside the walls must be crazier than those civilized people inside the walls.

    They return to their asylum, making sure the gates are locked to keep out those crazies outside the walls!

    Sad sad world outside. Safe inside the walls.
  • dromasca30 September 2022
    'Le roi de coeur' starts from a formidable idea and ends up betting too much on it. In the filmography of director Philippe de Broca, the film occupies a special place, being considered one of his most 'serious' films in terms of message and compared to most of his other creations that aim for pure entertainment. The heroes in 'Le roi de coeur' are either soldiers or patients in a madhouse. Soldiers, German and British or rather Scottish, butcher each other in the final months of the First World War. The asylum patients live with the nostalgia of a royal and princely past and become the masters of the city abandoned by the local population and by the retreating occupants. When the world is engulfed in madness, are not the diagnosed mentally ill more rational than those on the outside? What is sanity and where can it be found? 'Le roi de coeur' approaches this theme in the context of an emphatic anti-war message. In the 60s the film enjoyed success and gained the status of a 'cult film'. Some of the luster has started to fade over time, but what's left is still pretty consistent and interesting.

    The screenwriters do not hesitate to play with symbols as explicit as possible. The lead hero is an ornithologist soldier, who takes care of the pigeons of a Scottish regiment. Pigeons, which were to become a symbol of peace much later, were used during the First World War to transmit messages across enemy trenches. Private Charles Plumpick has the misfortune of being the only one in the regiment who speaks French and for this reason he is sent on an impossible mission to prevent the blowing up of the mined town by the retreating Germans. Arriving in the city and being chased by the Germans, he takes refuge in the mental health asylum where he declares himself to be the "King of Hearts". When the mined town is deserted by both the Germans and the inhabitants, the lunatics come out of the asylum's gates left open and take over it. They do it with charm and imagination, as only fools know how to do. They have the food, the drink and the clothing of the whole city at their disposal. The war from outside, however, will not let the colorful performance that seems to resemble a Fellini circus continue for a long time.

    The metaphor behind the question 'where is the real madness?' works up to a point, but it can't support an entire movie. 'Le roi de coeur' looks very good visually. There is one formidable scene, that of the two regiments - British and German - entering and marching in the town square without noticing each other. Pure comedy, Philippe de Broca at his best. But the historical metaphor is too far from history. The characters, except for the main hero, lack any depth. The military - both German and English - are portrayed based on stereotypes. They look like in a vaudeville, their uniforms are impeccable and the music of the brass band and bagpipes is sounding loud even after more than four years of bloody war. Even the lunatics gallery fails to provide characters that are memorable or at least differentiated from each other in typology and character. Highly gifted actors like Pierre Brasseur or Jean-Claude Brialy get roles in which they are almost unrecognizable and which we immediately forget. Geneviève Bujold, in one of her first consistent roles, will perhaps be remembered only for her physical presence. The notable exception is Alan Bates, already a well-known actor when this movie was made, who creates a memorable role that is more sensible and luminous than most of his other screen appearances at the time. The image of the king crowned by the lunatics, reluctantly assuming the crown to discover little by little where the lesser madness can be found, is the one that sticks in the spectators' memory, I believe.

    The educated film fan has one more problem to face. It's very hard to appreciate asylum movies after having watched 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest', which would be made nine years later. Any comparison is unfavorable. This also happens with 'Le roi de coeur', which is perhaps not even the cult film it was considered for a while. And yet, there are many reasons why this film is still worth watching today.
  • If you really really like the single joke in the film (i.e., a soldier stumbles into an insane asylum and is proclaimed their king), then you'll no doubt think this film is brilliant. My problem is that I kept waiting for MORE. But, the only thing I got was a rather bland film apart from his dealings with the inmates. In fact, the film really looked much like the Richard Lester film How I Won the War (1967)--another spoof of war that just didn't seem very funny to me either. I think the same material could have been handled much better with perhaps a more Monty Python approach (as was first brought up by muscoe from California) or perhaps by giving it the Peter Sellers touch--anything to make it more than a single joke film.

    I just thought it was tiresome and wonder if maybe those who made the movie were perhaps using drugs that made them THINK it was so !@&%!# funny--after all, it was made in the 1960s.
An error has occured. Please try again.