flipshoes

Not only is this film's story-telling sort of like in a filmed stage play (just people talking all along), but its looks (images and set design) are quite second-rate, like in a low-budget ready-for-TV movie. The acting is extremely poor, over-acting everywhere (compare this with "The Godfather" and its brilliant cast, and its excellent cinematography by Gordon Willis), and Kirk Douglas looks about as Italian as I appear Chinese. All in all, a major disappointment.

Yes, I am well aware of the fact this movie was in some way "seminal" and was banned in the former GDR for a very long time. Nonetheless it is a quite sluggish and dull film, as dull and boring as the stuffy East German state with its peculiar preachy economy of scarcity in general. Besides, it is at least half an hour too long in its runtime, with many irrelevant scenes and - let's be outright - a couple of characters you don't really care about. Manfred Krug is as good as always, a true professional actor, but the story is not at all captivating. So let's not interpret too many cinematic ideas into this movie. It's simply a fairly dull piece of art that had the chance of being politically adverse to socialist mainstream back in 1966. Otherwise nobody would be discussing it any more today.

That's better for the emoji than having 'em come like they go. Keep in mind that no bragger rams his dens thru Baltimore all the while there's a sagging shack down the drains. So said, we had 'em brawl the coons and then Dennis came!

'Nuff said

...certainly not good either. If you've seen every single one of Woody's movies from the mid-60's till now (and I incidentally have), then you know this one is somewhere near the lower middle part of his oeuvre - quality-wise.

Larry David isn't really bad either. However, in principle I rather dislike other actors "playing" Woody Allen's typical character. Kenneth Branagh was awful at it (in "Celebrity"), Michael Caine was sort of O.K. in "Hannah and Her Sisters", but in general I prefer the original, not the copy.

Especially when it says "a middle-aged, misanthropic divorcée from New York City ..." - c'm on, folks - Larry David looks not like a middle-aged man but rather like a grandfather in his 70's! The whole basis of this story isn't Pygmalion-style any more, it's more close to child molestation. Really weird, if not plain distasteful.

That, in connection with the despicable character portrayed by David and the dilapidated interior settings (that flat looks like a homeless shelter) really made this movie hard to watch at times. On the other hand, there are the usual witty one-liners and sarcastic views on life. So, all in all, it's a decent 5-stars-out-of-10 movie. Woody could do a lot better. And still can, as "Midnight in Paris" then proved.

I'm a bit amazed to see that so many people seem to really like this movie. To me it is just a more-than-pretentious, rather pompous fake and fails completely on nearly every level.

Now, I am fully aware that le Carré novels tend to be far more realistic and, thus, slow-paced than, say, James Bond movies. Nevertheless, the pacing of this film was so abominably slow that I had the feeling I was watching grass grow until it finally came to an end after long, long,...VERY LONG two hours plus. What really annoyed me all the time, though, was the filmmakers' meticulous obsession with the retro-style look of the whole film. They should have really paid a bit more attention to the on-screen story-telling (preventing the audience from falling asleep) than just celebrating the 70's look of every scene (starting from the hairdressing to clothing, dull 70's housing and cars, etc.).

In one scene you witness an insect flying in the back of a stylish Citroen DS (why?), in another - key - scene an aircraft is landing in the background and menacingly approaching the characters in the foreground (why??); in one of the (luckily deleted) scenes featured on the DVD you can watch Gary Oldman preparing and enjoying a fried egg for (I guess) some two minutes (why???).

This is, as I mentioned above, extremely pretentious, artsy movie-making. If it weren't for some of the good actors, some of the nice camera work and Alberto Iglesias's decent score, I would say: Simply forget it and READ le Carré instead.

"Der Architekt" tells an interesting variation of the old story of a family confronted with serious trouble caused by underlying interpersonal problems and a "dark" secret from the past. This is always a good basis for a psychological drama.

However, pretty much of it is exaggerated and overacted (which is, by the way and IMHO, still typical of German cinema: "Real" people simply don't behave the same way as most of the on-screen characters). And many metaphors/symbols are simply carried too far (e.g., the name "Winter" for the troubled lead character stumping through the all-present discomforting winter landscape).

Josef Bierbichler is really great, but the rest of the cast can't keep up with him. This is especially true of the currently way overrated Matthias Schweighöfer. He should really take some acting classes in order to get rid of his mannerisms (e.g., constant grimacing); his performance is plain awful.

Let's begin with: I've seen every single movie of Woody Allen's several times, so I do know what to compare the latest one with. And I love his classics, "Annie Hall", "Hannah and her sisters", "Crimes and Misdemeanors" and what have you. So I really loved the world of Mr. Allen, the topics he dealt with and many of the characters he created in the past.

But since the last few of his pictures I get the slight impression that Woody Allen is trying to be someone he isn't and never will be. He was great at making films such as the aforementioned but he always failed when he tried to be Bergman or Hitchcock. Recently - I presume due to his constant successes in Europe - he has turned to doing ultimately more "European"-style films. After two (supposedly) British films, he tries to bring us a Spanish-flavored movie, dealing with (as usual *yawn*) the topics of people in search of relationships, the meaning of life in general and art in particular, and - especially - the question of how to express one's feelings in art, depending on if one has talent (or even genius) or none. (And of course we know from ten thousand films in history that artists are troubled personalities. *yawn again*)

Now this one is full of clichés, in fact if one were to give an annual prize to the film containing the most clichés and one-dimensional characters (I would suggest calling it the "Imitation of Life"-award), then "Vicky Cristina Barcelona" would beyond any doubt be the winner in 2008. It is barely unbelievable how many unrealistic, silly, and stupid clichés that one would expect only in a cheap novel appear in this picture. The story is silly beyond belief, it even requires an off-screen narrator (truly a badge of bad screen writing as one has to tell the audience things which one isn't able or willing to convey with more elegant - visual - means: basically missing everything what real film-making should be about...) to keep all parts together, the characters are so lifeless that even the good acting by Bardem or Cruz are wasted, and Catalonian life - of course - consists mainly of constant guitar music, the architecture of Gaudí and the pleasure of good food, sex and wine...

All that is so unbelievably superficial that one could imagine it having been conceived by a Harold Robbins-style writer. (As a mere example: sure, any painter would have a friend owning a private jet and would be able to fly it; and obviously, all characters are wealthy past compare and never have to deal with any day to day worries.)

Which brings me to the last point of criticism: Woody Allen's universe has always been one-dimensional to a certain degree. His characters have always only been inhabitants of the limited cosmos of Mr. Allen; you find artists, writers, filmmakers and actors and the likes. Unfortunately, the world in which I live also includes engineers, scientists, tax inspectors, waitresses, car mechanics, cab drivers etc. And their everyday life is quite different, yet most interesting and rewarding as well.

So, basically I think this anaemic world view of Mr. Allen's has ultimately lost its charms. What remains are merely clichés, clichés, and clichés. And they are getting worse and worse from film to film.

This movie is a commendable attempt at telling the story of a simple, yet brave man and thus well-deservedly (50 years later!) commemorating his (albeit futile, by an absurd delay of seven minutes)attempt at assassinating Hitler. For this reason alone, this movie must be praised. One should, however, never confuse the contents (in this case: the political statements of a movie), with the form (viz. the style and craftsmanship with which a movie is made).

Keeping this in mind, "Georg Elser" is _not_ a good movie. It suffers from a very unsophisticated screenplay which very often most gruffly connects scenes without any elegance, which includes many characters that aren't fully developed at all (e.g. the Brian Dennehy character is quite unfinished which is all too bad considering the enormous abilities of this actor, the same goes with the Vadim Glowna character). Worst of all, the movie is very poorly directed. Brandauer as an actor is flawless as usual, he gives a good performance as "Elser", but his directing is pretty bad. Given the fact that Brandauer had such remarkable men at hand as cinematographer Lajos Koltai (the images in this movie are very beautiful - the autumnal tints convey a certain feeling of doom) or composer Georges Delerue (a beautiful title theme), the overall result is most disappointing. There are many sequences lacking proper editing (shots that are way too long and thus very tiresome), there are other sequences which do not seem to make too much sense at all (e.g. several haphazardly combined shots in the Bürgerbräukeller), the storyline is never sufficiently tense.

It is a pity: This movie could have been far better in the hands of a qualified director.

"Scoop" is IMHO opinion distinctly better than its predecessor, "Match Point" - the main reason being that Woody Allen is very much at home again: His art of cinema-making really "works" on safe ground such as in "Scoop". The movie has wit, there are funny one-liners and hilarious situations, it's a very entertaining bit of cinema, very much like Allen's best "light" classics from former times.

"Match Point", on the contrary, still strikes me as a pretentious mistake, Woody Allen dabbling in the direction of an overly serious picture (something close to "Crimes and Misdemeanors revisited") in a very arty fashion (just think of the absurdly showy use of opera music in "Match Point").

In "Scoop" everything works. Mind you, it's no masterpiece, but its one and a half hours offer a delightful entertainment.

...but it's a total disaster - unbelievably bad, horrible, it's one of those thrillers where you keep thinking: The plot HAS to thicken now, there MUST be some action coming up etc. - But then you realize: more than one hour has passed, and nothing seems to fit. The timing is painfully slow, there are several rather silly and absurdly boring scenes instead of hardly any good action or suspense, and - alas - it's all in vain because then you realize there is no time left for the movie to get its act together.

"Rosebud" is a complete mess, albeit with an impressive cast. But what should one really think of skin-and-bones Peter O'Toole in the lead as a secret agent (whose charms are as limited as could be, given his wooden appearance), what should one think of Richard Attenborough in an absolutely grotesque rôle? The anamorphic cinematography and Laurent Petitgirard's score are quite fine, but that's about it.

This movie leaves the impression of some talent-free director trying to imitate a decent spy thriller without any acceptable script at his hands (I didn't happen to read the novel, but it must have been better, considering its popularity in the 70s). But the bitter truth is that renowned director Otto Preminger, one of the really great Hollywood filmmakers, the maker of "Laura", "Anatomy of a Murder", "Exodus", was responsible for this bummer. How on earth could this happen??

Where the original 1972 "Poseidon" film by Ronald Neame offers a plot full of metaphysical connotations, a nearly perfect mix of drama (with exceptionally good actors - Gene Hackman and Ernest Borgnine were magnificent!) and action sequences, this remake suffers from quite a few major flaws:

1. The screenplay is bad, really bad: the characters are pretty bland, there are only very few scenes which could be called dramatic in an emotional, more subtle sense. You would expect a remake at least to be able to stick to the original (good) screenplay, but no way here. (Plus, the actors are ... well, let's not comment on this any further. They match the screenplay quite well.)

2. Wolfgang Petersen displays a remarkable lack of good "timing": There is, basically, constant action (which makes it very tiresome), explosions everywhere and at all times (my goodness, did that vessel carry dynamite sticks??), plus highly implausible stunts. Remember the Shelley Winters diving stunt in the original? Well, here we see that kind of thing umpteen times. It's rather ludicrous, in fact. - In fact, the action was so exaggerated that it started boring me and I nearly fell asleep in the middle of this constant boom-boom.

3. And, lastly, the "overkill" of CGI images is horrible, terrible, it ruins every picture. Obviously, action film-makers have so fallen in love with the capability of creating "realistic" images by high-speed computers that they tend to show them off to an inordinate degree. The don't seem to understand that the audience goes to the cinema to watch movies with stories about PEOPLE, not with the visual appearance of video games.

My conclusion: "too much" on every level, apart from those that really count: direction, screenplay, acting.

Yes, "Casino Royale" is a most enjoyable film, its star delivers a very fine performance as 007, it mostly follows the traditional James Bond movie recipe for success, its cinematography and editing are (as usual) flawless, and even though the movie is rather long, it has a very good build-up of tension, so you're amazed to realize two and a half hours have passed when the end credits appear.

However, there are two things which I feel obliged to criticize (of course reflecting my personal views, nothing else): Firstly, what bothered me most about the movie was the fact that it related to James Bond's beginnings (thus paying a tribute to Ian Fleming's first novel), yet it was set in 2006. Of course, this is highly illogical, even if the retro-look of the film's beginning (black and white, with the gun barrel sequence only appearing at the end of the pre-credits sequence - quite unusual, in fact!) implies that the character of James Bond is still a young beginner.

It would have been much more interesting to have "Casino Royale" take place in, say, 1958 or what-have-you, but anyway prior to the first James Bond film "Doctor No" (1962), thus making it the story of young James Bond (magnificently portrayed by Daniel Craig) winning his spurs. This would have turned "Casino Royale" into a kind of costume film: Wouldn't this have been a much more daring, yet fascinating approach?

Instead, we are presented the whole load of - (in 2006) unfortunately inevitable, yet incredibly dull - techno-mumbo-jumbo with people tracking others down due to cell phones or being logged into databases via laptops. I think that technical stuff gets rather boring in the long run. Moreover, it adds nothing to the story. The real highlights of the movie are those Fleming wrote back in 1953: a thrilling casino sequence with plenty of psychology, a fiendish torture scene, a female companion who turns out to be a traitor. These are the basic ingredients of the story, let's face it, the rest is rather dispensable.

Second critizism: I am not particularly enthusiastic about David Arnold's score (and that includes the incredibly dull title song, too). I think this movie should have had a subtle score comparable to John Barry's substantial "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" soundtrack music (1969). As always, Arnold tries to copy Barry's style (and to some extent, successfully, especially in action scenes) but unfortunately he does not come up with melodic material comparable to any of John Barry's.

If you listen to the music, it mostly leaves a frantic impression, with some fairly uninteresting and rather indistinguishable softer moments in between. Hardly ever is there any melodic strain which I would really consider worthwhile remembering; nothing even remotely comparable to, say, Barry's "We have all the time in the world". Incidentally, the best part of the "Casino Royale" score isn't even originally by Arnold - it's his end title arrangement of Monty Norman's James Bond Theme.

After I had read this late Graham Greene novel years ago, I was immediately fascinated by its le Carré-like plot with very much Greene-like characters. I immediately thought that this should have been made into a movie.

Shortly afterwards, I learnt that Preminger had already made it into a film back in 1979, so I was of course very eager to see this movie. Yet - this film has fallen into oblivion, it is not commercially available and it is hardly ever on TV.

Very strange if you consider that it features a cast bristling with splendid British character actors (Nicol Williamson, Derek Jacobi, Robert Morley, Richard Attenborough, to name but a few) and has a screenplay by Tom Stoppard (which IMHO was a straightforward, enjoyable transfer of Greene's novel to the screen).

So, only yesterday did I have the opportunity to watch it on TV. Certainly, it is no cinematographic highlight: it is very low-key, very unfussily directed by Otto Preminger in a more than plain style, and has basically no "action" (but then - what would you expect of a Greene novel?). It might as well have been made for TV, but this impression may also be due to the serious budget problems while filming.

However, it has some splendid performances by actors whom I could watch all day long. The mere cast turns this film into a success and makes it worthwhile watching.

... a question many viewers seem to raise. (A decision which, of course, ultimately is a matter of taste.) In my humble opinion, "Cabaret" is just a touch ahead of "The Godfather".

Certainly, 1972 must have been a lucky year with two top-shelf movies competing for the best picture award, both being considered as masterpieces even 30 years later. And "The Godfather" certainly is part of cinema history, beyond any doubt: together with its follow-ups it is a landmark of epic story-telling, it has brilliant actors, it has Gordon Willis's excellent cinematography, very strong editing, too, and it has made an enormous impact on a whole film genre.

However, "Cabaret" strikes me as something completely different, and something which is far harder to achieve than "The Godfather". It is a musical, yet it isn't, it most skilfully (!) conveys feelings and a message that go far beyond the pure storyline (even though it is also a very entertaining film even for the low-brow viewer). It has excellent performances, too (especially by its supporting cast), and it has aged very well (something that cannot be said of most of the films of the early 70s).

Personally, I think the difference between "The Godfather" and "Cabaret" is somewhat like the difference between perfect craftsmanship - and very good craftsmanship with a touch of genius, on the other hand.

Now you decide what is more impressive.

I watched this movie on TV after having read some pretty good reviews, but I was soon disgusted, even on the verge of getting angry.

Really hate to say so, but I think this movie is a most pretentious mistake considering the serious issue it's dealing with. It is filled with a tremendous amount of bad clichés, it appears false, and it's overly schmaltzy: a really hokey movie. Frankly, I can't understand how anyone living a real life could be deeply moved by this truly bad "imitation of life".

Even if this originally was a low-budget production with the best of intentions - it turns out to be "Hollywood" at its worst.

"A Fine Madness" is a very strange movie. It stars Sean Connery (with a very strange performance, one of his worst - somewhere between Bond and a plain ruffian; frankly, I don't think Connery is apt for any comedy at all) plus a lavish supporting cast consisting of renowned character actors - but, still, the film is horrible.

It has an absolutely inane screenplay, and Irvin Kershner's (lack of) direction leaves a most confusing impression, even considering the somewhat strange Sixties style which was "en vogue" then. (John Addison's score, however is quite enjoyable.) You never know what's going to happen, and worse, you're not even interested in any of it. Nothing is truly funny, and some aspects are merely annoying (at least by today's standards), e.g. the jocularity of a man beating up his female companion. Samson Shillitoe is a despicable character, so you don't really convey any empathy for him or his needs. - What a waste of talent.

Having read so much about this movie being Hitchcockesque and hearing it each time again it's broadcast on TV, I must confess that I strongly oppose to this notion: "Still of the Night" is IMHO a romantic thriller, rather a kind of whodunit - and whodunits certainly are NO Hitchcock movies. (If you don't believe me, just consult the standard bibliography on Hitch.)

And frankly, I don't see all too much of Hitchcock in it at all - despite the specific touch of certain scenes. Of course, the bedroom window is reminiscent of "Rear Window" and the dream sequence reminds one of "Spellbound" etc.; but if you truly consider all this as quoting Hitchcock, then you wouldn't be able to make a single new movie at all with strong mothers, doctors, auction sales, blonde women, suspecting police detectives, empty cottages or stabbed victims. No - for me, this - on its own - is no Hitchcock. The term "Hitchcock" implies the proper screenplay, in the first place.

However, I do enjoy the movie's subtle and yet very brittle atmosphere. Cinematography is very intense and atmospheric, mostly dark settings and warm colors, the sparse use of soundtrack music is very emotive (a beautiful piece of piano plus orchestra as main theme), and the actors are very good at portraying more or less complicated people.

Yet, every time I watched this movie so far, in the end I have had the feeling something vital is missing, something which prevents this film from being the real McCoy. It should have been at least 15 minutes longer, the screenplay should have included some more characters (after all, who else could have been considered the culprit in the end?) and also some more real "twists" in the storyline. It's a pity because a better screenplay could have made "Still of the Night" one of the (few) 80s classics.

I appreciate Bergman's mastery of cinema very much, especially his inimitable ways of story-telling, together with the splendid photography of Gunnar Fischer or Sven Nykvist, and - always - a magnificent cast of first-rate actors. Undoubtedly, "Wild Strawberries" or "The Seventh Seal" are classics of world cinema.

And with regard to the cast and cinematography, "The Magician" is no exception to this appreciation. - However, I do feel a bit uncomfortable each time a touch of humour comes up in Bergman films. In my humble opinion, these movies mostly haven't aged so well - be it that our sense of humour has changed over the past 50 years, be it that Bergman's humour might seem a bit forced, in the first place. My overall impression of "The Magician" is that of a fairly heterogeneous movie with a tremendous beginning, then with several changes of mood (and BTW large plot holes, as well), and finally a rather unfitting ending.

In my opinion (I truly hate to say so): one of Bergman's weaker efforts.

Normally, I don't appreciate commenting on other users' comments (it has the smack of arrogance), but in this case I frankly must say that if you consider this one of Woody Allen's masterpieces then you haven't seen many of his movies so far.

I agree that "Match Point" is better than "Melinda and Melinda" (though that wouldn't be much of a compliment on its own), and I wouldn't even complain too much about the all too obvious flaws: its clumsy dialogue and threadbare characters, the horrible (yes: horrible!) use of soundtrack music (scratchy opera tunes which reveal absolutely no connection with the on-screen action whatsoever, nor do they comment on it in an especially subtle manner - you get the impression that Mr. Allen just wanted to show us what an exquisite connoisseur he thinks he is), the cliché settings or the length of the movie (at least 30 minutes too long).

What I really DO complain about is that Woody Allen has made far, far superior films in the past dealing with related topics. Just watch "Crimes and Misdemeanors", for instance, and you'll instantly know what I mean.

This is a motion picture not only based on a very good novel (I loved John Fowles's book), but - rarely enough - also a very good film on its own. From today's standards, some aspects may seem a bit dated, but then just compare it to, say, a far more recent film such as "Misery" (having a similar topic), and you'll see that it is (at least in my humble opinion) superior.

To begin with, Terence Stamp and Samantha Eggar are both simply marvelous. It's a pity the former never made the great film career which his talent would have deserved: His portrayal of a lonely outsider with psychopathic traits is no less than excellent - just look at his body language! And Miss Eggar masterly portrays the desperate struggle of the kidnapped girl - there is a transformation noticeable culminating in the last scenes of Miranda bare of any makeup which are really depressing.

To be quite honest, I was actually quite surprised that William Wyler was capable of successfully directing such an intimate play. Photography and the sets are all flawless. Perhaps the only objection to giving it 10 out of 10 is Maurice Jarre's score which is somewhat obtrusive in quite a few scenes. Something more subtle would have been more suitable.

Being a real fan of Woody Allen's oeuvre, it gives me a strange feeling of sadness having to watch a movie like "Melinda and Melinda" - there are still some good ingredients, but the film as a whole doesn't work any longer. It is neither especially witty nor funny, it's mostly plain boring. And a good deal of stereotypes you've seen (in a far better way, as a matter of fact) in umpteen Allen classics simply start to get annoying lately - the same upper-class folks, the same elegant settings, even the use of music (in this case, plenty of Duke Ellington) for instance no longer is witty but simply a worn-out cliché. The worst thing, however, is the casting. In earlier times, great actors were keen on starring a Woody Allen picture - nowadays, it's Radha Mitchell, Chloë Sevigny or Will Ferrell you get to see. Sorry, but this is rather second-rate altogether. I'm afraid Mr. Allen has reached the age where he should consider retiring. He certainly doesn't seem to be able to make the kind of films he used to. - Sad.

"Soylent green" is a very remarkable film in more than one way. First of all, I consider Richard Fleischer one of the more underrated directors in Hollywood. Films like "Barabbas", "Fantastic Voyage", "The Boston Strangler", or "Soylent Green" are not only perfect entertainment, but also proof of excellent film-making (of course, his filmography includes some rubbish as well - "well, nobody's perfect" as Joe E. Brown said).

The acting (the very fact that this is the great Edward G. Robinson's last film role would single out "Soylent Green") is very good, cinematography is absolutely flawless in my opinion, and the scarce use of classical music is touching as well - it provides a deliberately warm contrast to the hopeless situation (think e.g. of Mozart's Kegelstatt trio in the supper scene, or think of the magnificently shot death scene).

Moreover, having read Harry Harrison's novel as well, I must say that the screenplay is an improvement on the book - the "Soylent Green is people"-motif turns a merely depressing tale of an overpopulated, polluted and dying earth into a real horror story of a civilization having lost all its virtues.

Finally, I can't fully understand why other users criticize the film's rather dated look (by today's standards). Of course, production design might have come up with some kind of "future" look of 1973 (cf. Woody Allens "Sleeper"). In my opinion, however, this exactly is one of the charms of "Soylent Green", considering its topic: Think of the year 1973, think of the "Club of Rome", think of the doomsday mood of the 70s - environmental issues were (overly) dramatized at that time, and many, if not all, of the nightmares brought up then have now turned out to be slightly exaggerated (of course, the positive effect not to be sneezed at was that the broad public finally became aware of urgent matters such as pollution, famines, over-population etc.). Also, the use of shabby gadgets and settings, old car wrecks and dilapidated housing etc., added to the overall impression of a world passing away.

So - to cut it short, the definite 70s look of the picture is a very appropriate touch of "zeitgeist" of the time the film was made: a time whose major fears are reflected in the picture. (And what would a remake reflect? "Matrix"-like special effects? "Star Trek"-like pseudo-philosophy? "Alien"-like beastliness? Would THAT truly add to the story in any way?)

Very poetic, early Truffaut, but already at his best. This story of a middle-aged intellectual man who certainly should not have too much to complain about in his life, but wants to give it a try for whatever reasons (mid-life crisis? vanity? play instinct? the beginnings of some sort of amour fou on his part?), thus bringing about a catastrophe, is brought to the screen in a powerful and masterly way.

It's all been described in large part by other users so far: Raoul Coutard's impressive black-and-white cinematography, the acting by Dorléac, Desailly and Benedetti, it all fitted very well.

What's more to mention, however, is a beautiful soundtrack by Georges Delerue, in my opinion a true masterpiece of film scoring, with a haunting main theme.

This is really a film I shall keep in my heart for a long time. I certainly prefer it to "Jules et Jim".