It’s like a classic heist movie. It’s probably not the original one? But it’s got all the bits that later heist movies have. And fascinatingly enough, it doesn’t work at making the criminals sympathetic?
That said, this thing has got really weird pacing issues. I realise that they’re going for knuckle biting tension, but they’re rather over doing it? Or perhaps that’s just me; it’s good stuff.
Darn. The actual heist was rather underwhelming. After all that planning, I thought it was going to be intricate and fun, but… it was so basic? It was like… nothing?
This is so weird. I mean, it’s… kinda normal, but… off. I like it!
I love the colour scheme.
This is all about racism and stuff, which… I mean, I didn’t think London in 1959 was that racist? I mean, it’s… some of the characters are so racist that it’s kinda more like they’ve been transplanted from a 50s American movie? I mean! I didn’t know! Perhaps this is accurate!
All these sets look so real! Perhaps they are real? I mean, paying that much attention to dirtying up the walls is just amazing.
This has some of the fascinating visuals from Duvivier’s earlier movies, but it’s pretty… pedestrian. That is, there’s a bunch of scenes inbetween the special ones that seem totally haphazard.
I don’t even know what this movie is about? I kinda zoned out there for half an hour.
This movie just lacks nerve. The performances are fine, and it mostly looks OK, but there’s just no reason to care about what’s happening on the screen?
I zoned out again, and I have absolutely no idea what’s going on now.
This is just insanely boring.
I think I have to abandon this. It’s just … horribly uninteresting.
The first two movies in this box set looked pristine — sharp and restored. This looks like it’s been scanned from a very tired print and not fixed up at all.
So I’m guessing that this is a less historically important movie?
He’s eeeevil!!!!
This really hasn’t aged well.
It’s just kinda basic?
Looks great, though.
Oh that Maigret!
Wow. This scene is pure magic.
But the movie has kinda dissolved into … nothingness?
I was gonna watch a whole bunch of these Eclipse movies from Criterion, but I got caught up in a bunch of Emacs stuff.
Back on track: Movies! Movies!
Wow, that’s some close-up camera work. They camera has to be like five centimetres from his nose.
Duvivier is some kind of genius. I mean, on a shot to shot basis. Every shot is just fascinating. And I can’t recall ever seeing that name before starting to watch this box set.
I’m guessing the Cahiers crowd hates these movies so much? Hm… :
We have all read many times of how the young critics at Cahiers du Cinema have savaged Julien Duvivier.
I guessed right? But that’s all about his 50s movies.
There’s a bit of disconnect between how fabulous each shot it and … how choppy the storytelling is. I mean, it’s very stylised and not meant to be naturalistic or anything, but it’s still hard to pay much attention, because it doesn’t seem like the movie isn’t that interested either?
It’s in that uncanny valley between avant garde and … not quite getting it right?
I saw this film at the unlikely venue of the Walter Reade Theatre in New York. The film was introduced by David Grossman, a retired exhibitor who dedicated the showing to film historian and enthusiast William K. Everson. Grossman was so full of love for the film that he could hardly express himself.
That is, I can understand people really loving this movie and being obsessed with it. But I think it’s a bit on the corny side.
