OldBoy

I am thinking about getting this movie when it is released in the Criterion Collection, but can't quite understand the reviews and don't want to read to heavily for fear of spoilers.

So can this movie be compared to anything that has been done since? recently, etc..perhaps and American movie? even if it is a stretch, I just want to get some idea..thanks

Pants

Yeah Gosford Park was a remake.

But it was awful and nearly unwatchable and boored me to tears, while I find Rules of the Game quit interesting and entertaining

flixtime

If you have access to the cable channel "TCM", they are showing the film this Friday night (Saturday morning) at 2am. A good opportunity for a preview before laying down the cash.

jayson1017

It wasn't a remake. Rules of the Game was more of an inspiration for Gosford Park. The only similarity I could imagine between the two movies is of the crusty upper-class on a get together at a sprawling manor.

The Nature Boy

Gosford Park, direct remake or not, is a fair enough approximation of what you are in for.

I don't know if this is a threadcrap, if so I apologize, but I figure we are open to talking films in here. But for the life of me, I can't grasp the respect this film gets. I've seen it a few times now, and I'll give the Criterion a spin if I get my hands on it(I'd NEVER buy it) but it doesn't add up. If you were as dulled as many were by Gosford, now picture it with subtitles.

And I've really been embracing some Renior, I think The Rules of the Game is holding The Grand Illusion's bookmark in history, for my money, a vastly superior and enjoyable film, and I would consider it to be the Citizen Kane of French cinema. Technical Virtuosity meeting story and emotional power, it's brillant.

The point is not to dump of Rules of Game, if you like, you like, if you don't, you don't, no big thing. But I've found it to be a polaraizing film, and I'd defiantely recommend a viewing, I don't care if second generation VHS, to see if there is a enough narrative-wise to warrant further investment in a DVD. I'd recommend some films like the Godfather or Singin in the Rain and 90 percent of the people will find it enjoyable enough to be worth owning. But there is hardly that level of sure thing likeability here. Caveat Emptor. Nonetheless, it's an acclaimed film, and there are crazier things to buy blind than the #2 film on the Sight and Sound latest list.

Jackskeleton

The Legend of Zelda?

baracine

I posted this appreciation in the "Official Criterion blind buy Support" thread:

The thing about this movie is that it takes the premise and stock situations of the French boulevard comedies of the time (comedies about love and adultery, mostly, with lots of misunderstandings and mingling between the servant, lower and upper-middle classes and decadent aristocracy) and turns them on their ear. What starts out as a traditional French farce along the lines of a frothy romantic entertainment like Love Me Tonight (1931 American film also set during a weekend hunt in a French château, and based on a French comedy) turns into a tragedy about man's inhumanity to man but mostly man's incurable stupidity and selfishness, as if what used to be amusing about differences of opinion, personality, background, etc. is now painful and truly divisive (on a national level?). The cinematography and ultra-relaxed (i.e. more realistic than usual) acting style make you feel like "you are there", much like Robert Altman's Gosford Park, but without the misfires and cheap shots (to use a few hunting metaphors).

It had the same effect on the French public of the time as if a Jennifer Aniston comedy of today suddenly turned into an analysis of the dire prospects of the business-military-Republican complex and the ineffectiveness of the Democratic party. That is: It very nearly bombed. Then WWII broke out. Renoir moved to America where "The Rules of the Game" was finally shown in 1950 and was recognized for the prescient classic that it was.

Highly recommended.

(I might add: In a subliminal way, this film has had an influence on any dramatic play, novel or film set in a closed setting, from Agatha Christie novels to Bunuel's "Exterminating Angel" to Hitchcock's "Lifeboat" or "Rope" to Bergman's "Smiles of a Summer Night" to "Key Largo" to "The Haunting" but that would be stretching it a bit. After all, a closed setting is the essence of traditional theatre and Renoir is himself quoting from an endless number of dramas and comedies set in a château during a weekend in the country. It also follows slavishly what the Greeks - and the French - call the "rules of Aristotelian unity" in the theatre, i.e. the unity of time - usually a 24-hour period , the unity of setting - one site or set, and the unity of action - all plots and subplots are interrelated.)

marty888

The implication being what, exactly - that movies with subtitles are duller than movies without subtitles? Or simply that one should avoid any movie that has subtitles?

SteveyP93

No, I think he is implying that not only are you bored to tears with what you see, but you also have to read it to understand its dullness (I havent seen the movie, so I have no opinion on it, btw). Kinda like having to put more effort into not being entertained

Pants

Rules of the Game is WAY better than Gosford Park (which to this day baffles me that anyone liked it)

But I agree with Nature Boy. Grand Illusion is the far superior film with continueing social relevance to today, and I don't know why Rules of the Game is always mentioned as Renoir's masterpiece.

The Nature Boy

Exactamundo.