I've come to enjoy this film more after listening to Polanski's thoughts on it. Not one of his best by far, but it's become more enjoyable after subsequent viewings. The commentary itself is quite good as he delves into fairly detailed descriptions of the meanings behind many of the characters etc. Also for those not in the know, The Devil as she has been called here is actually Emmanuelle Seigner a former covergirl model who is Polanski's wife and has appeared in a few of his other films most notably 'Frantic' with Harrison Ford and 'Bitter Moon' with Hugh Grant and Kristin Scott Thomas.

I just watched this last night. Very atmospheric and creepy. I enjoyed it a lot. Hannibal's post above helps to answer some of the cryptic stuff in the movie.

Anyone else seen it recently?

I liked the film and agree with Hannibal ( You raised a lot good pionts..) To catch alot of this you have to watch it several times. After watching it in the theatre, I decided to read the book (Club Dumas) which really seemed a combination between Ninth Gate and Eyes Wide Shut. I actually like the movie a little better than the book. As Hannibal said ( It was hard to read youall your comments all the way through between my old mouse and slow computer.) many of the people are in the pictures. All this talk I just might watch it tonight with the commentary and comment more on it later.

I was shocked to find out I actually liked the movie when the credits started rolling.

I thought it was an awesome movie.

It's been said before...
 

But I'll say it again... I was a little disappointed in the "Polanski I know and love" the first time I saw "The Ninth Gate". Then, several months later, I got this insane compulsion to see it again solely for the atmosphere I remembered. And then, everything fell into place. It was much more magical the second time and I'm sure it goes on growing on the viewer with each repetition. I also got into the very simple, direct, moral point Polanski is making about violence and the concept of evil, all lessons I'm sure he learned from personal experience, from being both a victim and a hunted criminal, and which sort of make him the anti-Tarantino. That is: Tarantino, who has had no life outside a movie house, makes movies that condone violence as a form of entertaiment and Polanski, who has had the sad, meandering life of an exile because of it and other ordeals, makes films that condemn it unequivocally.

This is definitely one that gets better with repeated viewings, and I think that it's reputation will improve as time goes on.

Re: It's been said before...
 

WTF?!? :mad:

i can think of one of Polanski's "beloved" moraly action that just hit a news headline recently... but i don't think this is the place to "bash" him or anybody for that matter....

we're talking about Ninth Gate.... so, what does Quentin Tarantino got to do with it?


:mad:

I thought it was a cool movie, but no one else I know does haha.

It's been said before...
 

My point: Tarantino, whom I think does not have a life outside watching snuff/violent/second rate films in darkened movie houses, glorifies violence as America's preferred form of entertainment, whereas Polanski, who has personnally suffered from violence in his own, long(er), fruitful life, makes movies that condemn it in every way.

Funny how any less-than-sycophantic opinion about Tarantino always brings about such "violent" reactions!

Clear enough?

first movie I sold on e-bay after watching it. It just didn't click with me. It was paced slow but I don't think that is what I didn't like.

Re: It's been said before...
 

now, was that really necesary to say that?

yes, i'm pretty much clear on your opinion

I liked it and plan to eventually own it.

I love the Ninth Gate, too. Depp gives a great performance, and the mood of the movie is great. I've seen it a few times and I like it more every time. The ending is indeed weird, but i can't think of anyway other way for it to end and was actually a little in the dark. So thanks everyone for all your opinions and thoughts, it's helped to clarify a few things for me, and made me enjoy it a little more.

I also want to say to baracine, I think you really really misjudge Tarantino. Tarantino does not condone violence or glorify it. The only one of his movies that is violent (i have not seen Jackie Brown) is Kill Bill, but that is a completely different movie, and i don't believe it really condones anything, that's just meant to be entertaining in the simpliest way.

If you have seen either Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs, you would see that there is very little violence actually happening. The most notorious scene in RD is not even something you see. Also, if you notice what happens to any of the criminals or bad guys in his movies, they get what they deserve. Also Pulp Fiction happens to be a movie about honour and redemption, and actually really does condone violence.

Tarantino himself is very anti-violent in his real life, in fact he just sees violence as another tool for a filmmaker to tell his story. He actually likes that people think his films are so violent because that just says he's a great filmmaker, portraying something so well that it makes it more than it really is.

Anyway, sorry about goin off topic a little, yes I love the Ninth Gate, but I can see how it turns some people off. Everyone has their own tastes, and i think this film is for a very particular taste only.

Great thread... and thanks for the editorial Hannibal, very helpful.

I too enjoyed the movie... the storyline, the characters and the mood were extremely good...

In addition, I didn't like the ending very much either... I wanted an ending more along these lines...

Johnny Depp successfully opening the ninth gate...
A dramatic special effects ridden scene with the gate opening as the camera moves into the gate and blackness...
An evil laugh...
Credits...

I understand your point of view. It's nothing personal. But anyone who says he is non-violent when he writes, directs and produces films like that (1) is a hypocrite, (2) lives in a dream world, (3) is someone who doesn't assume the consequences of his actions, (4) lives under a rock or (5) all of the above. Tarantino is coasting on the wave that has overtaken American movies since "The Godfather", which consists in glorifying exclusively the criminal elements of society, the mob bosses, the petty criminals, the whores, the pimps, the drug dealers, the pushers, the thugs, the hitmen, the burglars, the rip-off artists, the thieves, the sadists... He caters to a young public raised on violent video games and teenagers who dread getting a real job and eventually facing reality. He has no experience of life first-hand and no wisdom to share other than what he learned watching second-rate Asian flicks, reading about 40's film noir and being handed lucrative contracts to perpetuate his gospel of criminality-as-a-way-of life-for fun-or profit.

When did he ever do a film about normal people? He can't show humanity in his films or compassion for the victims of violence because his precious kung-fu movies don't show any and he doesn't have any imagination of his own (like most arm-chair sadists).

If he had adapted "The Lord of the Rings", he would have scrapped all the boring "ring" stuff and concentrated exclusively on the fascinating social interactions of the Orcs and the Uruk-hai (and Gollum's torture scene, of course).

Polanski he ain't.

I, too, loved the atmosphere but disliked the ending. For me it wasn't even the content of the ending, but the way it was done. It felt like Polanski shot most of the movie, but then they handed the ending over to Jan De Bont. The terrible, garish CGI was completely at odds with the beautiful, moody cinematography throughout the rest of the film.

I thought it was ok, not gonna go back and watch it anytime soon...the ending messed up the whole thing...a decent idea for an idea from "Silver Screen"