Michael-Lonsdale Movie Reviews

The most remarkably insidious aspect of "Mr. Klein" is the clever way we are put in a position of sympathy with a basically unlikeable, corrupt character, as he struggles to prove he is not Jewish. Because we know what the consequences of failure in the effort will be, viewers too are implicated in the situation, forced to confront how *we* would behave in similar circumstances. Instead of the easy moralizing encouraged in most treatments of this subject, the film presents a thoroughly political, unblinkered examination of guilt and denial.

Like most of Losey's work, the film is slow-moving, distinctively designed and more than a tad opaque. In his less ambitious efforts, that opacity can often irritate. Here, with a real subject worthy of his talents, the director's famously menacing atmosphere seems absolutely right, the only way to tell this story. Losey's penchant for implying something nasty under the surface makes sense when we know that at any moment a jack-booted member of the SS may appear from off-camera. It is this threat, this constantly over-hanging possibility, that generates the fear which is the real subject of the film.

All concerned are working in top form. Delon manages the awkward task of making us care what happens to Klein, even as we are repulsed by his actions and attitudes. Gerry Fisher's cinematography is the opposite of beautiful: cold, clammy, it superbly conveys a sense of dank decay. And special mention should be made of Egisto Macchi's spare, dissonant music. If only Hollywood understood such understatement!

The transfer for this tape is adequate, but I profoundly wish this superb film were available on DVD.

The movie is an assasination plot. Sure, we've seen so many of these in today's age. But this one is different. It is a serious plot, and is truly brilliant in its casting and direction. The expression of Lebel as he realises that he has to work round the clock, the expressions of anxiety, pressure, tiredness, excitement... and the pace of the movie keeps one riveted to the seat even if one knows the entire story beforehand by reading the book.

The film's strongest character is Fox, who plays the assassin. Cool, calm and collected, he is focused and decisive. He is ruthless and charming. He is cunning and meticulous. Fox has a toothy smile and his perfectly combed hair and his perfect attire make him the consummate Englishman. A lot of this films' directorial style and screenplay seems to have inspired another classic - The Fourth Protocol, where the whole Cat-and-mouse game is replayed. Fox plays the perfect professional killer - cold, methodical, planned and unremorsefully and ruthlessly committed to his goal.

The Day of the Jackal is a silent and terse film. The screenplay and the direction seem to show the same sense of urgency and focus within the plot, that the characters display in their own objectives.

If one has a collection of movies at home, this is one movie that demands its place. Definitely a treasure.

It's hard to put a finger on what exactly makes this film great: excellent performances by relatively unknown actors, a wonderful plot, fantastic location shooting or a complete desire to avoid the bells and whistles, special effects laden movies that are all that makes up the "suspense" genre of films these days. Like other reviewers have said, be this the first or the fiftieth time that you watch this film, you will be left on the edge of your seat with its "cat and mouse" plot of the search for a lone assassin hired to murder President De Gaulle. The young Edward Fox is brilliant in the title role and the supporting cast excellent.

If anything, this film proves that you do not need big named stars, explosions around every corner or computer generated effects to make a fantastic film. The only downside to watching this film is that you realise that the movie industry just does not make films like this any more.

Highly, highly recommended.

Of course, with Anthony Hopkins and Emma Thompson at the helm of "The Remains of the Day", we can be assured that the acting is nothing short of par-excellence. So far, I've not come across any unfavourable reviews of the movie, so it does feel strange to think that I may be the only viewer who's NOT gushing over how great the film is.

The story is set in 1930s and 1950s England and focuses on the life of a traditional English butler, Mr Stevens, who serves the great house of Darlington Hall and of his unwavering loyalty to his employers and of his relationship with the housekeeper, Miss Kenton. One day in the 1950s (which is "present-day"), he finally decides to take a short vacation by borrowing his employer's motorcar for some sight-seeing of the country and to convince Miss Kenton (who has since married and is now Mrs Benn) to come back to work for Darlington Hall. During the journey, Mr Stevens reminisces about the good ol' days back in the '30s when he is serving Lord Darlington, a distinguished English gentleman whose good intentions with regard to post-WWII Germany backfires when he is later branded as a "Nazi sympathizer".

While reading the novel, I did wonder how well the story will transfer on film, because the novel focuses a lot on Stevens' thoughts and feelings which he doesn't show outwardly and so couldn't be projected on film, no matter how good the actor is. In the movie, there is also no voice-over to convey his actual thoughts and emotions. So what we get is Anthony Hopkins' butler who displays a very limited range of emotions throughout the movie - 1) Thoughtful (although we can't tell what he's actually thinking about), 2) Courteous (to his employers and the guests), 3) Curt (to Miss Kenton) and 4) Cold (90% of the time) - without a clear explanation. If you've not read the novel, I doubt you'll fully understand the nature of Stevens' character and the reasons for his apparent "coldness" and strange behaviour e.g. NOT bothering to console Miss Kenton when she is crying so desperately right in front of him, and why he decides to lie (to the people he meets during his car journey) about not being acquainted with Lord Darlington.

My second complaint is this: in the novel, Stevens' "present-day" employer is a Mr Farraday, a nice American gentleman. But in the movie, the employer has been changed to "Mr Lewis" (played by Christopher Reeves). The problem is that the same "Mr Lewis" also happens to be the "villain" (in both novel and movie) who in the '30s tries to sabotage Lord Darlington's efforts to reconcile Germany with the rest of Europe after WWII. It is difficult to believe that Stevens (who so dislikes Mr Lewis) could end up serving him LATER on after Lord Darlington passes away.

But the most dissapointing part of the film is the omission of what I deem the most important scene in the book: when towards the end, Stevens and Miss Kenton meet up again after over 20 long years and Miss Kenton confesses that the reason she is unhappy with her marriage is because she often wonders what kind of a life she might have had with him (Mr Stevens). And in the book, Stevens' heart is breaking when he hears that. It's a most moving scene - practically a declaration of love between the two, for goodness sake, and yet this scene is omitted in the movie.

Watch the movie if you can. But do read the novel which is one of the most brilliant writings to come out of the 20th century. The words used are simply beautiful, eloquent and breathtaking. The book is most remarkable, but I really can't say the same for the movie.

If you are looking for loads of action and music-video style editing, this film will not be for you. It is a character and class study, and it succeeds admirably well on both levels. Hopkins and Thompson are both able to communicate subtle emotions with a simple pause or a look. The supporting cast is also fine. The screenplay allows the characters and drama to unfold slowly, establishing a feeling for the time and for the differences in class that existed in the era.

Remains of the Day is directed with understated style, allowing the setting and characters to dominate. Although it may be more literary than most films, don't mistake it for something stuffy or inaccessible. It's great drama about all too real characters that reminds us of the impact of the unspoken word.

Anthony Hopkins and Emma Thompson play the dignified servants of a manor between the walls of which "great affairs of the world are decided." Both had me in their clutches at the very outset (set against the backdrop of the English countryside and exquisitely complimented by the music of Richard Robbins) and never let go. I was also somewhat surprised to see an early Hugh Grant and a young Ben Chaplin -- both before they became famous, and you can see why they got where they are today.

Each and every screen of the movie is riveting, and all characters play their parts impeccably. With the possible exception perhaps of Christopher Reeves' character -- the brazen, world-saving American who calls other European topdog politicians "amateurs." Yet, thats a minor gripe, and entirely overshadowed by Anthony Hopkins who so subtly reveals all the feelings that his character works so hard to repress that the pain is almost palpable.

There is also a nuanced romantic subplot, nothing is ever shown in somatic expressions of hugging and kissing, yet the tension between Hopkins and Thomson is one of the most memorable you will ever see. Unrequited love, was it?

The average moviegoer might find the film slow, but anyone interested in watching great actors excelling at their craft will be mesmerized!

Highly recommended!

Of course, with Anthony Hopkins and Emma Thompson at the helm of "The Remains of the Day", we can be assured that the acting is nothing short of par-excellence. So far, I've not come across any unfavourable reviews of the movie, so it does feel strange to think that I may be the only viewer who's NOT gushing over how great the film is.

The story is set in 1930s and 1950s England and focuses on the life of a traditional English butler, Mr Stevens, who serves the great house of Darlington Hall and of his unwavering loyalty to his employers and of his relationship with the housekeeper, Miss Kenton. One day in the 1950s (which is "present-day"), he finally decides to take a short vacation by borrowing his employer's motorcar for some sight-seeing of the country and to convince Miss Kenton (who has since married and is now Mrs Benn) to come back to work for Darlington Hall. During the journey, Mr Stevens reminisces about the good ol' days back in the '30s when he is serving Lord Darlington, a distinguished English gentleman whose good intentions with regard to post-WWII Germany backfires when he is later branded as a "Nazi sympathizer".

While reading the novel, I did wonder how well the story will transfer on film, because the novel focuses a lot on Stevens' thoughts and feelings which he doesn't show outwardly and so couldn't be projected on film, no matter how good the actor is. In the movie, there is also no voice-over to convey his actual thoughts and emotions. So what we get is Anthony Hopkins' butler who displays a very limited range of emotions throughout the movie - 1) Thoughtful (although we can't tell what he's actually thinking about), 2) Courteous (to his employers and the guests), 3) Curt (to Miss Kenton) and 4) Cold (90% of the time) - without a clear explanation. If you've not read the novel, I doubt you'll fully understand the nature of Stevens' character and the reasons for his apparent "coldness" and strange behaviour e.g. NOT bothering to console Miss Kenton when she is crying so desperately right in front of him, and why he decides to lie (to the people he meets during his car journey) about not being acquainted with Lord Darlington.

My second complaint is this: in the novel, Stevens' "present-day" employer is a Mr Farraday, a nice American gentleman. But in the movie, the employer has been changed to "Mr Lewis" (played by Christopher Reeves). The problem is that the same "Mr Lewis" also happens to be the "villain" (in both novel and movie) who in the '30s tries to sabotage Lord Darlington's efforts to reconcile Germany with the rest of Europe after WWII. It is difficult to believe that Stevens (who so dislikes Mr Lewis) could end up serving him LATER on after Lord Darlington passes away.

But the most dissapointing part of the film is the omission of what I deem the most important scene in the book: when towards the end, Stevens and Miss Kenton meet up again after over 20 long years and Miss Kenton confesses that the reason she is unhappy with her marriage is because she often wonders what kind of a life she might have had with him (Mr Stevens). And in the book, Stevens' heart is breaking when he hears that. It's a most moving scene - practically a declaration of love between the two, for goodness sake, and yet this scene is omitted in the movie.

Watch the movie if you can. But do read the novel which is one of the most brilliant writings to come out of the 20th century. The words used are simply beautiful, eloquent and breathtaking. The book is most remarkable, but I really can't say the same for the movie.

If you are looking for loads of action and music-video style editing, this film will not be for you. It is a character and class study, and it succeeds admirably well on both levels. Hopkins and Thompson are both able to communicate subtle emotions with a simple pause or a look. The supporting cast is also fine. The screenplay allows the characters and drama to unfold slowly, establishing a feeling for the time and for the differences in class that existed in the era.

Remains of the Day is directed with understated style, allowing the setting and characters to dominate. Although it may be more literary than most films, don't mistake it for something stuffy or inaccessible. It's great drama about all too real characters that reminds us of the impact of the unspoken word.

Anthony Hopkins and Emma Thompson play the dignified servants of a manor between the walls of which "great affairs of the world are decided." Both had me in their clutches at the very outset (set against the backdrop of the English countryside and exquisitely complimented by the music of Richard Robbins) and never let go. I was also somewhat surprised to see an early Hugh Grant and a young Ben Chaplin -- both before they became famous, and you can see why they got where they are today.

Each and every screen of the movie is riveting, and all characters play their parts impeccably. With the possible exception perhaps of Christopher Reeves' character -- the brazen, world-saving American who calls other European topdog politicians "amateurs." Yet, thats a minor gripe, and entirely overshadowed by Anthony Hopkins who so subtly reveals all the feelings that his character works so hard to repress that the pain is almost palpable.

There is also a nuanced romantic subplot, nothing is ever shown in somatic expressions of hugging and kissing, yet the tension between Hopkins and Thomson is one of the most memorable you will ever see. Unrequited love, was it?

The average moviegoer might find the film slow, but anyone interested in watching great actors excelling at their craft will be mesmerized!

Highly recommended!

Based (rather loosely) on Umberto Eco's rich, complex and finely researched novel, it was inevitable that the vast detail and obscure references which make the book such a complex delight were going to fall by the wayside in a movie adaptation. But, to their great credit, the producers did make a great effort to get the look and feel of the film right.

Unlike virtually every other film set in the Middle Ages, this one actually manages to make the costumes, sets and props accurate. In fact, this movie is one that any medievalist can freeze frame to look with delight and recognition at the detail of accurate manuscripts, carvings and artefacts, many of which are accurate reproductions of well known museum pieces.

The story and dialogue, on the other hand, struggles to maintain a balance between Hollywood conventions and the accurate vision of the period detailed in Eco's book. And in the end the movie seems to abandon even the attempt to do so and charges off into Hollywood fantasy land.

For the first half of the story, however, it seems the screenwriters had the novel by their side and were guided by it. Some stupid and inaccurate cliches intrude - usually in the form of simplistic blanket condemnation of the medieval church. Most of the richness and complexity of Eco's novel is swamped by the surface story - the murder mystery - but this is entertaining and generally well handled.

But halfway through the film Bernado Gui turns up and the whole movie careens wildly off the rails. Throwing the novel, with its balanced, wry, wise and well-researched balanced view of the good and bad in medieval religion, completely out the window, the movie becomes a string of cliches and caricatures.

Gui is, of course, a vile and souless Inquisitor. He parades around the country with Nazi-like knights and a cart full of torture equipment, like a member of a medieval Gestapo. The debate on the poverty of Christ - a key social, religious and political issue - is dismissed as obscurantist nonsense and then played for laughs. Then there is a witch trial (of course), torture (of course) and some burnings at the stake (of course) which triggers a peasant revolt against the forces of religious oppression (of course). Apart from pandering to modern prejudices and erroneously simplistic ideas about medieval Christianity, none of these things are in the book or even vaguely necessary to the story, but it seems Hollywood can't help itself.

Still, judging from the review below which declares, on the basis of some twisted Sunday School version of the history of the Catholic Church, that this is what the medieval Church was actually like, it seems some in the audience appreciated having their prejudices about the period confirmed.

Anyone who actually knows and understands the period and the richness and complexity of the medieval Church will, on the other hand, regret the wasted opportunity to actually depict this for a change, instead of this riot of nonsense. Considering a balanced and well-researched alternative was at hand, in the very book the screenwriters were supposedly adapting, their choice is even more odd and regretable.

(And no, in case you are wondering, I am not a Catholic or a Christian - though I am a medieval historian)

The silly Hollywood ending and pointless bigotry aside, this is a highly entertaining murder mystery which *looks* amazing. Connery is ... well ... Connery, and brings William of Baskerville to life. Christian Slater plays the wide-eyed innocent novice Adso well and the cavalcade (or freak show) of, shall we say, "distinctive" looking monks are represented by some fine actors, including a slimy Michael Lonsdale as the avaricious abbot and the always amazing Ron Perlman as the deformed heretic Salvatore.

And don't miss the sex scene in the kitchen. ;>

In short, an entertaining murder mystery, but it's small wonder that Eco distanced himself from this "version" of his book. The titles say it's a "palimpsest" of the novel - ie a piece of parchment where the original text is scraped clean and reused with some of the original still fainly visible. It would have been a great movie is more of the original could have been seen. Unfortunately this is simply a run-of-the-mill costume detective drama with some silly cliches about the Middle Ages as its climax.

Fantastic sets and costumes though.

"Penetentziagite!"

It is an excellent production as well. The plot and dialogue are thoughtful. The visual scenery helps much to set a proper mood. It is graphic enough to have the kind of impact it needs as a mystery/suspense movie. Its' plot evolves nicely as the mystery of the Abbey unfolds. Every actor, particularly Connery and Slater, delivers a sound performance. Each character displays the seriousness one would expect from members of medieval religious orders, yet their emotions do show through at times, revealing the feelings that reside behind their clerical exteriors. This film is outstanding.

Based (rather loosely) on Umberto Eco's rich, complex and finely researched novel, it was inevitable that the vast detail and obscure references which make the book such a complex delight were going to fall by the wayside in a movie adaptation. But, to their great credit, the producers did make a great effort to get the look and feel of the film right.

Unlike virtually every other film set in the Middle Ages, this one actually manages to make the costumes, sets and props accurate. In fact, this movie is one that any medievalist can freeze frame to look with delight and recognition at the detail of accurate manuscripts, carvings and artefacts, many of which are accurate reproductions of well known museum pieces.

The story and dialogue, on the other hand, struggles to maintain a balance between Hollywood conventions and the accurate vision of the period detailed in Eco's book. And in the end the movie seems to abandon even the attempt to do so and charges off into Hollywood fantasy land.

For the first half of the story, however, it seems the screenwriters had the novel by their side and were guided by it. Some stupid and inaccurate cliches intrude - usually in the form of simplistic blanket condemnation of the medieval church. Most of the richness and complexity of Eco's novel is swamped by the surface story - the murder mystery - but this is entertaining and generally well handled.

But halfway through the film Bernado Gui turns up and the whole movie careens wildly off the rails. Throwing the novel, with its balanced, wry, wise and well-researched balanced view of the good and bad in medieval religion, completely out the window, the movie becomes a string of cliches and caricatures.

Gui is, of course, a vile and souless Inquisitor. He parades around the country with Nazi-like knights and a cart full of torture equipment, like a member of a medieval Gestapo. The debate on the poverty of Christ - a key social, religious and political issue - is dismissed as obscurantist nonsense and then played for laughs. Then there is a witch trial (of course), torture (of course) and some burnings at the stake (of course) which triggers a peasant revolt against the forces of religious oppression (of course). Apart from pandering to modern prejudices and erroneously simplistic ideas about medieval Christianity, none of these things are in the book or even vaguely necessary to the story, but it seems Hollywood can't help itself.

Still, judging from the review below which declares, on the basis of some twisted Sunday School version of the history of the Catholic Church, that this is what the medieval Church was actually like, it seems some in the audience appreciated having their prejudices about the period confirmed.

Anyone who actually knows and understands the period and the richness and complexity of the medieval Church will, on the other hand, regret the wasted opportunity to actually depict this for a change, instead of this riot of nonsense. Considering a balanced and well-researched alternative was at hand, in the very book the screenwriters were supposedly adapting, their choice is even more odd and regretable.

(And no, in case you are wondering, I am not a Catholic or a Christian - though I am a medieval historian)

The silly Hollywood ending and pointless bigotry aside, this is a highly entertaining murder mystery which *looks* amazing. Connery is ... well ... Connery, and brings William of Baskerville to life. Christian Slater plays the wide-eyed innocent novice Adso well and the cavalcade (or freak show) of, shall we say, "distinctive" looking monks are represented by some fine actors, including a slimy Michael Lonsdale as the avaricious abbot and the always amazing Ron Perlman as the deformed heretic Salvatore.

And don't miss the sex scene in the kitchen. ;>

In short, an entertaining murder mystery, but it's small wonder that Eco distanced himself from this "version" of his book. The titles say it's a "palimpsest" of the novel - ie a piece of parchment where the original text is scraped clean and reused with some of the original still fainly visible. It would have been a great movie is more of the original could have been seen. Unfortunately this is simply a run-of-the-mill costume detective drama with some silly cliches about the Middle Ages as its climax.

Fantastic sets and costumes though.

"Penetentziagite!"

It is an excellent production as well. The plot and dialogue are thoughtful. The visual scenery helps much to set a proper mood. It is graphic enough to have the kind of impact it needs as a mystery/suspense movie. Its' plot evolves nicely as the mystery of the Abbey unfolds. Every actor, particularly Connery and Slater, delivers a sound performance. Each character displays the seriousness one would expect from members of medieval religious orders, yet their emotions do show through at times, revealing the feelings that reside behind their clerical exteriors. This film is outstanding.

Nelly, played by the beautiful Emmanuelle Beart, is at crossroads of her life -- disillusioned with marital problems and aimless about future. She meets Arnaud, played by Michel Serrault, -- a gentleman, retired judge and businessman, wife separated -- at a cafe through a common friend. He helps her to overcome her debts and she in turn helps him to type his memoirs. Thus their interaction begins. Arnaud is infatuated by her beauty and personality (who wouldn't be?), but he is helpless in expressing that for the fact that he is of more than double-the-age of Nelly. She too is in love with the sophisticated, mature Arnaud but for the same reason as his, she is unable to accept it. She finds that her heart longs for Arnaud when she automatically rejects a live-in relationship proposed by a publisher-friend with whom she was dating and was happy.

They try to be and feel that they are happy together, all the time knowing that a complete and defined relationship is impossible. Both of them are tormented by their love for each other. Is it love in the romantic sense? May not be. There is an emotional vacuum in both their lives. And they fill each other very well. She needs someone mature enough to steady her drifting, aimless life and he needs someone to illuminate his dull, boring life. It is not lust. It is not romance. It is not friendship. It is not concern. It is not finding solace. Or is it lust? Is it romance? Is it friendship? Is it concern? Is it finding solace? Frankly, I am at loss trying to comprehend the nature, complexity, depth and layers of their relationship.

They know how much each one meant for the other at the time of their parting, when Arnaud's ex-wife takes him for a global tour. Arnaud, collected and withdrawn till then, embraces her passionately. Nelly, composed and passive till then, is shaken and devastated. They know it is coming to an end. The film ends with Arnaud thinking of her and Nelly trying to cope up with her daily life. I hate the ending as much as I love it. Perhaps, it was the appropriate ending. Not all relationships in life are complete; some end abruptly, some never ends.

Beart and Serrault are magnificent. I am amazed by her ability to bring about a variety of emotions with subtle facial expressions and effortless motion.

Nelly is a woman in her twenties struggling to make ends meet after being laid off from her publishing job. The fact that her husband (Charles Berling of Ridicule) is also out of work and completely demotivated allows her to entertain an offer that she would not normally accept - a substantial loan from a virtual stranger, Monsieur Arnaud. She meets Monsieur Arnaud through her elegant, older friend, Jacqueline who confides that she once had an affair with this judge turned successful businessman. Jacqueline was attracted by his ability to really listen to a woman and offer true friendship. Nelly ends up accepting Pierre Arnaud's offer to type up his memoirs, and the two develop a unique relationship as they match wits in editing his manuscript. He's alternately gruff yet admiring while she's coyly feigning nonchalance. An undeniable chemistry exists but is never physically expressed.

Monsieur Arnaud's publisher, the young, dark, somewhat smarmy Vincent is immediately attracted to Nelly. She's reluctantly drawn to him after spending an enjoyable evening with Monsieur Arnaud in one of Paris' most exclusive restaurants. Why she gets treated to this extravagant evening is a fun story in and of itself. After a dinner of remarkable fare, exceptional dessert wine (Chateau d'Yquem, 1961!) and flirtatious conversation, the desire to end the evening in intimacy results in Nelly seeking out Vincent. While Pierre Arnaud provides her with stimulating and heartfelt companionship, Vincent merely provides her with a physical outlet. Although Vincent wants more from Nelly, in her eyes, he cannot take Pierre's place.

The subplots also support the major theme of love and age. A sweetly sad movie that will satisfy those in the mood for good (French) dialogue and a twist on the May-December relationship.

Beart's exquisite countenance as Nelly, who separates from her affable but lazy husband and begins working with former judge and businessman Monsieur Arnaud, complements perfectly the atmosphere Sautet creates for this look at what might have been. As Nelly helps the older and dignified Arnaud (Michel Serrault) with his memoirs, stolen glances and hesitations are the nuance framing their budding romance, deeply rooted but never allowed to bloom.

This is a stately film of moments missed and feelings unspoken. When do you take the chance? When do you tell someone you love them? How do you know when an infatuation has turned into real love? And is there a moment when it is too late to speak? This intellectually engaging and ultimately moving film deals with these questions. Perhaps the most telling moment comes when Arnaud sits watching the radiant and sleeping Beart. The deep love inside him reaches out for her but never touches her, his hand pulling back with his heart, afraid to try.

Though this film garnered the French Ceaser for direction and Serrault's performance, not lost is the elegance and grace of stunning beauty Emmanuelle Beart. There is a suppressed emotional longing to her performance. Like many foreign films, "Nelly and Monsieur Arnaud" has more of an overall emotional impact as a whole, rather than specific moments. This is definitely a film worth seeing, and owning.