Afouotos
Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.
ThrillMessage
There are better movies of two hours length. I loved the actress'performance.
Cooktopi
The acting in this movie is really good.
wolflanders
Before to be this movie, Belphegor was a novel and a movie (1926) and a tv serie (1965). The producers have done the same disaster that others did with "the avengers" or "wild wild west". Belphegor reminds more "the mummy" (1999) than the novel or the tv serie. Only the Bruno Coulais soundtrack can be saved, and some apparitions of the egyptian ghost in the museeum of Louvre. The ghost in the original version was a woman, here it is really a phantom. Belphegor could have been more suspenful, but lacks of time to create fear and emotion. the script is weak, yet the idea of an egyptian mummy was not bad at all. The tv serie in 1965 was not shot at the louvre (but in studio), this one though having the benefice of the museum, is missed. Some exciting scenes are not enough to do a movie.
dbdumonteil
This is a complete disaster !The cock-and-bull story defies any explanation.The cast is wasted to a fault:I hadn't even recognized Julie Christie until the final cast and credits.Michel Serrault overplays as hell and is almost unbearable.Sophie Marceau is beautiful ,the director does not ask her for more.Jean-François Balmer, a very talented actor is unable to do anything with his empty character.One good line in the whole dialogue:the museum attendant to an old lady :"Mona Lisa?I dunno".One magic moment in a 90 minutes film the screenplay of which could have been written by a ten-year-old: in the graveyard,Marceau bumps into Juliette Gréco who strangely smiles at her:Greco was the first heroine of the miniseries in 1965.This made-for-TV work was first-rate and has worn superbly well today:if you get the chance to see it,please do!Its obsolete charm is inestimable.NB:both the movie and the series were remakes of a silent movie by Henri Desfontaines.(1926)
boris-1
It´s all my fault. They all told me I should avoid seeing this movie because I´m a huge fan of the old TV-series. They were right. While production values are good and the actors themselves (including "don´t look now") Julie Christie aren´t that bad, the whole film displays a cheekiness and self-conciousness that clearly is without any justification. A comparison between the Karloff "Mummy" and "The Mummy Returns 2000" comes to my mind. In fact Belphegore 2000 owes much more to the new Mummy films than to the old series. But then, scripting is terrible, speed there is none and sometimes the film is full of unintentional jokes (The first scene in the tomb looks plain stupid), with cats clearly being thrown when they´re supposed to jump (landing with their backfeet first). Belphegore moves around like a statue on wheels neither impressive nor scary and the psychological drama that unfolded in the old tv series when the heroine had to learn that she´s a villain is completely neglected. This movie is so WASTED (wasted money, wasted actors, wasted blueprint) that it hurts. It´s a below-par Mummy-rip off that´s only good for some laughs but has nothing at all to do with the Greco classic (She has a small role in this movie too - on the graveyard).
Andreev
Well, this film worth seeing, if you are tired of Hollywood computer-animated demons and want to see the real people instead. I liked the authentic surrounding, the interiors of the real Louvre in which the film was shot. And the playing of actors, of course. Though not a masterpiece, but I think it deserves 7 points of 10.
