Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

Doomtomylo a film so unique, intoxicating and bizarre that it not only demands another viewing, but is also forgivable as a satirical comedy where the jokes eventually take the back seat.

Voxitype Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

moonspinner55 This film adaptation of John Fowles' acclaimed novel, scripted by the author, is sumptuous, presumptuous--and dead. Michael Caine alternately looks suspicious and confused as a British poet-turned-teacher, newly-arrived on the Greek island of Phraxos, who is 'summoned' to the seaside estate of Anthony Quinn, who claims to be psychic. Quinn's mysterious Maurice Conchis may be alive or dead--but don't call him a ghost. He tells the young man of his childhood--a life that may never have happened--and of a test he underwent during the war, perhaps a time that is intersecting now with the present. Conchis' long-deceased true love suddenly appears and flirts with the teacher, though she tells him she's an actress hired by Conchis, who is really a movie producer. Gorgeously-presented film is a curiosity that soon loses its captivating sheen (it doesn't so much fall apart as it does roll over). Caine's past love affair with a volatile, apparently promiscuous French airline hostess is full of melodrama (and a coy sex scene) which keeps intruding on the narrative; we are, of course, to see that the teacher's path in life will always lead back to the beginning, but with this rocky affair it only seems like a dead end. Candice Bergen is the otherworldly seducer, and she certainly speaks like one (almost as if she were dubbed). If all the world's a stage, the curtains come down on this charade after about an hour. ** from ****

noitebras You may of course disagree but John Fowles sometimes "goes beyond the edge" and, in my view, after "The Magus" and "The French Lieutenant's Woman" he may have depleted his more interesting sources of literary creativity. As I look into "The Magus" I see in it a magnificent deconstructing of reality where symbologies & myth become the only identifiable elements in an unknown territory. I know of at least one Ph.D. Thesis dealing with similar topics here in Spain, at Comillas University, by a young American philosopher called M.Armenteros. He has seen the film and related its contents to some contemporary features of agnosticism. In "The Magus" the whole of reality is questioned. Only symbols appear as if to soften the sense of total absurdity. But even such symbols are discomforting, the meanings of life and death, deprived of transcendence, wind up getting closer and closer to the fog of mythology (i.e. "nothingness"). I interpreted the "Magus" as a film which attempts to depict hopelesness through absurdity. It is not about "climb every mountain" but rather "doubt every faith". In the book, the element of personal and political "Freedom" ("Elevteria") played a larger role in that deconstructed vision of a supposedly questionable reality. For both Fowles and Sartre our lives are an absurd where freedom becomes a mirage that distracts us from the only basic reality: death. Freedom is just meandering across our own hells. Even if I disagree with it I find the film discomforting indeed but worthy of watching and far better that the cheesier version of "The French Lieutenant's Woman".

pi511 an excellent fantastic movie shot 40 years ago cast is great. Michael Caine fits the most. I think Woody Allen is just jealous thinking that nobody else should see such a private fantastic movie. No computer effects, only puppets. Hey dudes, it's 40 years before today! And it's a hard thing to comment at least 10 lines. I think this one will be my first and last. And maybe none of both. Because it will be erased. Nor approved. Writing 10 lines without spoiling how? See you OK. By submitting this comment you are agreeing to the terms laid out in our Copyright Statement. Your submission must be your own original work. Your comments will normally be posted on the site within 2-3 business days. Comments that do not meet the guidelines will not be posted. Please write in English only. HTML or boards mark-up is not supported though paragraph breaks will be inserted if you leave a blank line between paragraph.

Susan22 I have always wanted to see the movie because I loved the novel, but was warned away because I'd heard that the movie was a stinker. It is. Fowles wrote the script and I could follow it fine, despite the fact that I read the novel over thirty years ago.The soundtrack is execrable--jarring, jangling, and utterly inappropriate--breaking any attempt at mystery or mood in the movie. I suspect that the director must take a lot of the blame as even Michael Caine is terrible in it and he was already doing excellent work in ALFIE a couple of years earlier.The "Mysteries" evoked by the book are not well-translated onto the screen. I'd love to see someone remake this one.