Lovesusti The Worst Film Ever

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

Kaydan Christian A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Kinley This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

boblipton After the success of THAT MAN FROM RIO, director Philippe de Broca and star Jean-Paul Belmondo reteamed for this movie. Belmondo is a young man with a dimwitted fiancee and a predatory prospective mother-in-law. His saving grace is that he is a billionaire. On being told he is broke, he has friendly Chinese philosopher Valéry Inkijinoff arrange to kill him -- a two-million-dollar insurance payout will be split between the philosopher and his fiancee. However, on seeing Ursula Andress doing a striptease (without, alas, taking off any clothes; what's the point of watching French movies?), he regains his will to live, as any sensible man would.It's based on one of Jules Vernes' voyages extraordinaires with almost all of it shot on location. In addition, the situations are very funny, in that frantic manner that the French farceurs did such a good job at. Unfortunately, while the situations are comic, only Miss Andress and Jean Rochefort as Belmondo's long-suffering valet show any comic sensibilities.French audiences didn't seem to care. It was successful. De Broca was a good, commercial director who always knew what his audience wanted and gave it to them, even if it seems he didn't -- or perhaps couldn't -- give them more than they might expect.

pgpoo2 Mostly inane, disjointed production, not worth your time, except if you wish to see what in the mid-60s did inspire George Lucas and Spielberg at the inception of Indiana Jones. Dated, at best. Yes, it is filmed on location; yes, it might be a spoof of the then-budding Bond movies; yes, it is a tad above the weak French action movies of that time (as opposed to the French films noirs of the 50s, which were excellent) but thisis plodding at best, if not outright boring. Despite Andress' charm (and certainly not her "acting"!), and some stage presence by Belmondo,skip this one (unless you are a film or pop culture historian, with minute archival interests). See "The Man from Rio" instead; althoughit, too, is dated it moves much more smoothly and shows what made Belmondo famous (and also offers on-location shooting). Even with its film history relevance, a 3 out of 10 is still generous.

Louis-35 I won't say much as you need to see the movie to be caught by it's adventure theme that's never stop. Bebel is great, Ursulla, sexy of course, and the plethora of second characters make a kind of in movie family. If you like to travel and enjoy visual humor, this movie is for you.

kibishii I saw this when it was shown recently on TCM, because I have enjoyed Jean Paul Belmondo's films, particularly "The Burglars". Also this film had supposedly provided some inspiration for the "Indiana Jones" films.Belmondo is a playboy type, living on a ship, who is propelled into an adventure. There is no logical plot to speak of, just a continuous series of madcap events. Some incidents are entertaining, and others less so, but in any event the movie is best viewed with the brain set in neutral. The scenes involving a balloon and also the escapades on scaffolding are particularly amusing.Inspiration maybe, but comparisons to "Indiana Jones" would seem to be superficial. This movie is more light hearted, and Belmondo is more of a bumbler than a fearless adventurer. There is a scene with a vine bridge across a canyon, which was also part of "Temple of Doom's" plot, but that aside there are no obvious similarities.Ursula Andress however, appears on a beach in a white bikini very similar to the one she wore in "Dr. No".In summary, this is not bad if you don't mind a scattered but creative plot. See this if you have the chance just for the experience. It's fun, but not quite for everyone.K-Rating: 5/10