Not all cake that looks good from the outside is good as its dancing down your throat. From a distance, The Rules of the Game looks visually stunning; but inside the package lies a broken story full of jumbled story lines, weak dialogue, shallow decisions, bizarre actions, characters that come out of nowhere, and character that literally disappear from the flick. The director has a good eye for shots, but the story needed oh so much help. Yes, I am fully aware that it's important in the history of film. But, an example I've used before; Faceball 2000 is the first first-person shooter game in console history. Does it make the game any good being a contributor? Of course not, but we are aware of its existence and bookmark in history. The Rules of the Game is a benchmark, much like how the French Revolution is a bookmark, one some would rather not talk about. However, I've already started babbling about the flick, might as well finish---something I was wishing the film could do.
He loves her. She loves him. He doesn't love her. She does love him but not that much. She wishes he could love her. He is a nice guy that secretly loves her. She is an idiot that loves someone else. Rabbits are hunted. This is more or less the plot of the movie. Yes, there are plenty of underlying details and plenty of themes explored, but it doesn't make up for the ridiculousness of the plot line involving several rich socialites and the web of love they are weaving (that escalates and involves more people during the climax at a dinner). The web isn't the annoying part; it's the ability to change your mind many times as the movie progresses as to whom you are attracted to, and just how much you are attracted to them. It strips away from the realism of the movie, and strips away at the credibility of the writing staff. Film historians love to point out that the movie is old and one mustn't watch the movie with a modern-day eye. My rebuttal is to watch some classic Charlie Chaplin, whose work came out mostly before this, and then see a good story with good themes.
The director knows how to craft a good shot and move the camera in a motion that involves the audience and makes them a member of the socialite clan. However, this is contradicted with the stupid-looking fights, the constant fainting, and one of the more disgusting scenes in cinema history: the extended sequence of rabbits getting shot. What on earth is going on when a movie is praised for its camera-work as it spends five minutes showing animals getting shot at? First off, the movie is long enough as it is, second off it doesn't contribute much to the plot, third off its just disgusting altogether. The director doesn't deserve to have his name mentioned in this paragraph for that sequence alone.
Might as well mention him in this paragraph. Eh, not yet. The acting of the movie is a mixed bag, too bad the dialogue doesn't help them much. Their true acting chops can be revealed towards the end, as each of the main characters is emotionally stripped and you see each of their flaws and anxieties towards the end. Too bad the ending comes out of nowhere, and really doesn't close out the story. After 100-plus minutes of bickering and dialogue-heavy conversations that really doesn't reveal anything other than love and lust, one would hope for an ending that can tie all loose ends. Not here.
What is it with the forgiveness of flaws in older movies? The theme of love here is butchered to a point of embarrassment. Just like Romeo and Juliet, the way love is presented here is all wrong. This isn't love; this is a lot of lust lusting about through the entire picture. Morality is shot in the foot and at the face as we see constant cheating, on-camera, and off-camera through verbal clues. From the beginning as the pilot curses the heavens and the woman he is "in love with," to the end as the backstabbing reaches a maximum level, this predates MTV's Real World. The difference is: this movie is considered a masterpiece. Why?
Bottom Line: Studying film becomes tough sometimes simply because of the requirement to appreciate and fall in love with several crucial movies of the early 20th century. Another trashy movie like this makes me almost want to switch majors, or change my title to "Modern-Day Film Critic." If this title doesn't exist, I shall be the first to achieve this because despite the camera-work, there isn't much positive to say about this movie. The story is a mess, the characters aren't that likable, there is very little comedy, there is very little entertainment value, and the tastelessness of it all just hampers the experience even more. Unless you want to cue this movie or copy the way the camera captures all that is going on, there is no reason whatsoever to watch this French mess. Bah, forget the use of decent English words: this movie sucks. There. Take my film degree if I am required to like it. Take it.
P.S. The director's name is Jean Renoir.
He loves her. She loves him. He doesn't love her. She does love him but not that much. She wishes he could love her. He is a nice guy that secretly loves her. She is an idiot that loves someone else. Rabbits are hunted. This is more or less the plot of the movie. Yes, there are plenty of underlying details and plenty of themes explored, but it doesn't make up for the ridiculousness of the plot line involving several rich socialites and the web of love they are weaving (that escalates and involves more people during the climax at a dinner). The web isn't the annoying part; it's the ability to change your mind many times as the movie progresses as to whom you are attracted to, and just how much you are attracted to them. It strips away from the realism of the movie, and strips away at the credibility of the writing staff. Film historians love to point out that the movie is old and one mustn't watch the movie with a modern-day eye. My rebuttal is to watch some classic Charlie Chaplin, whose work came out mostly before this, and then see a good story with good themes.
The director knows how to craft a good shot and move the camera in a motion that involves the audience and makes them a member of the socialite clan. However, this is contradicted with the stupid-looking fights, the constant fainting, and one of the more disgusting scenes in cinema history: the extended sequence of rabbits getting shot. What on earth is going on when a movie is praised for its camera-work as it spends five minutes showing animals getting shot at? First off, the movie is long enough as it is, second off it doesn't contribute much to the plot, third off its just disgusting altogether. The director doesn't deserve to have his name mentioned in this paragraph for that sequence alone.
Might as well mention him in this paragraph. Eh, not yet. The acting of the movie is a mixed bag, too bad the dialogue doesn't help them much. Their true acting chops can be revealed towards the end, as each of the main characters is emotionally stripped and you see each of their flaws and anxieties towards the end. Too bad the ending comes out of nowhere, and really doesn't close out the story. After 100-plus minutes of bickering and dialogue-heavy conversations that really doesn't reveal anything other than love and lust, one would hope for an ending that can tie all loose ends. Not here.
What is it with the forgiveness of flaws in older movies? The theme of love here is butchered to a point of embarrassment. Just like Romeo and Juliet, the way love is presented here is all wrong. This isn't love; this is a lot of lust lusting about through the entire picture. Morality is shot in the foot and at the face as we see constant cheating, on-camera, and off-camera through verbal clues. From the beginning as the pilot curses the heavens and the woman he is "in love with," to the end as the backstabbing reaches a maximum level, this predates MTV's Real World. The difference is: this movie is considered a masterpiece. Why?
Bottom Line: Studying film becomes tough sometimes simply because of the requirement to appreciate and fall in love with several crucial movies of the early 20th century. Another trashy movie like this makes me almost want to switch majors, or change my title to "Modern-Day Film Critic." If this title doesn't exist, I shall be the first to achieve this because despite the camera-work, there isn't much positive to say about this movie. The story is a mess, the characters aren't that likable, there is very little comedy, there is very little entertainment value, and the tastelessness of it all just hampers the experience even more. Unless you want to cue this movie or copy the way the camera captures all that is going on, there is no reason whatsoever to watch this French mess. Bah, forget the use of decent English words: this movie sucks. There. Take my film degree if I am required to like it. Take it.
P.S. The director's name is Jean Renoir.