Reviews

The striking thing about this crappy film is that some viewers give it more than a 1/10 rating. It simply is mind-boggling! The only possible explanation is that such reviews were written by staff of the film studio or highly depressed viewers who felt less depressed after watching this lemon.

Let's be objective here. The acting was crap, out of touch with the story and terribly contrived. The score was bad. The images were poorly shot, using bad angles and close-up views of what should have been filmed from a distance to give the audience a feel for the desolation.

The story itself is totally unrealistic. For example:

1/ An armed group has one of theirs shot and don't even go after the father and son, despite the fact that it's daylight, they carry rifles, the father is slowed down by having to carry his son, the group is obviously starving and out there on a hunting mission. This could never happen in real life.

2/ The house where the human herd is held by cannibals is left unwatched. Since the keepers feel starved enough to eat human flesh, one would think that their prisoners constitute their most precious item. So why would they leave them alone for someone to find and possibly help to escape? Simply unbelievable.

3/ Father and son find a stash of canned food which happens to be still good for consumption after... 11 years, according to the story. Has anyone seen a can of food left in a damp place like a cellar after ten years? Well, the author of the book obviously hasn't. I'm surprised that father and son lasted more than a few hours after eating the stuff.

4/ The old man played by Duvall is nearly blind, can barely get off the ground by himself, can't obviously run, and has managed to survive despite roaming baddies, cannibals, etc? Come on, what are the odds of that possibly happening?

5/ Father and son travel that long road without ever running into a trap, not even once? Say you're an armed group starving and out there looking for prey, wouldn't the first thing coming to mind be to set a trap for some isolated travelers?

6/ You're in charge of a young boy and living in a dangerous environment. Would you look for an isolated place to weather the storm, surviving on roots and hiding from predators, or would you undertake a senseless trip to the ocean in freezing conditions?

I can appreciate some comments that claim a good adaptation from the book but... a good adaptation of a crappy and unrealistic story doesn't make a good film now, does it?

In keeping an objective and unemotional outlook, which should be the most important guideline for anyone writing a review, I simply cannot understand why anyone would recommend watching that film or even find anything good to say about it. Granted, the subject matter is interesting, I won't argue that, but it could have been handled much better in both the book and the film.

I must agree with all those who branded it a pure waste of time, they are absolutely right. This is a bad film on all accounts. As to those who mentioned possible Oscar nominations or spoke of the best film of its year, I'm sorry to say that they're completely off the mark, as much as someone claiming that McDonald's deserves 5 stars on the Michelin guide.

My advice if someone suggests taking you to watch "the road": run!

This is no slapstick, nor situation, nor text-based comedy... it's a pure masterpiece of third degree humor designed to make the viewer think about how people react to non-speech. The humor resides not in Sellers character or play, who happens to just be there as the title clearly says, but rather in the reactions his silence triggers in those who surround him. He behaves as a mirror to the subconscious fears and expectations of all layers of society: lawyers, gangsters, the press, foreign diplomats, secret service members, men, women, gays, wealthy, poor, powerful, and humble alike.

Some comments reflect upon the fact that "being there" is not a remake of the pink panther, that its humor is totally different and doesn't trigger hilarious laughter. It is much subtler than that, planting a huge question mark in the viewer's mind at the beginning of the film and slowly transforming it into an increasingly growing smirk as the story unravels. The parallel with a budding seed carefully tended by a loving gardener is absolutely striking and in perfect unison with the character played by Sellers.

Definitely not recommended for rednecks but rather an absolute must-see for those who have more than rice-pudding between their ears. Being there is a true gem, a jewel of comedy, a satirical outlook on society, probably the best creation of the immensely talented humorist that was Peter Sellers.

This film is probably based on true events but the keyword here is "based", as in very remotely based. I think the blame should be put on the writer and director who did an incredibly poor job out of a potential hit, messing it up to the point of turning a war-time thriller into a hilarious comedy, with no intention of doing so.

The scenario lacked credibility from beginning to end. After a mere day of training, these poor girls manage to parachute at night without even a scratch, perform a perfectly synchronized strip show on music they'd never heard before and without the slightest possibility of a rehearsal.

Sophie the sharp-shooter doesn't hold her breath while aiming, holds her rifles on both occasions at the shoulder, without support, hence shaking like a leaf, yet hitting her targets in the darkest of nights at the start of the film and later missing an unmissable shot in the subway with a state-of-the-art rifle in perfect conditions.

At one point the girls get into a shoot-out (at the hospital) and hold their Stens at arm's length, like a bunch of dirty diapers, without getting their wrists damaged by the recoil and, of course, hitting their targets square on instead of shooting at birds.

Such scenes were highly reminiscent of Charlie's Angels at their best, although the latter film is intended to be seen as funnily over-the-top, whereas the former is supposed to be realistic and based on true events.

If all these failings were not sufficient to trigger bouts of hilarious laughter in the audience, the scenario pushes on and arranges for the girls to always be at the right spot at the right time with the right contacts, help and equipment, as though they had planned and rehearsed all the mishaps of their mission hundreds of times beforehand, a bit in the style of James Bond films. Simply not credible for such a story.

The director jumps continuously from one scene to the next without the slightest hint of fluidity nor continuity, in the manner of a Marvel's comic. The girls look panicked throughout but yet manage to make all the right moves with nerves of steel, with a clear vision of when to hit, or shoot, or walk instead of running, and yet fail to kill the bad guy on so many occasions until the very end, as prescribed by the confused scenario, naturally.

The sobbing looks fake in nearly all relevant scenes. The girls' characters evolve erratically in all psychological directions, as though they'd had weeks to think through what was happening to them and change their minds. The scenes of torture and suicide by cyanide pill have an air of strange impressionism derived from a 70's film by Godard. The bad Nazis have the look and feel of choir boys.

In short it feels like a girlie's remake of Inglorious Basterds, shallow as hell, making very little sense or, rather, asking the viewer to mentally fill the gaps where the director lacked the time, or skill, or both, to package an otherwise interesting story into a sensible unit.

Contrary to some comments I've read, the French know how to make excellent action films, write credible scenarii, and act convincingly, probably more so than most productions made in Hollywood. Unfortunately "les femmes de l'ombre" is a very bad example and shouldn't be seen as a landmark of French film-making, unless of course one looks at it as a comical parody of a would-be serious war-time story, in which case it remarkably hits the jackpot.

I can't go so far as to recommend against watching it because, given enough imagination and little attention to detail, I wouldn't be surprised if someone found something interesting in it after all. I mean, let's face it, if you're a teenage girl or a romantic grandma, you'll probably like it.