Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

UnowPriceless hyped garbage

Freaktana A Major Disappointment

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

rleonard-10 I am trying to solve a small mystery. Has anyone read Bunuel's autobiography? The film was released in 1977, but I somehow knew the story line in 1971. A song I wrote in 1971 was written after I read the story. Since I did not see the film until much later,I had always assumed that I had read a review of the film. I believe what I read was the screenplay, which had yet to be filmed. Anybody? I really enjoyed the film, especially the use of two different women displaying different character facets. The first time I watched it, I barely picked up on it. However, after watching it several times, I discovered that along with this method, there are many scenes and "tricks" that Bunuel employed to bring his vision to the film.

metrobiz By the end of the film - and only because I like French films and locations was it viewed without fast-forwarding - a guess began to form on the theory of interchangeable actresses, but just barely, because the Bouquet character also is deferring, postponing, and teasing about flirtation, phallus-teasing, and seduction in her early, similarly amiable encounters with the male lead. OK, on top of the dual-actress, one character conceit is the flashback narrative story locomotion on the train to diffuse further the confusing, the train characters all appearing to be affirming and approving in their voyeurism, which is/was unlikely. The cold shower action near the opening, so-to-speak, so as not to plant a spoiler, was apropos, a welcome clever breath of something memorable and comedic. Then there's the violence toward women who certainly deserved some profoundly negative consequences, and that being left unquestioned. Is that French? French in the late-'70's? Or just late '70's sensibility? Add to this messiness some of the usually lovely French female nudity; here it was mostly superfluous. The whole running-time engendered a "what's going-on" experience. Call a film "art" and any and everything is justified by pseudo buffs and celluloid artistes, and their wannabes. Yes, obsession meets insincerity, wily female opportunism, and reverse exploitation. But sometimes films, French, or not, are just bad, even when populated by a lovely cast and labeled black comedy, "cult," or "artistic." Good premise here; very poor French execution. (And, by the IMDb rating, it would seem my op/ed is the minority opinion. But, for consideration orientation, I liked "The Tree of Life," and got it - though it needed tighter editing for a shorter running time.)

davetree There is no number 0 for a review Not "surreal" Not believable, except for the brain dead Bunuel's worst, less than a sexless attack on humanity Did the actors demand more money after seeing the first cut? Do petit-bourgeois goats have "desire"? Yes.Do goats and lobotomized cows pay attention to Christian trinkets? Yes.Does the director? Sans doute...this is more like toothless snakes on a train.Occasional bombs going off have all the excitement of a stitched corset.The cognac glasses look like thimbles; they're a perfect fit for this film.Was Bunuel compulsively embarrassed by others? Yes.

lastliberal The film is told in flashback after Mathieu (Fernando Rey) douses a woman with a pail of water while catching the train.He meets Conchita, played by Carole Bouquet & Angela Molina when she serves him dinner, and is instantly smitten.Yes, he falls in love with on Conchita, and later another emerges. It is enough to drive one to do a mad thing like dumping a bucket of water.Buñuel, in his last film, gives us a story not only about desire, but about unattainable desire. Conchita constantly tempts Mathieu, even telling him she is a virgin, without giving an inch.It is a strange cat and mouse game and it ends without a clear resolution. One presumes it will continue indefinitely.