|
|
This movie has not been available for quite a while. I recall from long-ago viewings that it was sumptuous to look at, with unusually 'luxe costumes. I was happy to see it pop up on Netflix, but a lot has happened to movies since 1973...
The verdict? It's refreshing to see that even after 40 years of Hollywood film visuals being continually upgraded, the wide screen cinematography still impresses. The visuals are so strong that I recall about half of them perfectly. It includes a lot of historical research (often pertaining to toil) which lifts the piece, and it riffs beautifully on Vermeer's side-lit domestic chambers. Lester (or his cinematographer) has a great eye. As I watched I recall that this movie introduced overt athleticism to fight scenes, so maybe we have Lester to blame for starting that trend (which is still the sole conceit of many bad movies). The costumes are every bit as opulent as I recall. Money has been spent & every dime is on-screen. Every historical film in recent memory still borrows from this (Amadeus, Ridicule, etc.)
On the negative side, I have no idea what would draw a viewer to watch this more than once. None of the characters or their predicaments engaged me. I wish the story was stronger. The cast is too massive for this tiny conflict. At certain points the score arrives full blast, to fill sections of the movie they apparently forgot to storyboard. It feels like things are set in France only about twice in the movie. And Raquel Welch is not very good. The wall-to-wall slapstick starts alright but becomes more and more annoying. And the movie as a whole is on the irritating side. The countless fights go on and on until they just blend together. The movie has so few places to go, that it should be less tiresome. But two very lonely ideas (sword fights, slapstick) crave more support. The visuals are very strong. The script is weak.
score 6/10
onepotato2 9 April 2011
Reprint: https://www.imdb.com/review/rw2411179/ |
|
30-11-2019 13:18:17
