Lola Montès

Whimsical, bittersweet, cleverly metatheatrical, and, most importantly, full of grand and delicious spectacle. The creative framing and neat juxtapositions make this consistently interesting, but the pacing and story quality are a bit inconsistent - I prefer the refinement of Madame De personally. Still it's very well crafted and definitely worth a watch.

Displays all the magnificently choreographed camera movement that you expect from Ophuls. The framework is an interesting device that allows for a lot of spectacle. But it's kinda dull, and I didn't feel at all engrossed by Lola or her activities. There's a hint of a feminist idea here, but Ophuls seems reluctant to commit, alternately portraying Lola as a free-spirited heroine and a passive victim of male-dominated society. Nice cinematography, but so far the weakest film I've seen from Ophuls.

"Lola" is more deliberate and detached than other Ophuls works, an appropriate attitude for a film that sees life as a circus where high-wire rises and tragic falls are merely episodes in an eternal pattern bounded by an unending circus ring. Ophul's camera--like life--is always in motion, and its movements are spectacularly beautiful.

Continues Ophuls' fascination with fragmented narratives; unfortunately, the plot gets short shrift as a result, feeling more like a series of spectacles than a cohesive, engaging story. But what spectacle it is. You'd be hard-pressed to find a more opulent film, and the camerawork, set pieces, costuming and use of color are magnificent. Too shallow to be great, but much too dazzling to be dispensable.

This is a masterpiece because like all masterpieces it achieves to surpass its contemporaries and predecessors in terms of asethetcs and form as well as in terms of narrative. It is a time image about the decay of aristocracy where Lola Montes 'performs' her 'nobility' to entertain the mob in a circus. We witness her memories in a time capsule where too everythin is a 'theatricalized representation'. The last scene reminded me of 'A Hunger Artist' from F. Kafka.

An immense disappointment. The story is a potentially fascinating one. The sets and costumes are lavish and the colours pop out of the screen. The ever reliable Ustinov is there to liven his scenes up no end. But the narrative has no drive, lead actress Carol lacks charisma and the presentation of the vignettes from Lola's life are so dreary that I found the thing a chore to sit through. I have liked or loved everything I have seen from Max Ophüls but this, his final film, was a major letdown.

If they're determined to make a historic occassion, they must find you in your place, playing your part.

The tracking shots and depth of field give the film a vibrant and lively feel throughout. Multiple levels of action play out in shot after shot, and I cannot recall a tracking shot as emotive as the one that closes this film--form meets content beautifully in that moment.

Gorgeous cinematography and mise en scene. Rather uneven in its pace - the first half hour rockets through years of Lola's life, and there's a distance that makes it difficult to empathize. The final hour, however, allows the story to flow as fluidly as the visuals, and the final moments are executed beautifully. I wonder if the finale's intention to floor me emotionally could've been better achieved with more coherence earlier in the protagonist's emotional arc. A solid closing film for Ophuls.

Gorgeously shot and directed film (with some of the most striking uses and applications of vivid colour schemes) is all but sunk, thanks to a cold and aloof rendering of the central character (not helped by Carol's dreary, ineffectual performance). At least Ustinov is around to give the film a much needed boost of charisma; Walbrook is also fine and touching as deaf King Ludwig.

After a great opening it becomes a little dry and stagy for a while, whisking us through incomplete moments in the life of Lola Montes. Replete with Ophuls' usual commentary on the plight of women, things pick up in the second half as the layers begin to fill in and we get to see some of the best shots in the film. Ophuls had done all of this stuff better earlier, but seeing him shoot in colour is worth it.

# 256

Ophuls' swansong is a supreme, if slightly chilly, affirmation of his exemplary formal talent. It was his entry into the world of colour, but it's such a ravishing looking film that the style threatens to overwhelm the content, which on the surface is the stuff of rote melodrama. Its flashback structure was surely ahead of its time, and while Carol is a little stiff as Lola, her blankness is part of an overall strategy to present a life reduced to theatrical representation.

There were a few things that bothered me about Lola Montes; we don't really get to know the character of Lola until about 50 minutes in, and the film could have used another flashback showing us her transformation (when she left Lieutenant James and became a dancer). Despite the problems with cohesiveness, it was fun to watch, but at the same time depicted the tragic parts of Lola's story very effectively.

276

The period piece when done by a person who knows what they're doing (see Welles/Sophia Coppola among dozens of other obvs but they're the most comparable to this) is up there for the best film can get. The tracking shot to end this should be canonical in the way that others are!

Pretty, but slow

The combination of Ophuls' cinematography and the bright Technicolor palette make for a gorgeous film. I had a difficult time being interested in much more than that, but I freely admit that it was probably more to my being too tired to properly read the subtitles than anything wrong with the movie itself. My ranking has to serve as a placeholder until my next viewing.

Star Rating: ★★★★1/2

It's looks beautiful and all that, but nothing about this movie interested me at all.

You know how to trigger a scandal. The world most scandalous woman. We'll show everything that women dream of doing, but lack the courage to do. - I am not a machine for scandal. I always do as I please. That's all.

Simultaneously treats cinema as a complete joke, a pathetic circus where the audience hurl insults at the performer, controlled by clowns and midgets where he wires show; and as gorgeous spectacle in awe of its own sumptuousness. It's almost too much packed into one film, paradoxical to the core. However, this is a bit too much spectacle at time, a sensory overload. It feels almost unfocused at times, the details threatening to overwhelm the tragedy. But perhaps that was the point all along

Obviously scandalous in 1955, but a bit dull now -- a tempting seductress now only left with going on the circuit to tell all on a reality show -- I mean, at the circus. But it's the technical aspects of the movie that make it worth watching over and over: the sets, the interplay of musical scores, the color, the famous (and dizzying) tracking shots, and a pretty good cast (even if Lola herself is a cipher).

(Unfinished)

not bad...it certainly looks marvelous. but it's also a fairly boring and uninteresting period drama.

"A bodice-ripper invested with the profundity of a Stendhal novel, Lola Montes is also, even more than La Ronde, Ophüls's definite commentary on movie-watching." - Fernando F. Croce

Vibrant and alluring. The snippets of past experiences in Lola's life were partly interesting but their connection to her later life as a performer could've been better executed.

Admirable Directinig , which is expectable!! but other factors arn't in the same level , specially ScreenPlay!!!

That opening shot...

273

Visually stunning with bright, vibrant colors. Martine Carol, as the title character, is lovely but a bit underwhelming, which considerably lessens the picture, and ultimately the story is not all that interestingly handled. It kept my attention for its run time, but I think it's ultimately pretty forgettable.

#278