Cult Review
Senior Film Conservator
Honestly? It depends on your patience levels. This isn't a high-octane thrill ride like . It’s more of a mood piece that lives in the tiny, awkward spaces between people. If you find old French cinema charming, you’ll likely enjoy the ride. If you’re looking for a tight script, you’re going to be bored to tears within twenty minutes.
There’s this one scene where Sylvio De Pedrelli just stares out a window for a beat too long. I kept waiting for him to do something, say something, or at least blink. He didn’t. It felt like the film crew just forgot to yell cut. 🎞️
The whole movie moves at the speed of a tired snail. Sometimes that’s nice. It lets you notice the way the light hits the wallpaper or the slightly frayed edges of a character's coat. But other times? It feels like the director was just trying to fill runtime.
The dialogue has this strange, stiff cadence. It’s almost like the actors were told to read their lines while holding a very heavy book in their laps. It’s weirdly endearing if you’re in the right headspace. It’s infuriating if you aren’t.
I couldn't help but compare it to , which has a bit more fire in its belly. Amour... amour... feels like it’s half-asleep. There’s a scene where the characters discuss the future, and their faces are just blank slates. It’s supposed to be heavy, but it just lands as… quiet. Maybe that was the point? Or maybe they just ran out of coffee on set.
It’s not a masterpiece, and it’s definitely not for everyone. But there’s something about the way it hangs onto those small, unimportant moments that kept me watching. I suppose that’s why we watch these old things, right? To see the little mistakes that aren't polished away by modern editing software.
Anyway. It’s a curiosity. Don’t expect a revelation. Just expect a lot of long looks and some very dated furniture. ☕

Year
1932
IMDb Rating
—

Editorial
Deciphering the legacy of transgressive cult cinema.
Community
Log in to comment.