4/10
Good idea but not enough to keep it afloat
2 December 2007
This film has an interesting premise: a dinner party of rich bourgeoisie find themselves inexplicably unable to leave the house. They slowly devolve into savagery and vulgarity. It's sort of like the Eagles song "Hotel California" except that this film lasts 70 minutes longer than the song. And you can't dance to it.

But the problem is not the slow pace nor is it the lack of plot. The main problem is that Bunuel fails to develop his characters, so we are left with a satire of... nothing! There is really nothing to sink our philosophical teeth into. The resolution is utterly meaningless and random, and it leaves you saying to yourself "I could have thought of a million better ways to end that movie." But as it were, Bunuel chose the most vapid resolution, similar to a cheezy TV scifi drama where the solution is to "switch the polarity from plus to minus!" This film is utterly unfulfilling to anyone who is thirsty for philosophy and depth. Of course the Bunuel fans will retort that Bunuel never claimed to have any meaning to his films. Sadly, I must agree. But what frustrates me most is that he had the perfect opportunity to deliver an insightful commentary on the human condition, but instead he let it degrade into utter schlock.

Bunuel loves to ridicule the rich. That's fine, but maybe he should give us a reason WHY the rich are so ridiculous. It's not enough to make fun of a man just because he wears a tuxedo. Without giving us sufficient insights into the personalities of his characters, that's all Bunuel is doing: making fun of people because of the clothes and jewelry they wear. But I suppose back in that era, it was en vogue to make fun of rich people. Come to think of it, audiences haven't changed much in the last 50 years.

I give this film 4 stars instead of 1 because at least in this film Bunuel doesn't slaughter any animals on camera.
29 out of 61 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed