RyothChatty ridiculous rating

Brightlyme i know i wasted 90 mins of my life.

SparkMore n my opinion it was a great movie with some interesting elements, even though having some plot holes and the ending probably was just too messy and crammed together, but still fun to watch and not your casual movie that is similar to all other ones.

Orla Zuniga It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

dlee2012 Cartouche is a 1962 Philippe de Broca offering from France. Ostensibly a well-crafted film, its technical excellence cannot save it from the fact that it represents that most tired and banal of cinematic genres, the swashbuckler.Full of action, there is no depth to this film and Jean-Paul Belmondo's macho posturing throughout would sit more comfortably with an American audience than with a French (or an Australian) one.Indeed, throughout it is clear that the director is trying to create a very Americanised film and it simply does not work in a French context.Whilst the action scenes are themselves well-choreographed, some of the cuts between scenes are very crude.Pacing is a problem that makes this film even more monotonous. The long and unwieldy narrative quickly becomes tiresome as one knows the hero will triumph. Although there is a dark twist towards the end, this is exactly what happens. The character is clearly drawing on the Errol Flynn version of Robin Hood, blended with some elements of Fielding's picaresque hero, Tom Jones.The colour is vivid and the spectacle is on a large scale but one has little sympathy for the characters. Cartouche is so much larger than life, one cannot empathise with him at all, especially given the macho posturing mentioned above. Even the Costner Robin Hood some thirty years later had failings and enough of a back-story to create some empathy. Cartouche, though, has no back-story and there is little character development throughout this film. As he is so uninteresting a character, one quickly loses interest in the film.Despite the problems with the characters, Belmondo and Cardinale as well-cast as the leads and do their best with the thin material.Indeed, Cardinale's character is the most interesting in the film, managing to blend a fiery personality with a submissiveness to Cartouche that would no doubt infuriate feminist audiences today. Indeed, a reading of the film from her character's point of view would make for a fascinating thesis. It is, therefore, her death at the end that gives the film its only real poignancy. Her laying out as a Princess, bedecked with the jewels stolen from the society ladies at the ball is a wonderfully-ironic moment. Likewise, the reflections of the dark, inky water when she is laid to rest give the film its only real moment of cinematic beauty.Besides this, the film's real saving grace is its subversive critique of the military. In the early part of the story, soldiers feature prominently and are consistently shown to be nothing more than state-sanctioned mercenaries. They do not care who they kill, as long as they are well-paid.Along with this ruthlessness, they are shown to be buffoons in uniforms, lacking any kind of depth or redeeming features. This wonderful subversiveness stands well today and gives the film its only depth, particularly when one considers it was filmed during the fallout of the Algerian War.Ultimately, one has mixed feelings about this film. For the most part, it is well-made, with some spectacular action scenes but also some poor editing. The male protagonist is a comic-book character but the female has more depth.The film's saving grace is its subversive quality. It bravely seeks to undermine the military as an organisation full of fools and ruthless, uncaring killers and it also seeks to attack the emerging trend of feminism by showing the loyal, submissive woman as the ideal.Ultimately, though, it is clear that the swashbuckler was a very tired genre by this time and it is fitting that this is one of the last of its type.

jotix100 Louis Dominique Bourgingnon and his brother Louison were small time bandits in pre revolutionary Paris. Together with their pal, Douceur, they plied their trade in the streets. They stole from unsuspecting citizens and had to bring it to Malichot, a Fagin-like man who then saw to the pilfered goods, keeping most of it for himself. The trio, not content with the meager share they got for their effort, decide to challenge the boss. An angry Malichot swears revenge.The friends find refuge in the army. The three friends soldiers to go to fight battles, in the process they manage to become heroes, when in reality they were deserters. Their biggest opportunity came when the Marshall arrives carrying chests of gold to the battlefield. They stage a fantastic escape, avoiding their pursuers to get them. The friendly thieves go into a country inn, where the gorgeous Venus befriends them. With a new resolution in mind, Louis Dominique becomes Cartouche, a man that will steal money from the rich and shares it with the poor.This picaresque tale, adapted for the screen by none other than Philippe De Broca, who also directed, gets a larger than life treatment that still charms viewers after almost fifty years after it was done. Daniel Boulanger, a frequent collaborator of Mr. De Broca and Charles Spaak contributed to the scenario for this 1962 French film that also marked the beginning of the director's long association with Jean-Paul Belmonto, who is seen in the title role.A young Jean-Paul Belmondo cut quite a figure in those days. He had an amazing film presence and it is easy to see why he was a favorite of many filmmakers. Adding luster to the film is the gorgeous Claudia Cardinale at the height of her youth and beauty. She plays Venus the woman that follow Cartouche through all his adventures. A young Jean Rochefort is another welcome addition to the cast that also included Jess Hahn, Marcel Dalio, {hilippe Lemaire and Odile Versois.

dbdumonteil Louis-Dominique Cartouche (1693-1721) was one of the two famous brigands in France of the XVIII th century the other being Mandrin the smuggler.Cartouche's "career" took place during the Regence (interregnum Louis the XIV th /louis the XV th) whereas his colleague appeared later under Louis the XV th 's reign.He was another Robin Hood ,stealing from the rich and giving to the poor (not only legend).He was a gallant man,seducing many women , collecting the lovers .In the movie ,"Venus" (Cardinale)might represent some of them.His relationship with an aristocratic woman (Odile Versois in the movie) is plausible for he had friends in the nobility .Once he had dinner with one of these high born ladies and he thought her champagne was undrinkable:the day after ,he sent a case of bottles to her.The tragic death of Cartouche is not shown in the movie:like Mandrin ,and like other brigands ,he perished on the wheel ,a terrifying torture .Belmondo who was also De Broca's "L'Homme De Rio" is a dashing handsome chivalrous Cartouche .He gets good support from a stellar cast .The last scene,often praised ,is ,with the "burying at sea" scene of Enrico's "Les Aventuriers" ,one of the most beautiful scenes of the French cinema of the sixties!And,no,they were not Nouvelle Vague ,either De Broca or Enrico !

MartinHafer While this certainly isn't one of the deeper or meaningful costume dramas I have seen, I must admit it's a lot of fun--even though the character played by Jean-Paul Belmondo is crazy when it comes to his relationship with the lady played by Claudia Cardinale. It's in many ways a re-telling of the Robin Hood story in 18th century France--with a much more flawed main character. Like Mr. Hood, Cartouche steals from the rich and gives to the poor, but unlike Robin (who was quite happy with Maid Marion, thank you very much), once Cartouche got the girl of any man's dreams, it just wasn't good enough. Claudia Cardinale played a ravishing young thief who was desperately in love with him and ultimately would do anything for Cartouche--and the idiot keeps looking at other women! Ultimately he understands the stupidity of this, but by then it's just too late.The story excels when it comes to exciting fights and costumes. However, at times, it lets the viewer down because the mood of the film seems to shift too much--almost like there were several versions of the film and they morphed them together. On one hand, it's a romance and in that department it does an excellent job. On the other, it's an exciting adventure yarn and once again it succeeds in this department. But, at some points in the movie (particularly when Cartouche is in the army), it also tries to be a pretty broad comedy. I actually think the film might have been better if the entire thing had been comedy or they removed the comedy altogether. It just seemed disjoint and odd the way it changed styles. However, regardless of this, the film is still worth seeing and is a lot of fun.