Bardlerx Strictly average movie

Lancoor A very feeble attempt at affirmatie action

Bluebell Alcock Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Aspen Orson There is definitely an excellent idea hidden in the background of the film. Unfortunately, it's difficult to find it.

mofessor-587-590725 What a strange and wonderful film this is. If you find yourself bored beyond belief during the early moments, hang in there for about 13 or 14 minutes and your patience will be amply rewarded. From that point on, I caught myself saying "Wow!", over and over again! Some of the imagery is just fantastic. It reminded me in places of some of the Dr. Mabuse films from the 60s. I have a sub-titled version and the story was very easy to follow.It is not the greatest film ever made, but "Judex" has become a permanent part of my collection, because it is so different and quite enjoyable. I got my copy from Sinister Cinema and their print is not as pristine as it could be, but it is certainly better than good.

Josep M. Comelles I saw Judex in 1964 in the movie Theater movie Niza in Barcelona. I was a teenager and I remained shocked by the images fascination. I review the film time to time. It is a masterpiece to recover the spirit of the old shows by Louis Feuillade before the I World War, with love and taking care of infinite details. If we compare the images with those taken in fresh air by Feuillade in 1912-14 Paris we can realize the accurate work of the art directors. All movie is an exercise of cinematographic calligraphy that only a poet can do. Franju and Luis Buñuel are the greatest surrealist in cinema history. This sequence of the masked dance is the best I have never seen: there is magic in the pigeon mask by Edith Scob..

dbdumonteil The first "Judex" was made in 1916 and the late French critic Roger Boussinot was hard on Feuillade ,whose films were (I quote him) " brainwashing" .He was speaking of "Les Vampires" and "Judex" which ,for him,were hiding the atrocious reality.Back in 1963,Franju,who had a penchant for mystery ("Les Yeux Sans Visages" "Pleins Feux sur l'Assassin" ) made a remake.He cast a conjurer(Channing Pollock) as the lead (which was not a bad idea after all for Judex being an almost surrealistic hero did not demand a great actor ) Franju used again his favorite actress ,Edith Scob,("les Yeux Sans Visage" ) whose eyes were the most beautiful (along with MIchèle Morgan's) in the French cinema.Judex is some kind of mysterious Robin Hood,who comes to the rescue of poor people an unscrupulous banker has swindled . Franju's sense of mystery works wonder and creates a strange atmosphere with this hero with a bird mask .A sequence was filmed in Château-Gaillard ,les Andelys .

swagner2001 ***note - may contain spoilers *** The one redeeming sequence in this 1963 remake is the Masked Ball scene. Judex appears as a guest, with a large pigeon's head covering his own. He produces bird after bird as entertainment for the masked guests. This scene serves as a prime example of how the rest of the film should have been staged i.e. heavy on music and visuals, and light on dialogue.But, the bulk of the film has a boring, unimaginative soundtrack of silence, or words, and more words. Semi-closeups of people talking, talking, talking. Give me the silent version of JUDEX any day.Even the framing of the shots cut down on the entertainment value.Example: In the original Louis Feuillade JUDEX, a woman, walking across a bridge, is captured by two men. They throw a hood over her head, wrap it tight with a rope around her neck. Cut to shot of them tossing the body into the river. This is CLEARLY seen, no confusing close shots cutting out valuable information. You SEE a body fall off a high bridge into a river. CUT TO: Two kids fishing in a boat on the river. One kid catches something, starts reeling it in - it's some unidentifiable sack. They pull it ashore. Looks like a body. "Licorice Kid" removes the rope around the victim's neck - pulls off the hood, and realizes - in shock, that it is his sidekick's mother.That's from the original - the sequence is amazing, and unforgettable.The 1963 remake has it like this. Two guys nicely dressed, lean over the edge of a bridge. (There is no water visible in this shot) "I don't know - it doesn't look like she'll sink into the river. She's still floating." The two men exchange a look of concern. Cut to close shot of blonde actress floating in water. We clearly see her face, eyes closed. She appears quite relaxed - one presumes she is in the river the two men were talking about. Cut to shot of two kids in a boat. One ribs the other, pointing to woman floating in river. She's brought to shore.See the difference? There's intrigue and mystery and a real sense of danger in the original silent, which is just not there in the 1963 version.The 1963 version plays like a Vanity Fair advert in motion. Yes, it's all very slick, like Jules Dassin directing an episode of "The Avengers." What drives me insane are the 1960's hairstyles in a movie supposedly set in 1917.Whatever.The 1916/1917 silent serial is a masterpiece. See it. And if you're still hungry for more, catch this (1963) version.(NOTE - "JUDEX34" is a 1934 remake that's supposedly quite good - directed by Maurice Champreaux, the son-in-law of Louis Feuillade. Unfortunately, "JUDEX34" is not available on video at the moment.)