Perry Kate Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Lancoor A very feeble attempt at affirmatie action

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Raymond Sierra The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Mike Olson Slow burn relationship drama, an old relationship renewed and examining current relationships; lovers, family... The title of the film itself seems a play on words as it's less a take-your-pick affair than it is saying the film is about these two things, connected but because the characters share connections in the present day.Here again we see Resnais exploring themes of time and memory as was the case with his previous two feature films: Last Year At Marienbad and Hiroshima Mon Amour. This, his third feature, reflects on times past, the characters talk about the past, but it doesn't go into filmed flashbacks or creative revisiting, looping back on itself, adding or changing subtle details. Memory does also come into play. With the one side of the two stories it's two characters with a shared past, of which one asks why this, how come, what were you thinking then...the other attempts to answer. But it remains elusive, a story told in pieces. Hard to assimilate as we aren't really shown enough connect-the-dot details of a shared past so much as we are just shown they had a shared past and make of it what you will. This approach can wear thin...it lacks cohesion and as a consequence comes up short on dramatic tension. The other part of the story also looks to the past, also fragmented and elusive.Early on the sound score, arriving at specific points, provides more than emphasis or support as it temporarily lends an air of mystery or sly menace that wouldn't necessarily be noticed at all otherwise. Neat trick in the way it suggests unsettled feelings or hints at perhaps darker revelations to come, something I didn't get from the dialogue alone. It too is another piece. There is other symbolism to be found, a gun shown disassembled, in pieces...At a couple points the film goes into quick edits. A single line of dialogue, jump to another scene and another line. On and on. More little pieces. It may have seemed a clever film editing technique at the time but the dialogue as presented is disconnected, unfocusing the passage of time with muddled glimpses. Which may have been the point but more than anything I found it to be somewhat annoying.Enough. The film is an exercise in patience. For me, too much so because, even though it comes to some conclusions, in the end I didn't feel it was enough to justify the scattered approach of uncertain reflections and eventual points made. Even though from the same time period, I don't feel this film is in the same class as the Resnais films Marienbad and Hiroshima, two films that are masterpieces or nearly so. You could say the approach with Muriel is radical, as was the case in those two previous films, but that doesn't, in and of itself, make it a great film. In my opinion, yours may differ.

Bob Taylor It's about 50 years since I first saw Muriel; in those days the wounds of the Algerian war were still fresh: bodies of Algerian immigrants were found floating in rivers, Sartre's apartment was fire-bombed because he'd supported Algerian independence and so on. Resnais had enough reason to make a film about those troubled days. The trouble with the film has to do with the uneasy juxtaposition of domestic drama (the unhappy love of Hélène and Alphonse) with the ordeal of Bernard and Robert in Algeria, and the dead girl over whom Bernard obsesses. The love story is so much more interesting than the political theme that we are left frustrated with the necessity of ignoring the latter to the benefit of the former.Delphine Seyrig gives a wonderful performance as Hélène; she's always in movement, trying to calm Bernard down, trying to coax some emotion out of the stony Alphonse, on the phone with Claudie cadging some money to gamble at the casino (she's not good about repaying debts). Jean Champion shows up in the second half as Ernest, Alphonse's brother-in-law, trying to bring him back to a sense of his duties to his family. He sings that wonderful song at the lunch party, then launches into an angry tirade about Alphonse's dereliction of duty. It's a superb performance. Nita Klein as Françoise is appropriately prickly, analyzing her options as she sees Alphonse sliding away from her. Claude Sainval is very oily as de Smoke, a man who can't stop thinking about the money he's lost on a derelict building: ''can't even get the doorknobs from it''

jotix100 Helene, a widow living in Boulogne, France, makes a living out of selling antique furniture and objects which she uses in her own apartment. The different pieces are part of the decor. She lives with her step-son, Bernard, a recently arrival from the Algerian front. Bernard is obsessed with Muriel, a young woman that was tortured by his army unit. He is now writing his recollection of her, as well as shooting documentary style films that deal with his recent past.As the story begins, Helene had invited an old lover, Alphonse for a visit. Perhaps looking to relive the days of her first romance, she has asked him to come spend some time with her. To her surprise, Alphonse arrives with a beautiful young woman, Francoise, who he passes as his niece. It is clear from the start they know one another in a different fashion. Taking them in as her guests is a decision that backfires on Helene.Helene has a weakness for gambling at the local casino. She loses most of the time. She seems to be pressed for money. Her good friend, Roland De Smoke, appears to be a well to do man. She gets money from him, as well as from another friend, Claudie, who holds the mortgage to her apartment, probably to guarantee getting money out of what could be a possible bankrupt Helene.Alphonse, the visitor, is an enigmatic figure. He walks all over Boulogne making friends with the locals. In fact, Alphonse shows he is hiding from his own painful past. He too, has been living in Algeria managing a sort of club which he is too vague to describe. Helene, who has thought seeing her old love would lead to some change, ends up a lonely figure because nothing turns the way she had hoped."Muriel" was Alain Resnais' third full length feature. His popularity among the art house crowd was always strong, yet this film was not seen by a wider audience, as probably the producers wanted it to be. The problem might stem from the way Mr. Resnais cut the film which might lose the viewer if not paying close attention at what is happening on the screen. The scenario was written by Jean Cayrol. The film has a lot of symbolism that will elude a casual viewing. Antique furniture that equates with Helene's loneliness, a town devastated during the war, the memories of the recent Algerian conflict are part of the message Mr. Resanais wanted to project.In Delphine Seyrig, the director found a muse, no doubt. The actress appeared in the first three films of Alain Resnais. She was a serious actress who collaborated with the likes of Joseph Losey, Luis Bunuel, Marguerite Duras, among others. Her Helene is about the best thing in the film. She gave a detailed performance, giving life to a troubled soul. Jean-Pierre Kerin appears as Alphonse. Jean-Baptiste Thierree is Bernard. Nita Klein, Claude Sainval are seen in the supporting cast.

glendafolsom This movie is alright, but no comparison can be made to Last Year at Marienbad. This movie is a little slow at first, and although the shots and techniques are well done, they are not Marienbad or in anyway equal to it.