Iseerphia All that we are seeing on the screen is happening with real people, real action sequences in the background, forcing the eye to watch as if we were there.

Derry Herrera Not sure how, but this is easily one of the best movies all summer. Multiple levels of funny, never takes itself seriously, super colorful, and creative.

Bessie Smyth Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

Erica Derrick By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

kenjha A middle-aged man is obsessed with a young woman who remains elusive. In his final film, Bunuel keeps the narrative more straight-forward than in many of his earlier examples of surrealism. The only notable aspect to the story is that the title character, a woman who is by turns icy and flirtatious, is played by two actresses. No explanation is offered for this odd casting and the switch between hot Molina and cold Bouquet occurs without any rhyme or reason. Naturally, the critics and Bunuel worshippers declare the dual casting gimmick a stroke of genius. There's a clumsy subplot involving terrorists that leads to a predictable conclusion.

bobsgrock The great surrealist director Luis Bunuel's final foray into the exploration of the darkest sides of human desire and will is more straightforward than some of his previous surreal works, especially The Milky Way, The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie and The Phantom of Liberty. The other Bunuel film this may most closely resemble is Belle de Jour, which focused on the inner thoughts and obsessions of a bored, frigid Parisian housewife who dabbles in sexual promiscuity. Here, Bunuel dips into literature once again for a tale of obsession told from two, or perhaps three perspectives. The story is fairly simple and straightforward: a wealthy, middle-aged man becomes infatuated with one of his servants, thus beginning a long, torrid relationship between them involving numerous battles of will and determination. The twist Bunuel adds here is the technique of using two actresses to play the same character, the tempestuous Conchita, with each symbolizing her two sides of expression. Angela Molina plays the seductress while Carole Bouquet plays the cold, distant lover. The most interesting aspect of the film from this point is the tug of war these three play. The man wants to fulfill his lust for Conchita in every way, including physical. However, she remains distant, using every opportunity to tease him into submission before harshly rejecting his advances. Her excuse is that she feels going to the next step would lead to him disowning her as he would have done all he could with her. In this way, Bunuel sets up a deliciously comical paradox: both sides have legitimate points to their statements but neither can completely win over the other party.What remains with the audience long after the film is Bunuel's effortless ability to draw in the viewer with tantalizing imagery and ideas. His direction is so subtle, so smooth in its piecing together the story that at times it is hardly noticeable. This was a hallmark of his career, with less emphasis on flashy techniques and more focus on character, story, and thematic development. This final film is no exception and is a wonderful capstone to a memorable career. Bunuel's legacy may be his iconoclastic style, but his insight into humanity's frail holdings on its emotional designs should not, and will not, be overlooked.

Stanley-Becker Another Surrealist satire from the comic eye of the Surrealist master. This one a work of a 76 year old. However, its fresh and alive, with a teasing, warm attitude that will give it, {I predict}, an eternal duration.What are the bourgeois up to this time? Well, the lead male Don Mateo, is having dinner at a friends {as the bourgeois often do} when, lo and behold, a perfectly charming and quite delectable young chambermaid fills his glass with wine {"the wrong glass, silly girl"}. Don Mateo takes one look at this fetching young wench and the most basic instincts instantly take hold of him. He decides at that moment he must have sexual intercourse with this member of the opposite sex. As the old adage goes "it takes two to tango" she, {she answers to Conchita}, is not ready to dance. "Whoa", she says and pushes him away. As with many men who understand their class advantages as a given, Don Mateo knows that he has something that adorable, sweet, sexy, Conchita badly needs - MONEY!! Conchita is no fool and her mother and the nuns who educated her have warned her, about being on her guard with men, who have their dastardly way, use her as a sexual convenience, and then go on to the next young sex conquest, She plays her cards close to her chest, and while keeping Don Mateo's libido flirtatiously in a state of excited anticipation, she leads him on a merry dance. The name of this dance is "That Obscure Object of Desire", its 103 minutes long and its delightful to watch.The scene where she goes with him to his country house promising to deliver the goods, and then climbs into bed wearing a chastity belt, had me in hysterics {and that's rare for me}. The movie is full of teasing, surreal jokes, and the absurd conventions of the bourgeois conformist life-style, are magically presented.Bunuel beautifully illustrates the "dance" metaphor by making Conchita a Flamenco dancer { a dance of passion and love} and then surrealistically turns the convention on its head, by showing her moonlighting as a nude flamenco dancer to earn some extra cash. {"Luis, Breton would have been proud of you if he had lived to see that scene"}. Anyway, this delightful entertainment goes through umpteen twists and shifts, all maniacally clever, until the curtain comes down Unlike Hollywood endings both characters retain their integrity {no depressing capitulation of will here}.What an "up" this movie is, and so intelligent. Don't waste your time watching the same old false story that Hollywood dishes out over and over again - watch this instead, you'll love it!

misticnoa "That Obscure Object Of Desire" is one of the most influential films I have ever seen! I remember liking it very much when I watched it for the first time long ago; but a few days ago I decided to watch it again and found myself completely absorbed in its magnificence and the splendour of suggestive details Bunuel entered into the film. Having two actresses playing the role of Conchita represent two separate moods and even personalities of hers. It is even stressed by the fact that one of them exits the room with one particular hair-style and enters again with her hair made in a different way. The "first Conchita" is French-looking, shy, subtle and demure, always with her head bend down, in an obedient, servant-like manner, whereas the "other Conchita" looks a lot more like a Spaniard, with big beautiful eyes and slightly curly hair, moody and demanding- the dominant side of her personality. There are two more, let's say, surreal details present throughout the film: one of them being the package Mathieu lefts behind at the beginning of the film which appears to be the same as the one out of which the girl in the shop window takes the blood-stained veil, and which supposedly contains a bomb that goes off at the very end; the other detail being the constant terrorist attacks, whether shown directly or by means of radio or newspapers announcements. Apart from the possibility that Conchita herself might belong to a group of terrorists, as her friendship with guys who at one point rob Mathieu suggests, there is also another point of view considering the relationship between Mathieu and Conchita, full of hatred- love/attraction-repulsion tension as some kind of a psychological bomb that would eventually explode. As I was watching this film, I thought it obvious that Conchita doesn't love or even respect Mathieu and that he's been trying, not only to take his money, but also to utterly destroy him, as some kind of a temptress. However, having seen that after gaining the property over the house in Spain as a present from Mathieu, and after ditching him in an abrupt manner, she still seeks him and torments him, I realised that not only he cannot live without her, but she as well possesses some kind of peculiar attachment to him, may it only be to humiliate him or being humiliated or even beaten by him. Therefore, I think there are no grounds upon which the theories that she is only after his money and nothing else might be based. This film conveys the ever-present motif of dualism of human nature, the motif that stretches back to "The Picture Of Dorian Gray" or "Dr.Jekyll and Mr.Hyde", etc. It is also about human obsession with the (possibly) the only thing they cannot possess, representing one's own Holy Grail, in this case, the disputable virginity of the main female character. The film does not tell the viewers all men are swine who only want to physically possess women and nothing else, nor does it tell all women are devils in disguise who trick men into their spider web playing the card of innocence and virginity. It simply tells the story of humanity bound to its needs, fantasies and, above all, frustrations about things beyond their reach. The sick love(?!) story of mutual torment and humiliation, but also of mutual need and dependence upon one another, where the roles of who is the tormentor and who the tormented are not always as clear as they seem.