clefzet Two stars for fairly competent cinematography. Good composition and good camera movement without glitzy focus-racking thru the forest.Malkovich and Deneuve are there only for their names. The real acting takes place with the Porteguese? actors. And they struggle with the pretentious dialog.The two worst offenses are committed by the director who explains the characters and their actions thru narration ( or awkward scenes with minor actors describing the main characters by using some vaguely occult terminology) rather than showing their characters and motivations thru their actions and their own dialog. It is a movie, after all, not an essay. Second offense is the music, which is overwhelming at times. Using Stravinsky with violent string passages to imply evil, danger, foreboding etc could work, but it didn't for this production. Just loud and annoying without any real matching action.It reminded me greatly of a university master's thesis film I worked on 37 years ago--(fortunately not mine). Lots of fantasy, lots of literary allusions, lots of mood, pointless scenery long shots, more than a few long takes that the director fell in love with and the editor was not inclined (or allowed) to abbreviate, and some really over-the-top acting moments (as when Baltar meets the prof's wife for the first time). Down, boy, down! I rented it because I am trying to catch up on some Deneuve films that I missed over the years, but I'm sorry I did. She must have really needed some money to have done this one.

almagz Uh? I recommend watching this movie six times in succession if you really think you must honestly understand it. Once was too many times for me. First of all, there is no indication this took place in a convent, at best it is a monastery. Nuns do not have those libraries and there is little indication the feminine presence was accommodated in many other ways.The photography may be worthy, but it comes as a complete surprise to me that this movie was preceded by any kind of written guideline. If I had to guess, I would have thought that a director, producer or something and his entourage stumbled on a picturesque location while on a wine tasting tour and decided then and there to call in some uncommitted actors and cameramen and just wing it.The researcher is constantly reading and doing mysterious things on his computer. The deep philosophical conversations with no apparent purpose remind me of Junior HIgh school conversations I used to have with my more gifted friends. The ending? Who knows? Frankly, who cared by then? If I had been present, my urge would have been to follow somebody, anyone to their lair and make sure that any unused remaining film was destroyed.

teletype1 This film is absolutely beautiful -- a picture of cinematic craft, and has a complexity that is rarely found in American films. Contrary to what others have said, this film has a fantastically developed plot. It is sad that the others who have reviewed this movie found it to be lacking.If you don't know Goethe's Faust, don't bother watching it. If you are so numbed by Hollywood that you can't stand to watch a movie without nudity, gore, blood, explosions, or sex, don't rent this movie. If you don't like to discuss nuance in films after watching them, don't watch this movie. If you hate French people, don't watch this movie. Rent something with The Rock in it instead.To the others who reviewed The Convent, I would say bad films do not win prizes at Cannes. This movie is brilliant, and is the epitome of what art film should be.

Dr Renz Seldomly do we get films with such an interesting and involving plot as this one. An absolute joy to watch, with an excellent cast. There are not many films with such an interesting and fascinating plot as this one. Part of what makes the film such fascinating viewing is the settings and the stories that are associated with them. First rate cinema and obviously a moment of pure genius for the film maker.