talisencrw This came in the outstanding 10-DVD boxed set 'Rialto Pictures: 10 Years', one of the finest things I've bought from The Criterion Collection (and a great deal too, one I'd heartily endorse).I had to wait an entire day, after watching the dreadful 'Disaster Movie', to get the acrid taste out of my mouth to watch this one, by my fourth favourite director ever ('Viridiana' is still probably my favourite of his, though). Luckily it had three of my favourite French actors from the period, in Bulle Ogier (just check out 'Maitresse' if you don't understand why), Delphine Seyrig and Fernando Rey (for the two 'French Connection' films alone)--even though for a director of Bunuel's strength, any actors could have sufficed. It's the ideas that stand out most triumphantly.It's most known for being Bunuel's Oscar-winner for Best Foreign Language Film, but its OTHER nomination is what's almost neglected when people talk about him. Yes, they talk about Bunuel the director, or (from David Thomson) Bunuel the photographer, but people never realize his two nominations for the Calanda, Spain-native were never for director, but for writing (with another nod for his swan song, 'The Obscure Object of Desire').

gizmomogwai Academy Award-winner The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie is a largely surreal comedy film, following a few characters, including a corrupt ambassador from a fictional Latin American country, Miranda. As the title suggests, to a degree it's about uncovering the true, and not necessarily clean, life of the bourgeoisie. It has some success, and also as the title suggests, charm there. I laughed at the couple sneaking out to have sex, coming back to greet their guests with grass in their hair. Some of the characters are involved in drugs. Some resort to violence. There are other absurd things that made me laugh- the man shooting a toy is one.Some things also stood out, not necessarily for comic value. The childhood memory the lieutenant had of his mother's ghost convincing him to kill his evil guardian isn't funny, but is an interesting twist to an already-abstract film. Later, the priest finding himself having to bless the man who killed his parents is another twist, and it's interesting to see how the priest will react to the situation.That said, I found myself enjoying the first half more so than the rest of the film. As we delve deeper into the dreams within dreams, the film loses its structure, and I found myself wanting more plot. Even with the beginning, the laughs weren't coming as fast and furiously as I would have liked. Ultimately, this is a film catered to a certain taste that won't work with everybody.

jurgen-manycolored Not only are the lives of the bourgeoisie characters in the film pointless and irrelevant, but the film itself is pointless and irrelevant. To have people astounded by the "brilliance" of the film and the "genius" of Bunuel is to me astounding in itself. While someone like Fellini can entrance, Bunuel might have well produced a film based on alcoholic, drug-addicted ne'er-do-wells that said nothing worthwhile or did nothing worthwhile. A disjointed, badly acted, phony presentation of a group of individuals that are worth nothing yet somehow cunning enough (in the film) to elevate themselves to positions of importance. I found myself asking "What is the point of this film?" and the answer kept coming up "There is no point and the whole production is absurd." Contrived and unrelated dream sequences that go nowhere. Actions by the actors that mean nothing and make no sense in any context. Perhaps because the majority of viewers are in the same category as the actors in the film, they can relate to it. I cannot. There is nothing worthwhile to be taken from this film. If one derives intellectual meaning from such as this, I feel sorry for them.My inner self insisted on adding the following: A knock came on the door of my subconscious. I opened it, and it was a vacuum cleaner salesman who pushed past me and sat down on my couch."Did you have an unhappy childhood?" he asked, and continued without pause: "I did. I used to have a recurring dream where I was walking down a road. Did you eat lunch? It is curious that it is not raining out, is it not?" He then proceeded to begin a one-sided conversation of mechanical engineering from a feminist perspective. Without stopping after he had finished his discourse, he began to relate the mystical aspects of flatulence. Midway through this conversation, he stopped to say "I'm sorry, I have to leave now. I have another appointment. Thank you for your order." And left, leaving the door open.

Michael Neumann The aristocracy met its match in Luis Buñuel, who throughout his career delighted in kicking the legs out from under the hypocrisies and pretensions of the rich and powerful. One of the late director's last and most effective satires was this typically mannered but nonetheless savage attack on society's ultimate villains: the church, the military and, most of all, the idle upper class, seen here frustrated while attempting to indulge in their favorite social ritual: dining out. The film is loosely organized into an elliptical series of surreal (and sometimes unrelated) episodes, in which every chance for a group of wealthy friends to share a simple meal is frustrated by, among other distractions: a funeral, a military training exercise, and finally by a band of terrorists who gun them all down in (appropriately) cold blood. Buñuel's signature wit and dream symbolism is in ample evidence throughout, and his eye for social absurdity was rarely so critical or keen. But maybe the best joke of all in the film is that its intended targets are also the ideal audience for such highbrow humor, laughing alongside Buñuel without even recognizing themselves as the butt of his subtle mockery.