Villa Des Roses (2002)

It just shows to go you. Reading the reviews, they go from boring to wonderful. If this film is not for you, then its just not for you. But if you like it, you will love it. I've no intention of trying to tell you WHY i think its good and WHY you should like it. It's my favourite film of all time so far, and i've watched it about 25 times. You owe yourself the privilege of watching this wonder at least once in your life. Apparently i need to write some more words so what can i say? Yes, i can take the film apart bit by bit and see what the elements are and their sources and why they are there. The themes, which seem to be war and children( although there are no child characters, and only one war scene- another contradiction). The references to Dickens and Shakespeare and other classics and 'genres', the earth moving at key moments like god intervening. The piano playing itself, when it seemed that it was being played, a comment about fate somehow i think. The superb performances by superb actors, of their quirky, imperfect, characters. I see the unanswered questions too. I see certain things that don't quite work for me even. Its beautiful, its funny, it still makes me cry. But i know if i was going to make a movie i would like it to be a sister movie to this one; except i couldn't do it.

Do not go to this movie if you haven't read the book by the Flemish writer Willem Elschot. This movie is very boring and lacks all interest because you cannot identify with the characters. Does Grünewald (Shaun Dingwall) love Louise Créteur (Jules Delpy) or not? Does he become a deserter at the end or is he killed in the war? Why does the German commit suicide? What happens with the old woman Gendron (Dora van der Groen)? Grünewald must be something of a German superman that an American widow falls in love with him at first sight. This movie is slow and dark, is it always raining in Paris? Behalf of that you don't feel the Parisian atmosphere. It could be London at the end of the 19th century or even a German town at the same period. The lawyer (he was a lawyer), who is the real "chief" of the pension has no personality at all, he could as well be the postman ringing at the door. The end of the movie is the best: then at last you see that Louise Créteur has feelings and that she can cry. Every time that Grünewald wants to declare his love, somebody intervenes very artificially to interrupt their tentative to some conversation. Is Grünewald the "man with black hair" who is going to ruin the life of Louise as a fortune-speller predicts? The abortion seems to be done so that Grünewald never knows it, which is impossible. And how does Grünewald react to this remains also a mystery. The war scenes are superfluous and without interest. Everybody plays on the piano in this hotel which is also without interest. The friendship with the other servant is uncomprehensible, why is she so honest? Is she really her friend? She has nothing to win by being her friend. This movie is full of riddles and at the end you say: "Let this soon be over, please".

Boring. Boring. Boring. Sure, some of the shots looked sort of pretty, but not unlike all the other films you've seen dealing with this period. Nothing new or interesting happens, so you can't even call the film daring or interesting. Some people will call the film well made (even the ones that don't like it), but what does that mean? If nothing interesting is shown and you care about none of the characters, is a film well made because it looks like it costs a lot? No, this film was badly written and directed, let's face it.

Frank Van Passel proves again he is one of Belgiums leading directors. Once again, the crew he uses is very talented, he has some big international stars in the film (some), and the film is an adaptation of Willem Elschot classic novel. You can understand, we have been waiting for it. But Frank van Passel fails in this adaptation (or is it screenwriter Christophe Dirickx, who hasn't been very impressionating any more for some years).The novel is a tipical multi plot story about the guests of an old pension in Paris. Christophe Dirickx and Frank Van Passel choosed to pick out one story line, and to minimize or forget the others. They tri to tell a little and painfull love story about a young servant and a german guest in an old paris hotel in 1913. Sure the story is painfull, but not always as it was ment to be. They meet, the seem to fall in love, 3 minutes later Grunewald (the german guest) seems to have lost his interest in the girl, they have some emotional conflict (Grunewald still loves her?) and the world war one begins and ends the story.During this film you keep on asking the question why. Why do they fall in love in the first place? Why does she has to give up her father and son for grunewald? Why does grunewald believes they can't live together when they love eachother so much? You don't get any answer, and as a result of this, you lose interest in the story.Maybe, Villa des Roses just doesn't work as a movie, maybe some novels can't be translated to the screen. But I lost the trust I had in Christophe Dirickx since Manneke Pis, Frank Van Passels debut. There are just to many holes in this script. To many personages disapear before they are properly introduced, like the abandond girlfriend of one of the guest, who we see for the first time the moment she has to leave the pension. Or the "nurse" who "helpes" the couple with an abortion, and then seems to live in the pension?Not a bad film after all, thanks to the talent of Frank Van Passel and dop Jan van Caille. But after Manneke Pis and Terug naar Oosterdonk, never the less a disapointment. 7 out of 10