Diagonaldi Very well executed

Laikals The greatest movie ever made..!

Organnall Too much about the plot just didn't add up, the writing was bad, some of the scenes were cringey and awkward,

Connianatu How wonderful it is to see this fine actress carry a film and carry it so beautifully.

Mark Turner The list of movies that have been lost over the years is larger than one would expect. Many were lost in fires on the backlots of Hollywood, the incredibly flammable material used to make them making them easy prey to those fires. Some have been lost to time, deteriorating in what is termed vinegar syndrome due to the fact when film canisters are opened containing these films they smell like vinegar, their images gone for eternity. Others are just never found. It is this sort of film that makes up this film.Directed and written by Serge Bromberg it is the tale of a film that began shooting in 1964 led by famed director Henri-Georges Clouzot. American audiences will know his work mainly from two films, DIABOLIQUE in which two women murder one's husband by drowning him in a bathtub and THE WAGES OF FEAR the story of a group of down on their luck men willing to transport nitroglycerine across treacherous roads in South America, later remade by William Friedkin as SORCERER.Bromberg opens the film (as well as discussing it a bit more in depth in one of the extras included on the Arrow release) by talking about his conversation with Clouzot's widow and how he convinced her to allow him to tell the story of the film that never was. While she'd been asked before she was convinced to allow him to do so.Due to his previous successes Clouzot was given the go ahead by Columbia Pictures to shoot the film he dreamed of, INFERNO. The story itself revolves around a French hotelier Marcel (Serge Reggiani), his attractive wife Odette (Romy Schneider) and his obsessive jealousy towards his wife. While it might sound simple enough the plans Clouzot had for it were far from it.Rather than start filming right away Clouzot spent a number of weeks working with the technical crew to create a new film style unseen or used prior to this film. A combination of colors, light, lenses and prismatic effects were played with and viewed building up an arsenal from which he would create his film. Hours and film were used for the express purpose of seeing what could be accomplished on film. The end results are amazing and interesting to watch, accomplishing things that could easily be done now with effects and computers. But the time here is 1963 and these weren't invented yet. To see what he achieved is a thrill to behold for film fans.Weeks were spent doing these test shots. In addition to that Clouzot attempted to plan out what he intended to shoot in minute detail. Storyboards were drawn and deeply intricate directions were listed on diagrams and scripts to be used, providing them with a battle plan that should have resulted in time saved and a well-timed shoot.Good fortune smiled on him with the perfect location to shoot the film. The only problem was that the lake was to be drained to provide power nearby within weeks and the shoot had to be finished by then. The planning should have allowed this to happen. But then Clouzot's own obsession took hold. Shoots and reshoots, other obstacle placed in his way and crews that were left confused by his direction moved the production behind schedule. Eventually occurrences took place that resulted in the film never being finished.But that doesn't mean that the footage shot in the weeks prior to actual filming as well as the footage that was filmed before production shut down were gone. Bromberg has formed the story of what happened into an interesting film, combining that footage with interviews of the crew members that remain as well as certain sequences filmed with stand-ins for the main actors. The end result is a combination of a look at what could have been as well as a lesson in what not to do if you plan on creating a film.All of this makes for an interesting film. But more than that the images captured with that test footage offer a feast for the eyes showing some brilliantly shot images that make you wish the film had been completed. Shot mostly in black and white, the dream sequences, moments where we are placed inside the head of Marcel and in his madness induced jealousy, are shot in color. While the black and white test footage is impressive the color moments are imaginative and beautiful.Arrow Video has released this film in a beautiful hi definition blu-ray format. The extras here show why Arrow is one of the best companies around. They include French cinema expert Lucy Mazdon discussing at length the films of Clouzot and the problems behind INFERNO, "They Saw Inferno" a featurette with unseen material and further insight into the making of the original film, as mentioned earlier an introduction with director/writer Serge Bromberg, an interview with Bromberg, a stills gallery, the original trailer, a reversible sleeve with artwork by Twins of Evil and for the first pressing only an illustrated collector's booklet with writing on the film by Ginette Vincendeau.Arrow has outdone themselves on this one and lovers of French cinema and the films of Clouzot will want to add this one to their collections. If you love movies then this is one to take a look at, seeing not just what was shot but the descent into potential madness that befell the director shooting a film about a man's descent into madness. The end result is a dazzling documentary that delights the senses and is worth watching.

ElMaruecan82 Cinema is tough, there are probably thousands of projects that were as ambitious as "Citizen Kane" or "2001: A Space Odyssey", but we'll never know because they never made it to posterity and a loss can only be measured on the basis of its previous existence. Still, the chronicle of a failed project can be as insightful and inspirational as a success story. And this where begins "L'Enfer", the revolutionary masterpiece… Henri-George Clouzot never made.Now, there is a man who nourishes an interest toward the oddest kind of movie: the lost ones. His name is Serge Bromberg, and I discovered him in the middle of the 90's when he hosted a TV cartoon show named "Cellulo", where I discovered "Flip the Frog" "La Linea" and the UPA cartoons. Now, Bromberg is the head of a firm named Lobster, specialized in the restoration of lost movies or those affected by the passing of time. And the facts are alarming: almost half the cinematic memory is lost.But Bromberg managed to conquer kilometers of lost celluloid. Not only some old Keaton and Chaplin movies were found and restored, but also some old Hitchcock movies from the silent years and the early 30's. And for having discovered such gems as "Juno and the Paycock", "Downhill" or "Mary", I needed to start the review by giving Bromberg the credit he deserves, for a work that doesn't just apply to lost movies but also lost footage. And I just loved the way a simple phone call to Clouzot's widow lead to this great documentary. I won't spoil it but how she finally agreed with the project gives its full meaning to the notion of 'elevator pitch'.And a few years after this encounter, images that have been shut from the public eye for four decades were finally shown, punctuated with interventions from the crew and the recreation of some scenes with Bérénice Béjo and Jacques Gamblin, replacing Romy Schneider and Serge Reggiani. And the enigma is less in the failure of the project than in Clouzot himself, the most classic and critically acclaimed French director whose "Quai des Orfevres", "Wages of Fear" and "Diaboliques", leveraged his reputation as a Master of Thrills, to the stature of Hitchcock.And like Hitchcok, Clouzot was a craftsman whose directing relied on rigorous preparations and technical skills, and when improvisations and experimental creativity were the norm, Clouzot was perceived as old-school cinema. So ego-tickled Clouzot wanted to beat the New Wave surfers on their field, using 60's psychedelic visuals, electronic pop-music and so many unlikely choices from a director born with the century. Hitch said it better "self-plagiarizing is style" so in this statement, lies the early indicator of a predictable defeat.Indeed, "L'Enfer" had everything to succeed: the director's reputation, distributions rights from Columbia Pictures, the stars, and the most devoted team of assistants but if a ship can navigate in the fog, it can't do without a compass. That the project would be interrupted after three weeks of filming should be a school-case for aspiring directors. Passion is crucial but you got to have a clear vision of your project. Clouzot was too busy to think of the 'effects'. It's called the 'dreamer' syndrome.Indeed, Clouzot wanted to make a movie about a jealous husband and shows from his standpoint the obsession escalating until it culminates in mirror effects or use of colors and sound editing you would expect from a 60's directing student. The found footage of the film shows many of these tricks used on the face of Schneider and Reggiani, with the colors reminding of the use of psychedelic effects in Kubrick's "2001" but Clouzot got so wrapped up in his desire to make something new, that he forgot to make something substantial.And Clouzot got so carried away by his own aesthetic ambitions that he spent countless hours of sheer experimentation, constantly delaying the production. For a scene where Reggiani watches his wife water-skiing, the blue of the lake had to turn into red to sustain the image of blood, but he couldn't reverse colors without affecting the skins and dress' colors, so he had to use make-up and dress in opposite colors to keep the effect believable, and everyone played the game, confident that this was going somewhere. Basically, the documentary chronicles the erosion of this confidence.And it seems as Clouzot's assets: money, total control, independence acted as double-edged swords, alienating every day a little more, from the assistants, to the actors. Ironically, the material of the story could have garnered half the means and be shot in less than eight weeks, ironically again; films like "Quai des Orfèvres" or "Wages of Fear" that called for a more meticulous filmmaking were perfectly handled. Yet Clouzot's obsession for expressionist symbolism clouded his abilities, call it, delusions of grandeur, in the end, the Emperor wasn't naked, there was no Emperor at all.I'm tough on Clouzot but let's take an example, Martin Scorsese, with much simpler effects, made the greatest portrayal of obsessive jealousy ever, the film was "Raging Bull", and it didn't rely on any chromatic stunt. Clouzot could have made a 'Raging Bull', but instead he chose the artistic way, giving such a rough ride to Reggiani he left the set calling him schizophrenic. By that time, the project was in agony until Clouzot's stroke put the final nail in the coffin. In 1968, Clouzot made "Woman in Chains", his final film with a more moderate (if not disconcerting) use of psychedelic effect, and a good one, but "L'Enfer" was dead.And Bromberg's documentary is, like the autopsy, one that less revived the film than the soul of Clouzot (who died in 1977), as if the story of the making was more fascinating than the story itself, and Bromberg had the best way to summarize the spirit of his work, quoting "Liberty Valance", when reality becomes legend, print the legend.

serge-33 Okay, this is an insiders' movie for the die-hards, but it works for everyone.The director presumably got the idea when he got stuck with Clouzot's widow in an elevator - he even thanks the elevator for its technical failure in the credits.What do we learn? Overall, we learn about flawed genius, about how unlimited budgets can send a brilliant director off-track. we learn about how far actors will go to satisfy their director's requirements.What do we see? First, being born in 1964, the year the movie was filmed, I loved the stilted, post-industrial surroundings at the lake and the hotel were the film was supposed to be set. I loved the costumes, the modernity and became totally nostalgic (to going back to being a baby, I suppose). Romy... Does it add anything we haven't seen from her? Perhaps not, but it sure is nice and especially to see her with Serge Reggiani who only makes her beauty shine more.Does it work as a documentary? Yes, very well, in my humble opinion. The director does not ask (irrelevant) questions, but he simply presents the material and gives us an insight that perhaps, there was more than Clouzot's seizure to halt filming. He uses beautiful background music to make-up for the missing soundtrack. The dialogues read by two really good actors: well, perhaps it was a bit contrite, but I was thinking all the time that one of the things that would have been quite mediocre had the film been completed, would have been that: the dialogues were flat, boring and superficial (but the actors read them well).My friend asked me: how many movies are there about a movie. Lots, but yesterday evening I could not think of one. But this is more, this is a documentary about a movie about failing to make a movie.Highly recommended.

rgcustomer This, apparently, is a film where you gain prestige by saying you like it, thereby associating yourself with the great insane folk of the past, always a sure way to build cred. In my view, if someone has to tell you that someone is (or was) great, they probably don't know what they are talking about. If your greatness is limited to a time or place, you're not great. Sorry, but that's the way it is.In this case, the emperor has no clothes.Half of the audience I saw this with could not bear to sit through it to the end, and like Serge and Jean-Louis, they simply walked out. If that was the desired effect, then the filmmakers did great -- at failing.This film didn't know whether it wanted to tell the story IN the film, or the story OF the film, so it tried to do both, thus failing at both. You've got footage mixed in with experiment mixed in with interviews mixed in with acting, and then there's a soundtrack which we're told didn't exist.What I liked most about the film was the experimental footage, but even that got old rather quickly. There's only so long a person can be dazzled by the idea of rotating a light about someone's face in different colours. We get it already. To be fair, there are a number of other quite interesting shots, including for some reason a sea of noses, and a sparkly cellophane strangulation.I do hope to one day see the 1994 L'enfer, which was adapted from the 1964 failure. It currently has a 7.0 score on IMDb, so I hope it will be time well spent.