NekoHomey
Purely Joyful Movie!
Stevecorp
Don't listen to the negative reviews
InformationRap
This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.
Stephen Alfieri
"The Golden Coach" was an interesting project for Jean Renoir. According to his own biography, this film interested him on more of a design level, than on a story-telling level. He was much more interested in the "look" of the costumes, scenery, wigs and make-up. There have even been stories about how he would have sets built, then when the actors showed up in costume, he would order that the sets were the wrong colors, and needed to be re-painted. And from a technical point of view, the film is a feast for the eyes, and therefore a success.The cast, especially Anna Magnani as Camilla, is excellent. They play the characters in a commedia dell'arte style production. Since the characters and the actors who portray them are all a little loud and full of energy, I found the "play within a play" structure to be appropriately maddening. I'm not sure what Renoir intended, but I thought that the story, while contrived, was interesting.7 out of 10
Boba_Fett1138
I was afraid that this movie would turn out to be a case of style over substance because of the movie its visual splendor. But I should had known better really, since this movie had Jean Renoir at the helm, a man who really knew how to always tell a story, in the combination with some impressing visuals.I liked the movie definitely better than expected and I enjoyed it from basically start till finish. It's being a bit of an odd movie, since its a comedy but set in this very serious upper-class world. The movie becomes often an absurd one but not in the way that it's ever ridicules. It's a delightful movie, that has great characters, some nice universal and timeless themes and some great dialog that really all make the movie, fore there is not much else within this movie really. It's definitely not really a movie for 'todays' audience, so to speak.The movie got shot in color, from which it definitely benefits. It's visuals are still what impresses the most about this movie, no matter how great everything else in it is. It has some great sets and costumes in it, that help to give the movie a certain atmosphere, consistent with the time period it got set in. It doesn't ever feel though as if the movie got set in a small town of Central America, that is a Spanish colony. The movie for all that matter could had just as well been set in France or England for instance but than of course we wouldn't had had a bull fighter as one of the movie its main characters.It's a movie that as well handles some social themes are all of all times it seems. The corruption of money, power and love all come by here. It keeps the movie going and intriguing to watch throughout, mainly because it's also all being so well written and timed within the movie. The movie got also written by Jean Renoir himself, who often always wrote his own movies, though this movie got based on a play by Prosper Mérimée, who also wrote the novel "Carmen". A movie that I simply enjoyed watching from start till finish!9/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/
farmhouse41
I saw the Italian version in Bologna in 2006, and have just seen the American DVD. The latter seems to be missing some footage at the end, does anyone know? I seemed to remember a more elegant ending, when Anna Magnani steps back on stage. The genius of this moment is that it is in fact the stage that is the real world, and all that she has been participating in with the three men she has dallied with is the illusion. I take this as a metaphor for the play of creation as described in the Bhagavad-Gita, Chapter 2, when Krishna says to Arjuna, "Be without the three gunas." So Camilla has come to understand this, has given up her attachment to material things, symbolized by the coach, and even to the whole rigmarole of worldly life, and goes back to her true essence, which is to be the witness to all this churning activity. By stepping out onto the proscenium, leaving all the muddle of the gunas behind, she becomes enlightened and can continue as she chooses, playing other roles if she likes, but with the knowledge she has gained in this past existence.
writers_reign
Occasionally - perhaps about once every other Fall - I catch up with a vintage (vintage in the sense that it was produced way, way back) movie that has attracted rave reviews, albeit not always on its initial release, and find myself asking questions such as WHAT? WHERE is the Style and/or Content? WHY all the fuss? Mensa members reading this will be ahead of me and aware that I have the same problem with this entry. I WANTED to like it, I always want to like a given movie and Renoir isn't exactly chopped liver; no one enjoyed his French Can Can or La Grande Illusion more than I but I did find Le Bete humaine on the so-so side. Here the big problem was Magnani. She is a fine actress no doubt and I myself have seen her give some tremendous performances but the Beauty That Drives Men Mad? I think not. For reasons best known to Renoir and/or his cameraman they have contrived to shoot her in such a way as to suggest she was suffering a bad case of mumps on the floor; tempestuous, yes; volatile, yes; histrionic, yes but incandescent? You've got to be kidding. It was a nice idea to try to replicate the Commedia del Arte and lots of the set-ups are easy on the eye but overall, what's it all about, Alfie.
