Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Lidia Draper Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

Jonah Abbott There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

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.

hasosch The casting of John Malkovich for the role of Dr. F.W. Murnau in "Shadows of a vampire" (2000) was probably not by change (although there is not a ghost of similarity between Malkovich and Murnau) - at least not for those people who have seen Malkovich in "The Convent", where he plays the director of the Nosferatu- and Faust-topics.I think the best approach to this rather hermetic movie of Manoel De Oliveira is by asking questions. Why does his wife who openly despises her husband's work accompany him into the monastery, where she has absolutely nothing to do, where a minute is as long as a day outside of the walls, where she has neither inside nor outside of the remote convent connections to other people? Why is a convent guarded by a couple who celebrates black messes? And does the chief-guardian not look like the Devil in medieval depictions and knows big parts of Faust I by heart, as if he would be actually Mephisto? Another interesting detail is that "Piedade", the immaculate, fragile, angel-like librarian gives the professor an edition of Faust, but of Faust II.The content of Faust II is the purification of Faust's soul. Therefore, all those people who see in "The Convent" the classical Faust-motives are wrong, because these are from Faust I. So, it does not astonish that the wonderful Portuguese landscape that De Oliveira shows us, corresponds practically literally with Goethe's description of the different scenes of Faust II (including the mysterious grove in which Piedad vanishes at the end and in which to loose herself she is wished by the professors jealous wife). I am afraid, all these people who have not read Faust II (and this is the majority both in Europe and elsewhere), is left alone in this movie.At the end of the film, before the credits, we read that the professor has abandoned his research to prove that Shakespeare was the Jewish Spaniard Jacques Perez, but, according to his impressions in the monastery, has dedicated his life now to the research of occultism. This is very interesting insofar as we have here now the former Faust II turned into the Faust at the beginning of Faust I, where he sits in his hollow-like apartment and studies Cabbalist signs, at the same time depressed that he cannot go into the magic letters and thus invokes Satan (as to be seen in F.W. Murnau's "Faust" (1926)). But in De Oliveira's movie we seen the already purified Faust II turning slowly into Faust I. This is by all means exciting.

zjango This film was just too mysterious at times and, even though I found it super provocative and ultimately, worthwhile: the end had me laughing out loud -- and I'm sure that wasn't the intended effect. I'm curious to know what others think:Does the professor actually make a visit to Piedad's room? Or is it a dream, as she describes? How do you read the professor's reaction when she describes her vision? "I should stay far away from this lunatic." or "She and her delusions are sooo hot." -- are a couple of options.How to interpret Piedad's flight into the forest -- is she doomed to fall prey to desire, does this demonstrate the flaw in "goodness"?What other movies by this director would you recommend? Are there similarities among them?

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.