Villa des roses (2002) User Reviews

not the best Frank Van Passel

[hetzevendegeitje · 7/10 · 3 March 2002]

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

If you liked "Delicatessen", you'll like this one

[raraavis-2 · 7/10 · 23 July 2005]

It's a totally surreal movie that did remind me of "Delicatessen". Even the peculiar pastel colors are similar. The tale? A new maid starts working at a dilapidated boarding house - a pension - in Paris, in 1913, and she gets involved with a young German artist who lives there. Her relationship with him is the central part of the plot, but the other characters add subplots in their own strange ways. The people who live there are peculiar, the owners are peculiar, the situations are peculiar... but I got caught in it and came to enjoy the faintly claustrophobic atmosphere. Drama, touches of black humor, absurdity, love and betrayal, it's got it all. Not an absolute masterpiece but well worth seeing.

A confusing little romance set in pre-WWI Paris

[jfm-12 · 5/10 · 10 May 2006]

I watched the movie on DVD for the very first time yesterday, 2006-5-9. The movie seemed disjointed and confusing to me at times, and just did not sustain my interest (I paused it twice to check my e-mail). Mlle. Delpy was absolutely brilliant in two separate scenes with Dingwall: in the park and at the railroad station; these two scenes saved this movie for me. None of the other performers seemed too greatly inspired in their roles. Delpy was emotive, captivating, and with perfect dialogue throughout. Also on the positive side, I thought that the decoration of the scenes was well done, most remarkably the opening scene of the German infantry in the trench and then later the scene of the locomotives and the passenger coach at the railroad station. The picture post cards were very intriguing, with a real feel of the art of the period. I blame the root problems with this movie with one or more of the following: the director, the screenwriter or the editor. Watch this movie, if you are a J. Delpy fan ... pass on it, if you are not.

Too sterile to become a real masterpiece.

[philip_vanderveken · 7/10 · 1 February 2005]

Even though I haven't read the book this movie was based on, I'm sure that it must be a lot better than the movie itself. Willem Elschot, the writer who wrote the book is seen as one of our finest and his books are considered as masterpieces, but I'm afraid I can't say the same about this movie. I'm not saying that it is bad, but it just isn't good enough and I'm sure that Willem Elschot wouldn't have been too happy with this rather sterile adaptation of his book either.

It's sterile because there are too many questions that are left unanswered. Not that I always want everything to be clear even before the movie ends. I like intellectually challenging movies, but this time you never really get to know the characters, you'll not find out what drives them, what exactly happens to them, why they all live in that lousy hotel in Paris that once must have been a marvelous villa... It all looks very gray and dull, even though the "relationship" between the maid and the German tries to bring some light to it. But it isn't enough to stay focused on the entire story.

Maybe you think now that this movie must be the worst ever, well that's not true either. Frank Van Passel is still a very talented director and he had an excellent cast to work with. Some moments in the movie were absolutely great (for instance the abortion scene was very chilling), but it was never enough to cover all the holes in the plot. I give this movie a 6.5/10.

The Upper Depths

[writers_reign · 6/10 · 15 December 2005]

Overall I think the film justifies the mixed reaction it has had here. I agree with one of the posters that if you are going to set a film in Paris and SELL it on the basis that it IS set in Paris then the least you can do is to CONVINCE us that we ARE in Paris; I think the poster in question was perfectly correct to state that we might be anywhere given that roughly 90 per cent of the action occurs in the dismal, grey eponymous boarding house. That same poster speculated on what an attractive and wealthy young American would see in Shaun Dingwall's Grunewald, I would go even farther and ask what ANY woman would see in such a colorless character let alone Julie Delpy who, against all the Laws of Reason, falls madly in love with him. Life at the Villa is hardly a million laffs so that my allusion to The Lower Depths is not that far out. On the positive side the acting is uniformly excellent but the overriding impression is of Julie Delpy's fragile Dresden Sheperdess presiding over a gallery of grotesques. Maybe you should see it once for the experience.

Boring adaptation of a novel.

[silverauk · 1/10 · 12 June 2002]

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".

Wondrously Strange Film

[gradyharp · 8/10 · 22 September 2005]

VILLA DES ROSES, based on the novel by Willem Elsschot, is a strange and claustrophobic examination of life in a confined space in Paris 1912-1913. Director Frank Van Passel has surrounded his production with excellent scenery, effects, camera work and a cast of gifted actors to tell this bizarre tale of Europe on the brink of The Great War.

Villa des Roses is a dilapidated mansion in Paris that serves as a hotel for an astonishingly seedy group of people. The hotel is 'managed' by a British man and wife Olive (Harriet Walter) and Hugh (Timothy West) who barely eek out a living from their irregular tenants. The one person apparently most in the know is Ella (Shirley Henderson) who is the Cook General and has access to all of the nooks and crannies via a spying system of tubes: she knows all the secrets of all of those housed in the Villa. It is an odd asylum for the British and for varied oddball, lost souls and disillusioned, loony guests in the midst of a rundown Paris.

Enter Louise Créteur (Julie Delphy), recently widowed by the Titanic sinking, who has left her young son behind to seek work in Paris. She gains employment at the Villa des Roses as the Chamber Maid, under strict instruction by Olive to not fraternize with the guests. But one of the tenants, Richard Grünewald (Shaun Dingwall) is a lady's man and soon the two have started a love affair that leads to the tragic end of the story. Richard loathes children, is not at all happy that Louise has a son (though she vows to give up everything for her love for Richard), and when Louise becomes pregnant, Richard cools and encourages an abortion. Louise complies out of blind love only to return to the Villa to find that Richard must leave for Germany (when actually he is following the latest American guest in her transfer to a better hotel). Louise's only confidant and friend is Ella and together they survive. Louise decides to go to Germany to 'find Richard' and on her way to the train sees Richard with his American paramour. Richard is called to military service at the same time Louise is boarding the train, a moment that proves to be the outbreak of WW I. How the story ends is tender and sad and best left as a surprise to the viewer.

Van Passel seems more interested in atmosphere of this magically strange hotel than he is in fleshing out his storyline. Oh, each of the characters is vastly interesting, but there is no background history on any of them that let us know why they had fallen into the sad mess of the Villa. But the performances by Julie Delphy, Shirley Henderson, and Shaun Dingwall are so fine that they maintain our attention and empathy. The strong supporting cast does as much as it can with the relatively little character development given them. The entire film is photographed in sepia tones that add enormously to the feeling of France on the brink of downfall. This is a long film, highly dependent on visual imagery to keep it flowing, but a film with many messages about the world at the brink of war. Recommended. Grady Harp

Euro Pudding

[anonymous-3 · 2/10 · 26 March 2002]

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.

Beautiful. Subtle. See it.

[olivierdrachman · 10/10 · 15 March 2002]

I think Frank Van Passel and Christophe Dirickx have succeeded beautifuly in capturing the essence of Elschot's classic novel. Sure, the other characters may have been minimised in the plot, but by doing so, the bulk of the story is allowed to breathe. You can only get so much of a large novel into 2hrs of screentime.

As for continually asking the question "why?", I have a question: Why is this a problem? I found it very stimulating to question throughout this film- I don't like to be spoon-fed answers. It kept me thinking. Not a bad thing.

By the end of the film, I was very glad of the ambiguity. I think it captured the ambiguity of love, lust and ambition. It didn't try to tie everything up in a ribbon- a bit like life itself really.

Beautifully written, directed and performed.

A great line of tradition

[c_declercq · 9/10 · 11 March 2002]

In the great line of both Belgian cinema as well as European cinema, Frank Van Passel keeps up with the likes of Kümel and Delvaux on the one hand and maybe even the Tavianni brothers and Kieslowski on the other hand. In time, 'Villa des Roses', will prove a corner-stone experience of Belgian cinematographic capabilities, and this along with the line of traditional great names of the past (mentioned above), names that also shaped European cinema into what it is now, or better into what it should be: rich quality. One can only hope that this period of time will be a very short one, for audiences abroad shouldn't be deprived of this work of art.

Finally, Elsschot meets Van Passel!

[Keersmaekers · 10/10 · 11 March 2002]

In the world of Belgian cinema, Frank Van Passel has been more than just a name for quite some years now. Both 'Manneke Pis' and 'Terug naar Oosterdonk' made an unforgettable impression and made him perhaps the most important Belgian director to walk the face of the earth. Recently, though, things grew a bit quiet around Frank Van Passel, but let there be no mistake about it: he is back. And how! A firm script by Christophe Dirickx, years of hard work by Frank Van Passel and a for a Belgian movie most extraodrinary cast (Julie Delpy, Shaun Dingwell, Hariet Walter, Jan Decleir, Dora Van der Groen and Frank Vercruysse), all these ingredients make 'Villa Des Roses' an incredible and unforgettable cinematographic experience. Though I was fairly sceptic about the mix of ingredients, the result is more than convincing. Each character receives a well-balanced attention. 'Villa Des Roses' is a must-see and I hope that audiences abroad as well as distributors worldwide will acknowledge, through this sutble masterpiece, that Belgium is more than capable of producing great cinema.

Tremendous. *****

[walkert1961 · 10/10 · 5 October 2005]

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.