The Visitors: Bastille Day (2016) User Reviews

Hosanna! The return of the malades!

[bluesky644 · 6/10 · 7 April 2016]

18 years. This is the time the french audience has awaited to finally open its twinkling nostalgic irises on the sequel of the second opus, "The visitors II, The Corridors of Time". Considered as the french "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" tinted with the complex and fanciful theme of time-travel as in the "Back to the Future" series,our two medieval heroes had been left to the time of the French Revolution after gulping down a gut-twisting magic potion blended thoughtlessly with Grand-Marnier, thus altering the effects.

The third opus uses the maneuvers which have made the films cult: misunderstanding between characters of different epochs, funny repetitive cues from Jacquouille,incongruous props,crude humour in reference to personal hygiene... Unfortunately the rhythm is hardly sustained. The characters' caricatures are shy next to the famous duo and even though the encountering characters are historically closer (Middle Ages vs Early modern Period)than in the previous episodes(Middle Ages vs Contemporary 1992), the social gaps are not exploited enough, consisting mostly of already-used jokes. How flat is the use of situation comedy which provided the previous productions with such a relentless succession of bemusing sidesplitting circumstances! The comedy of manners is intelligent in not being one-sided, we see the non-aristocrats wallowing in the luxury and advantages recently seized from the aristocracy.

The movie is however a real delight for its respect of history and historical figures, the costumes-alluding to the fantasy of the time-and the settings shot in Belgium are beauteous.

The script holds well even though the last 20 minutes were a bit sped up compared to the sluggish diner scene with an interest centered more on including historical characters than spurting out-of-control developments like the one in the first movie. The development is actually different, there is less come and go between time periods (except the end)while Godefroy and Jacquouille are endeavoring to survive and find the key to unlock the padlock of time, id est the wizard and the magic potion. This choice might be sacrificing a potential source for jokes, but it has the advantage of focusing the lorgnette's lens on an era with all its subtleties, while framing the script to make it perfectly consistent.

Fans of the genre will appreciate the fast straight-to-the-point editing proper to Jean Marie Poiré, the director, and the same original soundtrack by Eric Lévy in tune with the compositions of Felix-Mandelssohn Bartholdy (Violin concerto in E minor, Op 64).

Some patching-up had to be done considering some elements in the previous films, some actors were not included either because their role was not fitted in the story (Christian Bujeau as Jean Pierre-Goulard the husband, Valérie Lemercier or Muriel Robin as Béatrice de Montmirail...) and some were replaced (Pierre Vial as Eusebius the wizard, Didier Pain as Louis VI le Gros...) considering the particular case of the absent-minded wizard threatened to be immured in case of the no-return of the knight and squire. In "Les visiteurs: La Révolution", while we are shown the macabre fate he underwent, we are acquainted with a new replacing character kinshiply related, that sort of ellipsis, though respectful to the previous scripts, would have needed additional clarifications for the audience less comfortable with the entire storyline. Watchers will notice the physical changes of the two main actors after 18 years, an observation which has cleverly been dealt with in the movie as being a consequence of time travel accelerating the process of aging.

Regarding the dialogs, we do not find the same richness of language in old medieval french as before, yet we discover 18th century expressions and the clash between the two is made good use of. Additionally, we pleasurably witness the practice of wit in a dialogue of hypocrisy when Karin Viard as Adélaïde de Montmirail resorts to her charms to obtain the most and give the less to a well-off blue blood.

Eventually, any film with our two star-crossed visitors includes a twist and an unresolved plot at the end. As a faithful sequel, amateurs of the genre can joyfully consider the possibility of a fourth movie with the hope that the story does not go too worn-out. With a similar focus on history and script, Poiré and Clavier will really have to reinvigorate the comical foolhardiness they were able to adapt to the screen years ago if they want to end the series successfully.

The Visitors: The Rev... isionist Take on French Revolution...

[ElMaruecan82 · 6/10 · 19 April 2016]

In 1998, "The Visitors" saga concluded on a rather frustrating cliffhanger. Godefroy the Brave (Jean Reno) and his faithful servant Jacquouille (Christian Clavier) were, once again, misdirected in the corridors of time and left prisoners during the French Revolution. The film ended on a note that seemed to say "we don't care for continuity as long as there's a gag" (as if our beloved medieval characters in a cage would be a pleasing sight).

Still, the film met with commercial success, but apart from the American remake (which I thought was better), it seemed like the director, Jean-Marie Poiré, the actors and certainly the spectators were done with "The Visitors". Until 2015 when the first teasers of two aging and uglier-looking Godefroy and Jacquouille made it clear that "The Visitors" would finally make a trilogy, how about that?

On the positive side, I thought it was inevitable since they had to come back to their time. Besides, there was no way it could be worse than the sequel and maybe the writers' team made of Poiré and Christian Clavier had time to prepare an entertaining and funny story that wouldn't rely on cheap jokes and special effects. On the other hand, I was afraid the film would be an attempt to give a 2010's flavor to the series by inserting so many 'trendy' stars (the casting of bankable Frank Dubosc and Ary Arbittan didn't reassure me). But I didn't have time to set up my anticipations as the first negative signals started to ring: no premiere, the Press couldn't watch the film before the release, talk about self-confidence.

And then came the (vengeful?) critics: a cinematic disappointment with an overuse of poo-poo jokes, an insistence on bad smell even more incongruous in the unhygienic context of the Revolution. More constructive critics denounced the disjointed aspect of the scenario, the overdose of artificial lighting to suggest night and the wooden acting of Reno who seemed more absent than usual. But the criticism that worried me the most was that: the film had no end. Whatever it meant, it really set my worries high and my expectations low, very low.

The start was promising though with the summaries of the previous films crawling à la "Star Wars", I didn't expect to smile so early. Then we're put in the Middle-Ages, paler and more pastel tones than in the first films, Godefroy and Jacquouille make a spectacular yet confusing entrance, since they're supposed to be in 1793. Indeed, it was all a dream by one of the soldiers. Later, the King orders them to find Godefroy, otherwise, his lands will be taken and he'll have no descendants. Why did they bother with that subplot since Godefroy had a mission already? As uninspired as it was, Godefroy was supposed to come back, marry Frénégonde, give her some sacred relic and close the corridors of time to prevent the plague. No continuity isn't such a big deal, but so early, it makes you expect the worst.

But I guess, I've been so thoroughly prepared for this worst that as long as they were not shown defecating on the screen or farting on others' faces, it was okay. At the end, it wasn't too bad. Actually, I've been even pleasantly surprised that the film contained more restrained part than the sequel, moments full of verbal interactions about the Revolution, classes, human rights and other 'hip' stuff, that and a great dinner scene with Robespierre (played by a chilling Nicolas Vaude). It's true the two protagonists were left behind for a while, but at least the film remained consistent with its subtitle.

And while there were a few nice nods to the original film: Marie-Anne Chazel in the cast, Godefroy being again mistaken for a distant cousin and so forth, it is true that the film insisted upon itself when it came to the smell and fecal jokes, even lengthy conversations were on the same register, like one between between the Brave and a pompous Italian aristocrat played by Arbittan, something about the honor to wipe the Royal ass. Ten seconds is the limit to maintain such a joke, but the film gratifies us with so many references to odors or feet, that it almost spilled over the script. It came to a point I was breathing heavily when Jacquouille had to serve a chocolate pie to Marat.

But on a more positive side, I liked the way this film connected with the first where 'Revolution' was a preeminent theme, one that even inspired Jacquouille to stay. It also showed his descendant, one of Robespierre's under-bosses, taking his former masters' land, thus starting his family's fortune. Even Dubosc, more restrained than usual, shone as Gonzague de Montmirail, referenced many times in the first. The others Montmirails were not foils for Clavier's antics, and happened to be so interesting that we didn't need Godefroy and Jacquouille on screen. Indeed, they provided great insights about the revolution from their own standpoint. They're the refugees and citizens, from the people, are eager to denounce them for money.

When you know the historical weight of 'denunciation' in France, the film doesn't quite honor the Revolution. And who knows maybe this revisionism appaled the oh-so republican press, who branded the film as reactionary. But it was gutsy to have such a taboo-breaking approach, it just get diluted in too many jokes and twists that the film inevitably failed to deliver its premise. Worse, it indeed didn't have time to end, and what could have been a terrific redeemer made it worse. Even as a joke, the ending could have worked, but the film suffers from the eternal syndrome of French comedy: rushed ending.

The ending (or lack of) wasn't without a meaning, and a strong one, but I wish they had time to rework the film, a few scenes cut, a few adds, it could have been something.

Mediocre, unfortunately

[Horror-yo · 4/10 · 20 July 2017]

The first one is surely a candidate for best French film of all-time for its pure thick comedy, the history, the emotions, the soundtrack, iconic actors, and one of the most celebrated directors in the country.

The second wasn't as bad as they say. This however, even with as much effort as it is fair to concede, still comes across as too weak.

The problem first of all is they focused too much on story, not enough on funny. It IS a Visiteurs film after all, not a historical document. They had much to work with as comedians during that rusty old time of post-revolution France, and yet they settled for a group of aristocrats as the main new addition as a source for humor; albeit well written, well acted out by notably Karin Viard who does fantastic as the uptight super hypocritical noblette.

No need to spend an hour here: not funny enough, did not exploit the potential of either the classic old elements or the new environment; story is alright but certainly forgettable and only a framework for a mediocre comedy movie.

Dubosc adds his own little touch, is funny on a couple of line deliveries, but nothing more.

4/10.

verdict: guillotine (tv)

[leplatypus · 1/10 · 16 July 2017]

This movie should be shown in cinema lessons as among the worst sequels ever, really! Our french BTTF is so bad that you can't imagine it! If you do a sequel, it's because you have a story to tell, especially when you do time travels! Here after 1 hour i was still wondering what this one was about: so our medieval heroes are stuck in Revolution but what's else? nothing... it talks, it shoots, it brawls but it's empty air, it's nothing... Sometimes a sequel can be saved by a talented cast: here there is no none: it's not the cream of the cream but the bottom of the garbage: Dubosc ? Testud ?? Abittan ??? Lutz ???? At last, if it's a comedy, you can laugh... here, not once!

When you think about the first movie, the American remake and most of the second movie, you just don't understand what happens here... So it was so bad that i just stopped it after endless dreadful minutes of pain... It's sad for a french classic to not have a worthy final and to be lost forever into the limbs of time....

Not funny at all

[Bored_Dragon · 4/10 · 13 July 2019]

Eighteen years after "The Visitors II" left us with the cliffhanger, the third film comes as a total disappointment. The story is a direct continuation of "The Corridors of Time" and it's well conceived and written, but the film is not at all funny, and it seems to me that it's not even trying to be. By itself, it might be able to pass with a six, but after the previous two, this is totally lame and it would be better for the franchise if they didn't make it at all.

4/10

Worst movie I've watched in a long long time.

[tadandoljsek · 1/10 · 19 July 2020]

Plot summary:

The knight and his squire bust out of prison, meet up with their descendants, go to Paris, there they find a psychic woman that sends them to a wizard that sends them to another time. That wizard messes up and ends up sending them to the time of WW2 where they meet with the French resistance.

Over the course of that a few more things happen, but none of them end up mattering. Our knight decides he wants to go on an epic quest to return the throne to the king's heir, but then just forgets all about it. The protagonists meet a massive cast of their descendants that have their intrigues, but in the end our protagonists leave them abruptly and leave all of that mostly unresolved.

None of the characters show any semblance of character growth.

The movie does at times try to be funny, but it does so in a cringe-worthy way and is generally extremely bad at it. Over it's course it never got a chuckle out of me.

And the acting,... well the movie is basically two hours of characters pointlessly screaming over each other without so much as a five seconds break. I found it to be just plain depressing.

Sarcastic black humor over french revolution!!!

[elo-equipamentos · 5/10 · 21 January 2019]

Les visiteurs come back again, now in french revolution's peak, there are a lot of gags and jokes, the most interesting is about the old servant Jacquouville who now understand that he no longer needs to serves his master, they are equal, let's face firstly the odd french humor from Christian Clavier as a nasty and stinker man, wasn't to all taste, l'd watch several comic movies from french and they had his own style properly for them, unusual for our standards, they speak so fast that infringes each other which has some difficulty to able a prompt line of reasoning, sometimes l'd to stop to try understand it on first time, it's a format just to french audience who are already accustomed with this concept, but still funny!!

Resume:

First watch: 2019 / How many: 1 / Source: DVD / Rating: 5.5

Bad story, not funny, racist

[gruiva · 1/10 · 20 February 2017]

This third movie is far from the precedent ones. The story was boring and joke-less. I hoped for and I was ready to laugh, but nothing really. It ends with a not-funny racist comment, leaving an even worst "after-taste". Personally, I think one should not allow to play racist movies, at least not in the theatres.

It's all right for a sequel that came out two decades too late.

[salviolog · 7/10 · 12 December 2018]

Look, what did you expect? Les Visiteurs (1993) is one of the most successful, funniest French films of the 20th century, it couldn't be topped with a sequel, especially if it's part 3, 25 years later. At least it:

a) Stayed loyal to the timeline, giving us some closure on what happened after the end credits of the second movie; b) Brought something new to the mix; c) Some jokes were actually pretty funny;

It probably could have been done better if done with younger, more energetic actors, but then all the "familiar faces" gags go to crap, unless the movie's gonna spend a good portion of it establishing new actors in the roles of familiar characters.

It ended on another great chapter in French history, an interesting crossover, and it's fun to speculate what would happen to Godefroy and Jacquouille next.

All in all, I'm glad they made something with that cliffhanger they left us with back in 1998. They didn't mess it up too hard, it's part 3 for god's sake, for a part 3 it's ok.

Below average sequel, including haywire events and likeable humor with tongue-in-cheek

[ma-cortes · 4/10 · 1 December 2023]

Inferior follow-up with the usual premise of the time travel with entertaining scenes, crazy things and lots of fun. Inferior and disconcerting continuation with tiring scenes, boredom and the same elements as the previous ones. Lots of fun with two inseparable medieval men traveling through of the time and space, and results to be amusing enough . Knight Godefroy de Montmirail and squire Jacquouille are stranded in 1793. Using trickery to break free from their shackles, both perilously partake in the Montmirail family's run away in the quest for an exiting time-shift. Jean Reno as stubborn, proud medieval knight who wants to marry a noblewoman by any means and Christian Clavier as his whaky, hectic servant, both of whom playing a fully sympathetic and outrageous couple. In this entry they're hurtled into an epoch of political and social upheavals: The French Revolution. In order to return to the 12th century and deal with the spell, they begin to look for a wizard. Too bad the potion hurls knight and vassal into a lot of nutty adventures and crossing paths with their lookalike descendants. The film contains breathtaking special effects , adding a nice cinematography and lively musical score. In 11th century a honorable knight (Jean Reno) and his distraught but loyal servant (Christian Clavier) They attempt to enlist the aid of their descendent to try to find a way to return home, but things go wrong. Try to go back in time, only one thing will stand in their way, the French Revolution !. They Weren't Born Yesterday! They Came. They Saw. They Wanna Go Back. They're not just from another time, they're from France!.

It is a silly and tiresome sequel in which, as usual, the characters do nothing but talk and talk and very quickly, in such a way that you cannot understand what they are saying. An embarrassing and funny French film dealing with a medieval nobleman and his zany squire are accidentally transported to French Revolution by a potion created by a senile sorcerer. Trapped in the labyrinths of time, Godefroy de Montmiral and his devoted footman become involved into dangers, confusion and chaos. And more precisely The Reign of Terror, appearing some historical roles as Jean-Paul Marat, Fouché, Maximilien Robespierre, Louis VI 'le Gros', king of France and during which the descendants of Jacquouille La Fripouille, enthusiastic revolutionaries, confiscate the castle and wealth of Godefroy de Montmirail's descendants, arrogant aristocrats who are trying to escape from France, where their lives hang in the balance. The trio formed by director Jean-Marie Poiré and actors Jean Reno and Christian Clavier had already performed ¨Operation Corner Beef¨ three years earlier. In 1993 they returned to the fray with their physical and gross humor, this time based on the contrast of two very different eras: the medieval and the contemporaryma. A lightweight plot, but the loony pals played by Reno and Clavier sink their teeth into the time-travel jokes and it turns out a fun and enjoyable experience. The picture is a fantasy comedy with action, giggles, tongue-in-cheek and is pretty entertained. The main amusement is to watch how our two protagonists react to the revolutionaries, but they always manage to take it one step further, resulting in unexpected consequences. Jean Reno and barmy Christian Clavier make a completely surrealist and delight duo playing a geeky and stupid duo while trying to cope with other ages which makes the humor spontaneous and genuinely funny. Cracky Reno is the proud, brave medieval lord and Clavier as his dazed, distraught vassal and the film manages itself to be endearing as well as thoroughly crazy. They're well accompanied by a nice support cast, such as:Karin Viard, Franck Dubosc, Alex Lutz, Sylvie Testud, Marie-Anne Chazel, Nicolas Vaude, among others. Rating: 3.5/10. Lousy sequel.

The motion picture obtained success in the French box-office and in the video rentals, the series formed by 4 films, all of them directed by Jean-Marc Poiré and performed by Jean Reno and Christian Clavier. The first: ¨Les visiteurs¨(1993), 1123, Dark Ages, in 100 year War ,during the reign of 'Louis VI The Fat' something goes awry and our starring transported from the 12th century to the year 2000, where they meet some of the knight's family, and slowly learn what the future's like; surprisingly, the film became a huge hit both in France and internationally, becoming one of the most successful films in the entire history of French cineema. ¨Les couloirs du temps: Les visiteurs II¨ (1998) by Jean-Marie Poiré with Christian Clavier, Jean Reno , Muriel Robin, Marie-Anne Chazel, Frank Olivier. An american version ¨Just Visiting¨ (2001) with Jean Reno, Christina Applegate,Christian Clavier, Matt Ross , Tara Reid, Bridgette Wilson, George Plimpton, Malcolm McDowell Malcolm McDowell, directed by Jean-Marie Poiré who hated the movie, and mentioned that this was the reason why the third movie of the original French trilogy took so long to be made. ¨Les visiteurs: La révolution¨ (2016) with Christian Clavier, Jean Reno, Franck Dubosc, Karin Viard, Nicolas Vaude, Sylvie Testud.

Cool French comedy

[valikradobenko · 10/10 · 11 February 2022]

Now in the 21st century, many people are criticizing movies for racism and the like. I'm not a racist, but I think all jokes have a right to life, it's just a joke (and yes, it was really funny to me). I really liked the third film, as well as the previous two. I don't understand why the film has such a low rating. So I just have to put 10/10. The situation needs to be corrected. Glory to French cinema!

Good film in French language

[Emmanuel010767 · 7/10 · 14 April 2016]

I've seen it with my daughter 12 April 2016 in a little country's cinema with no publicity (cool). (In France) What could we expect more than what we've seen ? Nothing, so that's a good film. We laughed all along the film. It's a comic film ! Story is good, actors play well. Frank Dubosc is very good as usual. Music is the same as the 1st film (Era). Colors and garments are beautiful. It's a well made film, it lasts 120 min, and it's not long. I don't know what it could be if traduced in other languages ? In fact, there are lots of jokes on the older french language. I hope the 4th film should be soon, in 1942 during WWII in France in Montmirail's castle ! We've seen the 4 films (add the version for USA, Visiteurs in America). So 7/10, no more, no less. I read the critics and i think they're cruel. Sincerely Emmanuel (from France)

Still comical

[marci-38367 · 10/10 · 11 October 2019]

I just finished the 10th rewatch of this move. Its just better and better every times. I completly understand the so many historical jokes and comic scenes and just like it and still laugh many times. I know the most people dont get it because its a very special humor. I can say its the most seriously underrated but simply best piece of Les visiteurs series. I can advise to watch it multiple times and you may get it! :D

Beyond shadows and lies

[OMTR · 9/10 · 9 October 2021]

Lost in the corridors of time, in 1793, since the end of the second episode - The Visitors 2 (1998) - Godefroy Amaury de Malfète, count of Montmirail, Apremont and Papincourt, known as "le Hardi", and his faithful squire Jacquouille, known as "la Fripouille", continue their fight against the Terror at the end of the XVIIIth century, before finding themselves in another dark and taboo period in the history of France: The Occupation, or Collaboration.

Jean-Marie Poire excels as usual. First of all at writing a brilliant screenplay, co-written with Christian Clavier. Nothing can resist the ardor and the perspicacity of the director and his actors, who pinpoint deceits and deceptions of all kinds, with all the extent of their talent, in what quite simply constitutes one of the best French films of the 2010s.

French cinema, which too often refuses to engage in historical introspection, offers here, under the guise of popular comedy, an essential and refreshing art film.