The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie (1972) - Comedy

Hohum Score

39

Bearable

A surreal, virtually plotless series of dreams centered around six middle-class people and their consistently interrupted attempts to have a meal together.

IMDB: 7.9
Director: Luis Buñuel
Stars: Fernando Rey, Delphine Seyrig
Length: 102 Minutes
PG Rating: PG
Reviews: 10 out of 79 found boring (12.65%)

One-line Reviews (50)

" The endless series of "it-was-just-a-dream" twists get rather tiresome after a while – not to mention predictable.

I gave La Charme Discret a 7/10 because it IS charming, funny and somewhat intellectually intriguing.

Don't waste your time on this one.

The empty, hypocrite and pointless existence of the Bourgeoisie Class is highlighted by the shallow interest of the characters in meal, sex, etiquette and money and their final journey to nowhere; or the behavior of the disloyal ambassador that betrays his friend having a love affair with his wife; smuggles cocaine using his diplomatic immunity; or shoots the toy of a terrorist in front of the Embassy of Miranda.

The problem I had with the movie is this--it just wasn't very interesting and I repeatedly felt like turning it off because I found it more boring than compelling.

If I ever had such a dull dream I wouldn't even tell it to my most bored friends – let alone put it in a movie for millions to watch!

And the 3 dull bourgeois chicks are bangable.

I found the story itself to be quite boring and not too interesting so all the dreams and more dreams just didn't do much for me.

I think all of those in the case from Fernando Rey as Rafael Acosta to Robert Le Beal as the tailor, did a great job, making the film a bit more compelling.

Just like the movie, we must inflate the value of our opinions with self indulgent drivel.

I know that many think this is a masterpiece but its a confusing mess.

It's a really fascinating film and critiques of society don't get much cooler than this.

I am aware many think its a classic but the film is pretentious and actually quite stupid.

The title is certainly intriguing, suggesting something ultra sophisticated, and we can guess that 'discreet' will be exposed as 'hypocritical,' and the charm will be superficial.

I'm not particular about this -- art has to either move me in some way (including intellectually), or it can be a `statement' that I find intriguing or clever or even profound.

TDCOTB is a self-indulgent collection of scenes, which bored me to the most part.

The movie is mostly dull.

When even pompous and pretentious movie critics such as the food-lover Roger Ebert says that this movie isn't about anything, then we REALLY know it's about nothing.

Sure, it is surreal, but don't think clever-clever bakerlite phone with a lobster handset, more amusing sketches which taken singly are absorbing vignettes.

Somewhere down the line it takes a turn into the bizarre with meandering story lines, inconsequential characters, and unexpected U-turns.

Don't waste your time on this one.

Bunuel's left-wing anti-Americanism/anti-Capitalism was pathetic, as was the very bland and ugly look of the movie.

I understand that the bland stage-set dining rooms are a device, and a successful one.

The Empty, Hypocrite and Pointless Existence of the Bourgeoisie Class .

I grant that being fluent in French might have made a big difference - but I thought this movie was dull.

this is only the begining of a succession of unexpected and unusual events to follow.

The scene when Bunuel has the dining table become a stage with a prompter giving them their lines, {as in Shakespeare's As You Like It "All the worlds a stage, and all the men and women merely players'}, is a brilliant confirmation of the emptiness of the bourgeois existence - simply stunning in its honesty {and so opposed to their inherent dishonesty}.

Just don't expect a plot, a hint of logic or sense or a single dull moment.

Right up untl his last movie -- CET OBSCUR OBJET DU DESIR -- he was razor-sharp, keen, and as subtle as a bulldozer, and that's why this film is one of his best and a fascinating work of art.

Fascinating film from Luis Bunuel about "six characters in search of a meal.

Even so, the movie is entertaining enough for what it is, the cast are all terrific, especially the legendary Fernando Rey, who is always a joy to watch.

Some of the mini-stories will make a wry smile cross your face, and frankly, some of the movie is actually enjoyable.

What a fascinating director!

This movie may infuriate some literalists but, for me, it stands up as an evocative and delightful experience.

It is a joy,a delightful film,a very funny,defiant,exciting and amusing one.

THe selfishness of the bourgeoisie is given a stunning treatment:the impossibility to get a good meal .

Discreet charm, explicit boredom .

This movie is funny and entertaining.

For what it's worth, when we left the theater we were incredibly hungry and dinner proved to be an especially delightful treat.

One minute we think we're viewing the film as it exists in reality, only to then find out that is some kind of drab, monstrous daydream of the terminally inane.

It's an insane, wildly entertaining and endlessly smart oddball of a movie, with a fine script and Luis Bunuel's superb direction allowing the film to get better and better as it goes from one beautifully bizarre scene to another.

A lot of weird and unexpected stuff intervenes--during which you learn a little more about the characters (particularly how unlikeable some of them are).

Therefore, because Bunuel happens to have something of a fascinating with a Freudian approach to movie-making that can never pander to the audience (unless they're an overtly dense or stupid audience), after a while these characters walks of life become truly Bunuel-esque vignettes.

Or "Boring people try to eat together".

) Won the Oscar for the Best Foreign Language Film of 1972, this is in intriguing film that also features excellent use of the camera and a series of "travel shots," as I like to call it, as we see our group of friends walk aimlessly in search of a place to eat.

" Contrived and unrelated dream sequences that go nowhere.

The walk by the main group of characters along a country roadside is mysterious and compelling.

Influences for the pointless conversations of Pulp Fiction and the red herrings of David Lynch films can be clearly seen here.

" I still don't know the answer to that question but I rate this an 8 because despite the previously mentioned nature of this movie, I enjoyed it.

"Let's see, I have this nice little pointless childhood revenge-poison story that I wrote in 3 minutes… Where shall I put it?