MovieChat Forums > Le cercle rouge (1970) Discussion > Don't get it at all.

Don't get it at all.

posted 17 years ago by c_ota
13 replies | jump to latest

*WARNING-- Spoilers follow*

This movie is just a long, slow, bad version of Rififi. What is most bothersome is that instead of the crooks being cool and crafty, they are lame and blundering. No wonder the movie starts out with them captured or in jail-- I'm not surprised (and they ended up dead-- duh, saw that coming)! The dude with the mustache acts all cool and smug throughout the whole film and you just want to slap him because he's simply a fool. So many blunders from this wanna be street-smart gang.

"Hey I just got out of jail-- how about I buy a car with dirty money from a rival criminal?!"
"Hey, let's recruit the new gang member at a known hangout for gangsters!"
"Hey, we can poorly tie up the guard right next to the alarm button!"
"Hey, let's leave the rope ladder with our fingerprints all over it hanging from the roof of the jewelry shop!"
"Hey, let's steal millions in jewelry and have ONE possible buyer for it all!"
I could go on and on... (continuing with the fact that the tip of this "easy heist" came from a POLICE GUARD!).

The ONLY neat scene is where Yves Montand takes the rifle off of the tripod mount and shoots the alarm trip sensor. Actually his character is the only interesting character with any sort of depth in this entire movie. And at least he's not stupid enough to die by getting SHOT IN THE BACK while RUNNING AWAY!

Oh yeah, the inspector dude is an idiot too. "I know, I'll blackmail the bar owner in to giving me information. Oh, he told me to *beep* off. Now what do I do? I know, I'll haul in his son for leverage. Okay, now his son just killed himself..."

However, if the intent was for the protagonists to be a bunch of dummys, then mission accomplished!!! Great film!!!

[–] XGamer42 17 years ago

That was perhaps the most mindless response to a film that I have ever had the displeasure of reading. I'm surprised that in all of that you had the gaul to mention a film that Melville himself was asked to direct (yes, Melville wasto direct Rififi originally).
I completely disagree with you on your comment that Yves Montand is the film's only character with any depth. What about the inspector, whose means for ultimately capturing Vogel are their selves illustrative of a corrupted nature; but, at the same time, keeps at home a number of cats for whom he obviously has quite a bit of affection? Even Alain Delon's character carries a cross of his own, as evidenced by the frequent reappearence of that woman in the photographs stored in his prison locker.
You have also entirely failed to highlight Melville's intent in the narrative sense. I suppose the quote from Siddhartha in the opening sequence flew directly over your head? I don't mean to mark myself as something of an elitist here, but why watch these films when this is all the commentary you have to offer?

[–] c_ota 17 years ago

*WARNING-- Spoilers follow*

Well, I'm sorry I disagree with your enjoyment of this movie. Looking back at my commentary now, I agree it is a tad mindless and overly stated. But in essence, I still maintain my feeling for this movie. I just don't think it's so good.

If Melville had directed Rififi, I'm sure I would not have liked it as much as I do. My gall indeed. Wonder why Melville was NOT chosen/chose not to direct it in the end... Only then to imitate some of Rififi's mood and sequences years later in this movie of a similar theme.

And you're incorrect in my not catching that the Siddartha Gautama/Buddha quote in the beginning. It was a really neat device to start things off. And to tell the truth, it set me up perfectly for the (possible) interesting mood of the movie. Then after watching the it, I just thought-- well yeah, bumbling crooks are gonna get caught and/or die. Duh. Don't need Buddha to tell me that! Especially if they THINK that they are so savvy, cool and clever as they appeared to behave throughout the film. It was a big letdown for me (yes letdown for ME, NOT necessarily anyone else).

The inspector is conflicted because he is morally corrupt but... likes cats... ooookay. The head bumbling crook is conflicted because he... has an ex-lover that is still... around somewhere... or something (it is never explained which COULD have been interesting). The way he looks at her image whenever he comes across it is with that same blank expression he had throughout the entire film. A smug, "I don't give a damn about anything" look. Talk about one-dimensional! And I'm supposed to care about his motives or character... why???

I really don't mind that you disagree with my commentary. That's kinda what makes this forum interesting and fun. But I guess you just prefer people who are agreeable about movies all the time..? I think it is helpful for users of this online tool to see commentary both positive and negative, so sorry if my "mindlessness" offended.

Elitist? No, the thought of that didn't cross my mind. Until you mentioned it that is. What do you mean by "these films" exactly? Elite films? Honestly, that term doesn't even make much sense to me. Fellini, Truffaut(?), Bergman, Kurosawa, etc., etc. Is that what you mean by elite? If so, I certainly hope that you aren't someone who feels compelled to love ALL of these "elite" films. That would be strange to me. If you don't like experiencing the "displeasure in reading" negative comments about films you like, then you should just hole yourself in somewhere with a TV, dvd player, and subscription to Netflix. No one to ever disagree with your possible elitist tendencies. Thank you for your response nonetheless. It was... interesting.

[–] heaver2000 17 years ago

What is it with some people and spoilers?

Do you get off on ruining the movie for people who haven't seen it yet?

Or are you just too stupid to write ***SPOILER*** in the title?

[–] c_ota 17 years ago

Sorry about the spoilers. I edited my commentary.

Yeah, I get off on ruining people's movie experiences... if you think that-- you're the one who's "stupid". I just forgot, so no need to be an a-hole. A-hole.

[–] crash_into_me420 17 years ago

hey, c_ota... you're wrong. this is a great film. much better than Rififi

[–] kommisar_x 17 years ago

not only that, but the best film ever

[–] redrum2323 17 years ago

i think i sort of have to go with the OP on this one. i wanted to like this movie. i really did. but in the end, it just didn't hold up to other good, similar genre movies of the same time period. I had a major problem with the decisions of the characters in the film. Also the movie is not tight enough. Overall the storyline is weak. it just didn't have that hook, that special intangible aspect to make it a cool movie. It was just sort of bland and the acting was just decent in my opinion except for yves montand of course.

My biggest problem was how vogel and corey met in the first place. That whole scene was just too much to be coincidental. I didn't buy it at all. In fact I thought the entire thing had been arranged beforehand somehow, which would have made a way better plot line. But to tell me that vogel is running, checks the trunks of all the cars and just happens to find corey's open is too much. And then corey, a man just released from prison, goes right along with it without skipping a beat.

To kommisar_x: this is not a bad movie. But it most certainly is NOT the best movie of all time. It may be YOUR best of all time but let's be reasonable here. I really can't stand when ppl throw that out there all the time. It's really quite annoying and it only shows that you haven't seen enough movies. Saying that one movie is the best of all time is like saying best painting of all time, best book of all time, best song of all time.....get my point? So pls, do us all a favor and refrain from making such broad sweeping statements.

[–] pipeoxide 17 years ago

My favourite part of the OP's comment : "that dude with the moustache acts all cool"...very poignant commentary on the one and only Alain Delon.

The BEAUTY of this film is that, indeed, the crooks are "lame and blundering" in the sense that they are men, with weaknesses, demons, neuroses, etc. This isn't a comic strip, after all, DUDE.
Melville points out at the beginning with the faux Buddha quote that the paths of the 3 men (Jansen, Corey, Vogel) will, despite everything, meet and influence each other, intermingling 3 destinies into 1.
So yes, while in the everyday world the probability of certain events (Vogel hops into "that dude with the moustache"'s trunk out of the blue) are unlikely, here, in Melville's world, they work in an almost poetic way.
The film isn't all about the heist but something more nobler and human: the actions (often times naive and tragic) the three outsiders take will doom them from the start, and despite the approaching downfall which they sense, they choose to stick together.

If you want smart-a$$ed bad guys, intricate plot twists, invincible heroes, and overall awesomeness, stick to your own form of elitism..."Ocean's 13", maybe? Yeah, dude, that would, like, totally rock your world. Peace out, homey!

Tuco Pacifico Benedicto Juan Maria Ramirez

[–] curdy_brent 17 years ago

I have to agree with you, pipe, and disagree with c ota.

Yes, bumbling crooks can be frustrating to watch while we sit there, comfortable in the cinema. But it is far more realistic than the flawless antics of "Ocean's 11" or "The Bourne Identity". The movie reveals the characters to be believable and realistic, i.e., imperfect, mortal, uncoordinated, making poor decisions...
Was it necessary to have the story of the "head crook" explained so that you would understand his feelings and motivations regarding the mysterious woman- Or would you rather the director spoon-fed you every little detail? One of Melville's uniquenesses is his utilization of the subtleties of action and acting, rather than overt explanation. In this movie, we don't flash back to see 'who' the characters were and why they have become- we see who they are, now. The "head crook's" relationship to the woman is explained throughout the course of the movie- by his actions. It may not be as clear to you as a flat-out explanation, but that is where you need to use your imagination.
And now, I feel odd having to explain all this- it's as though I were explaining why a poem is beautiful or why sugar tastes good. It's self-evident.

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jpgr69 16 years ago

Bravo, pipeoxide. Couldn't have said it better myself.

[–] Bluedusk 8 years ago

Petty thieves and criminals are dumb people although they think highly of themselves if they've managed to achieve some theft or crime.
The Red Circle in this respect reminds me a lot of Kubrick's The Killing, where everything is planned so well it can't fail - yet it does, completely, with an ending not unlike TRC.
I also think of John Huston's Treasure of the Sierra Madre.

Mankind was born on Earth. It was never meant to watch Interstellar.

[–] TheManInOil 16 years ago

Well you're right that you didn't get it. The film is following and commenting on genre norms. If you don't like the genre, fine - but the whole point of this film is its contrivance, the inevitability of these men being drawn both together and to their doomed fate.

"Clothes are the enemy! Without clothes, there'd be no sickness. There'd be no war!"