MovieChat Forums > The Château (2002) Discussion > What were they thinking?! *Spoilers*

What were they thinking?! Spoilers

posted 19 years ago by kayeanna77
26 replies | jump to latest

First off, if anyone liked this film, you may not want to read what I have to write. This film was utterly wretched! I LOVE Paul Rudd, and I think that he's a highly underrated actor, giving me even more reason to see anything he's in. But, Paul, what were you thinking with this one?! I only sat through its horrible entirety because of Paul and I was stupid enough to think that, quite possibly, it might get better...wrong! There were so many things wrong with this, but I'll do everyone a favor and name the things that stuck out the most to me.

1. Whoever did the advertising and explanation of the movie's premise on the back of the case needs fired. If I were one of those people who gets off on suing over anything and everything, I'd be in front of Judge Judy right now screaming, "Misrepresentation!" A comedy?! Are you kidding me?! The only thing that made this funny was my boyfriend and I heckling the movie (it helped ease our pain) and the raving review from the San Francisco Chronicle that stated it was, "Uproariously Funny." Sir, when they get around to firing the makers of this movie, you should quietly bow out of your job at the paper and immediately have a lobotomy, for that will be an improvement.

2. I'm all for experimental types of filming and straying from the Hollywood guidelines are great, but the film quality on this film was horrible. Now, I'm not sure if the budget for the film didn't allow for more than a hand held camera and no lighting. But seriously folks, when your script sucks (or did you even have one) as bad as the one I witnessed last night, take the time to rewrite, rethink and raise some money for the budget! Then, maybe then, we all could have experienced this "uproariously" good time Mr. Nimrod from the Chronicle claims to have seen.

3. What was the point?! I sat through this film because of Paul Rudd and the fact that I felt I gave an hour and a half of my time to it and I wanted to know what the damn point was....and it ends like that!? Are you freaking kidding me?! Not only did not one character move forward from their asinine and one dimensional ways, but the mistress gazing out of a train window, looking constipated, didn't exactly live this viewer satisfied!

Now, either I'm all alone on this opinion (which is fine with me, I just wanted to say my piece) or the reason there was only one thread on here means that others out there were left bewildered and just plain pissed off. I encourage anyone who feels differently to please, feel free, and enlighten me. Or, if you feel the same...please, bitch with me.

Kayeanna77

[–] Brian Scott Mednick 19 years ago

I could not agree with you more! I remember seeing the trailer for this film in the movies and thought it looked very funny. I got it from NetFlix and watched it last night. Am I glad I did not plop down ten bucks to see this in the theater. Talk about total amateur hour. Paul Rudd's goofiness is the only mildly amusing thing about the movie. It is not funny, the actor who plays his black brother is totally despicable, and as for the film quality - I have seen super 8 home movies that look like "Citizen Kane" compared to this. The video-to-film transer is so bad and so grainy at times, I am really baffled that this was even released theatrically. When I was in film school, I would have been embarrassed to show my class anything this poorly shot. And how Paul Rudd, who is an engaging actor and a star, got mixed up in this is beyond me.

[–] JohnnyGoodtimes 19 years ago

I thought it was funny. Not uproarious, but funny ("You guys like mimes, right?"). While I do agree that it was light on plot, I do think that some of the characters did change, in some ways. I can't remember names right now, but Paul Rudd's character gave up on psychiatrists for a while, and the maid left the Count, finally doing what she wanted after realizing he didn't really care for her (He said she's be lost without him, that he almost wished he died for real because of her reaction).

But I was a little bothered at first by how it was filmed. I understand that it is an independent movie, but the quality that made that factor seem too obvious was annoying. I'm sure they could have had better filming if they wanted.

Overall, it was just an all right movie, definitely worth ordering through the library. It wasn't really any more or any less than I expected, and Paul Rudd was great as always.

--"The principles of surgery are the same above and below the neck."--

[–] HisNamewasRobertPaulson 19 years ago

I liked it. I think Paul Rudd and Donal Logue have the same agent.

"Put the bunny in the box!"

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] faeriebell1 18 years ago

I agree with this post. I just watched it on IFC and while I agree that it was rough around the edges with a simplistic plot, the characters were well nuanced making it a treat to watch.

I loved the character of Isabelle, she seemed so fragile and unsure of herself but then surprised me by moving forward in a postive direction.

So yeah, this film is not for the juvenile humor, fart-joke loving crowd, but it definitely has its audience.

[–] JohnnyGoodtimes 18 years ago

I know this post of mine seems arrogant, but ... really, you guys: look a little deeper. Not all comedies have to feature farting animatronic animals and gay jokes.

Come on, no one said those are the kinds of movies we want to see. I really like your comments on the characters, but the current poor state of movies is pretty much a given; you don't have to raise your own opinion by pointing out the bad tastes of mainstream audiences.

The music ignites the night with passionate fire
"IMDb has made you bitter." --gertrudejessalynn

[–] scrstr9 18 years ago

I just got done watching this movie on IFC (I only watched it because of Paul Rudd) and I was not impressed. Like others have said, the quality was bad and it wasn't funny. There was only one part that I actually laughed at. So kayeanna77, you are definatly not alone on your opinion.

[–] cartay122000 18 years ago

I liked it. Come on people - it was fun.

[–] morilee 18 years ago

i definitely thought it was funny. the whole scene when paul rudd has his breakdown is hilarious. and any scene with the interaction between paul and romany is crazy too. but everybody has there own opinions.

[–] jarevill 18 years ago

If you like Paul Rudd because you're a huge Friends fan, then odds are this isn't a comedy for you. Now as a person who's watched a lot of that show I realize that that's a broad generalization to make, but let's face it most Friends fans aren't exactly big on smart, subtle somedy. Thisn't a great movie but it is an interesting little character study. And come on "That's a sweet moat!" is a hilarious line.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] SquirrelBot3000 13 years ago

I don't think Rudd's breakdown scene was supposed to be hilarious--I found it uncomfortable, just like the characters did in the room. Sure, there was a moment or two that was funny (for example, the mimes line), but this was more a dramedy than anything. More drama than comedy though.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] JohnnyGoodtimes 18 years ago

Thanks for responding to my post so maturely. I saw The Chateau again the other day and actually kept your comments on the characters in mind while watching it, and it definitely added more to the film. While I remembered the general plot and really only two things from the movie ("Love the ladies" and Gram's drunken scene), I had forgotten how almost painfully slow the pacing of the movie is at times. Maybe because I was watching it with someone else I was concerned about the film's ability to keep the audience's interest up. But for me, Paul as Graham and Romany as Alan really pulled me through this film. The characters are what make the movie engaging, enjoyable, and memorable, I think. The Chateau is a pretty good movie, it just may take some warming up to.

"You taste like a burger. I don't like you anymore." -- Andy, Wet Hot American Summer

[–] ouchmouth 18 years ago

Okay, so this thread proves that some people love this film, some hate it and some are "meh" I fall more in the "meh" crowd. It was painfully slow in parts, and it wasn't quite sure what tone to take. But I just wanted to say that if for no other reason, this movie's hilarious use of subtitles (used with Rudd's hideous attempts at French) redeems this film. Slow, but I laughed out loud at least once every few minutes. I've seen far worse films.

[–] thebrucewayne 18 years ago

I totally disagree with the original poster here, she definitely was looking for an episode of Friends and was extremely upset at getting something that to me, resembled Festen.

I thought it was a Dogme film, for the first few minutes. It wasn't the greatest, but it was a bit all right. It was yet another perfect example of the stereotypical Ugly American (X2... no X3 (Logue)). I thought it was hilarious that Rudd's character thought he was going to the French Riviera, actually changing into shorts and flip-flops on the train, when in fact he was in the Loire Valley, in January.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] lolahaswings2 18 years ago

I thought it was f ucking hilarious.

[–] diddymuck 16 years ago

Elementary. The humor came from the interpretation of Americans by the French. The characters were cliche performances of the exact behavior the French detest in Americans. Ya had to be French to get it.

SEEEEEeeeeee?

[–] youpeeinthesea 16 years ago

I liked the movie.
It was very very funny.
Try being an American guy living in France for at least a year. You might enjoy the movie more.
Not all movies are all wrapped up in a bundle at the end.
What was so confusing about the mistress gazing out the train window? She was obviously thinking about her future and if she was doing the right thing.
What did you expect at the end?
A wedding? :)

[–] bingolong 16 years ago

The first time I saw this movie I rented it and was thrown off by the quality and would have initially agreed with the first oster but on my second watching this is really a good little movie...but I had to give it another chance to find out

[–] dwayne12345 16 years ago

I love the stylistic old cinema verte feel of the movie whether it was done purposely with a higher speed film or it was the video to film transfer as somoene stated. It's inspiring in that it didn't take a lot of money to make and it is entertaining. Him trying to speak french was hilarious to me because I went through his pronunciation issues when I first was learning the language.

I am in the love it crowd.

Dwayne Speaks

[–] phils_phan 16 years ago

Just saw it last night. <<I LOVE PAUL RUDD.>> I was highly distracted by the amazingly poor lighting in the film, and the overall amateurish quality... but even now I am sitting here laughing out loud at Paul's hilarious speaking French. "I lost my shoes-wah..." and all the other attempts he made. Altho, realistically, someone who has half a brain must realize that speaking the english words with a crap accent isn't speaking french.... but that's ok. He did it quite amusingly. And, there was a scene , a lingering camera shot towards the end, with Paul in his bed where the camera zooms in on his face and you have to be amazed at the gorgeous vision of him. And, from that, I regret that he didn't become a matinee idol of a sort. Stunningly good looking. Now that he's approaching 40, he's lost a bit of that lustre. But, he's DAMN funny. More Paul Rudd, please!!!!!

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]