Sadly Over-hyped

People are voting emotionally.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Ok... Let's be honest. It cannot be the best movie but is quite enjoyable. The movie has the potential to develop a great plot for future movies

Preposterously inane film directed by Georges Franju, it barely reaches above average. There's no story, it's all just 'action' between the banker, a shadowy Judex, the banker's former governess and the banker's dull daughter. It's got some art leaning which saves it from tedium.It's a homage to Louis Feuillade who is known for the serials Fantômas, Les Vampires and Judex and his films made between 1904 and 1926.Also has an overblown fifty-minute program "Franju le visionnaire" where an overestimated and pretentious Georges Franju's bloats over his films, he even states that he "hates fairy tales because they 'bore' him". Well, I loved them as a kid. Anyone who didn't like fairy tales is a highfaluting snob I think.Still, it's a nice package put together by The Criterion Collection.

This strikingly original pastiche, the mind—blowing 'Judex', a thriller for those who know something about cinema, reminded me of the Fantomas TV series, of the Marais franchise, of Hunnebelle, of Feuillade, of Clouzot, even of the spooky 'Marienbad'—some for dissimilarities, not all for the same reason; and most of all, it gave me a vivid taste of what a genuine tribute means, a straight one, not Burton's spoofs. It comes at once from Feuillade, and from the literary original.Both broads, Mme. and Mlle., three—with the buxom acrobat Daisy, are very hot. Cocantin reads 'The Empty Coffin'.Franju is the flip-side of Hunnebelle, Hunnebelle's movies shot by Clouzot—and I seem to remember that 'Morgan' wrote not only about 'Jéhu', but also about Feuillade—striking mind—bending surreal images, the unsung face of the French cinema, where scholars fail to tread. It's good to have them both.A lavish thriller, good—natured and of great artistic intelligence, 'Judex' is a masterpiece of charm and storytelling. I didn't hope that I will come to live a joy like this movie gave me. It gave an excitement that I had almost forgotten. Franju has never been equaled. Franju is the most intriguing, and the most underestimated French director. His main aim is to recreate a world, not to spoof it. 'Judex' has the beauty of a jewel. This highly stylized, knockout form of suspense is something I can very much relate to—in films or books.In its decade, so rewarding for the movie buffs, 'Judex' was aligned with 'Bond' and the Marais comedies; it rivals and, of course, surpasses them—it should go without saying. Movies like this evoke in me feelings of piety for the French cinema, before its entertaining wing slipped into the present barbarity.The '60 had a knack for eeriness—in the mainstream of Bond and the Marais comedies, and in the legendary TV series of that decade; sometimes it was schmaltz, others—the chilling feel some movies from back then achieve. Of these, 'Judex' is the most impressive that I know of.Two things—of course 'Judex' isn't a … crime drama, as one reviewer claims, instead it's a thriller—and it doesn't 'show little' (like a Gothic masterwork from the same epoch), as a matter of fact it's glamorous, lavish, resplendent—as action scenes, sets, images, shots, there's a gorgeous ambulance door, and not only fights and stunts, but even quite spectacular effects—so, quite the opposite of restraint and (British) 'mood alone', to quote directly—third, I liked better Édith (nowadays she looks like Marina Voica—understandably, since they're both Russian).

French remake of a 1914 serial involving a "crime fighter" who uses masks and deception to right wrongs and such. Similar in someways to a more real batman. This remake has Judex-the Latin for judge- going after a banker who swindled people by telling him that if he didn't repay the money he would die. And die he does-or so it appears as Judex spirits the man away and hold him prisoner. From there it gets complicated. Good but unremarkable as a whole mystery/adventure story set in the late 1800's thats perfect for late night viewing since its the sort of thing I used to run across at 2am. Worth a look if you run across it but I don't know if I'd go out of my way to see it.

***note - may contain spoilers *** The one redeeming sequence in this 1963 remake is the Masked Ball scene. Judex appears as a guest, with a large pigeon's head covering his own. He produces bird after bird as entertainment for the masked guests. This scene serves as a prime example of how the rest of the film should have been staged i.e. heavy on music and visuals, and light on dialogue.But, the bulk of the film has a boring, unimaginative soundtrack of silence, or words, and more words. Semi-closeups of people talking, talking, talking. Give me the silent version of JUDEX any day.Even the framing of the shots cut down on the entertainment value.Example: In the original Louis Feuillade JUDEX, a woman, walking across a bridge, is captured by two men. They throw a hood over her head, wrap it tight with a rope around her neck. Cut to shot of them tossing the body into the river. This is CLEARLY seen, no confusing close shots cutting out valuable information. You SEE a body fall off a high bridge into a river. CUT TO: Two kids fishing in a boat on the river. One kid catches something, starts reeling it in - it's some unidentifiable sack. They pull it ashore. Looks like a body. "Licorice Kid" removes the rope around the victim's neck - pulls off the hood, and realizes - in shock, that it is his sidekick's mother.That's from the original - the sequence is amazing, and unforgettable.The 1963 remake has it like this. Two guys nicely dressed, lean over the edge of a bridge. (There is no water visible in this shot) "I don't know - it doesn't look like she'll sink into the river. She's still floating." The two men exchange a look of concern. Cut to close shot of blonde actress floating in water. We clearly see her face, eyes closed. She appears quite relaxed - one presumes she is in the river the two men were talking about. Cut to shot of two kids in a boat. One ribs the other, pointing to woman floating in river. She's brought to shore.See the difference? There's intrigue and mystery and a real sense of danger in the original silent, which is just not there in the 1963 version.The 1963 version plays like a Vanity Fair advert in motion. Yes, it's all very slick, like Jules Dassin directing an episode of "The Avengers." What drives me insane are the 1960's hairstyles in a movie supposedly set in 1917.Whatever.The 1916/1917 silent serial is a masterpiece. See it. And if you're still hungry for more, catch this (1963) version.(NOTE - "JUDEX34" is a 1934 remake that's supposedly quite good - directed by Maurice Champreaux, the son-in-law of Louis Feuillade. Unfortunately, "JUDEX34" is not available on video at the moment.)