Very disappointing...

Really Surprised!

There's no way I can possibly love it entirely but I just think its ridiculously bad, but enjoyable at the same time.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

"The Golden Coach" was an interesting project for Jean Renoir. According to his own biography, this film interested him on more of a design level, than on a story-telling level. He was much more interested in the "look" of the costumes, scenery, wigs and make-up. There have even been stories about how he would have sets built, then when the actors showed up in costume, he would order that the sets were the wrong colors, and needed to be re-painted. And from a technical point of view, the film is a feast for the eyes, and therefore a success.The cast, especially Anna Magnani as Camilla, is excellent. They play the characters in a commedia dell'arte style production. Since the characters and the actors who portray them are all a little loud and full of energy, I found the "play within a play" structure to be appropriately maddening. I'm not sure what Renoir intended, but I thought that the story, while contrived, was interesting.7 out of 10

Jean Renoir's colorful English language comedy is not the masterpiece prevailing critical opinion would have you believe ("riotously textural!" raved the Village Voice), but it is a pleasant and entertaining novelty. A spirited Anna Magnani leads a troupe of Italian actors to a Spanish colony in 18th century Peru, where the appreciative Viceroy rewards her talent (and beauty) with the gift of a golden coach, setting off a small political and romantic scandal. It plays for the most part not unlike a literate stage farce, and Renoir emphasizes the theatricality of the story by directing (and shooting) it like theatre, with deliberate, flat compositions and distracting color costumes; the action even begins on a legitimate stage, the walls of which 'disappear' as soon as Renoir's camera dollies into it. The (at the time) newly struck 1992 print, presented by Martin Scorsese, shows obvious evidence of restoration only in the curious epilogue, which brings the story back to its original stage setting, and appears to have been poorly reconstructed on video.

I saw 'The Golden Coach' twenty years ago in a big screen revival. I don't recall that I liked it or disliked it. Actually, I don't recall much about it at all. So I thought I'd watch it again, now that I have hundreds of really great films under my belt ...and I see why nothing stuck in my head. It's trying very hard to be important; by rejecting the usual Hollywood treatment and pacing. But it dilly-dallies with a static, indifferent structure wherein Anna Maganani pinballs between three men who are after her. If I had the patience I could scour this for the transitory meaning of objects (No thanks, I'll take "The Earrings of Madame de...") but the apparent level of the movie never drew me in, so I'm not especially interested in the underpinnings.I have never understood the appeal of Magnani. She is a a brassy, loud mouth vulgarian, and a turn-off of epic proportions. She's clearly approaching her over-ripe, matronly years here, and the idea that 3 men could fall all over themselves for her is absurd. Her trademark in this film is some full-throated proectile laughter which probably broke a lot of objects downwind. They seem to be cashing in on her laugh. It's as if crowds adored in in a breakout role the previous year (where she laughed once) and this was conceived as the merest excuse to have her laugh like a jackal every 4 minutes.On the set of the Fugitive Kind she was reportedly incensed, and increasingly unhinged because Brando did not find her attractive, nor have a tryst with her. The lady does not seem to have understood her limitations. She was lucky to have the career she did. She peaked with her first film, where she played a care-worn wartime schlub/housewife.

Occasionally - perhaps about once every other Fall - I catch up with a vintage (vintage in the sense that it was produced way, way back) movie that has attracted rave reviews, albeit not always on its initial release, and find myself asking questions such as WHAT? WHERE is the Style and/or Content? WHY all the fuss? Mensa members reading this will be ahead of me and aware that I have the same problem with this entry. I WANTED to like it, I always want to like a given movie and Renoir isn't exactly chopped liver; no one enjoyed his French Can Can or La Grande Illusion more than I but I did find Le Bete humaine on the so-so side. Here the big problem was Magnani. She is a fine actress no doubt and I myself have seen her give some tremendous performances but the Beauty That Drives Men Mad? I think not. For reasons best known to Renoir and/or his cameraman they have contrived to shoot her in such a way as to suggest she was suffering a bad case of mumps on the floor; tempestuous, yes; volatile, yes; histrionic, yes but incandescent? You've got to be kidding. It was a nice idea to try to replicate the Commedia del Arte and lots of the set-ups are easy on the eye but overall, what's it all about, Alfie.