What makes it different from others?

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

From their French prison, convicts Raymond Cordy (as Louis) and Henri Marchand (as Emile) take advantage of silly putty cell bars to carry out a daring escape. The industrious Mr. Cordy is successful, but spirited Mr. Marchand is caught in the act. On the outside, Cordy takes advantage of the assembly-line work he performed in prison to become a prosperous phonograph records tycoon. Ironically, he finds his old friend Marchand working the factory production line, after he also escapes from jail. They renew their friendship, which has been threatened by industry.Director Rene Clair makes this an artful picture; from the great bicycle stunt win to the flying money, it's excellent - but, alas, not too amusing. The soundtrack, featuring music by Georges Auric, is effective - but, the spoken words seem unnecessary. "A nous la liberte" might have worked better as a non-talking picture. In a case where Mr. Clair felt imitation was the sincerest form of flattery, Charlie Chaplin employed a similar look and thesis for his "Modern Times" (1936). Although Mr. Chaplin's classic is counted as his first fully sound film, it is tellingly silent.******* A nous la liberte (12/18/31) Rene Clair ~ Raymond Cordy, Henri Marchand, Rolla France, Paul Ollivier

I wanted to like this movie more, especially knowing the movie's history and theme, but in the end I was often bored and frustrated. When compared to Chaplin's "Modern Times", even though it was made after this movie and apparently heavily influenced by this movie, I would say "Modern Times" is a better movie.I was bored in part because the rhythm of many 1930s movies have a slower pace. Scenes go on long to ensure the 1930s audiences gets the point, but modern audiences are quick to catch on. Even allowing for, and expecting, a slower pace I was annoyed at times by the movie's pace.I was frustrated with the lead character. He didn't stand out in a good way. While he was suppose to be a simple everyday guy the audience is to identify with, he seemed dumb, dim witted, and oblivious when it came to the woman he was infatuated with. I realize it was a movie style back then, but it grates if the actor doesn't have the charisma to pull this act off. It also doesn't help when this movie doesn't have a character say the few words that would clear up the confusion.I liked the sets - they were typical 1930s art deco. Big rooms, tall doors, and clean lines. Even though it was obvious and heavy handed, I was fine with the theme that industrial work is like prison labor, while the guards and professors proclaimed that work means liberty.This is shown by the following scene: Factory guards discover one of the escaped convicts lying in the grass outside the factory enjoying the day, and one guard says: "Not at work?! Don't you know that ...". Then the scene cuts to a classroom where a bearded professor tells his class: "Work is mandatory. Because work means liberty." The young children at their desks and writing in their notebooks then sing what the professor just told them.

In 1931, many of the films made in France were still silents and the industry was several years behind Hollywood. In this context, it's incredible that such a creative and unusual film was released. While it is far from perfect, it's got a lot going for it and is a nice bit of social commentary.The film begins with two prisoners trying to escape from their dull and overly regimented existence in prison. One actually does escape--the other is stuck behind but eventually escapes as well. The first guy goes from escaped prisoner to owner of a huge company producing record players--a real self--made millionaire. The problem is, his factory is run almost exactly like the assembly line from prison shown at the beginning of the film. When the second guy escapes, he is hired by this company and adapts very poorly to this mechanized regimen. There's MUCH more to it than this, but since other reviewers have discussed the film at length, I'll stop in explaining the plot.Interestingly enough, a very similar film came out a few years later from Charlie Chaplin (MODERN TIMES) and the parallels are definitely there. However, director Clair didn't feel offended by this, but the production company instituted a lawsuit against Chaplin. The problem is that imitation IS legal--heck, you can even use the exact same title as another film if you'd really like. PLUS, I noticed that Clair actually borrowed very heavily from Chaplin!! The sympathetic second prisoner is so much like Chaplin's Little Tramp and the parallels here are also quite obvious! The way he walks, the double-takes, the klutziness, the sweetness and his inability in the end to get the girl--all very Chaplin-like--and apparently inspired by THE CIRCUS and several other Chaplin films.I think this controversy is a lousy thing because it obscures the fact that BOTH are excellent films--though I'd definitely give the nod to MODERN TIMES. While derivative, he was able to do so much more with the material--with amazing sight gags that were missing from Clair's film--which was not nearly as funny.By the way, had this film been made just a few years later, it would have gotten a much lower score. But, compared to the films being made in 1931, it is quite the movie.

Rene Clair's first film was the bizarre surrealist short ENTR'ACTE, which had music (and a cameo) by composer Erik Satie. Also showing up briefly in that film were two of Satie's young protégés, Darius Milhaud and George Auric.When Clair made the talkie A NOUS LA LIBERTE, he hired Auric to do a completely original score, which was not common at the time, and a lot of the scenes were shot to recordings of the Auric music. This was only Auric's 2nd film (after Cocteau's BLOOD OF A POET) but he already shows the mastery that would lead to well over a hundred further scores.Clair and his Oscar-nominated designer fill the screen with wonderful art deco visuals, and there's a sympathetic cast cemented by the two central characters, Louis and Emile. There are some wonderful physical comedy bits in the film (mostly in the factory), as well as the social satire which I didn't find particularly heavy-handed (although that adjective has been used by others). The fine balance of music, visuals, and comedy makes this a winner.