The War Is Over (1967)

A brilliant film that helped define a genre

A film of deceptively outspoken contemporary relevance, this is cinema at its most alert, alarming and alive.

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Resnais really impressed me with this film. He uses real locations and finds subtle atmospheric things that almost never turn up in movies. One sees the way a shadow of a tree moves gently back and forth on the wall as two people relax in bed, the way a gust of wind briefly animates a woman's hair in a subway tunnel. The movie successfully combines an account of resistance to Franco's Spain from an ex-patriot living in Paris (played by Montand), and his life outside of politics. We see not only his political views, but also how he feels about love and his own situation. Beautiful, brave and innovative, this movie also has some of the most passionate, yet restrained and overall fascinating love scenes that I have seen since Peter Sellers and Shirley Maclaine in 'Being There.'

I am thrilled that a DVD version of this nightmare has been released. After 36 long years I am able to show my friends what I have so often argued is the most horrible example of film making in all human history. I recently viewed it for the second time, the first being in 1966. Perhaps I was too young then to appreciate the subtleties or nuances of the film, its textures and complexities. Gimme a break, this thing plays worse now than it did then.The reason I firmly believe that this is the worst flick I've ever seen is that it actually takes itself seriously: It has a respected director (Resnais), stars the greatest French actor ever (Montand), and introduces the beautiful and talented Genevieve Bujold (oh those eyes). Throw in Ingrid Thulin (Bergman freaks know this talented woman) and the movie shouldn't miss. It does, it is just bad.There's a story in there somewhere wrapped around a few steamy (for the times) sex scenes and a delightful bit of on-camera puking (always fun). Mostly the movie tries to insult your sensibilities while engaging in a pointless and confusing character study of a frustrated middle-aged anti-Franco Marxist. The problem is the guy is shallow, there is no character to study. The rest of the people are very '60s Euro-lefties, very chic, and very uninteresting to all but themselves (and Resnais) in 1966 - I can't begin to imagine how boring they must be to modern audiences. If you want to be entertained while battling against old right-wing Spanish dictators grab yourself some Hemingway. Now there's a guy who could study character.When we left that theater in 1966 my date turned to me laughingly and said that if I lived a good life God would never make me see a movie that bad again. Apparently I've lived a good life. Listen, I've sat through Ed Wood productions and Anne-Margaret's "Kitten With a Whip" but "La Guerre Est Finie" remains the worst flick I've ever seen.

CAUTION: NOTES ON PLOT INCLUDEDWell, if you think this movie is about hot sex and Franco, then you could stick to Hemingway. A stunning psychodrama about a man who has seen his life burned out after decades of fighting a "good" but hopeless war, recognizes the futility, and sees another generation committing itself to figurative and literal suicide. Does he stop them? Join them? Can he have any effect at all? Does he try? See the movie. If you're into political drama a la Frankenheimer, Zinnemann, or Costa Gavras, this one is a "ten."But you're right about Genevieve Bujold. Are you ever 8-)

Spoilers herein.So many European films from this era have faded. They were about notions disguised as ideas that on reflection were less precious than we thought. But this film has grown in my experience. It somehow touches an important place deftly: perhaps the adhesive is wonder about the value of previously clear passions.At any rate, here we have misters `Marienbad' (Resnais and Vierny) exploiting the very territory they outlined in that film: but rather than reality being constructed by memory, here it is constructed in a more realistic way -- by coming and going, by rendezvous, by assignment, by getting there.If someone described what was attempted here in words, and I did not know the film, I would think it impossible. Angst of later life, the increasing emptiness of the motion, the growing concern that the motion itself is fragile, the indication of that by some chance encounters (some sexual, some mistaken), the logic behind the motion is disintegrating.But it does work. This film finds just the right emotional groove, mostly visual. Much more successfully than, say Antonioni. Part of the art is subtle annotation of what it is: Marianne is putting together a book of images of place (`I can't describe it in words'). There's a writer. There's lots of motion about swapped ID photos and all that entails. Many doors. A fair amount of time and memory folding.A life with film is a constant process of evaluating who you are, what you cast off and what you accept and incubate within. This may not turn out be a lasting friend to every viewer, but it has for this one.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 4: Worth watching.