Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

BelSports This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

Gary The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

dlee2012 Cartouche is a 1962 Philippe de Broca offering from France. Ostensibly a well-crafted film, its technical excellence cannot save it from the fact that it represents that most tired and banal of cinematic genres, the swashbuckler.Full of action, there is no depth to this film and Jean-Paul Belmondo's macho posturing throughout would sit more comfortably with an American audience than with a French (or an Australian) one.Indeed, throughout it is clear that the director is trying to create a very Americanised film and it simply does not work in a French context.Whilst the action scenes are themselves well-choreographed, some of the cuts between scenes are very crude.Pacing is a problem that makes this film even more monotonous. The long and unwieldy narrative quickly becomes tiresome as one knows the hero will triumph. Although there is a dark twist towards the end, this is exactly what happens. The character is clearly drawing on the Errol Flynn version of Robin Hood, blended with some elements of Fielding's picaresque hero, Tom Jones.The colour is vivid and the spectacle is on a large scale but one has little sympathy for the characters. Cartouche is so much larger than life, one cannot empathise with him at all, especially given the macho posturing mentioned above. Even the Costner Robin Hood some thirty years later had failings and enough of a back-story to create some empathy. Cartouche, though, has no back-story and there is little character development throughout this film. As he is so uninteresting a character, one quickly loses interest in the film.Despite the problems with the characters, Belmondo and Cardinale as well-cast as the leads and do their best with the thin material.Indeed, Cardinale's character is the most interesting in the film, managing to blend a fiery personality with a submissiveness to Cartouche that would no doubt infuriate feminist audiences today. Indeed, a reading of the film from her character's point of view would make for a fascinating thesis. It is, therefore, her death at the end that gives the film its only real poignancy. Her laying out as a Princess, bedecked with the jewels stolen from the society ladies at the ball is a wonderfully-ironic moment. Likewise, the reflections of the dark, inky water when she is laid to rest give the film its only real moment of cinematic beauty.Besides this, the film's real saving grace is its subversive critique of the military. In the early part of the story, soldiers feature prominently and are consistently shown to be nothing more than state-sanctioned mercenaries. They do not care who they kill, as long as they are well-paid.Along with this ruthlessness, they are shown to be buffoons in uniforms, lacking any kind of depth or redeeming features. This wonderful subversiveness stands well today and gives the film its only depth, particularly when one considers it was filmed during the fallout of the Algerian War.Ultimately, one has mixed feelings about this film. For the most part, it is well-made, with some spectacular action scenes but also some poor editing. The male protagonist is a comic-book character but the female has more depth.The film's saving grace is its subversive quality. It bravely seeks to undermine the military as an organisation full of fools and ruthless, uncaring killers and it also seeks to attack the emerging trend of feminism by showing the loyal, submissive woman as the ideal.Ultimately, though, it is clear that the swashbuckler was a very tired genre by this time and it is fitting that this is one of the last of its type.

jotix100 Louis Dominique Bourgingnon and his brother Louison were small time bandits in pre revolutionary Paris. Together with their pal, Douceur, they plied their trade in the streets. They stole from unsuspecting citizens and had to bring it to Malichot, a Fagin-like man who then saw to the pilfered goods, keeping most of it for himself. The trio, not content with the meager share they got for their effort, decide to challenge the boss. An angry Malichot swears revenge.The friends find refuge in the army. The three friends soldiers to go to fight battles, in the process they manage to become heroes, when in reality they were deserters. Their biggest opportunity came when the Marshall arrives carrying chests of gold to the battlefield. They stage a fantastic escape, avoiding their pursuers to get them. The friendly thieves go into a country inn, where the gorgeous Venus befriends them. With a new resolution in mind, Louis Dominique becomes Cartouche, a man that will steal money from the rich and shares it with the poor.This picaresque tale, adapted for the screen by none other than Philippe De Broca, who also directed, gets a larger than life treatment that still charms viewers after almost fifty years after it was done. Daniel Boulanger, a frequent collaborator of Mr. De Broca and Charles Spaak contributed to the scenario for this 1962 French film that also marked the beginning of the director's long association with Jean-Paul Belmonto, who is seen in the title role.A young Jean-Paul Belmondo cut quite a figure in those days. He had an amazing film presence and it is easy to see why he was a favorite of many filmmakers. Adding luster to the film is the gorgeous Claudia Cardinale at the height of her youth and beauty. She plays Venus the woman that follow Cartouche through all his adventures. A young Jean Rochefort is another welcome addition to the cast that also included Jess Hahn, Marcel Dalio, {hilippe Lemaire and Odile Versois.

dbdumonteil Louis-Dominique Cartouche (1693-1721) was one of the two famous brigands in France of the XVIII th century the other being Mandrin the smuggler.Cartouche's "career" took place during the Regence (interregnum Louis the XIV th /louis the XV th) whereas his colleague appeared later under Louis the XV th 's reign.He was another Robin Hood ,stealing from the rich and giving to the poor (not only legend).He was a gallant man,seducing many women , collecting the lovers .In the movie ,"Venus" (Cardinale)might represent some of them.His relationship with an aristocratic woman (Odile Versois in the movie) is plausible for he had friends in the nobility .Once he had dinner with one of these high born ladies and he thought her champagne was undrinkable:the day after ,he sent a case of bottles to her.The tragic death of Cartouche is not shown in the movie:like Mandrin ,and like other brigands ,he perished on the wheel ,a terrifying torture .Belmondo who was also De Broca's "L'Homme De Rio" is a dashing handsome chivalrous Cartouche .He gets good support from a stellar cast .The last scene,often praised ,is ,with the "burying at sea" scene of Enrico's "Les Aventuriers" ,one of the most beautiful scenes of the French cinema of the sixties!And,no,they were not Nouvelle Vague ,either De Broca or Enrico !

TheVid This lush and lively swashbuckler is notable for it's slapstick humor and blatantly romantic finale. The silliness works thanks to director DeBroca's whimsically light touch and Belmondo's atypical athletic charm. It's an elegant and sumptuous looking production and a surprisingly romantic adventure. The ravishing Ms. Cardinale alone is worth the price of admission. Delightful in spirit, charming in delivery, with appropriately gorgeous music by Georges Delerue. The superb widescreen DVD from Anchor Bay is the best way to appreciate this movie.