SpunkySelfTwitter It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

FuzzyTagz If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

Murphy Howard I enjoyed watching this film and would recommend other to give it a try , (as I am) but this movie, although enjoyable to watch due to the better than average acting fails to add anything new to its storyline that is all too familiar to these types of movies.

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

framptonhollis Bunuel, an almost mythic filmmaking figure; the man that crafted masterpiece upon masterpiece in a career spanning decades. Among his most famous films are "Un chien andalou", "The Exterminating Angel", "Belle de Jour", and "The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie", his only Oscar winning effort. The film is made up of a multitude of comical scenes and sketches that follows almost no story arc whatsoever. Whatever plot can be pieced together through hilarious scene after scene is very slim and minor. The film focuses on a group of upper class bourgeois friends whose lives seem to be falling apart in a rather surrealist fashion, particularly whenever they attempt to eat dinner together. This premise works as the set up for various gags and satirical jabs that are bizarre but smart. Bunuel was a genius in terms of both humor and the cinematic art form, and this film was perhaps created at the height of his powers when any possible limits were automatically eliminated within the first few minutes of a Bunuel film. His gift for sharp social satire never ceased to be no matter what age he became, and this film may be the most notable example of such a statement. It is a praised and downright beloved film despite its lack of plot and heavy doses of often experimental surrealism. This is a film that has been wildly acclaimed for one ruling reason; yes, it may be a sharp social critique and a brilliant art-house classic and an essential surrealist work, but it is most importantly genuinely hilarious. This is a COMEDY of the highest (and flat out funniest) degree, despite there being a few tragic and legitimately emotional sequences. Once you have witnessed this comic gem of a film, you may very well have reached the peak of world cinema. This work sits atop the mountain of great films, joining the ranks of masterpieces that range from "Citizen Kane" to "Back to the Future" to "Nashville" to "Satantango", and I'm sure it enjoys their company!

jurgen-manycolored Not only are the lives of the bourgeoisie characters in the film pointless and irrelevant, but the film itself is pointless and irrelevant. To have people astounded by the "brilliance" of the film and the "genius" of Bunuel is to me astounding in itself. While someone like Fellini can entrance, Bunuel might have well produced a film based on alcoholic, drug-addicted ne'er-do-wells that said nothing worthwhile or did nothing worthwhile. A disjointed, badly acted, phony presentation of a group of individuals that are worth nothing yet somehow cunning enough (in the film) to elevate themselves to positions of importance. I found myself asking "What is the point of this film?" and the answer kept coming up "There is no point and the whole production is absurd." Contrived and unrelated dream sequences that go nowhere. Actions by the actors that mean nothing and make no sense in any context. Perhaps because the majority of viewers are in the same category as the actors in the film, they can relate to it. I cannot. There is nothing worthwhile to be taken from this film. If one derives intellectual meaning from such as this, I feel sorry for them.My inner self insisted on adding the following: A knock came on the door of my subconscious. I opened it, and it was a vacuum cleaner salesman who pushed past me and sat down on my couch."Did you have an unhappy childhood?" he asked, and continued without pause: "I did. I used to have a recurring dream where I was walking down a road. Did you eat lunch? It is curious that it is not raining out, is it not?" He then proceeded to begin a one-sided conversation of mechanical engineering from a feminist perspective. Without stopping after he had finished his discourse, he began to relate the mystical aspects of flatulence. Midway through this conversation, he stopped to say "I'm sorry, I have to leave now. I have another appointment. Thank you for your order." And left, leaving the door open.

Aeonic22 BEGIN RANT I'm writing this as the movie nears its end. Nothing is happening. Obviously nothing will happen. There have been 2-3 laughs and 1-2 scenes resembling a plot. And the 3 dull bourgeois chicks are bangable. I have literally nothing else to write after seeing this. Maybe this could be a precursor to Monty Python... but Python existed for a few years before this! Jesus the film still hasn't finished. I will soooo forget it, that in 10 years I will probably try to see it again, remembering half way that I already did. It could have been called "Dull people are dull", or "When do we eat?". Or "Boring people try to eat together". But it could be turned into a decent porn movie... END RANT Thank God, the end credits started rolling. I guess that watching any other film by Bunuel (haven't seen any other yet) could have been more interesting. Sorry for the rant :)

Jackson Booth-Millard This French film from BAFTA nominated director Luis Buñuel (Un Chien Andalou, Land Without Bread, Belle De Jour) has a very iconic poster, the big pair of lips with legs wearing stockings and a bowler hat, and being in the book 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die I was hoping the film itself would be as good as the poster. Basically the film consists of guests gathering for a dinner together, and this is intertwined with the individual characters having dreams about weird things happening at the dinner, making the latter of the film complex and virtual. The guests attending the dinner are Ambassador Don Rafael Acosta (Fernando Rey), Madame Simone Thévenot (Delphine Seyrig), M. Thevenot (Paul Frankeur) and Florence (Bulle Ogier), with the evening hosted by Alice Sénéchal (BAFTA nominated Stéphane Audran) and her husband Henri (Jean-Pierre Cassel). You are not sure of all the scenes, apart from the obvious things, whether they are part of a dream or reality, as every time the upper-middle class people try to have their dinner something interrupts them. Events in the dinner attempts include dropped turkeys/chickens, the table appearing on a theatre stage in front of a live audience, dead characters walking around as blood-covered zombies, and heavily armed men storming in and killing everyone with machine guns. Also starring Julien Bertheau as Bishop Dufour, Claude Piéplu as Colonel and Michel Piccoli as Home Secretary. Despite not knowing where to go and what was real in this film, I did find it an interesting watch, especially with the interruptions and bizarre scenarios, like the theatre and gun scenes, and the editing is certainly inventive, so I would say it is a worthwhile surreal comedy drama. It won the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film, and it was nominated for Best Writing, Story and Screenplay Based on Factual Material or Material Not Previously Published or Produced, and it won the BAFTA for Best Screenplay, and it was nominated for Best Film and Best Sound Track, and it was nominated the Golden Globe for Best Foreign-Language Foreign Film. Very good!