Crwthod A lot more amusing than I thought it would be.

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

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

Geraldine The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Auntie_Inflammatory I saw a promo for this film on TCM, was intrigued, looked it up here, saw tons of glowing 9 and 10-star reviews and set the DVR, expecting that I'd soon be watching a masterpiece.Well, the location is exotic, the technicolor is gorgeous, some of the cinematography is very nice (although a bit static), and the depiction of Indian holidays and customs is interesting but this is really just a very simple coming-of-age story. All the usual teen-angsty stuff is here; the infatuation of the 3 girls with the mysterious stranger, Harriet's feeling like an ugly-duckling next to her more attractive friends, Melanie's struggle with her mixed ethnicity, Valerie's desire to test the power of her sexuality and her apprehensiveness of the consequences. I don't think it's particularly deep, despite all the river-as-life stuff and I suspect that it might not be as highly-regarded as it is if it had been directed by someone other than Jean Renoir. That said, I do like the film, I just don't think it's a "masterpiece".There seems to be some confusion as to the setting of the film. I'm no expert on India but I don't think it's set during or after Independence as some have suggested. The movie is based on Rumer Godden's memoirs and she was born in 1907, stayed in India during WWI, was sent to school in England in 1920 and didn't return until she was 18. The film is somewhat timeless, due to the absence of popular music or trendy fashions that would tie it to a particular decade, but there are some clues. Melanie returns from boarding school in a horse-drawn carriage, Harriet's family plays records on a wind-up gramophone, etc.As to the comments that the film is somehow "offensive" or lacking for not depicting the poverty of the natives or the politics of the time... Please! It's the story of a few months in the lives of three teenage girls, not a documentary or a portrait of India. Is "Grease" offensive because it takes place in the U.S. during the 1950s and it doesn't address the civil rights movement?Reviews and message board comments suggest that this is a film that most people either love or hate. Obviously, it will not appeal to those who only go to blockbuster films full of superheroes and/or explosions or who have limited attention spans. I've read lots of negativity here about the performances and even appearances of some of the actors. The only performance that's problematic for me is that of Radha, who plays Melanie. I get that the character is more enigmatic than the other girls and doesn't wear her angst on her sleeve but her monotone delivery and habit of staring straight ahead come across as expressionless. I think Patricia Walters gives a great performance for someone who never acted before. As far as looks go, early on Harriet describes herself as "an ugly-duckling, determined to be a swan." She's not supposed to be ravishing, it wouldn't work if she were. Captain John is no model but he's not hideous either. Narrator-Harriet explains that visitors from abroad were usually old and married so the arrival of any young, single man would've been exciting. He had the added cachet of being a war hero and an American. Call me crazy but Harriet seems to undergo a sort of metamorphosis during the scene on the boat with Captain John. I don't know if it's the lighting and camera angles or the fact that she's smiling more than usual and looking happy and content but from the moment she tells him that Victoria had said something similar to his comment about being born until they leave the boat she suddenly looks quite pretty. It seems symbolic, as if his saying that she wasn't the type of person to lay down and die, that she could begin again, and that one of her poems might still be alive 2,070+ years in the future gave her a new confidence that was manifested in her appearance. Not quite a masterpiece but enjoyable.

Robert Bloom In Jean Renoir's introduction to this film the great master cites Rumer Godden's book The River as the greatest work of literature about English colonialism in India. I can think of at least two books that are greater, E.M. Forster's A Passage to India, and George Orwell's Burmese Days, two works of literature which seem to indicate that Britain's endeavors in India produced more harm than a few damaged human relations among the English.Never the less, Jean Renoir brings unbelievable beauty to this film, which was his first attempt at full Technicolor, and it's a glorious attempt, called the most beautiful color film (along with Powell and Pressburger's The Red Shoes) by Martin Scorsese.The color has a warm subtlety and grace which can only be described as characteristic as his father's paintings, cheap as that sounds.Is The River the Rules of the Game of Renoir's color period, as Andre Bazin claims? No, I'm afraid no movie is as good as The Rules of the Game, yet this is a wonderful and important work all the same.

Camoo Wow. What a special film this was! On the surface so basic but underneath a deeply spiritual and satisfying adventure... I cannot say enough about the color, and the process used, something Martin Scorsese talks about in length during an interview on the Criterion disc. To him, along with the Red Shoes, this is the most beautiful color film ever made, and I would have to agree with him. A shot of an orange tree stands out in my mind towards the end, it sways in the wind against a bright blue background, and it gave me goosebumps all over my body. The film plays very much like a dream, beneath somewhat mediocre acting and story, but I won't get into that, because I didn't feel as though that mattered as much as the overall feeling and purpose the film left with me afterwards... Some people I was with really didn't respond to it the way I did, but I think you have to enjoy it on a different level or it has the potential to fail, but when I saw it I found it a great, great masterpiece, better than any other Renoir film I have ever seen (I know Rules of the Game is considered his greatest, but that doesn't stand next to this at all in my mind). See it also for the beautiful cinematography of the culture of India during colonial rule, which has all but transformed by now.

sidekick86 I'm honestly not sure if I watched the same film as most of the other people here. It seems just because this is a Renoir film it has to be a masterpiece. I had what i thought was going to be a pleasure of seeing this on Sunday at a great little cinema I know. The few Renoir films I'd seen in the past were good and this was supposed to be another classic. I couldn't of been more wrong. This was dull from the very start. Unimaganitive script, hammy bad acting and even though it was filmed in a country as beautiful as Indian the direction was flat and very much uninspiring. There didn't seem any point this. The characters were never really explored, you only had the most basic of knowledge about who they were and what drove them. I came out of this utterly disappointed. I know I'll probably be blasted on here for being an uneducated heathen who could never understand the subtleties of a master like Jean Renoir but I just really didn't think this was a very good film.