Cubussoli Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Actuakers One of my all time favorites.

Bumpy Chip It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Rexanne It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

gavin6942 A bourgeois life in France at the onset of World War II, as the rich and their poor servants meet up at a French château.Some have considered this one of the finest films ever made. That may be true, but I tend to look at films more in a historical context, with or without their intrinsic merits. And in the context of history, this is quite the interesting film.The flight theme comes off the heels of the Lindbergh era, and then we have France just before the Nazis took over. There is no way the creators could have known that these would be their final years, but they invested a record amount of money to present the tale. And then, what happens? The original negative is destroyed in the war... how appropriate, and sad.

lasttimeisaw Renoir's almost-lost pre-WWII demoralizing comedy is the introductory piece invites me for a first glance into his everlasting cinematic legacy. After numerous reconstruction, the extant version of THE RULES OF THE GAME is nearly intact, the narrative circles around a bourgeois couple Robert de la Cheyniest (Dalio) and Christine (Gregor), who invite their friends and kins to the countryside château for a leisurely sojourn, yet it is an acrid send-up of the callousness and duplicity of French society at that time, an exceptional chamber drama which anticipates the likes of Altman's GOSFORD PARK (2001, 9/10) and Woody Allen-esque moral satires. Among the guests, there is André Jurieux (Toutain), a heroic aviator who has just accomplished a record-breaking transatlantic flight, he is greatly enamored of Christine, and his relentless courtship would stir up her unresponsive veneer. Meanwhile, Robert's mistress Geneviève (Parély), whose presence also ups the antes of the hysterical dramatization in the film's climatic running-and-chasing farce. Upstairs are in a ridiculous imbroglio, downstairs is no peace either. Christine's young maid Lisette (Dubost) doesn't resist the flirt from a newly-recruited poacher- turned-servant Marceau (Carette), while her jealousy-driven gamekeeper husband Edouard (Modot) determines to shoot the brazen libertine. During the al fresco scenes, the quasi-non-fictional shots of hunting-for-pleasure segment bears witness of Renoir's sleight-of-hand as an avant-garde adventurer as well as the elegant progression among a simultaneously-conversing large cast, the château under his hands, is closer to a labyrinth than a regal residence. Buffoonery aside, the film ends up with an unannounced tragedy based on mistaken identities, which would vexingly evolve into one of the most clichéd antics in the narrative tactics. But here, the incident transcends the fluffy tonality running on and on for 90 minutes, and from which derives a pungent bitter taste when all the courtesies are shed in front of viewers, it is only an inconvenient interlude, everything must return to status quo.A commendable cast indeed, Gregor is a far cry to be young and attractive, but shimmers with self-regarding aloofness, Dalio is effeminate and a caricature of the decadence of his class, Carette and Dubost strike more naturalistic than others, and Renoir himself plays Octave, a plump friend of Christine and André, how he gets out of Christine's brother-zone is perplexing, but it is him who inadvertently dodges the bullet on a whim to adhere to the rules of the game, so the sole scapegoat is the one who is too upstanding for the game, the film scores the bull's- eye and the irony is all in-your-face!

Sergeant_Tibbs I watched The Rules of the Game primarily because it's ranked at #3 of 'They Shoot Pictures, Don't They?' top 1000 films of all-time, despite it not seeming to be too acclaimed anywhere else. I can see why it's considered a classic among the top of those films, but it's overrated to be considered as high as #3. It's definitely beyond its time regarding its characters and narrative structure, a clear influence on Luis Bunuel, Robert Altman and subsequently Paul Thomas Anderson, as it studies multiple characters in inter-connected stories altogether and exclusively. It was clearly the beginning of an essential archetype. It has slick and crisp cinematography with a great depth of field and made the best use of the limited fourth wall style of pre-Citizen Kane filmmaking, despite it not having as much iconography as it could potentially have had. As it skips between characters within one day, the pacing is sublime and flows gracefully giving the The Rules of the Game a timeless quality.The film is really remarkable for the complex relationships as the key characters all have different and altering relationships throughout the film with them falling in and out of love and friendship. For 100 minutes, it's impressive how even the side characters have distinct personalities beyond stereotypes and well-rounded stories, especially how they're all morally challenged, each with their good and bad qualities and honest indecisiveness. However, as there are so many and not enough of them were visually distinct enough (besides Renoir's own performance as Octave for example), I found myself often confused, having to go back and rewatch a scene so I could understand who was talking and about what. This meant I struggled to have consistent investment in the characters, though I did have strong investment in them during particular significant scenes, but it rendered the ending to not be as powerful as it could have been. Nevertheless, I eagerly await Renoir's other films such as The Grand Illusion and Picnic as The Rules of the Game is worth watching for its entertaining innovation in storytelling for cinema.8/10

valadas I begin to say that if the killing of animals we see in the hunting sequences are real this movie must be utterly condemned for cruelty against animals and I would refuse to rate or comment it. Therefore the rating and review I am doing here is in the supposition that these killings are feigned. Thus beyond this I think this is a good movie that can be called precisely what its great French director Renoir called it: a cheerful drama. The story takes place on the eve of World War Two and shows a corrupt society living in strong moral decay despite the appearance of good manners and usages. In a aristocratic castle a hunting party is organized and we can see a lot of intertwined adulteries not only in the aristocrats' and bourgeois' society but also in the society of their servants. Renoir treats this with real mastery but in a somewhat light and not too deep way which though while done with his great talent masks the dramatic features a bit superficially. This movie was a commercial failure when it was released in 1939 and only much later and not long ago has it begun to be considered one of the greatest films ever made. But after its release it was even banned by the French government as "demoralising" and "unpatriotic". War was already in the offing then.