Casablanca(Spanish for White House) is one of those old classics that everymovie-fan should see once, and I saw it for the first time recently. Iwasn`t expecting much of this movie since it was very old(1942), but themovie still managed to impress me. All the actors are good but I wasn`timpressed by Bogarts stiff character in this movie(I have not seen him inother movies).8/10
I wish I could give no stars to this film as it was so rubbish. It wasso boring I thought I was going to cry. The film is about a man whoruns a cafe in Casablanca (where the film gets its title), but insteadof hot drinks his cafe serves actual alcoholic drinks, as demonstratedin several scenes where people act drunk after drinking them (eitherfrom a glass or the bottle).
He meets a woman but instead of falling in love with her husband hefalls in love with her and they make plan to escape together and go toAmerica. That's it. That's what the whole film is about. I told you itwas boring. The actors look miserable except the piano player who isthe man's friend who looks happy.
It's also pretty bad to be filmed in black and white at a time whencolour was invented already which just made it more boring.
The movie is predictable, the lines are predictable, Bogart chainsmokes all the time. The ending is predictable. The acting is stiffed.People watching the plane flying over looks like they were acting.
I went to comatose over 10 times. Rewatched it by hanging myself upsidedown with my pet bat and still couldn't feel anything for the movie. Iwas again forced fed to watch to understand why these monkey brainedmovie critics liked about the movie and I still couldn't stand it. Itis obvious that Ingrid Bergman is running away, and why is it thatBogart don't get a bit suspicious? He could get suspicious and juststill like the woman with a double feelings for her by reminiscing thatincidence.
Oh yeah bitter Bogart, and yeah cynical Bogart became idealistic in theend. And good friend the stupid cop also decides to become idealisticalso, but what are the mathematical odds against this scenario? Butisn't that stupid? Isn't the ending a bit messy for Bogart and the copjust for just silly women? I mean the ending is so predictable and Iguessed the ending of the movie since the beginning of the romance,breakup and welcome back and another (I will not mention the ending)...but you could have guessed.
Couldn't the ending be like this: Bogart doesn't even have to sell hisentire business - he can just get a partnership and still retain theinterests, and what happened to poor Sam the piano player - throw awayan old pal and cop and Bogart become fugitive? No way! Even in reallife, it would be fair to say that if I were Bogart, I would dump thewoman anyway since she had a previous boyfriend. It just not credible.And what to do if Bogart shot the police who tries to inform theauthorities? Simple just pay your local cop under the table and it'sbusiness as usual.
Do you really need to sell the ownership of Cafe Americain? That wouldbe a stupid idea. Even if Bogart was under house arrest, he can stillescape and yet still maintain his control through his old pal the Pianoplayer Sam and if that's not possible just get another partnership torun the show. He can also retain control by through his banks and hischeck signing, etc. without having to be physically present at CafeAmericain.
Again poor choices of Bogart a cynical man should have some businessshrewdness like him should have been a bit more practical in hisbusiness affair without having to sacrifice any idealism for love,romance or anything else that comes his way.
Is there other ways to NOT SELL Bogart business? Yes there are otherways. You can lease the business on a 10 year basis with furniture,equipment, Sam the piano player etc. and once the lease is over, he canget the ownership back. Or how about another idea, franchising? Justfranchise Cafe Americain to your competitors and collect royalties. Imean there are a lot of ways out here, but no one who watches the movietries to imagine the best way out for these poor creatures (Bogart, copand Sam).
The cop in the end of the story is very unlikely to run away, but hecan be just part of the cover-up. In fact there weren't any witnessanyway. And why would he do the cover-up? Simple: he also gets thecommissions from the Roulette wheel.
Because of the messy ending and see-sawing of story, I can see clearlythat the writers were a bit messy and undecided and therefore decide toput every trash into the movie and crossed their fingers, while makingsure the main point of the "fair ending" is o.k. but did not clear allthe loose ends.
So much for a story that is poorly written! Get real. The story is noteven close to realism!
OK.. I don't understand why people praise this as the best movie of alltime? I just don't find anything special in this movie. The film startsrealsloooooooow and I almost fell asleep waiting for Bogart's character toappear and I waited half an hour for Ingrid's character to appear. A realdisappoinment!
This movie was not "a masterpiece", it is actually a piece ofsomething else. It had a weak plot, atrocious acting andapathetic ending. Also, it was very annoying. Only people swayed by thealmighty popular opinion would claim they like this film.User: nemesis1-2
The acting is cheesy (Bogart is his usual plastic self), butacceptableconsidering the time it was made. The dialogue is only good if youpretendthat it's done tongue in cheek (which it isn't -- and if you are of theopinion that lines like "Is that cannon fire or the beating of my heart?"and "I can't think anymore, so you think for both of us!" are notlaughable,then you are wallowing in self-denial. I'll bet you saw Titanic more thantwice in the theaters, too...)
This is often called a war movie, but don't be fooled -- it's evenlessabout war than Gone With the Wind, which is to say that there *is* a warhappening, but it's largely irrelevant as a plot contrivance (which,incidentally, is entirely inaccurate from a historical prospective. Therewas no such thing as a letter of transit).
In essence, a glorified chick-flick which will hopefully fall awayintonostalgic obscurity as my generation continually thrusts spectacular filmsby Kubrick (may he rest in peace), Fincher (well, Fight Club and Seven,anyway)and Ridley into the forefront.
I admit that most films before 1960 usually leave me cold since the actingis almost always stagy but I though I'd give this and The Maltese Falcon achance. Oh well. VERY stagy acting, with an awful, pretentioussoundtrack.It all came off as rather silly. I just couldn't buy any of it. I getthesame impression from any film by Kazan.User: Parca
Style? What style? This had no style, and the script was one cheesy lineafter the other. It is the perfect soap opera, it fooled people to believeit is more than what it is. And aside from Bogart and Bergman, the cast wasoveracting to an extreme. It all feels Disneyesque, with a touch of musicalwannabe. Also, I can't help but laugh at the special effects involved inthis film, and the bad editing at times. Talk about hurrying a film'sproduction...
Don't get me wrong. I've enjoyed "The Godfather", the "Star Wars" trilogy,"Lawrence of Arabia", "Citizen Kane", "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest", "ABridge on the River Kwai", anything by Stanley Kubrick, and many others thatare on the alleged "classics" list. But this one I detest. Burn it now, Isay...
I found this movie mildly engaging, and that may be a grossoverstatement. The characters are clich?, with very little depth. Thereis nothing I could see particularly insightful or original in thismovie. It was as bland as a baked potato with no garnishings, not evensome salt. Perhaps this is the type of movie that people who don't liketo have to think to much, like. The plot is not so bad, it hadpotential, but seemed to be left to wither in the hands of a weakscript and somewhat inept acting. Who is Bogart supposed to be, JamesBond with a broken heart? Trying to put this ultra cool James Bondcharacter into the "real" world, just doesn't work for me. I neverreally find Bogart's character believable, so I never really connectwith the character. The catch phrase lines, like "Here's lookin' at youkid." are as profound as Schwatzenager's "I'll be back". If this was anaction type adventure story like Raider's of the Lost ark, I couldoverlook some of these things. But this movie seems to be first andforemost a love story. And in that sense, I think it fails. I could goon with much more criticism of this movie, but I don't want to beet itto death. It is not an awful movie, more of a very light cute littlething. But one of the greatest movies of all time??? Eeeh Gods, how canthat be?!!! Perhaps Hollywood is not so off the mark when they dumbdown movies for the general public.User: zenzenzen
I'm always baffled by the way that this film is held in such highesteem. Is this because it's old? Maybe it's because it's in black andwhite? Whatever the reason, it's certainly not because it's a greatfilm. In fact this is one of the funniest films I've ever seen. Woodenacting by wooden actors on wooden sets, (what about that ridiculouscardboard aeroplane? LOL). Forget what people say about this movie.Ignore the romantic gushing. Why? Because it's just plain rubbish. It'snot even good enough to be labelled a 'B' movie. Quite possibly it's a'C' movie, if there is such a thing. Nope, they certainly don't make'em like this anymore.User: pnagy
Why is this film considered so brilliant? How can it be a classic? It isjust another shallow, formulaic, cliche-laden Hollywood love-story, typicalof pre-war Hollywood. For me this film is almost undistinguishable from thatother 'great' romance of the time, the nauseating 'Gone With the Wind'. Atleast Casablanca doesn't go on for several hours.
The usual plot of old lovers reunited after many years, once again in someHollywood interpretation of a gratuitous exotic location. Bogart looksdepressed, Bergman looks pretty. And that's about all there is to it. Nodepth of thought or character. Flat, commercial acting from the leads, evenflatter and more commercial direction and script. If you like old moviesfrom the 40s, why not watch Citizen Kane? There's considerably more thoughtand originality there.
And I've never understood why people think the lines "Here's looking at youkid" or "Play it again, Sam" are *so* quotably witty.
Casablanca is want so many claim to be the best of all time. Whenever Ilisten to this movie and I hear "As Time Goes By", I start to blubber.The script, direction, and camera work is absolutely amazing. Bergmanand Bogart were amazing also and looked like they were meant for theirparts. I found it so gripping when they were on screen together. What adynamic duo. The story between Rick and Ilsa was so compelling in everyway. The story also led into the narrative of Victor Laszlo (Henreid)and Sam (played by the superb Dooley Wilson who sang "As Time GoesBy"). Another great part of the movie was in Rick's bar club where Ilsaand Rick met again in Casablanca. But as far as the songs, plot andcharacters go, I thought the utmost part of the movie that made methink "wow" was without a doubt the ending. The ending was soaction-packed and heart-pounding it almost took my breath away.
Overall, Casablanca is a timeless classic that will never go by ourminds.
because it is a classic that doesn't have to mean that you still have tolike it.If the film was made now it would surrily flop. Then they didn't show thatmuch films in the cinema so everybody went to every movie that came out,anthat is wy all older people saw it.they remember the "good old times".User: stevefranciscus
This movie is one big yawn after another. It concerns an illicit loveaffair and a lot of sitting around doing nothing for two hours.Humphrey Bogart wears a mac and smokes while various characters moocharound trying to look war torn. I fell asleep several times duringwatching this failure and was told I never missed a thing. Also, theending is very contrived as Bogart is dragged to the electric chairscreaming and begging. The only interesting moment is the airportdeparture where Bogart is hanging on to the wing of the plane as ittakes off shouting:" Here's looking at you, kid!" through the window ina vain attempt to stop her leaving. The only truly enjoyable scene inthe movie.
Very, very overrated.
Is this film THAT good? API named it #2. Can someone tell me what makesthis film the second greatest movie in film history?Yes -- I've seen it...TWICE. I thought it was dramatically lacking in thescreenplay -- the characters walk in and out and never truly involve eachother. You never get the truth about what these characters really want fromeach other, nor is there any clear central point to the story.
It seems to me what people like about this film most is the glamour ofIngrid Bergman -- and the low key cool act of Humphrey Bogart. It's allstyle -- no substance.
So I finally got around to watching Casablanca, one of the greatestmovies ever made, or so I've always heard. Does it live up to its hype?In a word, no. It was maudlin and melodramatic; Ingrid Bergman washomely, no matter how many softening effects were used in the close-upsof her face (did a rodent gnaw off the sides of her nose? To saynothing of that masculine jawbone and those underdeveloped lips...);Humphrey Bogart was about as slick and charismatic as the Hunchback ofNotre-Dame; and the story was undisguised war propaganda. One wouldhave to have the mental age of 5 to think this movie was in any waygreat. Watchable, yes, but not great, and certainly not deserving ofbeing on the IMDb top 250.
The movie was fast-paced, which was both good and bad: good because itwould've been unbearable to watch otherwise, and bad because it didn'tgive the viewer time to get attached to any of the characters (which isjust as well, since as I've said, it was war propaganda and so the lesseffective, the better).
Apart from a few good one-liners and patches of clever dialog, the onlyother positive thing I can say about it is that it was technically wellmade, in particular the lighting and the dynamic camera work (thoughI'm not personally a fan of this style of camera work, as I find itdetracts from story and atmosphere). It was, however, irritating howthe lighting would change whenever there was a close-up on somebody'sface. What was the purpose of this? To try to mesmerize the viewer?Talk about corny.
If you've never seen Casablanca before, don't feel you have to, becauseyou ain't missing much, "kid." It's about as overrated as it gets.
1 out of 10 stars, to offset the deranged "I'm giving it 10 stars but Iwish I could give it more" reviews this cinematic mediocrity has beengetting.
This film appears to have badly aged. Old sentimental and patrioticrhetoric about the "tough guy with tender heart", helpless woman who"suffers" because she's torn between two lovers, manichean vision ofthe good (Americans), rather lost (French collaborators), and bad (theGermans) guys. Even Titanic seemed much more convincing. And why is itthat Humphrey Bogart is supposed to be such a seductive legend? I findhim dull and devoid of expression, much less empathy. I think thedemographic breakdown of the vote on Casablanca explain in part thebasis for the enthusiasm: most positive have been old-age men. Thosewho are still admiring the patronizing male.User: Galhed
I heard, it was a good film that I have to see. So I watched the film -andI was disappointed. Okay, I didn't like such films very much, but this wasone of the most boring films I've ever seen!!! It's a film with nothrillingmoments and no interesting story. I waited and waited for a situation thatwasn't easy to foresee, without luck. The happiest moment for me was themoment the film ended. Hey guys, this is a classic film, the only reasontowatch it!User: duncmoll
First, the cast - full of those annoying "comic-relief" that studiosstuck in every movie from the 30's. Yes, I said the 30's, becauseCasablanca is much more a product of that decade than the 40's, whichwould deliver some truly great films. Those "funny" characters makeCasablanca more like a menagerie than something with an intelligentplan. Humphrey Bogart - a great actor in The Caine Mutiny, Treasure ofthe Sierra Madre, and even Petrified Forest...but not here. Totallyunbelievable and unconvincing as a romantic lead. He doesn't evendeliver as an anti-hero in this worn-out, overrated piece of pre-WWIIpropaganda. Ingrid Bergman - a beautiful lady, and a hundred timesbetter in everything else she did...but a cartoon here. Claude Rains -typical 30's supporting role...goofy, but with a big heart; goes"straight" in the end. 30's nonsense.
The story - lame and predictable. Why did people love Casablanca?Because it stirred their patriotism at a time when Germany wasthreatening to bulldoze Great Britain and everywhere else. It never wasa great, much less an exceptional film.
Nowadays, Casablanca coasts along on its shaky reputation, held up as a"masterpiece", but smelling like the aged soaper that it is.
I found "Casablanca" to be pretty unentertaining, funny at moments(sometimesunintentionally), but not worthy of being called a movie classic. Hell no!It's just another movie where Bogart is trying to look like he's to cool forschool, and Bergman isn't anything special either. The best moments comefrom Claude Rains as Captain Louis Renault and the best acting is played outby Paul Henreid. However, the story's what really sucks here. If that'sreally how people used to live half a century ago, then thank god for the60's and the 70's. And if I'm is supposed to believe that in real life thelove triangle would unfold as it does on the big screen or that Bergman justgoes along with Bogart's last minute decision that she's in love with VictorLazslo after all, leaving Bogie, the love of her life behind, well, then I'moffended. If that young couple just needed money to buy their way out ofCasablanca, then why the hell didn't Bogart do the same. He was loaded.We're supposed to believe his character's background of being so terribly inlove, experiencing a loss of that love, an over acted performance of goingthrough pain when he rediscovers that love, yet in the final scene hedoesn't show any sign of true heart break or any kind of pain. He decideshe's going to cling to the past and let the love of his life, the only womanhe ever loved and will ever love fly away forever. Pretty cheesy. But withsome good one liners. 7/10