The Chateau (2001)

Awful Film - made it would seem by College Students

Why on earth a very talented actor like Paul Rudd would appear in an improvised college student style "B" Movie is beyond me ! It could have been tolerable if it had'nt been for the appalling quality of the picture quality - it was like watching a damaged VHS tape / not what you expect in 2007 on DVD - not a funny film either with the black brother in the movie using an obsenity every 2 nd word / i would love to know what sort of brothers they were ?? Not recommended unless you like to watch a students film project !! December 16, 2007

A film that proves that digital video is not going to "save" the industry...

I saw the directors of this "film" on Charlie Rose, of all places (Charlie usually lends his TV show to more important filmmakers than the creators of this "film"). All they talked about was how easy it was to make their film with digital video cameras. I'm glad it was easy to make their film, because it certainly wasn't easy to watch it. This film is slight, stupid, boring, and terrible, from both a technical standpoint and an aesthetic one. It seems the filmmakers said "let's go to a chateau with some actors and real cheap DV cameras" and make a movie. Well, that's exactly what they did. When people proclaim DV the future, junk like this gets made, distributed, and even put on DVD. I have seen good, even great films, shot on DV, but this isn't even close. Technology ultimately doesn't matter if your films sucks, and this film sucks. December 4, 2006

Shoot the Americans - not the chicken and boar, PLEASE!!!!

After having seen this movie, I understand why Europeans, Arabs and everybody else hates Americans... There are scenes where we hoped the servants would either poison the two annoying guys from Kansas or just flat out shoot them in a hunting accident and make them disappear.
The story idea is great, but the acting and script is so poor and unworthy of being described in a review.
Jesse must either have personal ties to the building where he filmed-or really fallen in love with the building. Everytime the story could have taken off we get a stop with yet another look at the building itself.
It's a miracle to us, how anybody on here could call this movie funny or entertaining - the movie is bad, pretending it to be a satyre doesn't make it any better. August 7, 2005

Garbage

I cannot believe the black actor in this film is so sterotypical of the ghetto or uneducated image we've seen in films like "baby boy". Almost every line he had included a cuss word or n word. He didn't add a thing to the film except to be an annoyance. I don't know what this film was about. There are parts where there is a long silence with no talking. The whole movie was shot in the house with the exception of the maid when she finally leaves the house.
There are a few scenes where the characters are running around without any obvious aim. The film attempts to make the audience interested only to leave us saying, "what was all that excitement about?"
November 17, 2004

Surprisingly good bijou of a movie

I'd been told this was a "small" movie, and wasn't expecting a great deal, but was thoroughly entertained. The plot develops in surprising ways; and the characters seem appropriately off-balance throughout. I understand portions of the movie were improvised, which may account for this. If so, it's a thoroughly appropriate tactic. The only word of warning is that you may need some French to understand the entertaining way it's fractured in this movie, and the iron control the French characters must be exercising to control their faces in response. Rule of thumb: if you don't know what a bijou is, you might not get it.

A fascinating exercise is to compare this movie with I Capture the Castle (2003), which develops the identical premise in a completely different way. April 24, 2004

More reviews at Amazon.com ...