good back-story, and good acting

Absolutely the worst movie.

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

I have seen this movie some 21 yrs. ago, on a Russian channel, so of course in Russian, and it made an extremely powerful impression on me at that time; I would rather speak of the impression it produced back—then. I was a child, I knew none of the actors—I had a taste for such melodramas, I guess. I kept the image of a handsome, dependable, reliable man in the leading role; only in '94, I guess, I found out that the physician had been performed by Hopkins. When, at the age of 11 or 12, I have drawn a list of the movies I liked best, this one had its place.As idea, it's a distinguished melodrama.Today I have seen it for a second time; I like it, though it made a much poorer impression this time, it looked like slapdash, with both the lead roles very badly written, and also less romantic than I remembered; unglamorous and bad in a very TV way (the clumsiness of the camera, the lack of style, the primitivism ). Yet, I understand why I liked Hopkins so much in this role; and there is no other role of his that I like better than this one. His performance is very good, restrained but energetic and manly. And I liked the movie again. I may acknowledge its defects, and still recommend it.Even if only very concisely ,the Hopkins movie gives a high impression of the medical profession.The cast is sensational—Hopkins , his beautiful lover, and Pleasance –whom I was to remark several yrs. later, in a Dudikoff adventure flick, again as a Nazi character.I would like to see sometimes the other, first adaptation.

Let's face it: Anthony Hopkins is an excellent actor but he is absolutely no leading man, romantically speaking. He is called upon to do some romantic acting here and fails miserably.There should have been fear in the air as World War 11 approaches to 1939 France. Instead, we have an unbelievably dull film. Donald Pleasence shows up in time to be killed for torturing Hopkins and others in a concentration camp. There is no explanation whatsoever why Hopkins, a non-Jew in the film, was placed in the camp to begin with. When Hopkins kills Pleasence, he suddenly feels this is routine and gets no satisfaction for doing this. How about the misery that he and others endured?Down is good here, but the writing and background pulls this film down.

I stumbled on this movie not intending to watch it but was captivated by it's 1940's feel even though it's in colour. OK it was made for TV and was never intended to be a Hollywood blockbuster but it's full of atmosphere and has an ambiance that held me to the end. I felt I was in 1939 Paris with all the tensions of imminent invasion. There are the large numbers of desperate illegal immigrants fleeing areas where the Nazis have occupied. There are hotels where no papers are necessary and low lit bars where people play pool and chess with equal comfort as well as class restaurants where even fire eaters provide entertainment for your dinning pleasure. The romance is the centre of the story and provides sufficient interest without sexually explicit scenes. The two are outcasts from society find fulfilment in one another although that is short lived due their own circumstances. They are both successful in their own right, he a doctor (Anthony Hopkins) and she a singer/actress (Lesley-Anne Down), but for one reason or another they must rise above their fate to date. I would recommended this movie if you are in the mood for atmosphere over polish.

It's always a lot of fun to watch Anthony Hopkins struggle through mediocre films made before his Merchant-Ivory days & the breakthrough of "The Silence Of The Lambs," & he is by far the best thing about this made-for-television remake of the 1948 Ingrid Bergman-Charles Boyer film. The Remarque novel, written long after his success with "All Quiet On The Western Front," seems to want to contrast the Hopkins character, Dr. Ravic, in his Paris surroundings with his love affair with Joan Madou (played here by a hopelessly miscast Lesley-Anne Down in the Bergman role). But I honestly don't think the story needed the love affair; in such a time of tension & grief, love is always a cliche, & this story isn't good or strong enough to rise above the inherent corniness of the theme.Hopkins, as Ravic, is a German citizen who helped Jewish people escape from the murderous anti-Semitic Fatherland. He spent time in a concentration camp & has a horrible scar as a reminder. He lives without papers in Paris, under a false name, aware always that the minute the gendarmes near him he could be sent away or imprisoned as an illegal alien. He dreams of the day he can revenge himself on the Gestapo officer who sent him away, who tortured his friends & who tortured & raped his only love, Sybil. (In this version, Donald Pleasance plays Haake, the Nazi murderer, & does a creepy job, especially when Ravic meets him later & he doesn't recognize his own handiwork.) One night, on a bridge, Ravic encounters Joan Madou, & he rescues her from a possible suicide attempt. Madou understandably latches on to Ravic, & at some point a romance begins.At this point in the plot summary, you are not required to suppress a yawn; it sounds like something you've heard a million times before & you'll see a million times more. My thoughts while watching this movie were simply this: the strength of the story - German exile trapped in doomed Paris on the eve of German invasion looking for revenge while trying to stay alive - didn't need the love story to propel it. Surely there were other opportunities for Hopkins to show his human side than to act jealous when Down confesses to have other lovers! His relationship with the Russian exile, played with vodka-gulping panache by Frank Finlay, had a reality to it that the walks on the beach in Normandy with Down could barely compare with.Hopkins, of course, had his greatest work before him, & he made the wonderful "84 Charing Cross Road" a year after this. But he is quite good here with his slight German accent & his subtle performance. He is perhaps the only reason to see this, & since I haven't seen the 1948 version (which I hear is pretty dreadful), I can't tell you how he compares to Boyer. But if you're in the mood for a thriller set in dangerous times, this is fairly standard viewing with the highlight of a good Hopkins performance.