BroadcastChic Excellent, a Must See

FrogGlace In other words,this film is a surreal ride.

Keeley Coleman The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Maleeha Vincent It's funny, it's tense, it features two great performances from two actors and the director expertly creates a web of odd tension where you actually don't know what is happening for the majority of the run time.

dlee2012 When most people review this film, the context in which it was made is foremost in their minds. Given Vichy control of the French film industry, it is no surprise much attention has been given to the fact that the hero and heroine are both statuesque Aryan figures and that the villain is a dwarf. Nonetheless, Cocteau adds a certain subversive feel to the film and it is certainly his darkest work. The separation of the lovers can be read to reflect the chaos in France after the invasion and the ironically-named Achilles' treachery could symbolise either the Vichy or the Resistance.Aside from political interpretations, Cocteau's attempt to re-set the Tristan and Isolde myth in contemporary France is surprisingly effective. The film's title is a play on words - not only does it refer to Tristan's return but to the notion of history repeating itself. Cocteau believed the story to be an archetypal myth, hence the conceit of setting it in the modern world - it is a story that returns over and over. The plausible way in which he tells it as now involving a feud over an inheritance lends credence to this assertion.Madeleine Sologne is perfectly cast and is perhaps the first modern beauty in European cinema. The sparse, angular sets and rudimentary lighting serve to emphasise the poetic nature of the story rather than distract from it and the story unfurls at a satisfying pace. The narrative is sparse; only the bare bones of the Tristan and Isolde myth are shown here but this works to emphasise the emotional impulses that radiate out from the very heart of the story.Cocteau's mature style is already evident here so aficionados of his work will find this film a deeply-satisfying retelling of the timeless Tristan and Isolde myth.

writers_reign If I put my mind to it I could probably get a reasonable Term Paper out of poets during the Occupation but on the other hand I wouldn't want to put the Academic-Pseud axis out of work. What brought this on, you ask. Well you might. Fact is I've just watched Jean Delannoy's L'Eternal Retour for the first time and was struck by the resemblance to Marcel Carne's Les Visiteurs du soir which was released one year earlier in 1942. Both films were written by poets (although Jean Cocteau was a poet more in his mind than mine whilst Jacques Prevert was the real McCoy. Prevert ended Les Visiteurs du soir with a stunning poetic image; the Devil, slightly miffed that the envoys he sent to earth to screw up the mortals plans had actually fallen for the mortals in question, duly petrified two of the lovers but as we gaze on the two statues we hear their hearts continuing to beat. Cocteau, being a lesser poet, settles for a more pedestrian ending leaving the two lovers lying side by side a la Romeo and Julient and, just in case we don't get it, having the husband of the woman intone solemnly 'now no one can come between them'. Although he didn't direct his take of Tristan and Isolde Cocteau ensured that the lead went to his life-long lover Jean Marais, a graduate of the Forestry Commission School of Acting and perhaps for his own pleasure he has Marais 'pose' a couple of times for no apparent reason. By coincidence Carne was himself homosexual as were Cocteau and Marais, which has no bearing on either film yet you can see how that old Academic-Pseud axis would be standing in line to book sabbaticals and write this up. Delannoy was a pretty good filmmaker as it happens and the records show that this was one of the most popular films released during the Occupation. I have no quarrel with that and I'm pleased to have finally seen it.

chill1019 I see the Nazi references, but there are subtle subliminal messages being sent to the French people who were under the jackboot of Nazi oppression. It was not a proud time for them. Remember that during the Middle Ages, Vikings invaded France from the North. The men from the North who became the Normans finally assimilated nicely with the people living in northern France. Men who were expert sailors learned farming and the language of the "French". Re-telling the Tristan story always seemed to me to be a way to reach the soul of the French. It's a way to remind them of the time of the brave knight who comes to the rescue of his lady. The blondness of Patrice and Nathalie could be a reference to the Normans. They are both orphans of the sea and the death scene with both of them positioned perfectly on a boat(linked eternally)with the skies parting to bring them up to heaven is very reminiscent of the French epic poem "Chanson de Roland". It also reminds me of a dead Viking warrior being cast out to sea on his burning boat. A film to be enjoyed on many levels and a way to appease the Aryan loving Nazis while resonating with the proud history of the French.

MartinHafer This movie was written by Jean Cocteau and it's pretty obvious due to the odd plot twists, romantic tone and mythological roots to the plot. Just a few years later, he was to BOTH write and direct Beauty and the Beast and Orpheus. These two are better films than The Eternal Return, though this movie is still worth watching--particularly as it shows and evolution of Cocteau's ideas. So, this movie is sort of like and unpolished version of these two later movies in many ways--particularly Orpheus. Absent from this film are the odd camera tricks but the story elements are all here.The love between the two main characters is best described as a combination of the tragic stories of Orpheus and Eurydice along with Romeo and Juliet, but I have recently been informed that the story is ACTUALLY a reworking of the story of Tristan and Isolde. Thrown in for good measure are a malevolent dwarf, the dwarf's detestable parents and a lot of cool plot twists.However, there were a few things that just didn't work out well in the movie. First, when it was obvious that the crazed dwarf had tried to kill the lovers by offering them what he thought was poison, nothing was done to punish him or place him in an institute for the criminally insane. This is pretty prudent considering what the dwarf does LATER in the story! Second, I hate movies that feature ladies fainting. Unless there is a blow to the head or they've gone without eating for a very extended period of time, people DON'T just faint. This is such a stupid cliché and I'm a little surprised that anyone as innovative and intelligent as Cocteau would resort to this device.Other than that, it's a nice film.FYI--An IMPORTANT warning: The video I watched was from The International Collection from Nelson Entertainment. If there are any OTHER companies that make this video, try them first!!!! The captioning was absolutely horrible!! Often, much of the dialog was not subtitled or very long statements were boiled down to one or two words!!! They showed very little respect for the integrity of the movie!