User reviews

No much reference I found about this film, based on a novel by Simone de Beauvoir, which guaranteed a story with an existentialist approach. I kept thinking all the time that this movie should have been made in black and white. I don't know why, but I associate existentialists, beatniks, Paris in the late 1940s and early 50's, Sartre, Camus, Beckett, Beauvoir and Juliette Gréco with B&W. Maybe it would have worked. As it is, "All Men Are Mortal" is a production with strident colors that do not correspond to its dark story of a young and beautiful theater diva in the verge of becoming an international star, who suddenly finds herself attracted to an enigmatic man. When he finally accepts her advances, he tells her he's immortal and proves it! That's an interesting premise for an existentialist fantasy, which probably Madame Beauvoir relished when the idea came to her mind and decided to write the novel. But Jong makes it all look and sound so inane, Rea is miscast, Jacob does not look as a new Garbo and on top of that the English dubbing is bad. But curiously, this is the kind of film that you watch until the end, because somewhere there is an interesting reflection on the impossibility of love.

An interesting premise, a man cursed with immortality, is here turned into a very dull tale. The immortal man maintains the same dreary expression and monotone voice throughout, and this is an accurate reflection of the film as a whole.

This is one of those movies that requires only a portion of your attention; very little happens, and even that is entirely predictable. If you want to watch, I suggest you have a newspaper handy to help you through.

The whole enterprise has a very French feel. Not a good French movie, but one that concentrates on trivialities and inconsequencialities, devoid of any likeable main characters or plot, and posessed of an entirely negative attitude to life.

There is also a very dated feel. I was astonished to find that it was made in 1995. Even though I recognised one or two members of the cast, I would have guessed rather earlier. In fact, in the absence of that cast recognition I would have placed it in the early 1960's - a very bad C-class 1960's production.

There is really no need to watch this film - just read this summation of the "plot"; All life is fleeting and futile. Everything is the same, repeating endlessly. All is dull and dreary. Those who think otherwise are deluded fools. They can only maintain their illusions because a mortal life is so short that this burning truth can be partially disregarded.

I honestly suggest avoiding this one. Just read the above summary and regain the 90 minutes of your life that would otherwise be lost forever.

2/10

Should've gone with the previous reviewer's 'warning' and not video'd the Jan 1st 3am showing. However there were some interesting moments and appearances - but these do not make this a satisfying cinematic experience. In fact they show how unpleasant and dysfunctional most of the characters are. The leads' presence and acting skill are not enough to lift this from C-movie territory, although as text it may well have worked far better. Occasional strange overdubs ('hospital laughing' scene is so bad it is in fact laughable) and apparent odd edits (may have been ITV's hands though) just add to the lack of atmosphere.

Oddities/highlights include the sole 'warm' character in the film, the lead female's Maid, who should be commended for introducing the only real human elements into this production. John Nettles' appearance as the slightly bumbling Theatre Company Director is quite endearing, and the post-intercourse scene Trumpet-Playing is pretty surreal. Steve Nicolson's ham-actor character with apparent socialist tendencies is somewhat confusing, and the inclusion of his boxing scene (where he gets decked whilst spouting self-written poetry by his true working-class opponent) is lightly humourous, if somewhat detached from the rest of the movie.

Overall a lot of the cast were capable of far more, and you wonder why they were doing this in 1995! Certainly curio value only.

I haven't read the novel so I can't judge how good an adaptation this was but some of the dialogue in this film is very weak and the actions of characters inexplicably stupid. The costumes in Fosca's flashback scenes are so bad that you wonder why he has suddenly been transported into an amateur dramatics production of "A tale of two cities" or "Up Pompeii". I hope Stephen Rea doesn't get dragging into many more like this one. The multinational cast makes for some dodgy accents and sound dubbing.