Watch L'Âge d'or For Free

Expected more

it is finally so absorbing because it plays like a lyrical road odyssey that’s also a detective story.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

Since having heard his name mentioned for the first time in connection to Alfred Hitchcock and Dario Argento on the info packed commentary by Alan Jones and Kim Newman's for Argento's classic debut The Bird With The Crystal Plumage,Luis Bunuel has been a director who I have become pretty keen on taking a look at.Whilst almost getting myself caught up in an endless back and fourth struggle over trying to decide what Bunuel film I should go for,I thankfully got a bit of luck,when I recently found his very first film being sold at a fantastic price,which led me to deciding that my first Bunuel would also be the first ever (non short) film that he made. The plot:Soon after they have started to passionately kiss each other like two wild animals,a young couple are pulled apart by a group of consisting of their families,police officers and priests who object so strongly to what the couple are doing on the beach,that they beat up the man in broad daylight on the beach.Taking the man to a police station,the man catches the two cops by surprise,by quickly knocking them out so that he can run to the house where his lover is staying with family.Meanwhile,whist the couple are attempting to get together,a long,disgusting orgy attended by some very unexpected participants finally reaches it end. View on the film:As this very entertaining,interesting surrealist film opens with some re-used old documentary footage (featuring a new narration) about scorpion tail's, Luis Bunuel and co-writer Salvador Dali (who would have a huge falling out with Bunuel shortly before the beginning of the films production)set up the scorpion "sting" for each section of the movie.With the beginning of the film having shown the ruthless behaviour of animals,Bunuel cleverly uses the minimalist soundtrack to feature animal sounds that connect the characters to primal instincts which the church and other "higher up" sections of society are attempting to destroy,from the sound of birds being used when the couple start to kiss each others hands,to raw sewage (!) being inter-cut in the scene where the unnamed man is getting beaten up and punished like an animal.Along with the soundtrack,Bunuel's directing also features a good number of stunning transitional/fading in/out shots that along with focusing on the beautiful features of lead actress Lya Lys, (whose performance gives the character a fantastic china doll-like fragileness,shows that she is an actress who should have been bigger than she sadly became)also help to make the 63 minute running time fly by,thanks to each transition bringing a new piece of the scorpions tail to this sometimes messy,but always fascinating film.

Luis Buñuel's companion piece to Un Chien Andalou had much the same effect its predecessor had on me: it bored me, it baffled me, it frustrated me, it disappointed me. It's another collection of insignificant, random episodes illuminated by rare flashes of genius. It eschews any narrative or meaning, which at least gives weight to its claim as one of the few actual surrealist movies ever made.But I've seen Buñuel's work from several periods in his life, and I admit I much prefer he works with a narrative, like in Belle de Jour or The Exterminating Angel. When anything goes in a narrative, when nothing has a purpose or limits, nothing is incredible about it, not cows in beds, or a woman sucking a statue's toes, or other bizarre imagery available in The Golden Age. On the other hand, in a reality-based movie the intrusion of the fantastic, the strange and the grotesque is much more noticeable and fascinating, and that's why I much prefer Buñuel has a story to work with.The Golden Age is a relic, a piece of film history, but I wouldn't call it a great movie. In terms of strangeness, I think Buñuel was surpassed by his contemporary Jean Cocteau, for instance. And in terms of shock, he has zero effect nowadays. That's the problem with shock: since it relies on transgressing boundaries and since boundaries are always changing in society, any work built on shock will quickly find itself dated. This movie doesn't hold up as well as later Buñuel movies.Let's give Luis Buñuel his due for having opened the doors for a new way of film-making, but let's not ignore the faults in this movie.

Luis Bunuel was certainly a film maker who's films were a lightning rod for controversy. His first silent short, 'Une Chien Andelou'(with a screenplay written with Salvadore Dali)from 1929 was both a hit for audiences,as well as for psychologists who had a field day picking the Fraudien images apart. Despite a falling out with Dali during the screenplay writing phase for their next project (resulting in the two never talking to one another for the rest of their collective lives),Bunuel still,none the less,kept Dali's name on the credits (Dali also kept distance from the film,as well). The results were 'L'Age d'or',from 1930,which was an obvious attack on the ruling class,and it's tight moral structure, regarding sexuality. The film also took a number of pot shots at religion,family values,and other material that enraged French audiences so that in it's premiere,a full tilt riot broke out at the cinema that screened it in Paris. Because of this,the film was banned for over 50 years. To look at it now,it still packs a bit of a punch. The images are very surreal & dream like (i.e.it begins with what looks like a documentary of scorpions,and cuts to a totally unrelated series of short stories). This is a film that historians should see, as just what ticked off audiences back then. Besides the film's mostly French cast,it also features fellow surrealist artist,Max Ernst,in a small role as a bandit chieftain. Spoken in French with English subtitles. Not rated,this film does serve up some material that by today's standards would land it little more than a PG rating today (a few brief flashes of semi nudity,various sexual goings on,etc.),but shocked many back in the day.

If you're knowledgeable about Bunuel's body of work, then you'll see pretty much the blue print for his future films, with all of his views on religion, unrequited lust and love/hate for the bourgeoisie. I agree with those who loved it yet, at the same time, I feel people missed Bunuel's point. Bunuel wanted a complete affront to the senses of that audience. If that sounds childish, well... Anyone could argue the easiness of taking shocking images and filming them and then claiming to be a genius is really dumb. But there is a sense of flow and rhythm to the images; this is not just a disparate collection of things to look at.Yet still one does not have to scratch his/her head in bewilderment as to what it all means. Does anyone complain about a Dali painting and his skewing of reality? Maybe, I don't know. But it's the same thing here. There are lots of grotesque, funny and sublime sequences. And though it doesn't necessarily flow as a cohesive narrative which has a straightforward, underlying message, it's clear which social mores that Bunuel/Dali are criticizing. If you're versed in Bunuel, he'd be the first to tell you that his images are not supposed to be symbolic. If you see a peasant on a horse and carriage riding through a Marquis De Sade castle, then that's exactly what you're seeing.As such there is an image of man executing his son, an image of another man brutally kicking a blind man, a cross with human scalps, a toilet making sewer noises cut between images of a man rolling in mud, which looks a little too much like...