This is an anti-war movie, set in WWI, produced during the height of the anti-Viet Nam movement, and we are viewing it now during the Iraqi conflict. Can we avoid a political discussion that would get me banned and still talk about the general issues around this anti-war movie?

To me, frankly, it didn't come off as anti-war so much as an examination of the nature of reality. About chosing our own reality. What about you?

And the DVD has a different ending than I remember. What is up with that? Did they change the ending for American audiences? Was it there in the French version all the time?

While I found it dated, I felt the absurdity of war. To anyone who's not directly involved with a conflict between countries, it's so removed from your daily life that you could care less if your leader/commander tells you what to do. I guess that is the thrust of the movie to me..unless you've lost significant others , say to today's 9/11, going to fight over in another country over the attack seems pointless, but is not to a lot of people who lost others on that day... Don't want to be a perpetrator of war talk, but it is the theme of it.. just MHO.
Maybe this should be remade today?

From what I remember, it had a sort of childlike innocence, like Benigni's Life is Beautiful. And I was thoroughly entertained by relative newcomer Alan Bates. I was very soon to see him again in another movie of that time, Far from The Madding Crowd, which was excellent.

Beyond the city gates was 'normalcy', which to the'insane', was craziness!

It looks like I won't be able to see the movie until Thursday, and I look forward to adding something to the discussion at that time.

Chris, please tell me how you do that.

Sorry, didn't mean to confuse anyone. Paula, I wasn't criticising, just trying to be more sensitive in my own spoiler tendencies.

Clairabelle, you are right, innocence is a good word for this. I fell in love with Bates here and was always vaguely disappointed in everything I saw him do later. I think I was always looking for this looney charm, and I didn't find it again until Kevin Kline in Sophie's Choice.

Fun to see that homage to The Three Stooges in the movie.

Chris, as I am on webtv I cannot click my mouse to see the spoiler. Can you put it in another post or email it to me? I am curious as to how the DVD version ends.

Okay, I was holding off because I wanted more people to see it, but I have to confess that this really didn't stand up well to my maturity. (Such as it is.) Refusing to leave the safety of what we know is just so contrary to some of my core beliefs that it takes the charm off of the lovely little bits. I don't get it. We have a bunch of people who do surprising and fun things. And, yet, they are still constrained. I loved it when Poppy rushes off to see Charles by doing a tightrope walk across the wire instead of rushing downstairs and across the street. Playing chess with a chimp, and outdoor bedroom or two, paying one's customers and the like enchanted me long ago. Truly enchanted me. This time they were mildly amusing. Is it an age thing? Or is it an era thing?

This hasn't been a lively discussion. Not criticising, just observing. Are we better off going with contemporary movies? Will that engage us more? Or was this just a movie that we could say little beyond "I like it" or not?

I saw the film too many years ago to really comment on particulars, but I do recall being quite taken with it. I'm almost afraid to watch it, Chris, now that you've said the shine has faded somewhat for you. I think I'm older than you, but we probably both remember the context of the times when King of Hearts came out. Many films from that era -- even when they were set in another time entirely -- haven't aged well. Idealism has given way to cynicism in a lot of instances, I think -- for me, anyway.

I don't know if contemporary films are more engaging...hmmm. Yeah, I suspect they are for this demographic. Frankly, I prefer older films -- even moldy oldies -- but most people are probably more interested in the newer ones.

(I am hoping it was returned last night so I can check it out today.)

Chris, I think I understand what you mean about seeing this 1966 movie in 2005. Maybe we are more sophisticated now, or worldly wise.

I kept wanting it to be less goofy, more like a fantasy and less like a farce. Many elements reminded me of Monty Python's Flying Circus, including the parade music and poking fun at men in kilts (lol). That's not a criticism, just something I didn't expect and it made me wonder if the Python crew had taken inspiration from this movie.

The basic story was cool, and I feel it was well told because I ended up caring what happened. Lots of kooky characters and funny scenes.

It showed the film maker's opinion that lots of folks die in wars for no good reason, including innocents, and in the end nobody really wins. The main character opts out.

That could have been shocking or at least thought-provoking at the time, but today the anti-war movement is more familiar and we've already seen lots of movies exploring the subject.

We loved seeing the beautiful old buildings and furniture in the French village. The animals were another plus.