Cul-De-Sac (1966) Poster

(1966)

User Reviews

Add a Review
56 ReviewsOrdered By: Helpfulness
Highly Intriguing Polanski Drama
rwint28 April 2002
Two gangsters on the run hide out in a isolated castle that is occupied by Plesance and Dorleac. The two share a rather bizarre passive, aggressive relationship that quickly disintegrates when interrupted by the strangers. Eventually a even more bizarre bonding develops between the couple and Stander, one of the gangsters. Very, very intriguing psychological drama with wonderfully subversive elements lurking just beneath the surface.

Polanski makes full use of the castle showing it's dark, shadowy interior as a sort of symbolic equation to the dark recesses of the human mind. The characters all have their odd traits yet are still believable and compelling to watch. Wonderfully photographed with a strong visual style that really gives this film a distinct look and personality.

Stander, who is probably best known as Max on the old HART TO HART series, has one of his finest roles. He plays a brute that mixes both savage and human traits all at the same time. Plesance though is astounding, playing a truly pathetic character that is simply unforgettable
17 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Excellent black comedy thriller
The_Void6 July 2004
This film is incredible. Polanski's best film behind Knife in the Water and Rosemary's Baby.

The plot revolves around a gangster (Lionel Stander) and his partner that seek refuge in a castle on a small island in England. The couple that inhabit the castle are played by the sublime Donald Pleasance and the beautiful Françoise Dorléac. The movie plays out like a three way triangle of hatred; we have the contempt between the couple and the gangster, who is invading their home; the gangster's mean streak is inflicted on the couple and the lady obviously holds her husband in low regard when he takes on the role of a wimp in front of the gun toting criminal. However, it is not as simple as that as in several points in the movie, the characters let their guard down and start to communicate with each other in an almost friendly way. This is the real beauty of this film; it is a character study, studying the relationship between a couple and a third party in their home. Three is a crowd, and the effects of that true to life phrase are felt by each of the three characters.

The three main players in Cul-De-Sac are fantastic, Lional Stander in particular who was surely born to play his role in this movie. He has the voice and the persona of a not very bright gangster spot on; his comic timing for some of his more obviously funny lines is also noteworthy. Donald Pleasance has never been better than he was here either; his portrayal as the 'lord of the manor' is both believable and intriguing. Last but not least, Françoise Dorléac, in undoubtedly the most overlooked role in the piece, although no less important than the other two, is also on time and believable in her role; making up a perfect cast.

From a relatively simple plot line and few characters, through excellent dialogue, restrained plotting and interesting scenarios, Roman Polanksi has managed to weave a story that is interesting and entertaining. Roman Polanski has a great flair for human relationships in his movies, the best example of this was in his best movie, Knife in the Water, and that element is abundant here too. The scenes in which all three characters are on screen interacting with each other are this movie's finest moments.

Cul-De-Sac is an excellent black comedy thriller that fans of the genre and fans of the excellent Roman Polanski will not want to miss. Recommended viewing
50 out of 66 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Happened in a castle...
Petri Pelkonen13 March 2009
A wounded criminal, Dickie and his dying partner Albie find an old seaside castle.That castle is full of chickens and it is owned by the meek and a bit neurotic George and his sensual young wife Teresa.Now these two are the hostages of Dickie, who's waiting for his boss to come.Cul-de-sac (1966) was the second film of Roman Polanski in English.It's a fascinating movie, and a bit bizarre, perhaps.You have to like Donald Pleasence's work as George.His character is comical but also tragic, shy and sensitive, someone who's easy to be manipulated.The way George is ridiculed by his woman, who dresses him as a woman and puts on some make-up on him tells a lot about what kind of a man George is.Francoise Dorléac is perfect in the role of his Mrs.Lionel Stander is somewhat sympathetic as Dickie.Jack MacGowran, who's also remembered from Polanski's Dance of the Vampires from the next year, plays Albie brilliantly.Ian Quarrier plays Christopher.Jacqueline Bisset makes her second film appearance in a small role.This movie has a lot of memorable stuff.It's great to watch when they have unexpected guests of George's friends and Dickie has to portray a butler.Or the moments on the beach with Teresa swimming nude in the background.This movie has some comedy.It has some psychological thriller.It has some drama.It has everything to keep you captivated.
7 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
Black Comedy That Just Seemed to Miss Me
gavin694215 April 2011
A wounded criminal and his dying partner take up refuge at a beachfront villa, which (not surprisingly) makes the owners less than thrilled.

I watched this as part of my quest to see all of Polanski's films in order. After two psychological films, he has switched to comedy... and I am not entirely sure I get it. Visually, this film is quite stunning and it has some good camera work (including one of the longest continuous sequences in cinematic history at the time of release at 7 minutes and 28 seconds).

Jack Nicholson claimed in an interview in 2007 that this is his favorite film. Not sure what to make of that. I loved Donald Pleasance as the cross-dressing wimp, but beyond that, I just do not think I really got it... the humor was not so strong and the darkness was not all that dark.
10 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Shallowness at its very best
manuel-pestalozzi3 April 2003
Cul-de-sac is a very beautiful black and white movie. It belongs to the lightweight category. The story is weird in an entertaining way, often amusing and sad at once. If the director tried to be willingly shallow, he was very successful. And I do not mean that ironically but say it with awe.

The place is Holy Island, on the east coast of Northern England. It actually gets cut off with the tide. Polanski makes very good use of the location and was very lucky with the casting. All characters are rather detestable in a detached sort of way. Donald Pleasance gives the performance of his life as the emasculated, utterly humiliated owner of the castle on the island. The other two main characters are the brisk yet elf like Françoise Dorléac and Lionel Stander as a gruff, brutal gangster. There is a very strange, truly unique chemistry between Dorléac and Stander. Dorléac does something to Stander. «We call dees a bicycle», she says gleefully with her funny accent, and it nearly knocks me off my chair every time I see that well filmed, suspenseful scene. I won‘t tell you what «de bicycle» is – it may need parental guidance to watch it but does not belong to the restrictable area. Cul-de-sac has a very memorable musical score.
26 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
This odd black comedy is one of Polanski's most underrated movies.
Infofreak20 July 2003
As 'Cul-de-sac' was Polanski's first movie after his brilliant psychological thriller 'Repulsion' it can't help but be a slight disappointment. Even so, I thought it was an interesting movie and I found it to be much more enjoyable than his next one the totally unfunny spoof 'The Fearless Vampire Killers'. 'Cul-de-sac' is quite difficult to catergorise. In some ways it reminded me of Pinter's 'The Birthday Party' (filmed much later than this but originally staged in the late 1950s), in others of Jack Hill's cult favourite 'Spider Baby' (made earlier but not really released until afterwards), and you could almost see it as prefiguring 'Performance' (old school gangsters meet the new world of the swinging 1960s). But really it quite an odd and unique black comedy. It may not be 100% successful, and it does have a few dull spots, but overall it's worth tracking down if you want to see something different. The main reason it succeeds for me is the unusual location of Lindisfarne, England (which I have visited), and the performances of Donald Pleasence, Francoise Dorleac and Lionel Stander. Pleasence was one of Britain's most underrated character actors, the beautiful and doomed Dorleac had appeared alongside Jean-Paul Belmondo in the entertaining thriller 'That Man From Rio', and Standish, who later appeared in movies by Leone and Spielberg, is best remembered as Max, the craggy manservant on the popular 1980s TV show 'Hart To Hart'. All three are excellent in this movie, and their interaction make it fascinating viewing. The supporting cast also includes Jack MacGowran ('The Exorcist') and an early appearance by 1970s sex symbol Jacqueline Bisset. 'Cul-de-sac' is without a doubt Polanski's most underrated movie, and fans of the unusual and the off beat will enjoy it very much. A DVD with a commentary from Polanski would would be wonderful. Any chance?
23 out of 43 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
8/10
Cul-de-sac
austrianmoviebuff20 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
One of the less popular Polanski films, made between his sleeper "Repulsion" (Catherine Deneuve's star-turn) and the hilarious horror comedy "The Fearless Vampire Killer" (starring Polanski himself alongside his ill-fated wife, Sharon Tate), "Cul-de-sac" is a bizarre film indeed. In his autobiography, Polanski stated that this was his favorite film of all, and, if he had the choice, he'd only do movies like this.

"Cul-de-sac" is hard to classify. It is an odd kind of comedy, but not really funny, it has some thriller elements, but it's not suspenseful, there are traces of a mystery slash horror thing, but they're never obviously visible, and, finally, it is the story of a marriage. There isn't much happening, really, and if you're not into weird movies, you'll most certainly find "Cul-de-sac" boring, but if you are, it will give you lots of pleasure.

The movie has a lot of charm, and it's craziness brings it quite close to Lester's "The Knack". Donald Pleasance's performance might be the best of his entire career. This alone makes Polanski's little masterpiece worth watching. Lionel Stander and the unforgettable Jack MacGowran are equally remarkable, and Ian Quarrier (who later played a gay vampire in "The Fearless Vampire Killers") can be seen in a supporting part. The setting (an old castle), though, is the real star of this film, and the entire thing is beautifully captured: the black-and-white-photography is timelessly elegant and Oscar-worthy. A pity "Cul-de-sac" was not a success when it was released. It came out on DVD a couple of years back and is a must for Polanski fans and film fans alike.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
Brilliant!
JasparLamarCrabb7 September 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Released at a time when the likes of DOCTOR ZHIVAGO and THE SOUND OF MUSIC were tearing up the box-office and winning oodles of Oscars, CUL-DE-SAC has more going on than both of those bloated epics combined. Assembling one of the most sublime casts imaginable, Roman Polanski apes his earlier KNIFE IN THE WATER by having a couple's seemingly idyllic relationship interrupted ---this time by two interlopers...a hooligan and his infirm sidekick. The couple's already precarious relationship begins to crack and ultimately shatters in a climax of distrust and panic. But not before giving their guests an unexpected run for their money. Donald Pleasence and Francoise Dorleac make a truly odd couple and, as the hoods, Lionel Stander and Jack MacGowran, are alternately menacing and pathetic. It's great to see the always interesting Stander land such a plum role. CUL-DE-SAC is probably the most cutting movie Polanski has ever made. Never too successful with comedy, Polanski infused this movie with a good deal of humor, albeit always very black. One of the films highlights has Dorleac putting a match to some paper she's stuffed between Stander's toes!
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
An average Polanski piece
Jouni Heinonen19 June 2006
If we think of Roman Polanski's pieces, Nóz w wodzie (1962)is more important, Repulsion (1965)is in my opinion almost the best movie ever made, Rosemary's baby (1968)is more horrifying and Le Locataire (1976) is more interesting, not to talk about Chinatown (1974) etc.

So why should you see Cul-de-Sac? Because it's polanski and it's not crappy. And because of Catherine Deneuve's sister Francoise Dorleac, who died way too early (in 1967, just some time after she co-starred Les Demoiselles de Rochefort with her sister).

Once again, the main characters are separated from the world and stranger's are getting in from the outside. The movie is fun, weird and of course a must-see for a Polanski fan.
15 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Unusual Relationships In A Tense Situation
Eumenides_021 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Cul-de-sac, like Polanski's first movie, is a movie about human relationships. In fact one could find many similarities between this movie and Knife In The Water. Dickie, a wounded criminal takes his dying partner, Albie, to a nearby castle and makes the two occupants hostages. Albie dies and Dickie has to wait for his boss, the mysterious Kateblbach, to come and rescue him. The tide has come up and the castle is currently unaccessible. So he has to spend the night with the couple, George and Teresa, waiting for rescue.

In an ordinary movie, this could lead to a tense, suspenseful situation. But in Polanski's hands it becomes a study about human existence and the unpredictability of human behavior. For starters, there's no hero in this movie - George is a coward unable to take a stand; Teresa, disgusted by him, starts to get closer to Dickie. Dickie is a brute but he's hardly a monster: so long as people do as he says, he's alright with everyone. Many humorous and absurd situations arise from this relationship, as George and Dickie engage in conversations by the beach while Teresa bathes; or when Teresa, instead of running away, goes to Dickie to have a drink of vodka with him. People who expect their movie characters to behave in certain ways may be surprised, baffled or infuriated by this trio.

My favorite part of the movie is when guests unexpected arrive at the castle and the couple and Dickie have to pretend he's their gardener. With the tables inverted, Teresa proceeds to abuse Dickie as much as possible. One can easily see the hatred and tension boiling inside Dickie as he struggles to keep up appearances.

The tree main actors are quite good in this movie - Françoise Dorléac, Lion Stander, and especially Donald Pleasance as George. For me he had the most difficult and courageous role in the movie, that of playing a weak-willed, cowardly man who tolerates abuse after abuse. Such frailty is rare in cinema since it's not very appealing, but unusual as it may be it strikes a chord for how familiar it is.

Once again I'm marveled at how Polanski manages to create a movie out of so little resources: a castle, three actors, and what else? Just clever writing, good camera work and imagination. Although Polanski has done better movies, Cul-de-sac has an undefinable quality that grips the viewer's mind and doesn't let go.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Too bizarre, too perverse, too incomprehensible to sustain the suspense that must have been intended…
Nazi_Fighter_David30 April 2005
"Cul-de-Sac" is another strange kind of a suspense film… It is about a hoodlum invading the privacy of a rich, highly eccentric couple, impresses with its darkly comic account of power games and communication breakdown…

Here Polanski isolated his characters in an old castle on Holy Island, off the Northumberland coast... And what characters they were: Donald Pleasance, putting on his wife's nightie and using her make-up in the retreat to which he had escaped from the unappealing world; Francoise Dorléac as the stunning bird; and Lionel Stander as the savage intruder blundering in…

A lot of critics gave a lot of praise to this film – presumably on the precept that if it's bizarre and a bit perverse and nobody understands it, it must be good… I found it just too bizarre, too perverse, too incomprehensible to sustain the suspense that must have been intended…
15 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
a delicious showcase for wonderful, quirky acting
awalter14 May 2007
"Cul-de-sac" is Roman Polanski's third feature, after "Knife in Water" and "Repulsion." The movie was filmed in and around a castle on the coast of north-east England that is cut off from the mainland for a portion of every day when the tide changes. Here a pair of wounded, on-the-run criminals invade the castle and impose themselves on the slightly-bohemian couple living there. Like all of Polanski's best films, it truly functions as a showcase for the actors, and the central cast here is Donald Pleasence, Francoise Dorleac, and Lionel Stander—a Brit, a Frog, and an American. There's also a wonderful supporting performance by Irish actor Jack MacGowran. However, it's Pleasance who steals the show. Like Polanski's writing and direction here, Pleasance creates a real tension between realism and delirious mania, thus maintaining a moment-by-moment unpredictability that you simply can't take your eyes off. It's one of the mysteries of cinema history why "Cul-de- sac" has not survived well in the memories of critics nor found a dedicated audience as have most other early Polanski films.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
the best film by polanski
Karl Ericsson14 November 2001
This film is Polanski's 'Citizen Kane'. From then on, he never got better (but still quite good as in 'Chinatown' for instance). It is a tight, existentialist film, situated on an island (during flood, when tide, not an island). It featured Francois Dorleac, the equally beautiful but more romantic sister of Catherine Deneuve, who died not many years after this in a car accident if I remember correctly. I haven't seen a film in which she stared that wasn't good but here is the best of them. 'I started at the top and since then I'm been working myself down', said Orson Welles in 'F as in Fake', his last film. Polanski could say (almost) the same (he had done polish films before this one and I don't know if 'Repulsion' was before or after this one). An outstanding masterpiece good for many viewings and not on DVD (of course, I almost say).
10 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
9/10
Mood piece with terrifying results
shepardjessica23 June 2004
Easily one of Polanski's best (along with Rosemary's Baby, Repulsion, and the Pianist). I've only recently been able to acquire a copy of this fascinating story which seems to combine Harold Pinter with Woody Allen. Fine acting by all, especially the beautiful Francoise Dorleac, possibly one of the most gorgeous and under-rated actresses of the 60's. Donald Pleasance was never creepier or more pathetic. Lionel Stander was born to play Dickie and Jackie Bissett has a nice cameo role. To take this cast to that island and actually film this must have been a nightmare, but Thank God he did. I cannot believe this doesn't have more of a cult following.

Now that it's on DVD, hopefully, it will attract more attention. Great cinematography and Oscar-worthy work from the leads. Rated a 9.
8 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
one of the most unusual and unlikely dark comic masterpieces
MisterWhiplash23 August 2008
Roman Polanski steers a film along in one location or kind of place with just a few characters like it's nobody's business. He's one of the most brilliant at it, at being able to veer away from making things static and stagey just like the chamber pieces Knife in the Water or Death and the Maiden. Cul-de-sac is no exception, but it also has the distinction of being one of Polanski's comedies- however here, perhaps, it's the most successful and masterful of them all (albeit the others I can recall are Fearless Vampire Killers and Pirates, which are good but lessor works) because of his trust in the purely existential horror of the situation. I was laughing to the kind of harrowingly funny situations the characters would get into, or the strange awkwardness of such things as a little kid wielding a shotgun and cursing or watching poor Jack MacGowran stuck with a bullet in his belly in the getaway car as it slowly sinks in the coming tide.

But lest not forget that as with many other Polanski films, for all of his own ferocious and oddly subtle command of a lens (most notable is the 7-minute long take on the beach which is only fluid inasmuch as the characters slightly move about in the setting), the performances catapult it into uncharted territory of eccentricity and brilliance. Lionel Stander, for one, gives maybe one of his definitive performances in a career of minor character actor parts (i.e. "you might remember me as Barman in Once Upon a Time in the West), characterized by his gravely voice and quintessential tough-guy-noir face and demeanor, playing one of the criminals taking over and hiding out in the 11th century castle of Donald Pleasance and Francoise Dorleac. Pleasance and Dorleac are also perfectly cast as seeming caricatures (Pleasance's George as the meek and mild-mannered retired worker and Dorleac as his dripping-with-French-sexy-and-slightly-crazy wife) who peel back layers of their characters as it goes along. At the least, it should be noted, it's an incredible career highlight for the underrated Pleasance and an intriguing and nasty turn from Dorleac.

Cul-de-sac is a howler of a black comedy, with pitch black jokes involving a dead body and his burial, the untimely arrival of a bunch of George's bourgeois friends, and ending in a crazy purging freak-out from George. Sometimes single lines stand out (Stander delivering "Mental retiring or something" is classic), or just a sudden physical motion, and Polanski is always there to add some taut level or even claustrophobia. But what is richest of all in the film is the implications on the human capacity for choice and cruelty. Throughout George is made a point of ridicule, mostly by his own wife, for not being manly enough to stand up to this grater-voiced thug and is not helped by him first appearing- as a funny/personal in-joke between husband and wife- in lipstick and a dress, and we see both his entire spectrum of personality and psychology along with the wife and Richard (poor MacGowran, as mentioned, is relegated mostly to being laid out on a table pontificating as a yin to Richard's yang).

If there could be a word to apply to what unravels in Cul-de-sac morbid would probably be the one to use in describing the bulk of the picture. And Polanski, no stranger to morbidity, transforms his picture into a bizarre, troubling and, very morbid and complex examination of what lies beneath a simple film-noir; it's very funny, very tragic, and satisfying as 60s cinema could get. Only drawback: lack of decent prints in the USA and lack of access to videos make it near impossible to see the picture as originally intended or in good condition. Thankfully, it's so good that one can forgive finding the occasional bootleg with so-so transfer quality.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
The dead end kids...
swillsqueal10 July 2007
Bored bourgeois dilettante and his bored faux-bohemian wife live out their empty, aristocratic dreams in an isolated castle full of chickens. Chickens for life. Chickens at life. Chickens for eggs. Roosters without purpose, without worker-hens to do their dirty work; the trash piles up. The empty wife is at constant sexual readiness; but she's disappointed with the game and its players. Excitement is desired. And then in walk the criminal element, proletarian in taste, practical in nature. What a mix! There is even a visit to the castle on the hill by other bored bourgeois acquaintances, to punch up the empty, cold idiocy of the scene. And the prolo-crims, loyal to their patriarchal boss, wait to for rescue, for their Godot. But there is no more honour amongst thieves than there is amongst bourgeois and all round, disappointment reigns to the rat-tahtat-tat of gunfire and death. In the end, one betrayal is as good as another and the ultimate alienation which is the product of a narrow, individualistic lifesyle is left to howl in its usual shriveled, muted manner.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
A menacing and morbidly funny masterpiece
pinback-621 March 2000
This film is really hard to describe, so I'll just jump to why I enjoyed it so much...

The acting is phenomenal.

The beautiful black and white cinematography.

The morbid humour.

The menacing atmosphere.

This film is unlike most of what I have ever seen, and the best film I have had to the pleasure to see from Polanski so far. Some people will not like it, for like most truly great films, it's, say it with me, NOT FOR EVERYONE! Is it a thriller? Is it a drama? Is it a comedy? Is it a horrorfilm? Who cares? It's a masterpiece no matter what!
4 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
Polanski's Godot
Adam Gai19 August 2012
Samuel Beckett refused to give Polanski the rights to film Waiting for Godot and so the director created with Gerard Brach a script with strong echoes of the famous play (and some by Harold Pinter). A mixture of Gothic horror picture, black comedy, and classic gangsters American pictures, Cul-de-Sac is a parody of all these genres and also a tragedy. Hopelessness, humiliation, perversion - constant motifs of his films -, are presented here below a thick veil of grotesque. The arrival to the castle of a wounded gangster who tries to be rescued by his boss, and his immediate physical and mental domain of the hostages, untie openly the woman's despise of her husband, the cowardice and vulnerability of him and both dependence on the intruder. The couple breeds chicken and the chicken seem fulfill the function that had the chorus in the Greek tragedy, Polanski is mocking in this way the solemnity of the serious genre that notwithstanding has adopted. Like in others of his films, the director remits to scenes of his former works and make also homage to some admired creators - Hitchcock's The Birds, for instance (when some birds descend on the courtyard of the castle in the manner of the mentioned picture, but without the expected consequences (another game of Polanski). The Godot of this story, Katelbach, like that of Beckett, will never appear and, in this case, shall leave a message exempting himself of any responsibility. Nobody expected shall come to rescue, the woman will escape with a new lover, the gangster is murdered by the landlord and the landlord will lament, sitting on a rock in the sea, his infinite misery. Counting with a suggestive photography by Gil Taylor, who plays smartly with shadows and lights, Polanski likes to pursue the spectators with sudden movements of the camera that show the characters withdrawing from or running over the spectators, who sometimes serve as the supposed mirror where the fictional creatures are looking at themselves. The formal perfection of many scenes could not dissimulate some serious downfall of rhythm and excessive stereotype of characters and not few dialogs. The film is perhaps too much long and repetitive, but this apparent fault contributes to intensify the atmosphere of obsession and dismay, which are considered principal marks of the director's pessimist vision of world.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
10/10
All your nightmares - with laughs
ben-345-73971620 March 2015
Warning: Spoilers
A totally far fetched situation is made utterly credible by the sheer craft of the filming - from the first scene where the Morris Minor collapses on its suspension every time Dickie sits down again - and the meticulous attention to detail in performances, dialogue and setting. Lionel Stander (like a Spaghetti Western thug) invades the home of George and Theresa, and whilst of course George is a wimp and possibly impotent too, as a middle class, middle aged married man I can't help wondering what the hell *I* would do in that situation. And given Pleasance's superb performance, that brings out George's vulnerability, he had my sympathy (if not liking) all the way through. The playing is incredibly naturalistic, and I suspect there may be some improvisation there, particularly in that exceptionally long shot beach scene (a remarkably long take for a dialogue scene shot out of doors in England). The language is very natural, the conversation follows its own course, as is so often the way when people are drunk. Dorleac is absolutely gorgeous, playing straight into the camera (it stands in for the bedroom mirror) as she puts on her dress and makeup, and the tragedy of her loss - her early death - shines through with every breath she takes. And another star of the film is Lindisfarne Castle. What stunned me a few years ago when I was in Northumberland is that you can go over to Holy Island (tides permitting) and then you'll see the iconic outline of the Castle, then you climb up to it (up slopes much too steep to really push a Morris Minor!)and virtually every room is unchanged from the film. You still the big oak settle by the kitchen fireplace, you still see the curly wood posts on the bed, and those stairs with the column at the top, and lots of other places. Even settings that look like studio scenes are in fact real rooms you can see. There's nothing about the film in the displays in the castle though. Obviously this is not a movie that appeals to most National Trust members. That, I would say, is their loss. This has got to be one of the top ten best British films.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
Weird and Bizarre
Claudio Carvalho29 March 2008
The wounded criminal Richard "Dicky" (Lionel Stander) and his dying partner Albie (Jack MacGowran) seek for shelter in an old seaside castle full of chickens and owned by the eccentric and coward American George (Donald Pleasence) and his slut French wife Teresa (Françoise Dorléac). While waiting for the rescue of his boss, Albie dies and Dicky develops a strange relationship with the odd couple.

The cult and awarded black comedy "Cul-de-sac" is a weird and bizarre movie. I do not know whether this sort of non-sense humor is dated or works for European, but in my concept most of the jokes are not funny. Nevertheless it is worthwhile watching this film, first because it is one of the first works of the great director Roman Polanski, and also because it is one of the last works of Catherine Deneuve's sister Francoise Dorleac, who prematurely died in 1967 when her sports car crashed and burned in Nice, France. My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Armadilha do Destino" ("Trap from the Destiny")
5 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
7/10
Polanski - As If You Didn't Know...
michael-115129 December 2006
I was aware of this film for many years but knew nothing about it, apart from the fact, Polanski directed it. I've always, anyway, been a greater fan of the less lauded Polish director, Jerzy Skolimowski, director of the 1970 classic, Deep End.

Cul De Sac is a comedy without laughs, a suspense film without tension, an allegory without obvious allegorical juxtaposition, it nevertheless, maintains a brooding atmosphere and elicits splendid performances from Donald Pleasance as the wimpish, effete keeper of the castle, Francois Dorleac, his sensual wife of ten months standing and Lionel Stander, as the wounded American gangster entering their quaint, secluded,confined, Northumbrian world. The black and white contours of the coast is matched by the elegance and beauty of Dorleac during her regular,unclothed, associations with the water; she has an aura of vulnerability, more so, when I learnt she died in a car crash a year or so after making this film, aged 25.

Some of the dialogue is piquant, but I liked the scene in which ulcer-suffering Pleasance is forced to drink alcohol by the gun-toting Yank and becomes almost human, thereafter. Not a good advert for Alcoholics Anonymous.

When some interlopers appear, the film loses some of it's claustrophobic edginess, but I enjoyed seeing the late William Franklyn in a cameo, taking Dorleac's home-made hooch nervously to his lips, raising an eyebrow and saying "excellent". He later made his name in TV ads in the UK, drinking tonic water and similar, each time uttering an immortal phrase, hinting at the brand name: "Sch, you know who..." In this case, we all know who is behind this interesting period piece.... Polanski, as if you didn't know.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
6/10
Pleasantly surprised! Not a waste of time.
Space_Lord23 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
Watched this film last night, part of a Polanski DVD box set a friend lent me.

After a bungled job, two injured criminals hide out in an 11th century castle owned by a retired businessman (George) and his hot young wife (Teresa).

One of the criminals, Dicky, soon establishes his dominance over the couple and threatens them if they don't help while he waits for his boss Katelbach. A group dynamic is soon formed where the weak-willed, ineffectual George is walked all over by both Dicky and his wife.

Personally, my favourite sequence in the movie is where George's pompous friends arrive unexpectedly and Dicky is forced to act as the couple's gardener! During this, George finally grows some balls and tells his so called friends exactly what he thinks of them. This liberating experience sets the tone for the rest of the film as George struggles to maintain a sense of dignity without offending his captor, all the while being cuckolded by his wife.

Once again Polanski manages to build a feeling of rising tension throughout the film. Some beautifully shot sequences, sharp dialogue and great character interaction make this a great film to watch if you've got some time to kill.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
5/10
Emotional dead end
goldgreen26 June 2011
The opening scene is beautifully shot, the acting is of a high standard and Polanski overall is showing himself to be a promising director here. This is all very well, but the film works the audience far too hard. There is not a single soul or thing in the film we get to like. At first we root a little for the couple in the castle against the gangsters who interrupt their idyll. Then we find the inhabitants are either weak, flighty or deranged. Every time someone new enters we find they are despicable too. Even the island and castle is constantly derided by the gangsters with little comeback from the inhabitants. The music on the stereo is excruciating, as is the art painted by the Donald Pleasance character and the vodka made by his French wife. Films should be either uplifting, scary, educational, funny or should say something deep about the human soul, this film does none of that. It all just feels clever-clever and pointless.
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
3/10
Boring and Pointless
kenjha22 March 2011
A pair of criminals takes refuge at a beach-front castle owned by an Englishman and his French wife. Perhaps Polanski's worst film, this works neither as a comedy, nor as a thriller. The script is boring and pointless. The humor is forced and unfunny. The cinematography is so poor that it looks like a low-budget home movie. The acting is mostly bad. Pleasence is such a dweeb that it's hard to believe that he would manage to nab a hot wife like Dorleac. Stander turns in the most interesting performance, although that's not saying much. Pleasence overacts. Dorleac, who died at age 25 a few months after this film was released, is attractive but her English is incomprehensible.
4 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
2/10
Raw Eggs & Lots of Chickens Do Not a Movie Make
LemonLadyR19 September 2015
I am a big Polanski fan and finally got around to watching this early movie of his. It appears to be low budget, but nicely shot, nonetheless. I love the environments he creates, and this wonderful castle used for the location is the most alive thing in the movie (if it hadn't been used for some slapstick comedy and thus falling apart). Some of the acting is reasonable (Jacqueline Bisset in an early, but non-speaking role, alas, is the most interesting thing, really; wish there was more of her or she had lines). Even with the few good things I listed, the movie misses on almost all cylinders, even though Polanski attempts, and almost succeeds, in making an old plot into something new, and into a black comedy as well (although it really is a rather 'gray' black comedy). It is a character study but they are all so distasteful that that fails. A very irritating movie, overall, due to the characters. I guess Polanski is a human director, after all! It could not be further from his other movies. The tragic murder of his wife, Sharon Tate, plus his later legal problems, have not happened by this release, so no obvious excuse for this self-indulgent film.
3 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? | Report this
loading
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews