The Visitors II: The Corridors of Time (1998) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
19 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
10/10
Everytime I feel depressed I have another look at Couloirs du temps. Great uplifter!!!
maria_goodenough21 November 2000
Typical slapstick French comedy with social analysis overtones (good study of global village "nouveaux riches" with their affectations and electronic toys). I am a European living in Australia and was brought up viewing films from all over Europe when I lived there. This movie really caught my fancy. Well acted (I am a great fan of Jean Reno anyway) and Christian Clavier is truly versatile in his 3 different characterisations. Great to view when Life is not treating you too well. Very amusing and refreshing. Also excellent to keep my French language skills alive (especially the slang - mortecuille!!!).
21 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Enjoyable sequel
sarastro719 February 2005
Les Visiteurs (1993) is probably my favorite French movie; I've watched it loads of times and I think the entertainment value is through the roof. It's a movie that does nothing wrong, and I have awarded it a coveted "10" rating.

It was only a month ago that I learned of the existence of the somewhat low-profile 1998 sequel, Couloirs du Temp. I scrambled to find it, and now I have. I was afraid it might be terrible (as most of the few user comments here are certainly pretty hard on it), but to my delight it was pretty damn good. Of course not in league with the original, and several plot points were rather contrived, and a number of the gags went a bit out of hand, but overall I had a great time watching it. There were lots of laughs, lots of crazy situations, and lots of really good ideas. This sequel afforded us the chance to get to know Cousin Hube's side of the family, which I thought was brilliant. I think most of the inspiration and fun from the first movie were excellently maintained here, and I was impressed with the substance and complexity of the story. And I loved the way the soundtrack riffed the "Back To The Future" theme!

I almost want to rate this sequel an "8", but several factors contribute to its ending up a "7". Some of the plot developments weren't great, and the end in particular seemed to just complicate matters unnecessarily, while not being especially intriguing.

Probably the single biggest thing that was wrong with this movie was that Hube's fiancée was played by a different actress than in the first movie. This was a real shame, I thought.

Thus, a 7 out of 10 rating, but an entertaining and hilarious movie none the less! Absolutely recommended for fans of the original.
18 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Noisy, unfunny, an extremely painful experience … what were they thinking?
ElMaruecan8221 May 2012
Warning: Spoilers
My initial reaction when I knew about the "The Visitors"'s upcoming sequel was 'Why?' What could ever get funnier than one of the funniest French comedies, and what's more, that ended in a very satisfying way? The film had to deal with the case of Jacquard who was sent in the Middle-Ages? Well, that was supposed to be a final gag, the punch line of a great comedy… I mean, would you have wanted a "Some Like it Hot" sequel to know if Osgood Jr. and Daphne would really be married?

This is the first of several reasons for which this film should never have been made: NO REASON TO BE! Not to mention that they waited for five years, the actors obviously changed and they couldn't get the whole casting back. Of course, this is nothing compared to the most painful casting aspect: the replacement of Valérie Lemercier by Muriel Robin. NO VALERIE LEMERCIER! To those who think that the absence of Tom Hagen ruined "The Godfather Part III", keep in mind that he was replaced by another character while Muriel Robin was supposed to be Béatrice (and Frénégonde) de Montmirail, and no one could seriously buy it, especially after Lemercier created such an unforgettable character. Only a good script could have redeemed Lemercier's absence, but the script is probably the worst thing about the film.

While the intelligence of the first opus was to use fantastic elements only to serve some key scenes, in the sequel, there is an abundance of subplots, of time travels, of goings back and forth that's it's impossible to keep track on everyone and even worse, the script probably features the most exhaustive list of incoherences and continuity issues. In fact, there's simply NO CONTINUITY: Godefroy never drugged the Chief of Police, there was no reason for Béatrice to believe that Ginette was from the Middle-Age just because she wanted to marry Jacquouille (and it was supposed to serve a comical subplot), why would Jacquard find a cell-phone in his pocket since he's coming from 1992 and why should the Duke's jewelery be missing since they were stolen during his funerals … that never happened after Godefroy's come-back?

Well, I might forgive the last one because the first opus didn't deal with time travel issues with more accuracy, but it was still making sense. Besides, it was the plot's starting point, the whole issue about the missing jewels, which left "The Corridors of Time" open, threatening the world with a series of disasters. They made it such a big thing, that the film oscillated between dark moments very unsettling for a comedy and too many buffoonish situations that were not even funny, even by artificially exploiting the same tricks than the first, even with the creation of lame catchphrases. Obviously, they had the budget, the late 90's typical CGI-driven effects. I could have forgiven the blatant displays of product placements (as it can be seen as a realistic touch) but I couldn't spot one miserable redeeming quality.

Instead of a solid story with a few good laughs, "The Visitors II" provides an assemblage of disjointed gags and sketches that try to make the movie funny every time through such a chaotic editing that it makes you wonder what the hell they were thinking. The film is one of the noisiest you'll ever see, going from the cheapest jokes, toilet and cream pie humor at its worst. Are we supposed to laugh when Jacquouille throws eggs on a supermarket manager's face? Is Jacquouille even supposed to act this way? He was a funny sidekick, but not a buffoon, here, the film could have been subtitled the "Clavier Show", making him more unbearable than Beatrice's looks and Ginette's make-up combined. Every part was overacted, the Police Officer who wanted to prove Jacquard's alcoholism, Cora the snobby bitchy wife, her dull daughter … just look at the entrance of the woman who comes for a dental visit and you'll have an idea.

Another unnecessary subplot involves Jacquard's torture that made him prone to pee everywhere, a random encounter with Jacquouille's brother, and even more random, Jean-Pierre's accidental travel in time. Why did they do that since it wasn't funny and didn't seem to affect the character? The film went in all directions and it was so difficult to stay focused that all I waited for was the mess to stop. Though it had its moments, after one hour and four minutes, the miracle happened with perhaps one of the funniest French comedic moments, the scary close-up on a screaming Jean Reno. But one, two or three hilarious gags can't redeem a near-two-hour nonsense, the ending could have saved it, but there was NO ENDING!

Since they made such a big deal about "The Corridors of the Time" and the way they would destroy not only Godefroy's lineage but the whole world, what were they thinking with that ending? it's not even a gag, it's indeed a disaster, and the sight of Godefroy the Brave ready to fight and getting a bullet in his sword was very disturbing and not funny at all. Did they do this just to follow the 'Clavier show" and show (another) descendant of Jacquouille as Bonaparte's counselor? Or did they think so much of the film that they felt it deserved a sequel? Well, the film still did well, 8 millions of spectators, but even the authors are not fooled by these statistics, people came expecting to laugh as much as for the first, rediscovering endearing characters who penetrate pop-culture immediately, for an inevitable disappointment.

No ending, no continuity, no Valérie Lemercier, no reason to be, the film is just a bunch of 'No's …even in the 'making of', Poiré, Clavier, Reno and al, had at least the decency to admit in the making-of that this 'was not as good as' the first one.
13 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Best French medieval movie
goshgorry14 January 2013
Warning: Spoilers
1000% super comical. This film has it all. There's no lying I've watched it over and over and still want to watch it again. I like how Jacqouille messes up with everything along his way. One problem though is their medieval French that is quite hard to catch but this adds to the laughter as their obsolete Moliere slang blends funnily with modern French slang.

My best part is where the duo steals a police van but don't know how to drive it, when Jacqouille accidentally disengages the handbrake, the vehicle races downhill and he keeps shouting at it like a horseman. The wedding reception is also one scene not to forget about. They spoil a party and spoil it again before continuing to spoil it.
7 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
If you like Leslie Nielson films, you'll like this one
rhumpert5 October 2000
Nice slapstick comedy. Has the usual flaw of this genre: May get tedious, exhaust the viewer. In flaws and jokes comparable to Leslie Nielson films, but French, which is a change as the humor is a bit different. Builds a nice whole with part 1, and hopefully part 3 in the future. Because of story, gags and differing style, recommended.
7 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Correct film for pass the time
SUPERNOVA HEIGHTS23 August 2003
The second part of "les visiteurs" is worse than the first one,but it is not a reason for say that it is an awful film (I have watched worse film than this one)

The film is similar than the other but with new a nice jokes,but the screenwriter would have done a better work.

Jean Reno is a good actor (Leon is his best Role) but Christian Clavier get worse in "les visiteurs 2" because he uses the same way to do the jokes (In asterix he plays better)

"Les visiteurs 2":Good film.
11 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
What were they thinking?
MultiMediaHouse2 July 2007
Les Visiteurs, the first movie about the medieval time travelers was actually funny. I like Jean Reno as an actor, but there was more. There were unexpected twists, funny situations and of course plain absurdness, that would remind you a little bit of Louis de Funes.

Now this sequel has the same characters, the same actors in great part and the same time traveling. The plot changes a little, since the characters now are supposed to be experienced time travelers. So they jump up and down in history, without paying any attention to the fact that it keeps getting absurder as you advance in the movie. The duke, Jean Reno, tries to keep the whole thing together with his playing, but his character has been emptied, so there's not a lot he can do to save the film.

Now the duke's slave/helper, he has really all the attention. The movie is merely about him and his being clumsy / annoying / stupid or whatever he was supposed to be. Fact is; this character tries to produce the laughter from the audience, but he does not succeed. It is as if someone was telling you a really very very bad joke, you already know, but he insists on telling that joke till the end, adding details, to make your suffering a little longer.

If you liked Les Visiteurs, do not spoil the taste in your mouth with the sequel. If you didn't like Les Visiteurs, you would never consider seeing the sequel. If you liked this sequel... well, I suppose you still need to see a lot of movies.
10 out of 25 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
More irritation than fun
thegarf22 January 1999
In a way, Corridors of Time is a success story because the movie reaches its goal : being seen by thousands. But it fails at making them laugh...

Les Visiteurs has had its success, because the subject was an original way of considering the time travel : forget about Zemeckis's Back to the future, here comes the old France, the middle-age knight and its nearly barbaric way of life. Full of pride, funny thanks to the ancient words he uses, Montmirail can sometimes be disgusting but he keeps his honor. Then comes the sequel.

Nobody had foreseen the tremendous success of Les Visiteurs, the first. And it's no use being a movie expert to realize that the Corridors of Time has been made for money.

The general story begins after the end of Les Visiteurs, and immediately tries to justify the sequel with a time paradox that would have needed some second tought. Explanation : it's no use trying to get back the jewelry Jacquouille has stolen ; don't you remember this nice red shiny and expensive car he bought at the end of the 1st episode ? Where do you think he found the money ? Selling the jewelry... And that's only one of many holes Poiré tries to avoid... and fails.

Let's have a look at the characters : Montmirail doesn't change, he's just a little more boring. Regarding Frenegonde... that's another story : Valérie Lemercier decided not to compromise herself in this sequel to avoid getting stuck in the bourgeoise role. And Muriel Robin tries to imitate her in a way that I found so pitiful I nearly felt pain for her. And Poiré doesn't realize that a cast of humorists isn't enough to make a good comedy.

Forget about the time travels, about the digital effects, concentrate on the story and you'll see that there's enough room on a mail stamp to write it 10 times.

The main interest of this film is the landscapes. A movie for youngsters, let's say up to 13 years old.
11 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Maybe one of the worst editing ever!
jraf22 April 2003
Everybody who wants to be an editor should watch this movie! It shows you about every mistake not to do in editing a movie! My grandma could have done better than that! But that's not the only reason why this movie is really bad! (It's actually so bad that I'm not able to write a sentence without exclamation mark!) If the first episode of ‘Les Visiteurs' was a quite good familial comedy with funny jokes and cult dialogues, this sequel is copying badly the receipe of the first one. The funny parts could be counted on one hand and maybe half of it. Clavier is over-acting his role even more than in the first part, Robin is trying to act like Lemercier (because she's replacing her) but that's ‘grotesque'. Lemercier is Lemercier, Robin is Robin! Even if Muriel Robin can be funny by herself on stage, she is not in this movie because she's not acting as she used to act. I know that it should be hard to replace somebody who was good in a role (Lemercier obtained a César award for her role in the first movie) but she made a big mistake: instead of playing her role, she played ‘Lemercier playing her role'! As for the story, it's just too much! Of course we knew at he end of the first movie that there would be a sequel but Poiré and Clavier should hae tried to write a more simple story like the first episode. The gags are repetitive, childish and déjà-vu. No, really, there's no more than 3 funny parts in this. The only good things might be the costumes and some special effects. So you have only 2 reasons to watch it: 1) if you want to learn how to edit awfully a movie, 2) if you want to waste your time or if you really need a ‘brainless moment'! 2/10
10 out of 30 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
With Muriel Robin, 7 millions tickets less (tv)
leplatypus28 April 2016
For no french people, imagine « doc brown » played by Denis Hooper for the sequels of « BTF » ! It would be a tragic, inappropriate casting that kills the magic of the movie and that's what happens there : it's funny to see that the opening scene exposing the previous story re-shots the scene exactly like « BTF » did it with the new Jennifer ! With this Robin, we have a big, sad potato playing, void of any talent, charm and who fails miserably to do what Lemercier excels ! She really destroys the movie or at least all the scenes she is involved ! You can see that there's much money in the production as the medieval scenes are really detailed ! It's fun to be back to the same locations and meet again the postman ! Sure, unlike « BTF », the time travels aren't not the opportunity to deepen the characters or their relationship as Reno and Clavier do exactly the same fun and chaos than previously ! I don't really understand the motive to this second travel : why Jacquouille just don't give back the necklace in 1193 or why the Duke is ill due to this missing necklace ? It isn't lost in time or in the future as it's hidden in 1193 ??? At the end, it's indeed a crippled sequel, yet funny but without any originality and just plagued by an hideous, unmotivated cave-girl !
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A bad nightmare!
drj919 January 2005
This film is so bad and gets worse in every imaginable fashion. Its not just the poor acting and script nor is it the lame and perverse time one wastes on watching it. What really puts this film in my hall of shame is the apparent struggling that the writers and producers do with the film to try and make it funny. The actress replacing Jean Reno's descendant is to old and learned her lesson in the first film so they add a new girl who is to be married. Nearly all of the original extras and gags return however this time makes me want to ripe my eyes out of my sockets because it's a waste of perfectly good film. The torture of the constant camera cuts and shots in any scene in this movie can put the viewer into violent convolutions. This second film takes the successful original and drags it out of its coffin and parades the corpse out in the public square and perversely degrades not only the original idea and its legacy but our intelligence as well. This film unlike the spruce goose could not fly for it had no plot in the principals returning for a 'necklace'. No script since it was apparently written and added to daily. No attention to camera or shots in mind. Poor lighting and special effects done for the sake of doing so. This film would not even pass for a student film in basic Film 101. How this pile got through no one can tell. It was a big loosing investment and it appears that no one had the strength to put this unnatural cruel mistake out of our miseries. This movie has one good part ...its END! This film is my #1 worst film of all time, finally "Howard The Duck" is no longer the goose.
10 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
is this movie "OKAY"? Definitely not!
dbdumonteil20 May 2003
In 1993, "the visitors" was an enormous hit in France. So, the sequence was inevitable and unfortunately, this sequence ranks among the worst ones ever made.

This is a movie that doesn't keep its promises. Indeed, it's supposed to tell a sole story. Jean Reno must go in the twentieth century and take Christian Clavier back in the Middle Ages so that time can normally follow its course. The problem is that Clavier feels completely at ease in the world of the twentieth century, and so make him get back in the Middles Ages is rather hard... Instead of this, the movie goes on several other stories without succeeding in following the main plot. As a consequence, the movie becomes sometimes muddle-headed, sometimes a bit of a mess.

But the movie also suffers from the performance of nearly all the actors. Reno and Clavier fall into the trap that however they could avoid in the first movie: they're going over the top and become annoying. Then, why did Jean-Marie Poiré the film-maker engage Muriel Robin in the female main role? He made a mistake because she seems ill-at-ease and is absolutely pitiful. The other actors aren't better: Marie-Anne Chazel is nonexistent and Christian Bujeau, unbearable.

Of course, the movie contains a few good moments with efficient gags but it often falls into vulgarity and easiness. Certain sequences and dialogs are affected. It also appears hollow because Poiré takes back elements that secured the success of the first movie. Thus, a young girl takes Reno for a close relative of her family and asks him to take part in her wedding.

A labored and disappointing follow-up. Anyway, what's the interest of this movie otherwise commercial?
10 out of 35 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Far cry from original
smartashvili_28 September 2018
Such a disappointment. To keep it short, It's basically a dumbed down and cheaply made version of the original film. Everything got downgraded: characters, humor, plot and even editing. Jokes are just shouting and childish slapstick humor. Plot is ridiculous (even for a medieval movie about time travel). Jacquouille is dumbed down to the point that his version from the first movie looks smart.

I feel sorry for Jean Renault, how did he get himself into this mess (and to know that there are two more sequels).
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
Jacquouille was painfully annoying in this
anders-n-aa-larsson18 October 2020
Just the Jacquouille character made this sequel unbearable to watch. In the first movie he was a funny sidekick. In this one he acts more like an intolerable crazy screaming monkey at the zoo, than a human. Or an irritating howling toddler at the cinema, that just won't shut up. Through the whole movie!
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
from hero to zero
zzapper-227 December 2001
The original "les visiteurs" was original, hilarious, interesting, balanced and near perfect. LV2 must be a candidate for "Worst first sequel to a really good film". In LV2 everyone keeps shouting, when a gag doesn't work first it's repeated another 5 times with some vague hope that it will eventually become funny. LV2 is a horrible parody of LV1, except of course that a parody should be inventive. If you loved LV1 just don't see this film, just see LV1 again!!
8 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Fabulously boring
thegarf21 January 1999
Corridors of time. The movie you can watch if you're looking for a sophisticated way of suicide. Some use guns, ropes, or gas, but you want to ruin your brains ? Do not wait any longer ! Corridors of time is probably one of the biggest possible mistakes : thinking Christian Clavier is able to act and to bring you fun. I do not miss the 45 francs this poor thing cost me : sometimes, one has to reset its evaluation system looking at the absolute zero. This film deserves a 2/10, but that's only because I like Jean Reno. Too bad for him, he also stars in Ronin. I think I'm gonna dislike him...
5 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Recycling
Bored_Dragon21 March 2019
"The Visitors II" is a direct sequel to the first film and it continues the story in the same manner, but it doesn't bring anything new and fresh and just recycles the original. Jean Reno and Christian Clavier are expectedly good, and in all other aspects, the movie is decent but lame. I was bored.

5/10
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
American style ?
volty_x6 November 2009
The Visiteurs 1 is one of my preferred, the sequel is one of the few movies I just cannot keep watching (one of others being Borat). Enough was said by the other members above, I want to add 'primitive'. The degeneration I suspect lies in somewhat similar to Wertmuller's Swept Away http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073817/ that is a masterpiece (but a local one, you have to know well Italy - or Mediterranean to appreciate it) vs Guy Ritchie's & Madonna's Swept Away http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0291502/ I've seen few others (e.g. acting Banderas) remakes / sequels degeneration. Apart from personal tastes / what editor must not do, why do Americans remake already nice movies? I clearly felt this influence (and later read about Visiteurs 3) at the beginning and random jumping in Visitors II.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

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


Recently Viewed