User reviews

The story of hungarian director michael curtiz, while putting together the film casablanca. And dealing with his own love life issues. The opening scenes are a bit sensationalist... a dinner, where we hear both sides of the argument. Some wish to be protectionist, some want to get involved and stop wars where they start. Ferenc lengyel is michael curtiz, director. He wants to make this film, but the studio isn't sure where they want it to go. The music is out of control... always dramatic and fantastic. Not sure why. It's a netflix release..... a bit spacey, ethereal, over the top. Big band numbers always in the background. Lots of discussion between jack warner and hal wallis, who had produced several humphrey bogart films, and also a bunch of elvis movies. Towards the end, curtiz is shown to be a tyrant on the set, angry at the film code rep, who insists that everything must be shown to be patriotic. It's watchable. Directed by tamas topolanszky. He has written and directed a few projects, and received film festival awards for his work.

This Hungarian production focuses on an unlikely "local hero". Michael Curtiz was a very prolific director who arrived in the US in the late Twenties, after having directed over 60 films in Europe.

Besides being prolific he was also versatile. A true "studio system" director and not an "auteur" famous for a genre or style, he never achieved great fame but did achieve great financial success. He also had a reputation for being difficult and for his dreadful English. See the "poodles" scene :-)

The plot is a fictional tale about Curtiz's estranged daughter, Kitty, coming to Hollywood and wanting to get to know daddy, during the filming of Casablanca. It is interesting to see some Casablanca sets, like Rick's Cafe partially recreated and luckily we get only glimpses of main characters Bogey and Bergman.

For unknown reasons Curtiz doesn't tell anybody that Kitty is his daughter and, given his womaniser reputation, everybody - his wife included - thinks Kitty is yet another "dame". This create some friction and minor misunderstandings, while the twins scriptwriters are busy improvising new scenes, making it up as they go. Until the very last moment nobody knew how the movie would end and they finally came up with a great ending to please almost everybody.

Casablanca was supposed to be yet another wartime movie to boost moral and it's unlikely it received special attention from the secret service, although an agent plays the "baddie".

The movie has great black&white photography, an excellent soundtrack with period songs not overused and great costumes. Shame about the acting, barely decent. The actress playing Kitty is the worst of the bunch, totally unable to be convincing but she also has the difficult task to carry the secondary, absurd main plot.

With the right title, a different angle and better actors, it could have been a great movie.

I actually watched this film twice on Netflix. The second time I had a friend with me who loves Casablanca and claims to have seen it at least 50 times. He really liked this film and found the parts about the filming of Casablanca rewarding. We do wonder how much of the personal story is true, i.e. was Curtiz's daughter really on the set of Casablanca. For those who complained there were no subtitles for the Hungarian language scenes, in Netflix you must turn on subtitles. I have them on all the time as I am hard of hearing. It would be to your benefit to re-watch the film with the subtitles on.

I award this film three stars for its somewhat successful mimicking of Curtiz's technique, which in any case was a rip-off of Orsen Welles' techniques, but that is more stars than this film deserves.

Michael Curtiz was hardly an artist, he was a prolific but average studio owned director with a lot, a whole lot, of mediocre sentimental films but nothing notable with the exception of Casablanca.

Casablanca has a huge popular cultural impact, and it is a loved film, but it is hardly an achievement from a directorial point of view. The most notable and loved aspects of Casablanca are the score eg "as time goes by"/a kiss is but a kiss...", which Curtiz himself opposed; the dozen or so immensely notable one liners ("I am shocked, shocked) which were the sole creation of the writers, the Epstein brothers; the casting of Bogart who fit the role perfectly and which Curtiz had nothing to do with; and the serendipitous way the screenplay's narrative fit perfectly with Americana's view about their intervention in the war. None of those were the result of anything Curtis did or decided.

This film also invents a storyline in which Curtiz is harassed by some shadowy US government representatives trying to promote a patriotic message, when in fact the reason d'etre of the film was seen as a vehicle for exactly that by producer Wallis and by Wanrer brothers from the get go. There is no evidence Curtiz ever in the period had has patriotism questioned or that he was threatened by any government officials. He was hired as director because he had a record of getting things done quickly, adequately, and within budget, and despite that he went over budget and well outside of schedule. That garnered pressure from the studio -- nothing else did.

The only alteration by semi-government officials at all in Casablanca was removal of the direct reference to the Vichy French official trading visas for sexual favors out of standard prudery in film standards of the time. This is is a irony lost on the makers of "Curtiz" since they downplay the fact that Curtiz was top predator in the 'casting couch' tradition and he spent his career abusing his power over young actresses. The unintended irony is that Curtiz behaved like that Vichy official! Curtiz also left a trail of illegitimate children (when he could not convince the woman to have an abortion) whom he did not support.

Frankly this is a "message" film with a fake message. I get that the Hungarian makers of this tripe want to celebrate their native son who went to America and did well. But I suspect that they decided on the subject since making it about film-maker they are then guaranteed to get placement in the increasingly narcissistic and self referential film festivals. Frankly a story about Hungarian born Monica Selles, or Edward Teller would have been more interesting.

Lastly there are a few juvenile and artificial attempts to make the film timely. If you are unforgotten enough to watch "Curtiz" look for someone dropping the line "make America great again." That is so snarky and forced that it is beyond idiotic -- especially when we are talking about a time when the US did save Europe and people like Curtiz, and millions of Europeans fled the statist oppression of communism and fascism in Europe specifically because of its greatness.

It is my belief that this film is not intended to be one "based on a true story", not a factual tale. I sincerely did not look up as to what happened on the set of Casablanca I doubt that most of what is depicted on-screen happened, but the film should be interpreted rather as a sort of reinvention, a dramatization. Thus, explained the reason for the b/w coloring: it reminds the viewer that this is not real, that it's a film. The only colour seen is the red of the "On air" light when shootings are rolling, as to suggest that those moments that we don't ever see are more real. Yet, we never actually see cameras rolling in those scenes, we don't see but the fictional story presented to us. The story incorporates a great deal of classic hollywood nostalgia, some nods to the practices that the metoo movement nowadays rightfully criticises. Ferenc Lengyel shares a damning resemblance to Michael Curtiz. His character is not presented as a positive figure, in my opinion, nor an auteur. He is a corporate director, he doesn't write the script or has creative freedom, and the film presents him in such terms. The whole movie is encompassed by some very stunning noir cinematography, several continuous takes, it's a feast for the eye. The language is mostly english, often spoken by hungarian actors, so in some cases you can hear the accent. It's not too much of a con for me, but I wanted to notify it. This is Topolanszky's first full-lenght feature. As a debut, it is quite remarkable. I'm interested in seeing more of him.

One of the few grinnable moments. Dark and confusing. No sympathetic characters. Depressing account of the greatest film ever made.

I expected more of this great director's bio and not just his frustrations on Casablanca.

An almost amateurish film school approach to movie making. Tries real hard to be artsy. Plenty of center lighting and angle shots. And revolving cameras. And that's a problem. The director simply doesn't know when to stop the moving cameras! They keep going round in circles until the viewer becomes almost nauseous. I can't believe this film ever survived a test audience. Also much of the dialogue is spoken in Hungarian without subtitles. So, were these words necessary to the story line? We can only conclude that they weren't. Throw in a lot of gratuitous sex scenes and an unconvincing subplot and you have something that would have received a B for effort but a D minus for execution in any reputable film school.

I'm not sure i get why this is panned as much as it is. What was the expectation? I mean anyone w/ an instrument can play 'Wagon Wheel'; but if they play it especially well, what's not to appreciate? It's monochrome to reflect the period & theme & the art form it is an homage to. It is stylized as such & states it is a work of fiction out of the gate. The lighting & cinematography is beautiful, the sound design & editing work hand in hand, & the performances are excellent- tho also a match to the period/genre's somewhat heightened sensibilities. Sure it could be called 'pretentious fim school' stuff; but if anyone can make a movie that looks & sounds & functions as well, they've done a fine job. I'd like to see any disparaging critic show something better. All art is subjective & a matter of opinion in the end. A critic can say the story worked & why; for me, I love the genre & the history, I appreciate the technical effort behind the shooting & editing. The actors are believable & expressive. The editing dialogue & sound all work to move things forward... A critic can point out what doesn't work. If the 'noir' genre &/or period or history aren't your thing, this might not be. If you're expecting a biopic, thisnt isn't that, as details of Cuttiz's life are left as ambiguous as his personal morals. If you're expecting a detailed 'making of' of Casablanca, it isn't that either. As a critic I can say, it is more about the ideas of art vs. artist, & those expectations surrounding the role of that art & those artists in the circumstances of war. So, see it, if that sounds in your wheelhouse & you can decide how you feel about it.

I have to watch Casablanca ... asap. And not just because it got canned (by HBO I think) and put back on with a warning, but because of this "making of". Now I believe as someone else has already stated that it romanticises the director of the movie a bit (or a lot?), which may not be such a good thing. Especially in the "woke" era we live in now.

Everything gets checked and cancelled if it does not meet the high or even low standards of anyone being offended. Now certain things are appalling, I've stated so when I watched Rosemarys Baby and it is also true of Breakfast at Tiffanys. There are certain things that through the lense of time look dated to say the least ... having said that, cancelling any and everything is not the solution! You take away the art part of it, you also do not acknowledge a certain period of time. I don't consider blackface to be a funny thing myself, deleting an episode of Community because one Korean (American) actor has it on, is quite the exaggeration to say the least.

Now back to this and what happened back then. Assault, political interference ... a lot of things that can not be considerd nice or fine by any stretch of the imagination. Your viewing will depend on how sensible you are ... or not. Not judging, not being disrespectful, just telling ... whether I'm right or not is debatable ... like the content of the movie and the one this portrays ...

As a film buff whose favorite film is Casablanca and who is very familiar with the great films of Michael Curtiz and his reported antics, this film was grossly disappointing and totally boring. Maybe if I spoke and read Hungarian I would have enjoyed it more. I really don't understand the point of having some of the main characters speaking Hungarian with no sub titles. If the point of the film was having the audience figure out what was going on from the dramatic effect, the film fell flat. The acting was good. The person that played Cuddles Sakall was on the mark. My anticipation in waiting to see this movie was short lived. I could not wait for it to be over.

As a Hungarian living in the US I always love going to see films made by Hungarian filmmakers. This film was very well directed, the cinematography was beautiful with the red glow when they are filming being the only color. The acting great, awesome for Hungarians acting in English!

I do think I'd enjoy this movie a whole lot, as I am a movie buff-and what movie buff doesn't like "Casablanca" and the idea of a fanciful movie about the making of? But, would it have been so difficult for Netflix to provide subtitles for the lengthy Hungarian portions of the movie? Simply stupid.

Eh, the worst part, or is it the best part? Is that Curtiz's heavy accent rendered him barely understood during the entire movie. Was there no sound man on the set? Although he did have some good lines/insults. This artsy-fartsy black and white film pretends to be high brow, when it's just, well, boring.

I found the film one of the best Hungarian films of the last few years. This movie was truly emotional with wonderful music and appealing acting. The script is clever, does not only show the negative human character of Curtiz but also made him seen as complex as he must have been. I liked the acting of Lengyel in the lead role with his genious way of shaping Curtiz. I think the film is mostly about identity search of a man who is a Hungarian Jewish man living in America, who is a man loving women but also a father, so in this film I can recognise the problematic character of today's person, it is not a film about history, rather a film about human emotions, the complexity of a man's character, about us who try to find ourselves in this chaotic world. Multiculturalism in the 1940's did not differ from that of today. The film made me rewatch many of Curtiz's films, especially Casablanca. I definitely recommend it to anyone who loves the world of movies, who longs for sense and sensibility in films, who would like to see passion for profession.

This movie tries to capture the black and white movies of the 1940s....but falls really flat! The acting is terrible, the dialog stilted and the continuity lacking. Could not take more than 20 minutes of this. A total waste of time.

For decades, I've been drawn to the pictures of Michael Curtiz and have always wondered why he wasn't mentioned along the likes of Frank Capra, Howard Hawks and other long-time successful studio directors.

I had learned he was a tyrant on the set, but never looked further into the man.

Now, after screening director Tamás Yvan Topolánszky's movie, Curtiz, I'm about to order bio books on the complex and controversial filmmaker.

While the film takes several liberties in telling how Curtiz battled personal and professional battles in the making of Casablanca - one of cinema's most revered films - it is still an honest look at a man's demonic compulsions and his inability to control the devil within.

Curtiz, is an exceptionally well made film. Topolánszky's camera soaks up the smoke, shadows and spotlights in every frame and actors Ferenc Lengyel, as the title character, and Evelin Dobos, as his estranged daughter, are sensational.

I love the look of noir-like black and white cinematography and Topolánszky's uses it here not for ostentatious reasons, but to illuminate the main character's motives.

There's even a clever use of the color red to symbolize Curtiz's only love - moviemaking.

At the end of Topolánszky's film, one other color is revealed when a projector's light flashes the completed Casablanca. The color is blue which typically symbolizes high-quality.

That's what Curtiz, the filmmaker always delivered and, now, Curtiz, the movie, does, too.

For lovers of cinema, this is a must-see. And for Topolánszky... I hope this is the start of a beautiful relationship with him and big-time movie-making.

It is a very great film. All the story, the music, the visualisation very professional. The mood with the jazz music and black and white picture are fit to the theme. We get a realistic picture about the genious but diffucult director.

The low budget were filled up with passion.

The sets and costums were fantastic! I would give them credit for that. It was interesting in it's basics and I liked it a little, also I just loved the actor who played Kertész.

Now let's move on to the bad things. The movie was just a nonsense. There were some things that were indeed decided during the production but there was no such drama at all. I don't think they can make up a fake story like that..

The rest of the actors were not good. Especially the girl played by Evelin Dobos. She looked nice but she ends there.

The technical part.. The cinematography! TERRIBLE! There were some longer shots that were just ruined with that spinning camera. The camera was just spinning for no reason at all. HOW can they get a "cinematographer" and a "director" like that? Seriously.. Also, there was no push at all when it was needed..

The red color idea.. Stolen from an other movie. STOP IT. Don't mess with the red color in a black and white movie. It was done before with a much bigger meaning.

The sound.. I don't know how they recorded the sound but many times it was annoying. Did anyone paid attention what they were recording? Not really. Two talking to each other, one of them sounds weird because the sound is messed up (probably the guy with the boom can't even hold it properly and nobody noticed it) and you you can hear even when one of them grabs something in his pocket while they are talking to each other -.-

The music was ok, sometimes out of the world and way too loud..

And after all this I'll just lower my rating to 5, just because of the main actor.

(Worth to check out the ratings on this one. EU voters gave it 7+, most of them 10.. Real users gave around 5-6. That's more realistic.)

This film spoilt a really great film. Lots of lessons how not to make a movie. Though shot with modern equipment it didn't capture the luminous quality of an 80 year old film.

It's very surprising that this movie only shown in the film festival only and not release in the regular movie theaters when it was came out, and that's making it so underrated, because Curtiz is actually a hell of a movie, everything related to the making of a classic movie, plus black and white color, it's always incredible, Mank and Ed Wood, those are 2 of the example, and Curtiz is definitely one of them, the movie fills with such a powerful and amazing performance by these also underrated actor and actress, the cinematography, the shot, the music, and of course the story are all was just fascinating, this movie deserve more than a film festival movie or even a hidden gem on Netflix, Curtiz was an underrated masterpiece.

Much, much too Arsty-Fartsy.... The opening scene at the table goes round and round and round and it made me dizzy and I didn't care to listen to the dialog... From there on the movie was all downhill...

I watched the film Curtiz because I love Casablanca. How come no one said anything about a character named Lucas doodling Mr Spock and the Enterprise while shooting a scene in Casablanca? I am pretty sure Lucas had no part of Star Trek in 1942 or at all.