User reviews

This is a truely great film. The direction of this film is one of the reasons why as every scene is shot with such precision. Also the product design of this film was at the highest level which really helps the film to feel more real and authentic.

Overall this is a great film that I think people should see.

More than 120 years after the events, the Dreyfus case seems to never die. The story of the Jewish officer wrongfully convicted of espionage on the basis of false accusations is reminded every time the honesty, integrity or patriotism of the Jews who choose to live in the Diaspora are questioned. The anti-Semitic slogans propagated by the anti-Dreyfus press and chanted by the angry crowds then are reminded whenever the conspiracy theories bring the Jews to the center of current events. It is not forgotten that one of the side effects of the Dreyfus case was the emergence of the Zionist movement in Europe, which led half a century later to the founding of the State of Israel. Finally, France, the country of democracy and humanism, continues to keep the Dreyfus case as one of its defining moments, a historical warning about the dangers of prejudice and hatred towards strangers that can haunt the most enlightened society. Roman Polanski's 'J'Accuse' is a the latest film tin a series of cinematographic creations that have kept alive the memory and the interest for that moment which refuses to be buried in the oblivion of history.

The main hero of this version is not Dreyfus (played by Louis Garrel) who is little on screen and permanently in the background of the action, but is otherwise presented rather schematically and not in the most positive light. In the center of attention is Georges Picquart (played by Jean Dujardin), the officer who brought to public notice the anti-Semitic conspiracy and the judicial framing that led to Dreyfus's first conviction. His actions and his fight against public opinion, his superiors and a good part of the French political class saved the honor of France and of the army to which he and Dreyfus had dedicated their lives and careers. Far from being a schematic character, Picquart is represented as a complex man of his period, brave and idealistic on one hand, but not without prejudices and personal problems on the other. The titles of the film inform us that the related facts happened in reality, but we must still bear in mind that this is a version of the story based on a novel. Robert Harris's and Roman Polanski's version of the Dreyfus case.

Jean Dujardin's acting seemed exceptional to me. This actor continues to amaze me with each of his new films through the combination of talent and immersion in the roles he plays, with his charisma and personal charm. Of the rest of the distribution I especially notice Mathieu Amalric , another of my favorites. The editing is well filmed, the story runs flawlesly, in the style of classical cinema. It looks like Polanski wanted to make a sober film, in which the emotion derives from the actions of the characters. If we chose to put aside all the disputes regarding the person and the director's past, what we see on screen is a historical film about a crucial moment in the history of France and Europe, made and acted with respect and professionalism.

The story is nothing revolutionary, no extra twist or suprise but the real gem here is the way the story is told and the movie was shot.

In contrast to the oversaturated Hollywood exhaustive action packed style this movie manages to tell the intriguing Dreyfus affair in France 1895 without unnecessary overdone action scenes/music whilst maintaining the core tension of the topic that doesn't let you off the hook.

When the movie was finished I couldn't believe that over 2h were over and I felt pleasantly refreshed and renewed, although I was constantly focused on what will happen next. That's the level of smoothness we are talking about here.

A connection to past Polanski or french movies is definitly visible and this way of storytelling can be thought of as a new take on it.

If you like historical dramas with a good portion of crime you should definitly take a look at this gem.

You know the story. Roman Polanski explores its mechanism. And, scene by scene, the case Dreyfus becomes a contemporary story. It is a film with so many virtues than "see it!" remains the only reasonable advice. One motif - Jean Dujardin who gives an admirable proof of his art. And, of course ,Louis Garrel as Alfred Dreifus. A film about justice. Like each Polanski work, precise, slow and being more than a historical story but reflection of darkness behind and, for many reasons, around us.

"J'accuse" is a good film that retells the famous case of french Jewish officer Alfred Dreyfus who was convicted for treason against France and sent to prison with no fair trial. This movie shows not only how much the French army was anti semitic. But also were wrong from the beginning and tried to get away without punishment. How the French high officers tried to hide the truth so they won't be embarrassed in public. Jean Dujardin Is a great actor, mostly known for comedic roles. Here he does a phenomenal performance as the officer who uncovered the real traitor in the army thus called for an investigation to be made in order to declare Dreyfuss innocent. I enjoyed the flashbacks to the moments prior to the film's plot. It was perfectly filmed and accurate to the history of the case. Roman Polanski is a great director and has done a marvelous job.

It's an absolute masterclass in how to make an historical film.

This subject has something very real and urgent to say about the world we live in today. It's kind of a shame you'll probably never get to see it.

A very important story, great actors but... can't forget the cheap looking CGI crowd and green screen keying. Some movies did better 20 some years ago. And the color grading makes me feel like I watch two different movies, sometimes it's dark toned and desaturated, other times colorful like a soap opera. If you pay attention, this could easily take away from the story.

A great film on all accounts. Fantastic direction and recreation of a terrible period in France. The sets, the costumes are just fantastic. Not to mention the actors, who for a large part come from the Comédie Française, a theatrical institution in France. In a time of intolerance this film reminds us that there are great principles that are worth fighting for.

The great Polanski is back. This is the inventive and talented director of ROSEMARY'S BABY and THE TENANT returning in style, after a series of minor and forgettable films since CHINAOWN (US 1974).And he does it without the gore of THE TENANT, but certainly with the pervasive terror of ROSEMARY'S BABY -- not because this is a horror occult movie but rather because of the immanent terror embodied by the power of government, and its underhand ways to hold on to power and avoid damage to its image, even if it means wrongly accusing a man of high treason, dishonorably discharging him from military service, and condemning him to an undeserved and long prison sentence.

Polanski has Jewish blood in his veins but, to his credit. he does not turn J'ACCUSE into a study of anti-semitism, which would have been too easy. Picquart (Dujardin) readily admits to Dreyfus at the start that he does not care for Jews but that that would not cause him to deliberately prevent a good soldier serving France to the best of his ability, regardless of racial background.

He lives up to his word and to his conscience - not least because Picquart realizes that his own life is in danger and he has no option but expose the government's ignoble cover-up -- which ultimately rescues Dreyfus from, Devil Island and allows him to recover his good name.

Picquart is superbly played by Dujardin but the entire cast is in top form.

J'ACCUSE also has the great merit of recreating the atmosphere of Paris in the late 19th Century. The attention paid to interiors, door knobs and bells, phaetons and other vehicles of the time, and the cobblestone streets, is awesome.

I certainly recommend J'ACCUSE as a much better than average history lesson, as a social comment that applies to today as it does to France about 130 years ago. It avoids making value judgements, preferring instead to present facts and letting the viewer interpret them. 10/10

I'm dissapointed.. This really had potential but they kept moving back and forth in time it was too confusing to keep up

This movie is grey: everything is either grey, dusty, falling to pieces or hidden in the shadow. It's extremely distracting and makes the vision of the movie even more depressing than necessary.

I'm not really complaining about the script (albeit the story feels a bit woody and very cold), but it's very unpleasant aesthetically speaking.

If there is one element that defined the Dreyfus case, that was "passion"; the whole affaire was permeated by several, very powerful passions: passion for power, passion for intrigue, passion for truth, passion against the jews, passion for honour, passion for politics. Well, the main flaw of the movie is its inability to deliver such an ordeal of passions and its tone of voice remains quite shallow all along the movie. Also, the movie is totally unbalanced: it's very thorough in the first part, looking at every details of the fabricated evidence case against Dreyfus; then the second half, that of the new trial, is incredibly rushed, so we lose a lot of the dramatic events of that phase of the affaire. From a director like Roma Polanski I would have expected a much higher standard of quality; to conclude on a positive note, Jean Dujardin's performance is very good.

A bit lengthy and with little tension for a Polanski film. The camera is kept unusually simple and simple and supports the calm overall picture. All in all, you need a lot of patience and nerves, but then a little gem develops out of the film. Good, but disappointing for a Polanski film.

Based on the great book of Robert Harris. This is the story of a wrongfully accused army man,who also was a jew. And the thing is, that the people who decided what was good or bad in the army ,hated jews. If you have a strong sense of justice and you do not like racism this is your movie. Well made by Polanski but the story is the reason to watch it.

Historical drama. The adaptation of the novel "I blame" by the English writer Robert Harris, in turn based on real events. Again, the Russian distributors decided to show off, and translated the title of the picture not literally "I blame", but "The officer and the spy." For a long time I have not watched the novelties, and then a new picture of the eminent director Roman Polansky arrived, and just touching on an interesting topic. How could I get past? And here's my brief opinion - justice is above prejudice. Unfortunately, the picture was not without its drawbacks, so I intend to analyze both them and the advantages. Therefore, without further ado, I'm starting. So the pros: 1. The topic touched upon - the picture focuses on the Dreyfus affair - a high-profile socio-political scandal of the late nineteenth - early twentieth century, when Captain Alfred Dreyfus was accused of high treason and espionage for Germany. The captain's nationality played an important role in the conviction - he was a Jew. Waiting for him: a shameful trial, demotion, exile and many years to restore justice. Of course, the real spy was installed, and the captain was acquitted and reinstated in rank and in the army, but the sediment remained. This process showed the full depth of prejudice against Jews and a complete disregard for establishing the truth. The Dreyfus case was filmed for the fourth time. 2. The story told is a mixture of detective and forensic drama, a genre very popular in Western cinema in the second half of the twentieth century. The story centers on Colonel Marie-Georges Picard, the new chief of military counterintelligence, who has barely begun his duties when he begins to realize that the Dreyfus case is not as straightforward as it might seem. He begins his own investigation, until he realizes that by doing this he set in motion the forces that are not interested in discovering the truth, because otherwise heads will fly and shame will not end. The colonel is forced to improvise, torn between duty and conscience. In a little over two hours, we were able to fully convey all the ins and outs of this case and the mood of French society at that time. Shows the courage of the colonel and his associates in this difficult matter. The script arouses interest, captivates, and even intrigues the uninitiated. Well, the ending pleases. 3. Costumes, scenery - I'm sure that everything was filmed on location, so I'm calm about the reliability of the scenery. The costumes delighted me as a lover of historical and military films. Before us is the French army as it is, with familiar attributes, ranks, and so on. So the cons: 1. The protractedness of some scenes is exactly that of some. Like the initial one, which takes too long, and a few more. Shorten them and the painting or its story has nothing to lose. 2. The abrupt transition to the final - it stunned me a little. Only now there was complete hopelessness, and oops - an obvious and historically famous ending. What's that called? Who cut out a whole piece of the script? Find me please! 3. Understatement - why didn't they say that the disgraced military had shaken off the real spy abroad? And where is the story about the further destinies of the heroes of both the first and the second plan? The viewer has to find out all this himself or what? It seems that we have a historical picture, but at the same time they say A and do not say B. A little about the main characters: 1. Marie-Georges Piccard, played by Jean Dujardin, is a colonel in the French army, and the new chief of military counterintelligence, who will have to establish the truth in the Dreyfus case. He will have to test all his qualities, including courage and courage, not forgetting about justice and truth, because he is driven only by love for his country and its national security. Jean perfectly played Colonel Picard, you believe in his emotions! Well done! 2. Alfred Dreyfus performed by Louis Garrel - the captain of the French army, because of his Jewish origin and as a result of false evidence, is accused of high treason. He will have to go through exile, many years of struggle to overturn the sentence. Louis quite successfully conveyed the emotions of this hero. I can't even imagine how much courage it took the captain to endure all the humiliation and restore his good name. This picture was released in limited rental, so it did not collect as much as it should have. They even brought a copy to our Russian province, although there was only one session, and that evening, so I safely ignored it. I can only praise Roman Polansky for this work, because his last "Based on real events" was, to put it mildly, average. As a result, we have a good historical drama by the eminent Roman Polansky about the Dreyfus affair, with a good script, excellent costumes and sets, not without drawbacks, but with good acting.

I really loved this movie about an interesting story, well told by Polanski. There is an accurate research and a very good cinematographic transposition of what happened in France with the Affair Dreyfus, that many people still don't know. It is important to talk about it, especially with this pathos and care of the details. Definitely a movie to see.

Premise: I decided to view this work only and exclusively for third parties, therefore, no personal initiative of what led me to view it.

Since I was not aware of the story just told, first it was a duty to inform me, reading and viewing information documents.

Very good technical side. A scenography with attention to the smallest details, settings and perfect attires.

A rather ridiculous editing in some sequences accompanied by a mediocre script.

So, technically I find it a work studied in detail, but unfortunately I don't find any care of the plot and the various subjects.

Plot that in the long run gets lost, with the introduction of subjects that are subsequently not deepened enough.

Overall I consider it "not" a total failure, but a misinterpretation of an artifact with an excellent potential not exploited to the maximum by our dear Roman Polanski.

Thank you.

-Antonio

Une fois de plus, Roman Polanski fait ses preuves en tant que cinéaste international prolifique. L'histoire de ce film, l'affaire Alfred Dreyfus, avait été racontée à maintes reprises dans les cours d'histoire en classe et par ma grand-mère depuis mon enfance. Peut-être savions-nous déjà que le désespoir, le scandale, la conspiration, la politique sale et malhonnête devenaient le fait que le monde était si méchant avec un soldat français né juif. Ce film rend l'histoire encore plus claire ; le scénario, les intrigues, les détails de la scène, le jeu des acteurs et en quelque sorte le cadre de la ville de Paris, pour avoir une vision plus claire de ce qui s'était passé à ce moment-là. Bien sûr, nous pourrions apprendre beaucoup de choses de l'histoire, encore pour comprendre la véritable politique antisémite dans les principaux pays européens, comme la France. L'implication d'Emile Zola et de la presse prouve une fois de plus que la France est si spéciale sur l'action de pouvoir du peuple, pas seulement montrée dans le livre et le film "Les Misérables" de Victor Hugo, pour parler de la liberté, de l'égalité et de la fraternité sous le drapeau de la France . Ce film peut être la leçon d'histoire dans la classe d'histoire de France, la classe d'histoire juive et la classe d'histoire militaire. Ce film est fait pour nous afin que nous puissions largement accepter que l'Humanité finira toujours par gagner, peu importe que dans de nombreuses années les faits criminels soient enfin prouvés.

So Roman Polanski did this - a movie about someone who gets wrongfully accused. Now ... I don't think I am or will be the only one seeing a connection to the private life of Polanski. I'm not saying he was wrongfully accused. I have not read too much about that. I couldn't give you any details. Not even in which states in America he can not be anymore (maybe even all of them), because he got convicted.

Of course he never really got punished (unless you count him not being able to go to certain places is punishment) - the main character or rather the one that gets accused of doing things here in the movie does get punished. Jean Dujardins character seems to be the only one who wants to find out about the truth. A well made thriller movie, with really good performances. The pacing may not be everyones cup of tea - if you dig it you'll be fine

The story needs to be reminded of every now and then. This Polanski version is as eloquent and strict in restrained discipline as José Ferrer's version of 1958, and the same review that I wrote about that film could be written here. Polanski's version is more "photo-realistic" though, more exact and less theatrical. There are no dazzling prominent film stars here like in Joé Ferrer's film, where he himself played Dreyfus. The parts of Dreyfus and Esterhazy (Ferrer and Anton Walbrook in that version) are minimal here and reduced to no more than what's necessary. Instead this film is almost consistently documentary in character, with certain typical Polanski dramatic turns though. It is exquisitely made in its perfect discipline, and even Alexander Desplat's music is reduced to mere basics. It is built up as a thriller, and the great trial scenes are the dramatic highlight. This is definitely one of Polanski's best films, if not the very best, which is not a bad verdict, considering how many excellent films he has made. It is the perfect history lesson and paramount as such.

Historical drama. The adaptation of the novel "I blame" by the English writer Robert Harris, in turn based on real events. Again, the Russian distributors decided to show off, and translated the title of the picture not literally "I blame", but "The officer and the spy." For a long time I have not watched the new items, and then a new picture of the eminent director Roman Polansky arrived, and just touching on an interesting topic. How could I get past? And here's my brief opinion - justice is above prejudice. Unfortunately, the picture was not without its drawbacks, so I intend to analyze both them and the advantages. Therefore, without further ado, I'm starting. So the pros: 1. The topic touched upon - the picture focuses on the Dreyfus affair - a high-profile social and political scandal of the late nineteenth - early twentieth century, when Captain Alfred Dreyfus was accused of high treason and espionage for Germany. An important role in the conviction was played by the captain's nationality - he was a Jew. Waiting for him: a shameful trial, demotion, exile and many years to restore justice. Of course, the real spy was installed, and the captain was acquitted and reinstated in rank and in the army, but the sediment remained. This process showed the depth of prejudice against Jews and a complete disregard for establishing the truth. The Dreyfus case was filmed for the fourth time. 2. The story told is a mixture of detective and forensic drama, a genre very popular in Western cinema in the second half of the twentieth century. The story focuses on Colonel Marie-Georges Picard, the new chief of military counterintelligence, who has barely started his duties when he begins to realize that the Dreyfus case is not as straightforward as it might seem. He begins his own investigation, until he realizes that by doing this he set in motion the forces that are not interested in discovering the truth, because otherwise heads will fly and shame will not come true. The colonel is forced to improvise, torn between duty and conscience. In a little over two hours, we were able to fully convey all the ins and outs of this matter and the mood of French society at that time. Shows the courage of the colonel and his associates in this difficult matter. The script arouses interest, captivates, and even intrigues the uninitiated. Well, the ending pleases. 3. Costumes, scenery - I'm sure that everything was filmed on location, so I'm calm about the reliability of the scenery. The costumes delighted me as a lover of historical and military films. Before us is the French army as it is, with familiar attributes, ranks, and so on. So the cons: 1. The protractedness of some scenes is exactly that of some. Like the initial one, which takes too long, and a few more. Reduce them and the painting or its story has nothing to lose. 2. The abrupt transition to the final - it stunned me a little. Only now there was complete hopelessness, and oops - an obvious and historically famous ending. What's that called? Who cut out a whole piece of the script? Find me please! 3. Understatement - why didn't they say that the disgraced military had shaken off the real spy abroad? And where is the story about the further destinies of the heroes of both the first and the second plan? The viewer has to find out all this himself or what? It seems that we have a historical picture, but at the same time they say A, and do not say B. A little about the main characters: 1. Marie-Georges Picard, played by Jean Dujardin, is a colonel in the French army and the new chief of military counterintelligence, who will have to establish the truth in the Dreyfus case. He will have to test all his qualities, including courage and courage, not forgetting about justice and truth, because he is driven only by love for his country and its national security. Jean perfectly played Colonel Picard, you believe in his emotions! Well done! 2. Alfred Dreyfus performed by Louis Garrel - the captain of the French army, because of his Jewish origin and as a result of false evidence, is accused of high treason. He will have to go through exile, many years of struggle to overturn the sentence. Louis quite successfully conveyed the emotions of this hero. I can't even imagine how much courage it took the captain to endure all the humiliation and restore his good name. This picture was released in limited rental, so it did not collect as much as it should have. They even brought a copy to our Russian province, although there was only one session, and that evening, so I safely ignored it. I can only praise Roman Polansky for this work, because his last "Based on real events" was, to put it mildly, average. As a result, we have a good historical drama by the eminent Roman Polansky about the Dreyfus affair, with a good script, excellent costumes and sets, not without drawbacks, but with good acting.

So many contradictory elements about this film and the people who have made it leave you wondering more about its creation than the poorly performed and irrelevant tale it embellishes.

The true story of a court case based on anti-Semitism. The story, however, does not focus on the victim but on the man who will have him released against the interests of his own superiors. It is a good detective movie with a hint of love story which, however, only marginally speaks of anti-Semitism.