Sorry, this movie sucks

Best movie of this year hands down!

One of the worst ways to make a cult movie is to set out to make a cult movie.

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

"Ecstasy" has long been famous for scenes of the teen-aged Hedy Lamarr (as Hedy Keisler) scampering through the bushes sans clothes. Racy enough for the time, these scenes are comparably mild by today's standards.The film opens with newlyweds Eva (Lamarr) and Emile (Zvanimir Rogaz) crossing the thresh hold of their home. Emile is much older than Eva and is set in his ways to the point of falling asleep on their wedding night. Emile has little time for a passionate relationship. Eva over time, becomes increasingly frustrated with the situation and returns home to her father (Leopold Kramer).One day while riding in the countryside, Eva stops for a skinny dip leaving her robe upon her horse. The horse wanders away and Eva is left in the lurch as it were. A young construction worker Adam (Albert Mog) catches the horse and searches for its owner. Eva meanwhile has also been searching for the animal. Adam finds her cowering nude behind a bush. He chivalrously throws her her clothes. While fleeing the embarrassing situation Eva trips and injures her ankle. Adam goes after her and the two become attracted to each other.During the night, Eva becomes uncontrollably drawn to Adam's home and the two become lovers. It turns out that Eva's husband is Adam's boss and somehow, has learned of the affair. He takes Adam on a seemingly suicidal car ride which ends with the older man falling ill. Later Emile goes to Eva's father's home to plead with her to return to him. She refuses. Later, a tragic event occurs which greatly upsets Eva and...........................................................The celebrated nude scenes are shown mostly in long shots with only glimpses of Ms. Lamarr running between the bushes. The swimming scenes culminating with Hedy emerging from the water showing all, are similarly shown in grainy long shots. The shot of Eva experiencing passion or if you will, ecstasy is well done but suffers from the grainy print from which the DVD was struck. Apparently Ms. Lamarr's husband of the day (she was married 6 times), tried to buy up existing prints of the film but failed.

In 1930,Europe received quite a shock when Luis Bunuel's 'L'Age Dor' was released, causing a riot in Paris when screened there,resulting in it being banned for something like over forty years. Three years later,in 1933,when Europe had gotten over the shock,it was once again turned on it's ear with 'Ekstase',a symphony (of sorts)to love. The film starred a young,unknown German actress named Hedwig Kiesler,who would later change her name to Hedy Lamarr,when she moved to America to escape the madness of Adolf Hitler,as Eva,a young bride who has just married a cold,distant loveless husband (played by Emil Jerman),only to discover that she has made a major mistake. One divorce later,Eva is footloose & fancy free & is out one day, skinny dipping in a lake,when she discovers Adam,a handsome,young engineer (played by Aribert Mog)who takes a real fancy to her (and she,him). After a wild night of passion,Eva's ex-husband turns up once again,hoping to win Eva back,only to find he now has a rival. I won't spoil what transpires. Czech director, Gustav Machaty (who directed the original screen version of 'Madam X',another parable in romantic obsession) directs from a screenplay by Jacques Koerpel,Frantisek Horky & Machaty,from the novel by Robert Horky. The film's velvety cinematography (which reminded me of Avant Garde photographer,Man Ray's photos of the era,which goes for some impressionistic use of light & shadow,a lot)is by Hans Androschin & Jan Stallich). The film's brisk editing is by Antonin Zelenka & the films art direction, which goes for a lush,nearly Art Deco look,is by Bohumil Hes). If I have any quirk about this film, it is the music score,by Giuseppe Becce,which goes for an over the top,melodramatic feel to it that gets old fast (certain themes are repeated over & over again,wearing out it's welcome,fast---kind of like some of David Lean's over use of certain musical themes,especially in 'Lawrence Of Arabia',and 'Dr.Zhivago'). Some years back,a brand new restored print was made up of the best source material,cobbled together from various European existing prints available,restoring it to what is quite possibly the closest version of what it originally looked like before the Vatican condemned it as "decadent" (yeah,right...like the Church never did anything wrong),and the Hayes office cut it to ribbons,when it was finally released in the U.S.A. in 1936,in a "Hayes Office" approved cut (likewise). Minimal dialog in German with English subtitles (it was meant to be a mainly visual experience). Not rated,but contains that infamous nude skinny dipping scene by Hedy Lamarr (done tastefully,mind you) & some suggestions of sexual content (likewise)that would scarcely earn it a PG-13 rating,nowadays. Worth a look if you have any interest in early European cinema,or Avant Garde/Experimental cinema

You have to be into silent films and their conventions to really enjoy this flick, even though it isn't truly silent. There are a very few lines of dialog (in German) but the vision and execution are very much of the silent era. I'm not into that, hence the low score. Some of it was pretty ludicrous to me, such as the symbolism of the horses, eventually focusing on the pregnant horse. And what is up with that Soviet-style sequence at the end? Was Machaty a Communist? It doesn't seem so, since the rest of the film has so much to do with individual wants and needs. It's hard for me to critique the acting, since silent film is basically a different art form, requiring a different skill set from actors than modern film, so I'll just let that go. And about Hedy Lamarr's nude scenes, well they are impressive for the times, even in Europe. Most of them are very long shots, where you can't really see anything, or for that matter, tell if it's really her. (I understand that it IS her) There is one reasonably close-in shot of her topless that for two seconds or so show her breasts to good effect. A lovely girl with lovely breasts. Nowadays, they would be known as "A" cups, but (take note, ladies) boobies do NOT have to be big to be beautiful.Overall you can probably pass on this one unless you want to see Hedy Lamarr's scenes mentioned above, or if you are a silent film buff. From other comments, some people think it is very good.

This film contained both good and bad. Probably more bad than good. But let's start with the good: Yes, the nude scenes. Definitely fun. I mean, there's not enough there to be any kind of big deal by today's standard, but it really is something seeing a 1933 film with no-question-about-it-she's-definitely-completely-naked star. They don't flaunt the nudity but they don't shy away from it either. It was actually handled quite tastefully. And in generally I very much liked the whole theme of unabashed support for female sexuality. Very refreshing for 1933. And the scene in the car was pretty exciting.But the film had three major flaws. First, on the whole, the pacing is just *leaden*. This movie DRAGS. It is extremely self-indulgent in its wallowing in endless artistic shots and heavy-handed symbolism. There's about 30 minutes of story here crammed into an hour-and-a-half.Second, the whole practically-a-silent-movie thing, with just a couple sparse lines of dialog here and there, just didn't work for me. It made things just too *weird*. People just wouldn't behave that way, it ends up seeming *very* contrived. I mean, come on, a guy stumbles upon a beautiful woman naked in the woods; he ogles her, gives her back her dress and horse, gets slapped by her, goes to her aid when she falls and hurts herself, gives her a flower-- and through this whole thing says *not one single word*???? It was just too surreal. I defy anyone out there to tell me with a straight face they could meet a naked stranger in the woods and have an extended encounter with them without either of you saying a word.But the biggest problem for me was just the ways in which the story just didn't make sense. Here is a list of questions I'm *still* groping with after seeing the complete film:1) Why on *earth* did she marry Mr. Disinterested in the first place? She HAD to have known what he was like before she married him!2) Why on *earth* did *he* marry *her*? He carries her over the threshold and then has ZERO interest in her whatsoever. And I don't just mean sexual interest. He utterly and completely ignores her.3) Given his COMPLETE indifference toward her when she's his wife, why the sudden all-consuming interest in her once she leaves him? I mean, he had no time to even look up from his newspaper when he was with her, but once she's gone, he's so distraught he *kills* himself? What on *earth* is up with that????4) After the suicide, why does Mr. Very-Interested suddenly decide 'Ok, let's go to the train station!' Huh????5) Why, why, why, why, why does she *leave* him at the train station!?!? This more than anything else made ZERO sense to me, and that one point COMPLETELY ruins the film for me. She FINALLY found someone who made her happy (and not just sexually happy either. Just look at her face when she meets him there at the inn, and they're just dancing and enjoying being together. These two definitely have feelings for each other beyond just hormones. Their joy at being together is complete), and, *boom*, for no apparent reason, she just leaves him. WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY? As Bill Cosby would say, "That's brain damage!"6) What the HELL is up with the last scene??? Suddenly for no reason this turns into some kind of Happy Worker's Paradise quasi-soviet film???7) And then the final shots: HUH???? I don't even understand what it was *trying* to portray. Was the guy fantasizing that maybe she had his kid, or did she really have a child? Or was the little boy that he was looking at actually the same child and this is now years later? Did he somehow come into custody of the child? Or did he actually somehow end up getting back together with her and they're both raising the child? I DON'T GET IT AT ALL!!!I didn't even know how to grade this film. No movie that leaves me with "I DON'T GET IT AT ALL!!!" at the end can possibly get a good grade from me. On the other hand, no movie that looks at sex without either snickering or moralizing, but instead portrays it as a beautiful, healthy, natural thing, no such movie can get too bad a grade from me. So I cut it right in the middle with the 5-star vote. An odd film. I'm glad I saw it, but truthfully I have little desire to ever see it again.