Horst in Translation (filmreviews@web.de) This 20-minute black-and-white film from over 90 years ago is a perfect example of what experimentalism is about. It does not make sense, there is no real story and all the character's actions are unrealistic. Now, if I would like this type of film, I certainly would have enjoyed it, but unfortunately this is not my cup of tea. Some moments are entertaining admittedly, but as a whole I was not impressed at all. This French film is certainly among the most known short films from the 1920s that do not include one of the masters of silent film in their cast, such as Keaton, Lloyd, Chaplin etc. It was the first and maybe most famous film by writer and director René Clair, in his 20s here, who had a long career afterward and made movies until the 1960s. Also his first performance here gives Man Ray who is probably a name to most people with a deeper interest in early experimental movies. I am not one of these, therefore I was not wowed and cannot recommend "Entr'acte".

F Gwynplaine MacIntyre Rene Clair and the Marx Brothers once decided to make a movie together: it's a shame that it never happened. Maybe that movie exists in some alternate universe, and I'll bet it's hilarious. I enjoyed "Entr'acte", but I'd gladly trade this film for a chance to see Rene Clair's Marx Brothers movie.Another IMDb reviewer has synopsised the plot, such as it is: a man apparently dies. After his funeral, his coffin escapes from its hearse, and then the man returns to life. The title "Entr'acte" (an interval between theatrical acts, or an intermission) is never explained; maybe it refers to the interval between that man's two lives. I prefer to think that Clair meant this somewhat amateurish film as a mere intermission: an amusing bit of fun between the acts of his 'real' films; the ones with coherent story lines.Some of the content in this film truly does seem to be unintentional. After the central character's funeral, there's a stiff wind blowing outside the chapel. The women in this movie wear elaborate long dresses, and the wind animates their clothing in a way that's distracting rather than funny, and surely not meant to be symbolic.Much of the imagery in this movie seems to be pure Dada rather than signifying anything. The man's funeral cortege is led by a camel. If there's any underlying significance there, I doubt that it amounts to much. Earlier on, I was intrigued by one sequence featuring Parisian chess players. While the camera focuses on the chessboard, a shot of Parisian traffic is superimposed: suggesting that all humanity are pawns in some cosmic chess game.Don't look for too much meaning in "Entr'acte". It's an amusing experiment, but might have been more effective at a shorter length.

MisterWhiplash We were shown this film in a class where at least once during each class, I start to nod off to sleep. Maybe it's the time of day, or the too-dark lights, but even during one of the Jean Vigo films we saw it didn't grab me. This one did, however, as it is one of the best short films of the 20's, or at least one of the more ambitious ones of the time. There are plenty of Freudian symbols, or maybe spoofs and in-jokes on the symbols (i.e. phallic imagery, cannons, guns, balls, and obsessions with looking up women's skirts).But more importantly there is an almost need to break through anything expectable. Unlike Bunuel's Un Chien Andalou, however, Entr'acte even goes for the manic and cartoon-like. Like Bunuel's film, there COULD be a certain thread of a story in the proceeding, if you try to take one to mind- here the story could be the unexpected tragedy of death turned up on its own head. However there is also the latter part of the film, which involves a large group running after (in trademark, hilarious fast-motion film) a hearse running down a road. It's a kind of peak of stimulating silent-film cinema, where everything being done can now be just as easily done- and is- on a daily basis by music video directors.Yet Clair is so inventive with his techniques, of pushing a speed and tempo with his style, that it works well despite making no sense on the surface. It's a film made in the heights of French impressionism and surrealism, and the almost sheer confidence of the filmmaker here propels it into being unforgettable in a way. Most will seek out the Bunuel early works first, of course, but along the way this is worth a shot. At the least, you'll have your own interpretation once its done, not shoved down your throat.

m67165 This is it, for me! Absolute pure cinematic fun! This movie is not trying to tell you a story, although there is a plot about a funeral that ends up transforming into some unexpected events. I just had to laugh, and also marvel at some images that are simply beautiful, like some sort of silent visual music.What the director does is basically a collage of absurd images and some camera tricks. These involve some artists of the time. I must say I am quite surprised by its freshness even today. Now I know where musical video clips come from! The first time I saw it, I was going to see some old silent movies, and this one was shown first, and I had no idea what it was all about. In a way, I still don't, and that's even better! Stop making sense for a while and start the fun!