Bill Slocum Sometimes a movie can hit you a certain way, and then when you go back to recapture what you remember, it's gone like some dream. This was one of the more extreme examples for me, a delightful farce when I saw it in high school that became a lead balloon for me as a middle-aged adult.In the last full month of World War I, German troops prepare to evacuate a French town, but not before laying explosives to blow it up the next time the church clock strikes midnight. The townspeople learn of this and flee, so when Scottish soldier Pvt. Charles Plumpick (Alan Bates) shows up to reconnoiter, he finds only escapees from the local insane asylum, a merry band who make Plumpick their king. But he knows about the explosives, and tries to get them to leave."What characters!" Plumpick exclaims. "I can't let you die!"I think that was the brief director Philippe de Broca gave his cast, to play up their various mild forms of insanity for all they could as they don the outfits of the townspeople who fled. It is what passes for comedy in this undernourished farce.Geneviève Bujold plays a woman named Poppy who flounces and curtsies after finding a tutu, while Michel Serrault becomes a mincing hairdresser when he comes upon a fancy wig. Adolfo Celi plays Bates' Scottish commander, which means we get to watch the normally menacing Italian actor in a kilt doing a jig. The supporting performances are entirely too broad. There are also chess-playing monkeys and an elephant waving a white flag, which draws a Benny-Hill-type reaction from investigating soldiers. It's that kind of film.Bates meanwhile is entirely too subdued in the lead role, probably because it requires him to play unconscious entirely too often. He falls for Poppy and accepts the crown, but he's otherwise frustratingly passive and given to acting as oddly as anyone else.The point of the film, as other reviewers note, is the insanity of war and who are the real mad people anyway. It's an entirely too obvious point dragged across the screen like a plowshare. Plumpick's commander keeps calling him "Pumpernickel" to show how dense he is, and assigns him the job of dismantling the explosives because he's a "specialist," not bothering to learn it's the wrong kind. But we see the Germans wantonly killing civilians and laying explosives to demolish the town, making Plumpick's mission a humanitarian one.The insanity aspect is weakly handled, too. I understand this is a farce and not a clinical study of people in altered mental states, but de Broca doesn't have any ideas what to do with the madness aspect other than have his inmates toss a rugby ball around a street or carry colorful umbrellas from scene to scene."You pay customers?""Yes, that's why business is good."I kept wondering why I liked this film so much back when. Maybe because it presents a kind of funhouse mirror to society I found appealing then. "King Of Hearts" does have visual charms, a pleasingly Mancini-lite musical score, and a final pair of scenes that are surprisingly eloquent in delivering a satisfying ending. But it was hard to appreciate them as much when I found the rest of the film a chore to sit through. Were my expectations too high? Maybe, but it wasn't helped by the weak story, lame humor, and forgettable characters.

s k As another reviewer stated, I first saw this film when I was I was in my teens, over 40 years ago. It had such an impact on me that I sat in the theater and watched it again. After all this time, it remains one of my favorite movies of all time. I've simply never seen anything like it. It's one of the few movies I've ever rated 10/10.There is simply something about the way it portrays the absurdity and insanity of war -- using humor and love and innocence and profound insights into human nature -- that is different than any other film I've ever seen. By the same token, it seems as if this film is not for everyone. I remember being so excited when I found it at Blockbuster and couldn't wait to watch it with my (ex) wife. She absolutely hated it. (Maybe that should have told me something right there. But I digress...)King of Hearts is one of those rare creations that is timeless, and is worth watching again and again. It's possible to continue to see things in the film that you've never seen before. Also, seeing KOH after some time away is like visiting an old friend -- it always feels like home.Rating: 10/10

gerhardp I did not see this movie when it came out in 1967, I had just gotten out of the Army, I didn't need any additional anti-war encouragement at the time. Having watched it tonight (11-08-08) it evokes a very different reaction. The idea of having inmates of an insane asylum populate a town was probably very very funny in the sixties. But having W and Chenney in the Whitehouse and Gov. Palin running for Vice President made me long for those 'nuts' in the movie. They seem extremely sane compared to the politicians mentioned above, never mind Joe Lieberman. So yeah, taking off your clothes and getting a bird in cage seems like a good option, except I know better. The insanity of our leaders, starting with Nixon, has driven the ordinary person to the brink. So somehow. I didn't laugh that much during the movie, I got progressively sad and then at the end, yes, I had to wipe my eyes. The thought of how far we have deteriorated is enough to bring a tear.

Mac McIlmoil There have been many excellent anti-war movies but, to me, this one stands far out in front, largely for what it doesn't show, such as the horrors of war. Rather, King of Hearts points a finger at the insanity of war and gives us a laugh or two at the same time. A soldier more familiar with birds than explosives is sent into a village to search for a time bomb. He fines the regular residents gone and the village populated by escaped inmates of an insane asylum (though he doesn't realize this at once).So who is really crazy, the inmates inside the walls or the soldiers on the outside.That film credits list Alan Bates well below top billing though he is obviously the main character.Watch it and enjoy.