everything you have heard about this movie is true.

I am only giving this movie a 1 for the great cast, though I can't imagine what any of them were thinking. This movie was horrible

it is the rare 'crazy' movie that actually has something to say.

This is a dark and sometimes deeply uncomfortable drama

The framing conceit is Peter Ustinov as a circus ringmaster, putting Lola Montes on display, and charging money for each question asked of her, mostly concerning her affairs with famous men. In that register of celebrity, she rivals Alma Maria Schindler. As each question is asked -- "What was her youth like?" and so forth -- we get to watch a flashback and see her development into what Ustinov keeps calling a femme fatale.It's in wide screen, the musical score is majestic, and the movie is splashed with colors varying in their degree of luridness. I kind of liked the decor. All that crimson Victorian-era flock or whatever it's called. A few more plastic ferns and beaded curtains and it would look like a 1910 Egyptian whorehouse or like my apartment, both settings being so similar.Granted that a lot of imagination has gone into the production, as well as a lot of talent and money. I believe Picasso had imagination and talent too, but look what he produced. One magnificent panel of the bombing of a Spanish town, and the rest are stone-faced clowns or models with three breasts.There has to be a point to the whole thing, and it must somehow involve the viewer. I don't think there was a moment I cared about what happened to Lola Montes. Her character is more marionette than seductress. And the dialog doesn't help. Franz Liszt: "It is better that we part this way." Lola: "Some day we will meet again, you at your concert and me on my stage." Liszt: "It will have to be a coincidence." Lola: "All of life is a coincidence." That's deeply profound.I'm not bashing the movie because I didn't make it to the end, and evidently it has a lot of popular appeal, but I can't help wondering -- if it had been directed by someone named, say, Bruce Ophuls instead of Max, would it have had the same appeal?

Watching "Lola Montes" often feels like rollerskating up and down hilly streets lined with sumptuously designed department store windows. At other times you would swear that Josef von Sternberg made a 50s comeback in color, so packed are the frames and so obstructed are the sightlines; the only thing missing is the Sternbergian close-ups. Then you might wonder if Bertolt Brecht had a hand in the screenplay, so alienated are we from the emotional core of this woman's life.The film seesaws between a circus act starring the middle-aged title character (Martine Carol) and flashbacks to her past. In the circus setting, ringmaster Peter Ustinov presents a series of impossibly lavish tableaux which depict points in Montes's scandalous life. The flashbacks include her first marriage, her dalliance with King Ludwig I of Bavaria (Anton Walbrook), and her relationship with a Bavarian student (Oskar Werner). In reality, Montes never appeared as the star of such a circus act, but this film's creators have chosen to present her life in these terms in order to cast her as a metaphor of the celebrity freak, no different in essence from a circus animal who jumps through hoops or a daredevil who engages in public spectacle. She is almost always seen from a distance, as if to emphasize her actual insignificance. The parallels to our contemporary celebrity culture are obvious.But beyond this commentary on celebrity and the technical virtuosity of the busy sets and panning camera, there is nothing much here. There is certainly no compelling drama. The central character is so distanced from the viewer that she can only be grasped as a concept, not as a human being.And I have to agree with others that Baz Luhrmann's "Moulin Rouge" comes to mind, but even that endless Carnival Cruise Ship commercial had a clear central love story.

I understand this film was not much liked on original release and was edited down against the director's wishes.Now fully restored, I can only say that I can understand the original critics. This is overlong with a preposterous and completely overacted central role from the whip cracking ring master, Peter Ustinov.I also find it incomprehensible that a leading lady so inept, ungainly and plain looking could have been even considered for the role of the infamous, Lola Montes. At no stage during this ridiculous farce do we get any idea whatsoever what made the lady herself so alluring to anybody at all.A travesty.

Lola Montes- Essentially the true story of a women who kept more lovers than is generally accepted as proper, the fact that she lived during the 19th century only made this an even bigger ordeal.Her dream was to be a dancer but this never really worked out and in the end her life story, due to people of the time being attracted to such scandal, is used as a circus attraction. It is through this circus performance and flash backs that we see her life story and what lead to her being a circus performer.Honestly when all was said and done I was much less bored with the film than I would have expected. The film goes by at a decent pace though nothing of much excitement happens.Ophuls direction is rather elegant. He creates some simple yet beautiful shots. Martine Carol in the role of Lola isn't what I'd usually call beautiful in a traditional sense but she does have a captivating quality to her.