That was an excellent one.

People are voting emotionally.

It's funny watching the elements come together in this complicated scam. On one hand, the set-up isn't quite as complex as it seems, but there's an easy sense of fun in every exchange.

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

This one is mainly for Rivette completists. There are gaps in the plot and a lack of commitment on the part of some actors, notably Schneider which ensure that this film will not be counted among Rivette's greatest. I watched it on YouTube as part of my review of his works following the news of his death. The story is not weak--it's an amalgam of film noir and road movie--but the way it is told, in a slap dash manner leaving too much up to chance, disappointed me.The great pleasure in Merry-go-round is provided by John Surman's mournful noodlings on bass clarinet, which often seem more interesting than what the actors are doing. Joe Dallesandro exercised a fascination on more than one filmmaker (I remember how Louis Malle used him in Black Moon, and his films with Andy Warhol are still around) and he does here too. His mad chase through the woods pursued by a knight in armor recalls the fight scene in Black Moon.

I viewed five films by Jacques Rivette before this one, so I'm accustomed to his bizarre style and, overall, I love it. However, Merry-Go-Round, the sixth Rivette film that I've viewed is very poor compared to the others. The "storyline" is a muddled mess that didn't make sense for me either on a "straight", literal level, or on a symbolic level.Why would any sane man fly from NYC to Paris just because an ex-girlfriend sent him a telegram asking him to do so?Why didn't anyone, especially sis Leo, call the cops after Elizabeth was kidnapped? Why would Leo and the attorney's secretary enter an abandoned building alone to rescue Elizabeth, i.e., without the cops? After escaping kidnapping, why would Elizabeth enter back into negotiations with the very people who kidnapped her? After Leo and Ben fail to find Elizabeth at the graveyard, they are counting pennies between them to see if they have enough for cab fare back to the hotel, suggesting that they came from Rome and NYC, respectively, with no cash on them. Who would travel so far from home being absolutely broke? Why was it necessary for the fake Mr Danvers to be a psychic medium? The segments of Leo running in the woods, and the anonymous girl running in the sand dunes didn't fit in with the film in any way.Overall, the screenplay here looks like an assemblage of elements that were randomly picked out of a hat.This film is truly unworthy of an otherwise GREAT filmmaker like Jacques Rivette. If you've never seen a Rivette film before, then do not start here, because this film is a POOR representative of his work.

I didn't even know Jacques Rivette's name before a retrospective for him started at this year's Viennale. Now I heard a lot about Rivette from the media, and I managed to see one film - and I'm really sorry for not being able to see another one!This movie, Merry-Go-Round, was a great pleasure for me to watch because, against all odds, it turned out to be - a crime film! A crime film though, that formally switched between extreme realism (Rivette seams to be famous for letting the actors improvise a lot) and absurd postmodernism - but, after all, a fine story about criminals. Only that the criminals were not typical gangsters: a young American (played by an Italian but as he did it convincingly, I accept it) and the child-like and wild and very sexy Maia Schneider. And many more. Oh, and two po-faced musicians who perform the soundtrack of the movie before our eyes, live, so to say.And above all, this movie was very funny - you wouldn't expect such a funny film from a filmmaker who is weird enough to make a motion picture that has a running time of 13 hours.I should mention that the girl with whom I saw the movie had a head-ache afterwards. So, be careful.

i really like surreal films, but also i don't understand most of them. i never understood the sense of the breakscenes in the forest/sand. the whole film seems to move in slow motion, it seems like the air would be water. you have to wonder the whole time: "what is this film about". unfortunately it was shown in german tv at 2:00 at night and i think it will never be shown there again, but i can only say: "watch it, if you can! - and than tell me what it is about!"