Foolish Wives

Audience Reviews

View All (41) audience reviews

Nick M Count Wladislaw Sergius Karamzin and his cousins, both Russian princesses we are told, have rented a villa in Monte Carlo for the season. Their first guest is a counterfeiter who assures them of the quality of the 1000 franc notes they purchase from him: a fraudulent nest egg with which the phony aristocrats intend to use to fleece the genuinely well-to-do of their fortunes. Their primary target is the wife of the US commissioner plenipotentiary to the Prince of Monaco. Karamzin plans to seduce her into a compromising position, but his facility with wooing women is also his greatest liability as he cannot seem to turn off his baser impulses. Foolish Wives is a difficult film to review. It was considered the most expensive film to produce at the time of its release (over $1.1 million), and was almost derailed numerous times. Stroheim's extravagant spending pays off in his elaborate sets and attention to detail; we are treated to views of what I believed to be the actual resort city of Monte Carlo, but which was apparently a ludicrously enormous set constructed for the film. I read over my review of Blind Husbands, his only previously directed picture to survive, and was struck by the similarity of my impressions of both films. Both I felt were cripplingly sluggish until the last 20 minutes or so, but the excitement of the ending ultimately tipped the scales for me. Both were constructed with confidence and skill, but suffered from the man's insufferable egotism (e.g. his love interest is reading a book entitled Foolish Wives, author: Erich von Stroheim). Both are guided with intriguing vision and a clear point of view, but while I enjoyed certain aspects I would not be able to recommend them to anyone. It's actually amazing that the film was released. It was supposed to be over twice as long as it is today, but was cut down to remove the most salacious scenes. Some of the content that does survive raised my eyebrows over a century later, so I can't imagine what was cut. In summary, Stroheim is a good actor and a compelling director, but he always seems to leave a bad taste in my mouth. Rated 3/5 Stars •  Rated 3 out of 5 stars 01/29/25 Full Review Alexander B Very boring for today's audiences and it's so boring it feels longer then it is. Considering the director wanted the film to be hours longer that pretty bad. The acting is really good for the time and so was the story but aside from that it's a pass for me. Rated 2/5 Stars •  Rated 2 out of 5 stars 02/09/23 Full Review William L There is a great film here struggling to be seen through the massive edits to the final cut, a commentary on the artificial vs. the sincere, the role of perception and deceit, willful ignorance and what people want to believe compared to what is true, but it can't be found in this version. What can be found is a marvel of a set budget that was clearly put to good use in the creation of some magnificently grand vistas that really can convince you that you're looking at Monte Carlo in the '20s. However, this strength is still viable because it can be enjoyed itermittently, independent of the severe pacing issues, missing context, and unusual structure. Not as overtly compelling as the recreation of von Stroheim's own Greed, which even with a number of included stills is at least a complete narrative, and additionally lacking the more surface-level engagement of that film - Karamzin himself is rather unbelievable as a character, spoken up as a charming womanizer, but lacking in tact and finesse in virtually all of his actions, featuring none of the promised suave nature. Technically impressive, but insubstantial in its preserved form. (3/5) Rated 3/5 Stars •  Rated 3 out of 5 stars 01/16/21 Full Review s r 1001 movies to see before you die. A unusual story to say the least, maybe a good candidate for a remake? The boat scene was memorable and the old scenes of Monte Carlo are a good time piece. Rated 3/5 Stars •  Rated 3 out of 5 stars 03/31/23 Full Review Audience Member When a con artist playboy leads too many woman on, he's bound to have a mishap or two. Rated 3.5/5 Stars •  Rated 3.5 out of 5 stars 11/27/17 Full Review Audience Member Slow paced, overly long, and joyless, I admire its effort but most of the time there's nothing interesting about Foolish Wives. Rated 3.5/5 Stars •  Rated 3.5 out of 5 stars 01/22/23 Full Review Read all reviews

Foolish Wives

My Rating

Read More Read Less POST RATING WRITE A REVIEW EDIT REVIEW