--- title: "Lola Montès: the reviews" canonical: "https://film.one/film/lola-montes/reviews" title_page: "https://film.one/film/lola-montes" critics_score: 73 critics_reviews: 9 licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Lola Montès (1955): what the critics said Critics' score 73 from 9 reviews: 5 positive, 3 mixed, 1 negative. Most critics respond favourably to Lola Montès, with praise concentrated on Ophüls’s fluid camerawork, elaborate staging and circus spectacle. The photography, sets, costumes and score draw admiration, while several reviews see the theatrical presentation as central to the film’s account of celebrity and public humiliation. Its admirers argue that the visual extravagance makes spectators aware of how performance shapes what they see, rather than simply providing decoration. The spread of opinion is wide, and the reservations centre on emotional distance, thin characterisation and style overwhelming the story. Even some favourable reviews question the film’s psychological depth. Variety offers the sharpest dissent, finding the treatment elegant but lifeless and Lola difficult to sympathise with, though it praises Anton Walbrook. Slant Magazine takes a contrasting view of the central performance, arguing that Martine Carol’s limited charisma serves the film’s examination of cinema’s power to both revere and mock dreams. ## Slant Magazine — Fernando F. Croce Rating 4/4. 20 September 2008. Croce praises the film as Ophüls’s boldest vision of cinema’s power to revere and mock dreams. He singles out the fluid camerawork and argues that Martine Carol’s limited charisma serves the film’s self-reflexive vision. [Read the review](https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/lola-montes/) ## The New Yorker — Richard Brody Fi1m's normalised score 90/100 (inferred from the text). 19 September 2012. Brody regards the film as a recovered masterwork whose grandiosity becomes its tragic, sumptuous subject. He praises Ophüls’s spectacle for capturing both the passion of performance and the self-abasement of celebrity. [Read the review](https://www.newyorker.com/culture/richard-brody/dvd-of-the-week-lola-monts) ## Empire — David Parkinson Fi1m's normalised score 85/100 (inferred from the text). 13 April 2006. Parkinson considers the film a visually sumptuous, politically incisive must-see, despite reservations about its psychological depth. He especially praises the photography, sets, costumes, score and Ophüls’s fluid widescreen camerawork. [Read the review](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/lola-montes-review/) ## The Guardian — Philip French Fi1m's normalised score 85/100 (inferred from the text). 12 July 2009. French presents the film as an eye-opening restoration of Ophüls’s final work. He singles out the restoration and its acute commentary for praise. [Read the review](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2009/jul/12/philip-french-dvd-classic) ## Time Out — TR Fi1m's normalised score 64/100 (inferred from the text). The available page identifies this as a review, but gives no readable critical verdict. It provides no accessible detail about what the critic praises or criticizes. [Read the review](https://www.timeout.com/movies/lola-montes-1955) ## Los Angeles Times — MARK CHALON SMITH Fi1m's normalised score 55/100 (inferred from the text). 1 March 1991. The critic finds the film unwieldy and emotionally muted in parts, but ultimately invigorating. The swirling camera and vivid circus pageantry are singled out for praise. [Read the review](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-03-01-ca-1887-story.html) ## Variety — Variety Staff Fi1m's normalised score 30/100 (inferred from the text). 31 December 1955. The review finds the film an elegant but lifeless treatment that rarely builds sympathy for Lola. It praises Ophuls’s lush framing and calls Anton Walbrook fine as the king. [Read the review](https://variety.com/1955/film/reviews/lola-montes-1200418053/) ## Paste — Andy Beta Fi1m's normalised score 85/100 (inferred from the text). 16 February 2010. The critic presents the restored film as an audacious, lasting achievement that anticipates modern celebrity culture. They praise its circus framing and theatrical visual style, especially the way it makes spectators aware that observation is shaped by artifice. [Read the review](https://www.pastemagazine.com/movies/max-ophuls/lola-montes-review) ## Eye for Film — Nicola Osborne Fi1m's normalised score 65/100 (inferred from the text). 19 January 2001. Osborne finds the film visually revolutionary but says its style outweighs its story. She praises its inventive, oppressive circus sequences and Ophuls’ visual imagination. [Read the review](https://www.eyeforfilm.co.uk/review/lola-montes-film-review-by-nicola-osborne) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Our review: https://film.one/film/lola-montes.md