90
The thing is, it works. Or at least it works for me. I left the theater convinced that House of Fools is Konchalovsky's best work in almost 20 years (which it is) and that it might be something close to a masterpiece.
We hate to say it, but we can't find anywhere to view this film.
What are people saying?
What are critics saying?
80
Powerful war satire.
60
Has the comically grotesque appeal of a Fellini film and could reach out to auds in specialized release. It lacks the originality and invention to go much beyond that.
30
Washington Post by Desson Thomson
There doesn't seem to be much purpose to it except a half-baked notion that the histrionics of the mentally insane (or a moviemaker's idea therein) are eminently cinematic. They aren't.
50
New York Daily News by Jack Mathews
Something less than a gem. It has a brilliant lead performance from Yuliya Vysotskaya as Janna.
70
Chicago Reader by Jonathan Rosenbaum
This is obviously a sincere undertaking, and there's a certain homemade charm to the special effects used in the combat scenes.
50
House of Fools is not in the category of the director's acclaimed "Runaway Train." It may be based on a true story, but another filmmaker told it before -- and better.
10
Village Voice by Michael Atkinson
For world-class lapses of judgment, Andrei Konchalovsky's House of Fools is a berserk overachiever.
75
Chicago Sun-Times by Roger Ebert
The masterstroke is the use of Bryan Adams, who seems like a joke when he first appears (the movie knows this), but is used by Konchalovsky in such a way that eventually be becomes the embodiment of the ability to imagine and dream--an ability, the movie implies, that's the only thing keeping these crazy people sane.
10
The New Republic by Stanley Kauffmann
His (writer/director Konchalovsky's) plunge into the world of mental distortion is so garish, so exploitative, that the picture needs only a few clicks of the dial to move from the horrible to the ludicrous