It just shows to go you. Reading the reviews, they go from boring to wonderful. If this film is not for you, then its just not for you. But if you like it, you will love it. I've no intention of trying to tell you WHY i think its good and WHY you should like it. It's my favourite film of all time so far, and i've watched it about 25 times. You owe yourself the privilege of watching this wonder at least once in your life. Apparently i need to write some more words so what can i say? Yes, i can take the film apart bit by bit and see what the elements are and their sources and why they are there. The themes, which seem to be war and children( although there are no child characters, and only one war scene- another contradiction). The references to Dickens and Shakespeare and other classics and 'genres', the earth moving at key moments like god intervening. The piano playing itself, when it seemed that it was being played, a comment about fate somehow i think. The superb performances by superb actors, of their quirky, imperfect, characters. I see the unanswered questions too. I see certain things that don't quite work for me even. Its beautiful, its funny, it still makes me cry. But i know if i was going to make a movie i would like it to be a sister movie to this one; except i couldn't do it.

It's a totally surreal movie that did remind me of "Delicatessen". Even the peculiar pastel colors are similar. The tale? A new maid starts working at a dilapidated boarding house - a pension - in Paris, in 1913, and she gets involved with a young German artist who lives there. Her relationship with him is the central part of the plot, but the other characters add subplots in their own strange ways. The people who live there are peculiar, the owners are peculiar, the situations are peculiar... but I got caught in it and came to enjoy the faintly claustrophobic atmosphere. Drama, touches of black humor, absurdity, love and betrayal, it's got it all. Not an absolute masterpiece but well worth seeing.

I think Frank Van Passel and Christophe Dirickx have succeeded beautifuly in capturing the essence of Elschot's classic novel. Sure, the other characters may have been minimised in the plot, but by doing so, the bulk of the story is allowed to breathe. You can only get so much of a large novel into 2hrs of screentime.As for continually asking the question "why?", I have a question: Why is this a problem? I found it very stimulating to question throughout this film- I don't like to be spoon-fed answers. It kept me thinking. Not a bad thing.By the end of the film, I was very glad of the ambiguity. I think it captured the ambiguity of love, lust and ambition. It didn't try to tie everything up in a ribbon- a bit like life itself really.Beautifully written, directed and performed.

In the world of Belgian cinema, Frank Van Passel has been more than just a name for quite some years now. Both 'Manneke Pis' and 'Terug naar Oosterdonk' made an unforgettable impression and made him perhaps the most important Belgian director to walk the face of the earth. Recently, though, things grew a bit quiet around Frank Van Passel, but let there be no mistake about it: he is back. And how! A firm script by Christophe Dirickx, years of hard work by Frank Van Passel and a for a Belgian movie most extraodrinary cast (Julie Delpy, Shaun Dingwell, Hariet Walter, Jan Decleir, Dora Van der Groen and Frank Vercruysse), all these ingredients make 'Villa Des Roses' an incredible and unforgettable cinematographic experience. Though I was fairly sceptic about the mix of ingredients, the result is more than convincing. Each character receives a well-balanced attention. 'Villa Des Roses' is a must-see and I hope that audiences abroad as well as distributors worldwide will acknowledge, through this sutble masterpiece, that Belgium is more than capable of producing great cinema.