Don't see this film on TV. This film was shot on 70 mm and you should see it in the cinema on a LARGE screen. I've seen the film in the cinema first, it was brilliant. Later I saw it on TV, it was mediocre the most. Then I saw it in the cinema again, and again it was brilliant. Why? The quality of this film is in the small details. In some scenes, you just don't know where to look because so much is happening at once. On TV, all these details get lost. DVD won't help! A TV just has way too few pixels! This film relies not on story (there hardly is one), but on inventive and imaginative images. Watch the 70 mm version in the cinema, and enjoy the biggest film this genius ever made, with sometimes subtle, sometime hilarious humor!!!

I've finally gone all the way through Jacques Tati's playtime. Hailed by some as one of the great films of all times its a trial for others. I don't know what to make of it.

The film essentially has no plot. People arrive in Paris and interact with Tati's Mr Hulot, sort of. Everyone ends up in a new restaurant where everything goes wrong. The next day the travelers leaves and life goes on.

Allegory or celebration? The choice is yours.

Shot in 70mm in medium and long shots (there are no closeups) in a city that was constructed especially for the film this is a movie that is meant to be seen on a HUGE screen. The frames are filled with odd details and actions on the fringes of the screen that you may not catch the first time you see it (or the tenth for that matter.) Certainly the film play better the more you've seen it. I've seen the first half hour on each of my three or four attempts to watch the whole thing and its gotten better every time I've seen it. The question is how many times do you need to see a film before you can say you like it? Clearly a masterpiece of construction and execution the film is very cold and distant. It also plays very much as a constructed piece of art- very artificial like the world in inhabits. I dislike the steel and glass sets which are very cold (part of the point) and I don't find them really giving any sense of anything more than a block or two of a film studio. It was never a real place for me and I know that hurt the film.

I don't know if I like the film, however I certainly can admire it even as I can marvel at the folly of its even being attempted (It bankrupted Tati and his extended family). Reading on the film is a blast and the commentary track on my BFI release is amazing and its its way I find it more interesting than watching the movie itself.

What can I say? Roger Ebert has placed it on his great movie list. I'd do the same but only on a technical level but not on an emotional level. Even if I warm to it through later viewings I don't think you should have to see something four and five times to before you fall in love with it.

Worth seeing now that Criterion is finally re-releasing it on DVD. This is a renter especially if you don't know Tati's work. (Personally a better introduction is Mr Hulot's Holiday y)

I'm sure everybody enjoys actual playtime, but don't think this movie is for everyone. It's long, experimental, and can be quite a chore to get through. I can certainly see the appeal and why it has been so critically acclaimed, but after 45 years of culture and cinematic progression, I feel that whatever relevance/edge this film once had has been lost, and many modern viewers will not understand it.

The story, as minimalist as it is, features director Tati starring as Mr. Hulot, who has an important appointment in a retro-futuristic Paris but keeps getting lost and distracted through a long series of sight-gags and pratfalls. It's thin, and I believe it's spread rather far. It's the kind of thing Stan and Ollie would do in 40 minutes.

Stylistically, this film seems to be ahead of its time. The photography is highly visual and works symbiotically with the slick production design (the film is a mixture of various shades of grey however, which becomes quite oppressive after a while). The dialogue seems to be mostly irrelevant. Tati himself never speaks, but other characters come and go without much point.

Tati needed this film to be a success and after is flopped he was in debt for a long time. It's a shame that it did as Tati clearly lived and breathed this film for its entire production and cared about it a great deal. If it was too oddball for audiences in 1967 it just as niche for the ADHD audiences of today.

A well made film, but it takes some amount of patience to get through.