SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Protraph Lack of good storyline.

Haven Kaycee It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

Caryl It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

chrisrushlau I suppose there are two kinds of people, or two kinds of attitude. There are times when I want the world to go away and leave me in my daydream, and there are times when I want the world to come ask me to come out to play. This movie is asking the viewer to come out to play.I think the movie makers, cast and crew, would accept my premise about the two attitudes, and they all agree it's better to come out and play than to daydream. They want to know why sometimes a person chooses to daydream--to be alone--to cling to shreds of experience--to wallow in the mud: and I think they have a good argument. Watch the movie. And, contrary to what the previous review might have led you to expect, I'd advise you to expect to be delighted.

TxMike Wealthy, successful, fastidious NYC shrink (William Hurt) trades apartment with a French lady (Juliette Binoche)for a few weeks, they cross the Atlantic at the same time, never meet. Some of his patients visit her at the NY apt, end up on the "couch", they tell her all their troubles, pay in cash as she leaves, astonished at the unexpected income.Meanwhile the good doctor is having all kinds of problems in Paris, a water leak, a messy apartment, a jealous boyfriend who punches him, looking for his girl, so he goes back to NY, shows up unannounced, doesn't tell who he is, and promptly starts to fall in love with her. After a lot of posturing, and she saying she is returning the next day to Paris, he catches a flight there and beats her back by one day. He messes up the apartment to make her feel at home, she figures out who he really is, they kiss and share small talk in French as they go from the balcony into the bedroom.Binoche is just perfect as the sloppy and charming French girl. Hurt is a good actor but doen't have enough range for this type of role. In contrast, consider Kevin Kline's role in "French Kiss." Still, it is a somewhat enjoyable film, but pretty simplistic in its approach and climax. It reminds me more of the old Audrey Hepburn type of movie, much ado about nothing.

donalohanlon "Juliette Binoche cannot act", according to 'anonnymous' below. That isa ridiculous assertion. As is to link this film with Kieslowski's'Blue'. The problem with this movie is that neither Binoche nor Hurt aregiven the material in the form of a good screenplay nor the direction tomake the film work. It seems to me that Akerman, who is an excellentdirector, see La Captive, does not have a good enough command of Englishto write a screenplay in the language.The film, which starts out nicely quickly gets bogged down in thepsychoanalyitical. Endless "yes" and "mmmmm"s loose their amusementvalue quickly. The romance angle is badly developed, just why hasBeatrice fallen for John Wire aka Henry? It doesnt work.But Juliette Binoche can act. In fact in Europe she is regarded withIsabelle Huppert to be the finest actress working today. But she canonly produce the goods when she is given the material and the carefuldirection necessary. Go rent "Rendez-Vous", "The Unbearable Lightness ofBeing", "Les Amants du Pont-Neuf", "Three Colours Blue", "Alice &Martin", "The Widow of Saint-Pierre" and especially "Code Innconnu" andtry arguing otherwise.

Joyce Hauchart Ackerman (director) is one of our most respectable women directors in Belgium. I never knew she made this film and as one person mentioned, if you live in low budget Belgium film country and you can make a movie with Binoche and Hurt, who would not jump out of his chair.The story line is unbelievable but I don't care, so was Matrix I. To say that Binoche can't act, as I read somewhere on this forum is a great understatement. It would NOT have been better with Julia Roberts.Actually we could have been watching this sort of comedy at the theater. It's certainly low budget (except for the wages of the stars) 90 % is filmed indoors at the same locations.I could not believe this was an Ackerman movie. She is very much known as a detailed dialogue women. Once in a while we see this happen, but then it does not fit in this movie. This movie needs action, swift editing etc. Remember Barefoot in the Park? That one worked, for some reason this doesn't. Problem is I cannot put my finger on what it was that disturbed me: not the actors, not the story, not the locations. I very personally think Ackerman had to give in to make this production, she would have made a totally different film with disturbing dialogues but she was not allowed to do so.Conclusion: I love all the work of Ackerman but she should never have done this one. A couch in New York needs more spark.No hard feelings, Chantal.PS: I have to share this with you. My husband walked in after 30 minutes and saw William Hurt in Binoche's flat. His one and only comment was: You're watching a movie with Hurt in Paris? Yep he did recognize Hurt and Paris in one shot. I'm getting tired of attics and attic views. Paris has changed a bit. I'm sure this is again an American must.