Glimmerubro It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

FirstWitch A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Marva It is an exhilarating, distressing, funny and profound film, with one of the more memorable film scores in years,

FountainPen I watched this on DVD, in French, with English subtitles. The long introductory scene of a naked couple engaged in sex was certainly at least "soft-porn". Unnecessary and unpleasant, though some reviewers plainly liked that a lot. The nudity includes full frontal, male and female. The story is simple, the cinematography competent, the direction OK, the acting fair. There are long boring scenes, and scripting could be far, far better. The movie seemed to be an early rehearsal. From me, an overall rating of 3/10. I found that I had zero empathy with either of the leads; the film had minimal impression on me, neither was it a total waste of time, but I would never wish to bother to see it again, and I cannot recommend it.

gavin6942 Zorg (Jean-Hugues Anglade) is a handyman working in France, maintaining and looking after the bungalows. He lives a quiet and peaceful life, working diligently and writing in his spare time. One day, Betty walks into his life, a young woman who is as beautiful as she is wild and unpredictable.Although the film is widely praised, it was "hated" by Roger Ebert, who sees it as nothing more than a film about the lead actress being naked a good deal of the time. He says that is the plot, and anyone who gets more out of it is missing the point. Many people apparently miss the point, as the film received both a BAFTA and Oscar nomination for Best Foreign Language Film in 1986, as well as winning a César Award for Best Poster.Ebert exaggerates slightly, but I cannot completely disagree with him. For one thing, I am not a fan of explicit sex is movies as it never serves a purpose. But also, it just is not that interesting of a film. If people were not attracted to the scandalous nature of the film, it would probably not be a cult film today.

satxfan I saw this film when it came out in the late 1980s. At that time, I was dazzled by the story and locations and I was seduced by the beauty of the two leading actors. Despite those good points, I didn't like the character of Betty (Beatrice Dalle.) I've just watched the nearly 3-hour Director's Cut on DVD. This time, watching Betty's madness was tedious and downright unpleasant. I still liked the locations and cinematography, but had no patience for watching an off-the-rails, self-centered young woman create havoc and unhappiness for those around her. I still recommend the film to anyone who hasn't seen it, but it's nowhere near as good a film as Beiniex's "Diva."

justin caise I mean that in at least two senses: that it is very good and that it depicts realistic fantasy (or fantasy realistically). In some of the other reviews there are objections to the unreality of this movie and many other movies are also knocked for lack of reality. This is NOT a documentary! Long ago I heard the phrase, "the willing suspension of disbelief" in the context of viewing theatre. This movie is ART, not a news reel. I loved the craziness of the characters and empathized with their struggles. They are extremes to illustrate thoughts and emotions, not "real people". Take them metaphorically as struggles we go through in lesser degree and appreciate the movie as such.I liked what one reviewer suggested, that the movie was really just the second book that Zorg was writing, "a play within a play". Maybe? In any event I found it very powerful and enjoyable, even if "unbelievable".