Greenes Please don't spend money on this.

Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

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

Adeel Hail Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

chiodoesque Vacuous film. I was ready for a French classic and got a French dud. Talk about wooden acting, a sleep inducing boring plot, and marionette characters that evoke no sympathy or genuine emotion. I've seen student films better than this. Normally, at least one of the characters needs to be likable. I'll give the cook some points for trying. The two gay dudes were simply embarrassing to watch. To think a mature director could think their grade school shtick was humorous in any way, shape or form is astounding. I only gave 3 stars because some of the cinematography was nice and the ladies were quite fashionable. That's about the best I can say about it: a very trite fashion piece.

shepardjessica-1 Although I've usually enjoyed Chabrol's film and his (then-wife's) Stephane Audran's ice-cool looks, this is down the ho-hum trail from beginning to end (picking up a bit in the middle). Trintignant is his usual passive self and Jacquelline Sassard is strange and disturbing-looking with no apparent acting talent.A 3 out of 10. Best performance = S. Audran. If this is supposed to be erotic, mysterious, and dark - it missed the mark by a mile. Beautiful French locales with extra supporting characters who serve no real purpose. Don't waste your time unless you're really a Chabrol junkie. Have wanted to see this for years...what a pity.

writers_reign Having recently seen two other Chabrol films starring his then wife Stephane Audran I thought this slightly earlier one would be fairly similar and I was as right as I was wrong. Certainly the trademarks are on hand - stylish settings, photography, behaviour verging on the obsessive etc - but this time Chabrol throws sexual deviation into the mix at a time when it wasn't as commonplace as it was to become shortly afterwards. A lot depends on Why in more senses than one given that the second female character answers to that name, but why DOES Audran leave a ridiculously large tip for a pavement artist, why does Why allow herself to be picked up and ultimately of course why do we care. Completing the menage a trois is the ever reliable Jean-Louis Trintignant and whilst it's far from a waste of time I won't be so eager to watch it again as I will Le Boucher or La Femme Infidele.

lilaqueen I don't like labeling movies with one word but I just didn't find any other words to say on this one. I watched many other Chabrol films, which I don't admire but liked and found some interesting things in them. But this one disappointed me beyond my imagination. I have to begin somewhere so let me begin with the story. Was it another criticism about bourgeoisie and telling us that the artist must be on his/her own instead of being a slave to bourgeoisie? Or was it about finding an identity in lesbian affair, there is no nudity, which was a quite a topic for '60's? Was it about commitment, passion, jealousy or the mortal love? I have to confess none of these convinced me at all. Second of all, the acting was ridiculous and the mood of the film was cold as ice. Maybe Chabrol thought that the climax could get warmer in Saint Tropez but it didn't help as well. (If you are looking for beautiful scenes of Southern France I will recommend To Catch A Thief instead with a brilliant story and directing from Hitchcock )Their acting didn't give the feeling of love, in fact any feeling at all. I patiently watched to get something from it, but the film ends with a huge nothing. I don't recommend this film to anyone, for me it is a loss of time.