CheerupSilver Very Cool!!!

Kailansorac Clever, believable, and super fun to watch. It totally has replay value.

Ella-May O'Brien Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

ironhorse_iv This movie by Director Philippe Garrel is really hard to watch. I know this movie got a lot of praise from other critics, but in my opinion, it's not for any regular movie lovers. It's not entertaining enough to get people to watch 3 hours of it. It's so drawn out and so long to watch. It's 183 min for goodness sakes! 3 hours of a lot of boring scenes and few enjoying sequences and this isn't the Director Cut. This is the normal movie. Honestly, in my opinion, they could have cut some of the scenes down a bit. Rewrite it and have fewer scenes. The story takes forever to get started. A group of Parisian students find themselves caught up in the chaotic events of May '68 where students and workers strikes and almost gave France a civil war, or revolution. When the strikes fail, the young man François (Louie Garrel) and his clique of friends, experience the aftermath of the events and grapple with their attempts to understand what has just occurred and move on after it. By having his son play Francois, director Philippe Garrel is using him as a memento mori as a way to relive May 1968, through him. It seems to me, that Philippe wants to relive the Bohemia Nouvelle Vague hippie culture again. I hate the movie for trying to make the police look like fascists and the revolutionaries as pacifist poets. It's truly not like that. May 1968 strikes honestly hurt France economy as some of the protesters were anarchist and Stalinist. If we study Russia's history. Communist is just as bad as capitalism. After the strikes, the young adults choice to make love and art. This is where the movie get kinda boring. They talk while taking drugs. It's like watching two people mumbles and grunts follow with a few lines there and now. The action disappears and we are left with people talking a bit, stare, talking more a bit, stare, and then more talking. Once again, half of the stuff they talk about isn't need in the film. In no way, does it move the plot forward. It felt like a lot of filler scenes as if the Director took a smoke break, and left the camera running. The movie seem to suffer from a lot of audio problems. Some of the scenes where they are talking you can hear the microphone brushing upon something, deep breathing sounds or uneven audio tones. They are quiet one minute and then the other minute. Loud. The scenes are so short, it cuts like crazy. The movie has a fondness for cutting from mid-scene to mid-scene and a few primitive dream sequences notwithstanding. Francois takes part in the French revolutions of 1789 and 1848 in his dreams, but it's no way helps him step up another revolution. It's bothersome to have dream scenes and it goes nowhere. I did like William Lubtchansky's grainy, high-contrast black-and-white cinematography. The movie truly look like a student art film. The movie feels so art house film that I was afraid the movie would end up with words 'Fin'. It's like watching Bernardo Bertolucci 'Dreamers' (2003 film) without the sex and nudity. Instead of bright colors, we get none. The film's subject matter and casting mirrors that of Bertolucci, but this movie lacks any entertaining value. I did laugh at one point, one of Garrel's draft-dodging rebels tries to set fire to the French flag, and we see the whole awkward process. Other than that, I was pretty bored waiting for the film to end. The music help me stay awake. While the movie wants to be Nouvelle Vague, it's no way New Wave. They listen to singers such as Nico, even with the fact, that she didn't hit her peak until the mid 1970's and this was 1968. Most of the music choice sounds pretty classic orchestra to me as if listening to classical music. The piano plays during some of the talking scenes, so I can barely understand or hear them. It's plays throughout the scenes, and then suddenly turns off. It has no fades in or fade out. It's come out of nowhere and exits. It's a bit annoying to have random piano doodles, of the opening chords from "I Am the Walrus.". By far, the greatest part of the movie is where several of his friends are seen dancing to the song "This Time Tomorrow" by The Kinks. It's weird in a way, because the song was not released until 1970, two years after the movie takes place. I'm in love with this scene even though it breaks my heart. Francois's face at as he watches his girlfriend dance says it all. He can't enjoy himself because he knows this moment will pass, his relationship won't last forever. He knows his girlfriend can live without him, he cannot. Some of these people will break up, move away, move on, get left behind, and pass away. That's life. It will happen to everyone. The movie works with the theme of amour fou -French for mad, passionate love or obsessive love and how people deal with it. Friends fall out with each other, and he knew change was happening. Personal gradually replaces the political. Francois watches as his group metamorphoses and, as he falls in love with a young woman and starts to make new commitments, feels himself changing as well. Like I said before, it's a great theme about how life works, but it's takes a lifetime on film to get this far. It's like watching grass grow. Overall: this movie requires a commitment in time and brain power to make it worth seeing. No way is this for movie watchers. This is for people that have no life of their own, and like watching other people lives. At less they should have made a movie about somebody's life who is more adventured. That would be fun.

jasongbeale The first 60 minutes of 'Regular Lovers' is highly recommended. The first long sequence depicts the street riots in Paris of 1968, and are extremely convincing in the combination of random images and sounds.After such a promising start, it's downhill... For another 2 hours the 'story' dwells on a tedious and passionless relationship between two young artists. Unnecessarily extended shots with no action or dialogue are little more than insipid imitations of Godard's style, without his wit or intelligence. They add nothing to this particular film I'm afraid.I love the nouvelle vague, don't get me wrong, but this film mimics 'avant-garde' techniques to end up with the equivalent of an endless Calvin Klein advertisement - bored and handsome youths lolling about, being decadent and looking so photogenic. It needs much more dynamism and emotion, either in the acting or in the editing. It might have made a tolerable 2 hour film, and perhaps more involving for this audience member.

annaelle-simonet This is the best French movie of the year ! I saw it twice and I found it great both times. I didn't think it boring at all even though it is very long (3 hours). I'm seventeen so I obviously didn't get to live the events of may 1968 that marked an extremely important turn in French history, but it doesn't really matter since I still really enjoyed the film. It's actually quite universal : people of my parents' age can identify to the characters and so can people my age. Garrel seems to perfectly understand young people, the way they think and the complications of love as well as the loss of illusions concerning the possibility of changing the world. Maybe that's because the character played by Louis Garrel (his son)is actually meant to represent Philippe Garrel himself. Well anyway, great movie, no action (have to be honest on that point) but so strong feelings that you can't possibly stay indifferent to it. If you're looking for a relaxing Sunday-evening movie, don't waste your time on this, you'll be disappointed. But if you like cinema, you'll like Les Amants Réguliers which is a bewitching movie close to those made in the 50's and 60's by the Nouvelle Vague artists.

Aquilant Philippe Garrel makes us breathe the forgotten atmosphere of the Nouvelle Vague, almost lost among the vestiges of its ancient splendor but ready to rise again from its ashes if recalled from the past. They who are a little acquainted with the director's subjects, on the other hand, may know very well how he's obsessed by a lingering sense of loss as far as fickleness of reality is concerned. "Les amants réguliers", therefore, show us the parallel stories of an "amour fou" and of a tempted revolution gone to ruin under the direction of young French students.The first part of the story is about the dramatic events of May '68 in France evoked in a series of astonishing plan-sequences, a sort of cinema verité style, that place the student insurrection in anything but an enviable light against a pitch-black background.There's much that can be said about the peculiarities of black-and-white photography used to describe the battle between students and police, where the high contrasts confer an unrealistic atmosphere to the sequences and darkness closes in upon the excited bodies wrapping them in mystery. The images, completely deprived of words, show the real consistence of the myth, made of crude violence, more and more emphasized by the exasperated reality of the movie shootings. The individual doesn't count anything at all here: he tends to disappear in the mass. What really matters in these fight scenes are the significance of the mass-suggestion, the blind fury of the juvenile assault, sinister eulogies of the power of the mob, even if conceived like separate entities apart from any kind of emotion, with the cold and distant look of an entomologist intent to catalog his insect collection.The second part of the story is described in a quieter and most intimate way. Stands out on the horizon the distressing portrait of a self-centered generation in search of its lost time, completely disenchanted about the individual values of men, inclined to rotate on its own axis between opium fumes and making a funeral oration in the praise of its recent defeat."Les amants réguliers" seems to evoke from time to time the shadow of the great Robert Bresson, revised and corrected by Garrel's particular sensibility without drifting away from the main argument, trying to expand overall perspectives on the subject of human disillusions that though painful may bring us to the truth. In my opinion, trying to penetrate deeply into the substrate of the story, if a man lets himself go and play things by ear, he probably will find that he can bring out the dark side of his self with dire and irretrievable consequences.