Steam Pierrot le Fou

This was an excellent movie, I really enjoyed it. I was not familiar with the cast but they all did a good job. In particular the actors who played these witches. There was a little bit of magic in the movie. I think most of the magic was because the witches were on drugs. I would not say they were in love with one another. However they were all strong together. I really enjoyed the movie, I enjoyed the ending very much. I can't really say if it was a coincidence or not but it did have a nice ending. The director used all of the lighting to make the movie feel darker and the end was very good and appropriate. The acting was really good and they all did a good job. I loved the actress who played Marie and I can't wait to see her in other movies. I do believe that the movie did make it's money but not everyone will like it. I think it was a good film and I think that everyone who enjoys a good movie should enjoy it.

I'd like to start by saying that I don't usually write reviews for movies. This is not because I dislike movies. I just don't get the hype on the topic of 'whodunit' movies. I can't help but think that a lot of people got on this movie because they liked this movie. I was wondering why I hadn't seen it before. I was afraid that it wouldn't hold up to my expectations, that it would disappoint me. I was wrong. There are parts of this movie that make me cringe. The whole phone call with the mother was absolutely creepy. The scene where Annie has a blackout is also creepy. However, I'm not being facetious about this movie. I'm simply saying that I think it did the job. It tells a story, it tells a 'whodunit', it tells a story about a young man whose life is being unraveled. It's not about who did it, or what their motive was. It's about the relationships and the lives of these people. It's not a suspense movie, it's a tragedy, a mystery. I don't want to spoil the movie for you, I just want to state that this movie is worth watching. It's about having to know yourself before you know anyone else, and trusting your instincts and instincts. I think most people who are gonna see this movie will not think it's great, but I think it's one of the best. I'm giving it a 8/10

Touted as the most expensive movie ever made, 'The French Connection' is an unrelenting satire of the drug trade. The film opens with an iconic billboard on a New York City street proclaiming that the "French Connection", the most notorious and dangerous of all of the various drug dealers, was killed last night. The scene is from the film, but the director, Russell Mulcahy, shows no trace of a theatrical flare. Instead, he depicts the streets of San Francisco in a wholly matter-of-fact fashion. The use of street footage of the city from the 1980's is incredibly effective as well. The most striking thing about the film, however, is how powerfully it is expressed. Mulcahy's direction is expertly and unflinchingly devastating. With the exception of 'Miami Vice' and 'Speed', the directing of this film is all-out effective. Mulcahy constructs the character of Benjamine (Kevin Spacey) as an adult, a kind of tortured child that is at once virulently self-destructive, yet emotionally betrayed and pitifully misguided. He's a wounded, deformed entity, whose whole being is hyper-intellectually stunted, yet who possesses an incredibly acute appreciation of power and powerlessness. Benjamine also has a pronounced habit of speaking in half-formed phrases that almost sound like gibberish. If he's in a bad mood, he simply says what comes out of his mouth. You have to see it to believe it. Mulcahy does not care for gratuitous violence, but 'The French Connection' is otherwise a violent movie, for all the wrong reasons. For example, the scene of a body being violently overturned is one of the most horrific scenes in cinema. The resulting crash-scene, with its disorientating, incredible speed, is accompanied by a song that is simultaneously ecstatic and disturbing. This is not something that will go over well with some viewers, but it is undeniably brilliant. Benjamine kills a drug dealer's mother, and the drug dealer's friend turns up dead. Benjamine murders Benjamine's father, and Benjamine's mother turns up dead. Benjamine takes money from his brother and starts using it to pay for his mother's funeral. Benjamine goes to rehab and becomes violent, especially towards the end of the film, before killing his dealer, and his friend. Benjamine's daughter turns up in the middle of the night, after he's been turned in to the police. Benjamine tells her he killed his dealer. Benjamine is locked up in a mental institution, where he constantly struggles to keep the voice of reason up. Benjamine's daughter calls him 'drug-face', and describes him as a bit of a racist. Benjamine is again left to his own devices, but is also the victim of a vicious blackmail plot by the French Connection. This is where the satire begins to fall apart. The film is clearly satire, and in that sense it is a lot like a film noir. However, it's far more effective at satirising the drug trade and the portrayal of it in film than it is at satirising the police or the mental institution. Mulcahy

Guerlain had some of the best scent in the world in the 50's and this movie is the definitive version. This movie's pretty faithful to the original play, and isn't really all that different than the original. Although the film shows some scenes from the play that are different in the original, it still remains faithful to the play, at least for the most part. I think that this movie is actually better than The Concert for My Soul and I recommend it to fans of the original play. I give it an 8/10

The 5 stars for this movie, that make up for the bad review. The 5 stars are for the work of Patrick Luce, Peter Egan, Jonathan Harker, and the great Nicole Kidman. Some critics have complained that this film is dated, and that a big budget may have spoiled the film. I did not understand how this film could have been made when it was. It is such a lovely film, for the most part. For me, it is worth viewing, and very engaging.

In Bordeaux, in the movie Deux Carrettes,, it is a story about Bordeaux in the middle of the 18th century and in a romantic comedy. It is a story that is very different from what I have seen in the other films. In fact, it is not a story, but a musical. And, this is important. We see romantic scenes, like the scene when Mina is in the theater in the beginning of the film and in the end of the film when they all go back to Bordeaux. It is a musical. And they dance to it. If I could find the actors who are famous in the world of romantic comedies, I would go for them. But, in this movie, I don't know whether the same actors are famous in the world of romantic comedies or not. But I don't think they are. And, in the end of the movie, the story is not important, the music is important, which I think is the reason why the movie is different from the others in the genre. And the thing that is unique about the musical in this movie is that they are allowed to act. The character are all actors. The actresses who play Mina and Lea, the actors who play Claudius and Tharaldin. These are the ones who should be on the Oscar nominations. If the others are good, maybe, I don't know, but maybe, the others are not. I don't know. And, in the end, they don't really matter. And, in the end, it doesn't matter whether the movie is good or not, as long as I have seen it, I enjoyed the musical and the movie, as they are two separate things. It is a good movie that is different from the others in the genre, and it is a good movie that has a good story, that is unique.

I have never really appreciated the two detective stories of Gertrude Stein: L'Armee de la nuit (1930) and M.A.S.H. (1971). But while M.A.S.H. (1981) is a stunning example of stylistic excellence, L'Armee de la nuit is a far superior film with a completely different theme, however. In a postmodern way, this is a "film for the forgotten". Not by any means a masterpiece, but it still has all the intangibles that M.A.S.H. is known for. L'Armee de la nuit is based on the real events of the plot of M.A.S.H. The story is set in Paris, during a period of mental and economic crisis. Author Gertrude Stein's brother Victor (Philippe Noiret) is a painter who works in the cafes. It is during one of these hours when Gertrude also works. As she is painting, she sees the police break into the cafe where she is painting. The client Gertrude is painting for is Maurice (Francois Berleand) the famous painter and critic of the Parisian paper Le Figaro. During the break in Gertrude becomes the victim of a shocking robbery of her painting. We don't get a full account of the events, but we know that Gertrude is clearly the victim and the same happens to Maurice. This is the first appearance of three main characters. The third character is the artist of the Le Figaro, Georges Simenon (Marcel Roca). Georges Simenon is the critic and protector of the paper. He is visited by Gertrude in an asylum and witnesses the incident. The truth is revealed to Georges when Gertrude discovers that her painting has been stolen. The real incident is a case of the psychological psychosis of Georges Simenon. At the same time, Gertrude experiences great anxiety and affects her paintings. It is like a kind of crisis of her life. Gertrude is afraid of her husband, Georges Simenon, that is married to a man named Auguste Dias (Johannes Larner). Georges Simenon is separated from Gertrude and sees a real crisis of his own. He begins to express his private feelings and ask Gertrude to see him. Although they are in a relationship, Gertrude and Georges have not so much understanding. In spite of this, Gertrude is stubborn and attempts to protect Georges from loneliness. As a result, we get a good glimpse of Gertrude's condition in the past. Gertrude becomes lonely and at the same time, feels humiliated. She does not want to be the victim anymore. She cannot express herself well. She feels abandoned and does not know what to do. She always suffers from depression. This is the moment when Gertrude develops a theory. Georges Simenon did not steal his wife's painting, he is the real victim of this episode. It is all about Georges Simenon

A strange movie from Claude Chabrol, who has a very loose directing style. But in this case, it works. Another great plot element is the cast. Michel Serrault, Claude Lanzmann, Simone Signoret, Monica Belucci, and Jean-Pierre Benimou are among the principal stars. I don't know if they have ever been famous in the US, but I can't imagine they were any different in France. The style of the French filmmaker can be either stylistic or over-the-top, depending on the situation. In this case, it works very well, with a very elegant and detailed style. Also, it is very well photographed and has very beautiful cinematography. The story is a bit confusing, but is still quite interesting. The photography and score are just superb, and I didn't realize until I watched the movie that Michel Serrault was a director in French films. I also appreciated the language aspect of this movie. The language was a perfect fit for this movie. The one flaw is the movie feels a bit too long. It is an ambitious and interesting movie, but it does feel like a short movie. Maybe it was intended as a companion piece to "A Separate Peace" (1972), but it feels more like a sequel, more like a spoof. I don't know what is the director's intention, but it does feel like a 30 minute episode from "Another View", with better editing. All in all, "Pierrot le Fou" is a classic of the French 70's. Some great direction, camera-work, and a fantastic plot. It is certainly not a movie for everyone. It's a very different style of a French director, but a very fascinating one. The film is directed by the legendary, Claude Chabrol.

I have to say that when I first saw this movie at the video store I was a bit confused. The movie was pretty slow in parts, but there were some funny moments in this movie. The main character, Jean-Luc Picard, who is a scientist, is probably one of the coolest people in this movie. Picard is played by Chris Pine who really plays the character very well. His face is very expressive and his acting is great. I think the main actor is an actor who probably is one of the best in the world, so it is a real shame that he had such a bad year. For example, in "The Men Who Stare at Goats", his acting was bad. It seems that he never got paid for that movie. Now his acting was really good in "The Black Hole". If he had played it right, he would be one of the best actors in the world. On the other hand, Jody Foster's acting is great in "The Red and the Black". She is the new one in the acting scene, but not the only one. Another actor is David Oyelowo. He is very good in "The Station Agent". His acting is also good in "Boys Don't Cry". But, after seeing his performance in this movie, he is clearly one of the best actors in the world. So, it is a mixed bag. I guess people are just getting the joke of this movie because it is a sex film. I believe that this movie is one of the best, but I don't want to take any sort of position for that. All I can say is that I recommend it to everyone who enjoys a good movie.

What we have here is a fine study of two real characters, both of whom had one feature, and then had two. Let's have an idea of what the story is about, and then describe the dynamics between them, and their personalities. I think that this is the flaw of the film. One might think that there's no need to describe the dynamics between the main characters; we already know the dynamics. But it's not this way. It's just a different way of doing it. It's not as good as you think it is. But it's a good idea, because you can't forget about the main characters, and you don't have to do that. It's like a detective story, but it's a story about real people, and it's done in a certain way. That's a flaw, but the movie is so watchable. It's a good drama, with some nice French actors, and they don't go overboard. I thought that they could have been more pompous, but I guess that's just how people talk. That's one flaw. It's okay. The other flaw is that it seems to be being done a little bit too early. I think that's not the fault of the director, but of the actors. The movie is about time, it's about looking back, and it's about death, and it's about people. So the movie is a little bit slow. But it's still watchable, I'd say, and that's a good thing.

What a great film! It's a mystery of sorts - that is, all the mystery is revealed in the end. For those of you who think I'm a masochist, I challenge you to watch this film and not have some sort of reaction. At the beginning, you see the hero, a cop, going through the motions of a night shift. But as the story unfolds, you're not sure if it's a dream or a reality. The ending will shock you. If you don't see the final plot twist, I would suggest you watch it again. I couldn't stop laughing, and I cried, too. I've never seen such a great ending in film, except maybe for Shakespeare's Hamlet, which I can't seem to find on the Internet. The film is very subtle and plays like a sketch comedy. The opening scenes are very dark, and it gradually becomes night. We are only given a few glimpses of the important moments. Even the final scene with the bulletproof cop is cut from the original version of the film. I think the filmmakers would have been better served had they just kept the original version and deleted some of the scenes that would have added to the story. In my opinion, a film like this should be left alone for the purposes of discovering the ending, which is what they did.

This is a charming, ingenious film that is filmed with vigor and intensity. It depicts the entire gamut of human emotions, and the hidden pleasures of human contact. It also highlights the absurdity of the feudal system and shows the usefulness of the welfare state. It is a remarkable piece of work that will appeal to the viewer who has ever been trapped in a social role and cannot escape. The casting is excellent, the plot is non-Hollywood, and the scenery is magnificent. Most striking is the camera work, which is crisp, natural, and is sometimes difficult to see when the film is running at full speed. This is a wonderful film.

I first caught this at the Toronto Film Festival in May 2004, which I enjoyed immensely. It is a masterpiece of dark humour, and in the process the film manages to provide a nice cap to its grandiose tale. Then in 2009 I picked up the soundtrack album. I was riveted by the music, as I am with most films. So on one level it can be stated that the film works. On another level, it is quite disappointing. There is not much of a character in the film. The characters are used very much as foils to the plot, although I suppose that's the point. There is a pervasive sense of boredom here, the film doesn't seem to have much to say, the music is heavy and repetitive and the film is almost complete in two hours. There are points where the film is completely tedious, but at other times it is hilarious, and most of the film is in the nature of an homage to the work of Antonioni, whose style the film most resembles. Unfortunately there are too many people in the cast, which reduces the appeal of the film in some aspects. At the very least, the film works better than this - it deserves better.

The story has many elements which seem to be a low budget film, however, it is well constructed and well written. The plot has many twists, it never really leaves you with a "who-done-it" feeling, the characters are interesting and the ending makes the film all the more exciting. The actors in this film, however, are in their prime and do a very good job of conveying their characters. I would definitely recommend this film to anyone, particularly women who have suffered from sexual abuse.

Maybe I'm a bit biased because I went to a film festival that made it's selections based on the scripts submitted. However, I really like the final product of this movie, so I did expect to be wrong. "Pierrot le Fou" is a fairly basic and straightforward tale about a soldier of fortune who develops an unexpected friendship with a young prostitute. The movie takes place mostly in a hotel room, where we follow the relationship between the young girl and the soldier. The movie is fairly straight forward and doesn't go over the top with the music, but that's the way it is in French films and it's usually a good thing. If you expect an intense, stylistic movie then you'll be disappointed. But if you're not a huge fan of these kinds of movies then you should definitely see it.

Being a fan of Jean-Pierre Jeunet's work for more than ten years I was eagerly awaiting this film. Not a bad film but a little bit too slow for my liking. The film may seem to be slow in a few places but does carry out a lot of it's goals.

I'm always more interested in films that are down-to-earth. People with real issues are usually more interesting to me. This movie was about human frailty and a reality that most people never come into contact with. I found myself laughing at some of the story, as it was so honest and real.

It's a beautifully photographed film about Jean Arp, a filmmaker who fell in love with an actress on the street, who she met while hitchhiking, and they became inseparable. It's a bit like a crime story about a couple's affair, but of course we have seen many such stories already, like a James Dean-like chase for a young woman to a bizarre ending. It's a sad story about the lives of people who once had some beautiful things, but a time they live in regrets and regrets about not finding a way to stop or to change it. The film does not answer that question, but shows that people can change a lot of things, because they can learn from their mistakes. The photography is very beautiful and sharp. The film is not very long, but its resolution is a little bit slow. It is worth watching for the photography, but not much else.

Fernando De1955's "The Cave" is a dark, violent movie about a drug addicted man who gets saved by an Italian scientist. This story seems to be apocryphal, but it is hard to imagine that this story could be plausible. "The Cave" is so memorable because of its surrealistic atmosphere and at the same time the fact that it uses a strange romance, in the sense that it is hard to determine what the truth is. One of the questions in the movie is that of whether the man is gay or just a man with some trouble. I found the film really interesting because it is based on an actual man, and because it is very unpredictable. Many of the scenes that I loved the most are the ones that are hard to predict. For instance, in the scene when the man meets the woman, we have to see that he is drunk but at the same time we can see that he can run around freely. And it is even harder to predict the sexual relations that come from it. Another interesting point of this movie is the way that it discusses the issues of homosexuality in a way that is only weakly connected to realism. And that's a good thing because, although the film is very real and very serious, we can understand the characters more and more.

A young man travels through the woods of Vermont searching for a young woman with whom he has lived for a while. But a series of murders from a killer they assume is a deer disturbs the man and forces him to go back into the woods. This is an interesting movie that takes the premise of one of those 70's movies where there is a young man who hunts deer in the woods and who is hunted and why he is hunted but doesn't go back into the woods to find the young woman. The movie takes this premise and runs with it. I think the result is a fairly good movie. The central characters are interesting, especially the young man who goes into the woods looking for a young woman who has lived with him for a while but is nowhere to be found. I think this is a good movie and worth watching. My only problem is with the end. For some reason, I don't know why they ended it with them getting married and all that jazz. But that's a minor complaint. Another minor issue is that the movie isn't very long. It runs 2 hours and 40 minutes and feels like a few minutes less. But, if you watch this movie with an open mind, you will enjoy it.

Pierrot le Fou (2006) is the final of Olivier Assayas' five movies in the opera titled "La Traviata". This movie, adapted from his novel, centers around the relationship between Guido di Angelo (Eduard Cohen), a wealthy but ugly owner of a bar and the Spanish woman who teaches him the art of fencing (Zulily Dicastello). Guido delights in the education of his young pupil, only to see her fall in love with his competitor, Marco (Luis Carmona). This plot twist would have seemed silly, if not for the acting talents of Guido's son Pietro (Yann Isidoro), who gives a solid performance in a quite tragic part. Guido's lack of skill in fencing leads him to turn his attention to the women who know the secrets of the art. Guido must learn to overcome his own perfectionism to put aside his own repressed feelings, and can only learn it if he accepts the love of his pupil. Only a strong man can do that. Guido's knowledge of fencing is not solely acquired from his mother, who instills it in him. Guido does not care about his daughter, and if the love of her sister breaks his heart, Guido becomes free and can be just as happy as a bachelor. As his son, Cohen works wonders with his portrayal of Guido, providing a great insight into the person Guido is, and showing the true consequences of his actions. While this story revolves around a romantic relationship, there is another story, revolving around Guido's ability to better his personal relationship with a fellow fencing master. As Pietro, Yann Isidoro is excellent, showing both the human side of Guido and his personality. The other actors, Dicastello and Carmona are not as memorable, but the young cast is well cast, giving a great performance. The cinematography of Olivier Assayas, especially the set pieces, is amazing. The beautiful sets and effects on Guido's training, gives an incredible atmosphere. "La Traviata" is a great movie, which tells the story of a friendship that is full of secrets, and that helps one overcome the limitations of the individual. In the end, Guido learns the secrets of fencing from Marco, and comes to love his pupil. This story is an emotional one, that makes one reconsider their own standards of love.

This movie is almost a masterpiece. It's the story of two competing con men who become friends and end up working together. The story has many twists and turns and takes a while to get to it's climax. It's worth watching, though I would have liked to see more of Jean Reno, but that's my personal opinion.

A beautiful and passionate film from the French film maker Claude Berri.It is definitely one of his best films that I have seen and I can't compare it to his previous work as I am not familiar with his work.My guess is that this is a very personal film and it's certainly not an easy film to see but Berri is so passionate about this story that it is really a big leap of faith.The film is set in the French countryside but is focused on the lives of four people who live in this small village.They are - Anissa, Mademoiselle, and herself.The first one is a nurse who is helping Mademoiselle when she is hit by a car.She dies and the other three are her caring neighbours and former partners.I liked the first scene when they all are inside a home discussing her death and she asks them what happened.It is hard not to feel sympathy for them.After the accident the four women decided to start a new life in Paris but Anissa is angry about how life had treated her.She ends up in a high-security psychiatric hospital.Mads is too afraid to leave the hospital and is also sad.He gets angry when his partner does not want to stay in Paris and he becomes a homosexual and spends a lot of time with a group of other men.Mademoiselle also starts to get depressed because she is depressed and unhappy at home.She is deeply in love with a married man and doesn't have a relationship with Mademoiselle.After the death of Mademoiselle the nurse starts to become the only one who sees Mademoiselle every day.The most interesting character is Anissa.She is the only one who is supportive of Mademoiselle, and she also becomes more and more depressed.Mademoiselle tells her that she is angry with her for not taking her son to school.This is the most beautiful scene of the film because it shows the truth of human nature and the strength of friendship.The film is an amazing story about friendship, love and overcoming adversity.It is a story of grief and the strength of friendship.The film is a little bit slow and can be frustrating at times.Berri is also known for his photography.His last film 'The Nymph, The Oracle', which I personally loved was also in French but I do not think that the film is as good as his last films.It is not a bad film but it is not as good as his previous works.My vote is eight.My advice is to see it for the characters and story.

The "Vampyres" are a bit too good to be true. A troubled gang of young men living in Paris are forced to turn to prostitution for survival. Along with the teenagers, they live in a filth-filled ghetto. These young men are street-smart, they work together in the "Vampyres" house, and they follow their whims as individuals. As an adolescent, a wealthy European, played by Nicolas Cage, invites them to take a trip to Paris with him to see his new apartment. The teens attend parties, smoke pot, and display their sexuality. While the other kids are testing their sexuality, the young men do not seem to have any problems. The sexually dynamic members of the gang soon find that their fantasies of having sex with the wealthy, more educated teenagers have become reality. Nicolas Cage in this film is mesmerizing. He is the best actor in the world, and he is equally as mesmerizing in the film. He is a major star who is strong in every way. His acting ability is obvious in every scene he is in. This is a strong cast that provides the film with a high level of visual beauty. The music in this film is excellent. The direction is excellent, and there is plenty of good, old-fashioned humor. It is just an excellent, strong film.