mdefranc

Serpico, Dark Blue, Unlawful Entry: Some of the many titles we've seen related to police corruption and unorthodox officers' behavior however (and I must admit he's done a stellar job at doing this), Figgis delves deeper into the issue - the corrupt officer's mind, reminding us of Treat Williams in Prince of The City, with a total different outcome of course.

We feel enveloped in fear by Gere's portrayal of Officer Dennis Peck, a shrewd and merciless individual who'll let nothing stand in his way when it comes to masterminding and conducting a series of illicit activities while wearing the LAPD uniform. As such, he'll try to rid himself of Sgt. Raymond Avila, a new entry into the Internal Affairs Division who immediately senses Peck's viciousness and begins investigating him.

Richard Gere, as many of us know, has had an artistic education (pianist and composer) and I do believe such characteristics, besides his obvious talent as an actor, have contributed to his ability to mold his personality no matter the script; I dare to say "to successfully improvise", as many artists have done and do, allowing him to show us what lives behind the movie title.

I believe this will stay in many viewers' minds for quite some time after seeing it.

What we see here is a rather strong, yet very human, representation of how love truly operates in many people's lives: It sinks its claws into one's essence, making him/her or both leery about what such love could bring and how it could evolve itself. I'm talking about fear, fear of abandonment, being cognizant of the fact that, unfortunately, many situations do not last forever.

The above comment was by me laid out mimicking Enrico's cynicism, not only because of his terminal disease, but due to his awareness of what explained above. Their love explodes, rather than blossoming, a true love I shall say, the love two persons are ready to promise to each other no matter what the odds in life may be. Unluckily for many, such drive (which was not sexual on either side in my opinion) walks its path along with an unwanted travel mate, fear, which deals its lethal blows to a lot of relationships due to past wounds and human vulnerability.

Valeria, notwithstanding her "so-called" new life, shows her devotion to Enrico throughout the entire movie, accepting his behavior, knowing what that really means, knowing that he was acting out of pain, sorrow and FEAR. After all. at one point in the movie, as he angrily throws his briefcase up in the air after disclosing his doom to Valeria, Enrico does say "All of this is happening and I should not be scared?".

Through Salerno's camera, Tony Musante portrays, via his character, the filth and mud he says Venice is made of, a city that sank in the water a very long time before; he admits, by way of his actions and words, to have become part of that squalid scene.

Being human though also implies hope, current or lost that it may be, which we notice only once when he says "There's still a lot of poetry in life" before taking Valeria to purchase a brocade tailor made dress. I won't comment on his citation of Proust… Unlike (always in my opinion)Morricone, Stelvio Cipriani creates more of a one-to-one musical situation in the movies accompanied by its scores (e.g., L'ultima neve di primavera, Dov'è Anna et al), where the sounds, always rather somber, act as a narrator while the characters perform.

Musante and Bolkan were a perfect match, as their figures portray "Man and Woman", with every related quirk and problem, underpinned, however, by a love that will never end. Valeria realizes he really always loved her once it becomes obvious to her that he really needed to see her before dying, also when he prompts her to go before missing her last train to Ferrara. Sadly for her, the train she really missed had left Venice 7 years before from a track that only brought it back to her for a few hours that day only, to see it depart again, this time, toward a point of no return.

Valeria will carry on painfully, as she truly always loved Enrico.

Duncombe, cold and distant father, besides UK Consul General in Florence, carelessly applies his stark communicative methods with his first son Andrew after his wife's death, which Andrew had sensed well before his father's disclosure of the sad news.

Duncombe's several duties, which constantly keep him away from the family, force Andrew to look after Miles, his little brother. Andrew valiantly carries on, humoring his spoiled sibling, putting on the apparent front of a strong man, getting himself into a lot of trouble due to Miles' continuous mischiefs.

Unbeknownst to his father, Andrew silently suffers his loss; blame is all Duncombe lays on young Andrew, probably due to his incapacity to deal with such pain himself.

It will be at the end, as often seen in life, that the diplomat will experience his second loss, probably the ultimate one, the one he negligently couldn't prevent. His coldness will eventually hit him during the last moments of Andrew's early, shattered adulthood.

Comencini gives this young man the power to annihilate the lavish and colorful home and surrounding environment, reminding us that once it's too late there's no return. There's perfect synchronicity between the colors/tones/score and the setting of the picture, a rather clear representation of life in Florence during the late 60's where roles, both social and professional were well defined.

Using a term I have commented with for a different movie, we are seeing a positive-negative image of Comencini's Pinocchio, where the father is constantly running after his son, both for loneliness and to keep him out of trouble. I think some of us will agree with the fact that Miles' role somewhat reminds us of the fictional character.

The comment's title has, for the record, its ambivalence.

One may watch one of the episodes and say "They certainly weren't that creative". We must take a look at what we have come to in today's day and age when it comes to movies, which, in many cases, are nothing but a portrayal (in the minds of many of us) of what we wish we were, from a standpoint of lifestyle, socio-economic standing, looks and, last but not least, power (gosh, why did I put that for last..?).

Let us remember how the 70's were and what they have left us with; I'll give you a few examples of the mark they made on our memory: Elegance, passion, style, prestige and DETAIL. If we watch the Persuader's end theme, we'll notice a line in the end credits saying "Lord Sinclair's clothes designed by Roger Moore". If some of you had a chance to catch a few episodes, you will have noticed that he was quite the creative type, whose ideas and personality molded Lord Sinclair's character remarkably well, along with his charming looks and sex appeal.

Roger Moore and Tony Curtis (along with their cover girl-like lady friends) were then who many of us now try to be in places like Montecarlo, Nice, Cannes, the Italian Riviera and, of course, London except the fact that, unfortunately and fortunately, that kind of genius with respect to the aforementioned details, cannot be replicated in lieu of one simple reason: It doesn't exist anymore.

The Persuaders are a staple of the 70's message that jumped at us from the screen, a message of self-confidence, sex appeal (Let's look at Suzy Kendall for instance) and style. Automobiles like Aston Martins, Jaguars and Ferraris made quite the impression then, while they sure don't nowadays due to how many you see on the big screen every time a movie comes out.

In The Persuaders one will find that pastel and bright colors are in total harmony with each other, ticket-pocket blazers that blend lusciously with high-collared shirts and men's foulards. There weren't that many thongs for women then and I tend to prefer the looks of a simple bikini bottom which, if worn by a 70's woman, heightened beauty far more than what we see now. The two men were the image of free-spirited life, accompanied by a high sense of style, the right "Aplomb" any man should have.

Tony Curtis (aka Bernard Schwartz): A true American star. Roger Moore: The true British Lord.

I won't say much about John Barry's Theme, as it speaks for itself and everything I have said, a true masterpiece that voices out and underpins what the show meant to be. It will always bring us back either by the edge of a pool with a Martini or into a London private library with a superb scotch.

Ladies, Gentlemen...cheers-

I must admit that, albeit my being impartial at all time, New York City in the 70's is my weak spot from a photography standpoint and that's the second main reason why I was very pleased by this motion picture.

Dustin Hoffman is known by his fans as an excellent improviser on the movie set, a comment Schlesinger also made, and that makes him a standout compared to other big screen artists. That's what I loved the most about Marathon Man.

Hoffman is in his 40's in this movie however his young features and demeanor fit perfectly within the Columbia University PhD student profile, especially the one of a young man coming from a family of historians (I guess it was inevitable to pair up such a character with the movie plot). It was amazing seeing how such a cruel and intricate part of last century's history creeps up on Hoffman's role through his brother's sinister ties with some government agency and a Nazi on the run from South America to New York in the attempt to recuperate a fortune in diamonds. Somewhat predictable was instead Lawrence Olivier's (Szell) true identity discovery by a jeweler on West 47th Street, being that you certainly won't find Italians or Spaniards in that specific area..

Roy Scheider (The late Roy Scheider I have to say), as in many other roles he covered, was extremely thorough in his acting, with his very charming and stern looks as usual. He truly fit the international intrigue profile in his movie and I honestly have to say that no one else could have been a better choice for his part.

Wiliam Devane and Marther Keller were the icing on this bitter-sweet cake (I'll leave it up to the connoisseurs to understand what I mean by bitter-sweet) which melts perfectly under an even more bitter-sweet sunset seen from the New York City reservoir fences.

I am usually not so strict and judgmental in my comments however I must say that, besides being a rather dramatic example of a spoiled father-son relationship, I have found this movie to be long and extremely empty in its plot.

Its cold strokes remind me a lot of Chabrol's "Merci pour le Chocolat", with Isabelle Huppert and Jacques Dutronc. I must say that, although I am a Depardieu's fan in most cases, Aime Ton Pere has left me empty handed at the end of the tape. I can't really say much about Guillame Depardieu, given the movie's lack of plot and spinal cord and the fact that I haven't had a chance to analyze his other performances. I can already say though that he belongs to a different breed of actors than the one Gerard comes from. If you care to see a cold and cynical Depardieu senior in a true quality performance, 36 Quai des Orferves will keep you on your toes.

I would define this movie as an example of a job well done of France's 1970's cinema. The cast is excellent and, as I may already have said in other comments, Sautet's direction acts a magic wand in his works. A little bit like "Je Vous Aime" with Catherine Deneuve and Jean Louis Trintignant, Vincent, Francois, Paul...et les autres shows the "after life" of certain characters trying to cope with their sentimental failures and mix-ups, except the fact that in this movie not everyone is an ex-husband of one of the female stars.

This certainly isn't as dramatic as Sautet's "Les Choses de la Vie" but there is just as much of a bitter final after taste, although everyone is alive at the end. Sautet has thus far left me with a "punch in the stomach feeling after seeing several of his movies. Nelly and Monsieur Arnaud for instance is another one of his unresolved romantic story, where no one knows at the end whose feelings were hurt.

Albeit its solemn Sautenesque tones with regards to love, Vincent, Francois, Paul...et les autres keeps its focus on a bizarre yet strong friendship among several men, preventing their unsolved love relationships to tamper with its strong lesson on the fact that, often times, friends last longer than partners.

In this intense and emotional tale of compassion, rescue and love, director Mike Figgis portrays the antithesis of the Richard Gere he had shown us three years before Mr. Jones' release: A needy, fragile, unstable yet creative and fascinating character versus the sinister, cold-blooded and self-confident officer Dennis Peck in Internal Affairs.

Gere's ability to absorb the script and bring it to life through his inimitable histrionic demeanor has once again amazed me, bringing me into the scene as if I were observing from behind the camera. Another example of a woman assisting a man throughout his struggle is Figgis' Leavign Las Vegas, where Elizabeth Shue chooses to be by Nicholas Cages' side, with the exception of a very sad ending (In this case we had pills instead of bottles). From Final Analysis, Gear switches into the patient's role, making us hold our breath and, needless to say, get a good use out of our handkerchiefs.

It is indeed very awkward how sometimes we set off to help someone and we become the ones needing help. Nick Nolte offers a great performance in showing how some of us can be masters at keeping secrets until the prying words of a shrink (The shrink's perfume has something to do with it apparently..) and the ability to re-exhume some buried memories can crack open a big Pandora's box.

By now (It's 1991) Nick Nolte owns the art of playing extremely dramatic roles (You will see a great Nolte in 1993's Lorenzo'Oil, along with Susan Sarandon) and, no less, a convincing family man. It sure made me emotional to see him with his daughters playing, laughing and, above all, trying to hide what was happening between him and his wife. I must say that, although the name Barbra Streisand is synonymous of song, love song, I appreciated her as an actress as well. The story is totally credible, the original score is enchanting and every aspect of the photography was excellent.

I must say that, although New Yorkers were a bit "wilder" in 1991 compared to nowadays, I have to say that the New York attitude portrayed in the movie was a bit too much for my taste and they could have toned it down a notch. The cast was a fit for the story (But why George Carlin?) and seeing this movie again after about seven years was rather pleasurable.

I saw this movie on an Air France flight four days ago and I must say that, although Auteuil and Depardieu are my favorite French actors together with Tcheky Karyo, I was a bit disappointed with regards to some cut and paste work done with the plot. Everyone who saw "Heat" (1995 De Niro/Pacino) will agree with me with regards to the fact that the hold up scene at the beginning is basically the same as the one in the American movie (C4 explosive to blow the truck's door open and the Molotov cocktail inside the same van at the end of the robbery); the gunfight with the foes was also "rather" similar to the one outside the bank in the movie Heat and that to me was somewhat cheap. Although there were a few flaws, the general story in itself is interesting and French movies are usually very good, especially when it comes to drama.

Gerard Depardieu is very good at playing the rough man's role however I was rather impressed by Daniel Auteuil's interpretation of Vrinks (Certainly not the same kind of cop he portrayed in Les Voleurs-1996). My positive reaction to his interpretation comes from the fact that he has a not-so-common ability to sway from character to character, a trait I don't easily see in Depardieu. I recently read about Ron Howard's cast of "The Da Vinci Code", based on the book by Dan Brown. I have a hard time seeing Jean Reno as Bezu Fache, the chief of the French Judicial Police, while I see Depardieu as a perfect fit for it instead.

I am not sure of the release date of this movie in the U.S. but I'd keep my ears and eyes open for it.

I wouldn't be surprised if Huppert faked her affair with the mysterious "lover" just to solicit her husband's attention. At the end it seems as if she had "forgiven" him and tries to win him back to their home. Her interpretations often grab the audience by the throat, leaving spectators often in a state of mesmerizing suspense, and I am using the word "mesmerizing" because of her ability to seduce and own the viewers' eyes. She is a woman who has a way with men, she makes them believe what she wants, she makes them want her and agonize over her, over her insane requests and behavior throughout the movies she stars in.

After seeing her in some of her movies, I feel comfortable saying that she could have been a good main character in Ozon's "Sous le Sable", where the role of the widow is played by a phenomenal Charlotte Rampling (remember when she runs on the beach at the end?).

I remember seeing this movie about twenty years ago, feeling scared by the sinister looks of Klaus Kinsky in this alternative interpretation of Bram Stoker's immortal novel.

I have asked myself why Harker's wife's name is Lucy instead of Mina, or Wilhelmina, Harker, just like in the novel and in the other Dracula motion pictures. I say it is alternative because of Herzog's choices of names, location and plot, which swerves a bit from the original story. For instance, Wismar was never the city where Jonathan Harker and his fiancée lived but rather London and the book certainly didn't portray Harker adventuring himself through the Carpatians on a horse. I must say though that it was entertaining, I dare say that its different plot structure was capturing, probably because I have seeing Christopher Lee and Gary Oldman playing as the Count, following Stoker's lines as much as possible.

Photography was OK and music appropriate. Costumes were very realistic and, although I haven't seen Isabelle Adjani and Bruno Ganz act in any other movie, I feel at ease saying that they both played the "unusual" Harkers well. Let's keep in mind though that Nosferatu may not be understood well by viewers today.

The movie was rather long but it had my undivided attention for its entire duration. It certainly seems to me that there is some sort of a cliché' in Jean-Pierre Jeunet's movies that have Audrey Tatou in them as the main character. This was a rather similar chain of events, albeit with a different plot, to her Amelie role three years ago, and I saw a good handful of the same actors and actresses were there too. Tcheky Karyo had his place in it too("Pour la France ou la Moooooorte"); he indeed is cut for roles like the government agent in Nikita and the cop in The Good Thief.

A sad plot, a story that will certainly bring many of our relatives and parents down memory lane after seeing this movie. Indeed, many of those young fellows were drafted in the 15/18 war, taken away from their families, families that so many of them never saw again. Very moving when Manech asks Mathilde "Does it hurt when you walk", just like he did when they first met as kids. Photography was very good and, albeit its length, another beautiful fable starring Audrey.

I trust anyone who's seen this didn't have to delve much into it to understand what Fonteyne's message is. Rather simple I would say, no need to dissect it, what you see is what it really is, as Magritte said about his paintings. The two characters portray the life of probably many of us in today's day and age, a disposable society where there seldomly is time for feelings to be discussed, even though we'd like to. Their "relationship" (I've been too generous I think..) is ironically carried on "routinely" probably like everything else they did on a daily basis, just like many of us do.

As we now meet on the internet, they met through a magazine ad, just to dare one another I guess, challenging one another to see who'd give up first maybe. Fonteyne constantly keeps his lens on the two of them, leaving everything else out of sight, almost as if he were afraid of one of them fretting the situation and escaping. They don't even know each other's name; they just carry on, consuming their rapport behind the red of their hotel room walls, a deep, intense red, as deep and strong as the attraction for one another.

No matter how prone each of them is at the end of the movie to declare their feelings, they will eventually fail in the attempt to chip the red off the wall and carry some of it along in their lives. A strong sense of regret underpins the end of this sad -yet realistic- story. What we see toward the epilogue is a manic attention to the few details around them from a lighting perspective: The red walls and the bed sheets as their love slowly dissipates.

A gifted Liotta surprised me once again in the sinister role of schizo-cop he carries out. I must say that his demeanor, his voice, his insanity are the backbone of the whole movie. With that said, I feel comfortable enough stating that Kurt Russel and Madeleine Stowe struck me only as ancillary characters, in other words they were only the frame and not the picture.

Unlike the young mafioso he played in Good Fellas, where his conscience gets in the way all the time, Liotta shows a rather dark and unstable himself in Unlawful Entry, willing to go any distance to "win" Russell's wife. Although some may say that a better photography job could have been done, the director concentrated himself on the main subject (Liotta), his face, his voice, his movements, his (I dare to say) needy behavior.

A rather similar ending to Internal Affair, 1990, starring Richard Gere and Andy Garcia, where the bad cop dies at the end, although Gere's interest was not the attractive colleague's wife. Another intriguing and sickening L.A. story..sick city of angels.

First and foremost I have to say that Squittieri could have used the real names of all the characters he intended to portray, starting with Judge Giovanni Falcone (Instead of Judge Falco), the "pentito" Tommaso Buscetta (Instead of Vanni Ragusa), "pidduista" Michele Sindona (Instead of Spinola), Chief of Palermo's Police Squara Mobile division Boris Giuliano (Instead of the Judge who gets blown away in the bar).

A rather uncanny resemblance to real life characters (Mafiosos and politicians) whose past and present roles in the affairs of Cosa Nostra are still being analyzed by judges and high ranking investigators. Photography was rather good and, useless to say, Morricone's sounds are the right complement to this portrait of Sicilian magistrates' lives.

Franco Nero needs to tone himself down a bit when playing such roles (Judge Falco). This motion picture is a must see. I also recommend Pizza Connection after this one.

Rather similar to a 1975 Spanish movie by director Pedro Lazaga "Largo Retorno", where an ill woman is hibernated until they find the cure for her disease. Mel Gibson is a good actor and fits the roles he is given, except the one he had in "Signs", a total cheesy story and, in opinion, a total fiasco. I think he should stick to more active parts, like the one of Sgt. Martin Riggs in "Lethal Weapon" (By the way Patsy Kensit was perfect for him in Lethal Weapon 2).

He does have the looks of an Irish priest though and, given his recent "Passion", he should look into such roles for possible future movies. I rate him an overall good actor.

As William Hurt also said in The Accidental Tourist, "Less..is invariably more". I guess many of us do live in denial, trying to slip through life as if certain things weren't happening. It is true that rude awakenings sometimes are the only ways for some of us to open our eyes and smell the coffee.

William Hurt executed the egotistic father's role like no one ever has before. He is gifted at portraying the role of the "blind" husband. I guess if Kathleen Turner had played the wife's part in this movie he would have had a much harder time. I believe the three of them (Hurt, Streep and Zellweger) portrayed a real family story, something far from the typical Hollywood drama. They were able to show the strong and weak sides of being human and bearing family responsibilities. Very beautiful movie, very descriptive with several not-so-long scenes. Indeed, sometimes less..is invariably more.

The scales of justice drop and rise constantly in this outstanding performance by Treat Williams. By far his best interpretation to date.

The difference between "Law On The Books" and "Law In Practice" is shown in Prince Of The City. Daniel Ciello's decision making process is a constant Russian roulette, as his destiny is a mystery until the end. Making a deal is the name of the game in this movie and Danny Ciello certainly gets the deal of his lifetime when the government decides to use the testimony on his and his partner's misconduct as collateral for the entire investigation.

Daniel Ciello decides to do the right thing by ratting out himself and everyone else. A deep attempt to start again, to redeem himself. The law forgives Danny at the end however, the "unofficial" rules of life will show him the tab he'll have to pick up when, during a training class of rookies, Detective Stern asks "Are you THE Detective Ciello?"

Kind of a positive-negative image of Lumet's Serpico, where the Cop is directly fighting police corruption. In Prince Of The City instead we see a gradual change in the bad guy's behavior, from corrupt cop to redeemed human being/whistle blower. I believe Pacino's soul in "Dog's Day Afternoon" had also contemplated a similar redemption path (Shown by his interaction with his hostages, unlike John Cazale's cold behavior).

The movie is a repertoire of a long investigation which lasted over ten years. Sometime after Frank Serpico's repeated complaints and reports on NYPD corruption, the U.S. Department of Justice established an investigative body, the Knapp Commission, led by Judge Whitman Knapp. Treat Williams portrays real life former NYPD Detective Robert Leuci whose knowledge and information on his corrupt fellow officers working in the SIU (Special Investigative Unit), along with over two years of dangerous undercover work, dismantled an entire "Sub-division" composed by about eighty narcotics detectives, most of whom served time in prison. The SIU's detective body was responsible, along with several other felonies, for the infamous "French Connection Rip off", which consisted in the removal and reselling of over 110 lb of heroin from a police evidence room.

The testimony of Robert Leuci was an important milestone in the effort to fight police corruption; Leuci's testimony, although he acted in good faith in order to redeem himself and put a stop on such heinous actions, cost some of his partners' lives, as they committed suicide once the various acts of misconduct became public knowledge. The movie is a real life story based on a book by former NYPD Deputy Commissioner Robert Daley, whose work was made possible by Leuci's full cooperation.

Treat Williams was definitely worthy of an Academy Award, just like Al Pacino was in Serpico.

Of the many versions to date, I have found Coppola's to be the one that finally offers the dramatic aspect no other Dracula director's camera has been able to give us. I must say that I am flabbergasted by the main co-stars' choice, being that I deem both Keanu Reaves and Winona Ryder B-class actors in ever aspect of their so-called performances. Nevertheless, Coppola's direction, the score and Hopkins' presence in the movie, with a diabolic Sadie Frost have acted as a painter's ability to make use of unwanted blemishes on a canvas, at times hiding them with passionate and vibrant strokes.

Now let's talk about Gary Oldman performance, which has literally disabled my ability to even flinch during the movie for how incredible it was. Those who read the novel know that the very first part of the story is probably the crucial one from both a suspense and description standpoint: Jonathan Harker's diary of his journey to Transylvania, the caleche's conductor,his first encounter with Count Dracula and supper at the castle. Oldman's demeanor, pace in his talk, attire portrays the noble and valiant man Vlad The Impaler really was, making us also turn as pale as he was in the movie for how credible he seemed. The entire movie was rich of scenes and good performances by the entire supporting cast until the end.

In retrospective, after seeing the movie a few times, I feel as if the viewer enters a journey into a Klimt-like ensemble of colors and objects, from the Count's long cloak to the bed in which Harker gets devoured by the vampire's mistresses (The count himself is not the one who bites Harker as narrated in the book if you noticed). The costumes choice and creation have also made an instrumental contribution to the success of the movie and its ability to surpass all other Dracula's interpretations thus far. Coppola's knowledge of how to blend drama into an almost set-in-stone story like this one has been another lesson of how far his genius can reach.

A typical 70's drama, something that still gets its way when it comes to touch that emotional key in us (Or some of us) and makes us long for that passionate love story, without a tragic end of course. Through a filter of pastel tones, Sautet portrays the typical struggle many have put themselves through to fork onto a secondary sentimental route in life, thinking they can have it both ways. Albeit its apparent sappy tone, Les Choses de la Vie is an intense mature story of love and sacrifice, a double one at the end.

I find European dramas very attractive, perhaps because they portray a kind of no-frills passion that is very hard to come across nowadays, both in movies and in reality. A movie like this surely has its clichés, the dual life, the regrets, the tragic death but in this movie Sautet is a wizard in enfolding the viewer with a very bitter-sweet sequence of happy yet solemn flashbacks. Pedro Lazaga's Largo Retorno (1975) happens to be similar in the way the relationship between the two main characters comes to an end (The memories, the sorrow, the death), granted in Les Choses de la Vie there is a three-way story. Both Michel Piccoli and Romy Schneider fit perfectly in the above scheme of things.

Just like in Largo Retorno, a very somber yet passionate baroque score complements the entire movie, leaving us with a soggy handkerchief at the end.

I have never given a 10 out of 10 however Sous le Sable has truly amazed me, to the point in which I rent this movie a few times a year for the sake of dissecting it, trying to find a flaw but, at the end, failing to do so.

Charlotte Rampling incarnates the feelings of desperation and denial in a movie that leaves a void in each one of us, as we see a woman whose mistakes trigger a mechanism of psychological and emotional self-destruction that will alienate her from everyone. There are a few parallels between her husband disappearance and some of the scenes, as if life were trying to teach Rampling a lesson throughout the movie (The description of Virginia Wolf's suicide note and the fact that Jean was depressed).

Powerful in its emotional jabs and luxurious in its plot.