IMDb RATING
6.3/10
1.6K
YOUR RATING
An adaptation of the classic tale of a wealthy aristocrat with a blue beard.An adaptation of the classic tale of a wealthy aristocrat with a blue beard.An adaptation of the classic tale of a wealthy aristocrat with a blue beard.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
- Awards
- 1 win & 1 nomination total
Lola Créton
- Marie-Catherine
- (as Lola Creton)
Daphné Baiwir
- Anne
- (as Daphné Baïwir)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
Despite possibly the most charming child performance in a movie ever (no I have not watched all movies ever) by Marilou Lopes-Benites, I didn't allow myself to fall for Bluebeard, though this little girl narrator is so winsome that on occasion her charm has the audience gasping.
The way that Bluebeard is shot is very casual, almost matter-of-fact and Rohmerian, strangely for what is potentially such an atmospheric story. The level of graft going on is very low, more befitting a conversational type film a la Rohmer. I also took badly to a scene of animal slaughter that seemed inhumane.
I think comparisons with Tarsem Singh's wonderful movie The Fall are beneficial. In both movies there have two timelines, the first, the timeline of narration is set in the early Twentieth Century, the second is a period fantasy being narrated. In both movies there is a charming child actress, in The Fall it's Catinca Untaru. Where The Fall succeeds in my view is that the fantastical narrative really feels like a product of the narrators' minds. In Bluebeard, even though the girls are reading from a book, the resultant fantasy doesn't feel like a product of their minds, but distinctly a product of Catherine Breillat's mind, too knowing and sophisticated. Quite clearly for example the children would not have been imagining the squirming of a dying animal. Even though the narration is less ostentatious, and takes up less screen time, as with The Fall you really can make a case for it being the most moving part.
I think Breillat did manage to access the essence of the Bluebeard story which is that if you are a big ugly sensitive oaf, you are condemned to not participate in life, one of my fondest quotes, from Le Quai Des Brumes / Port of Shadows (in French it's more eloquent) is "It's horrible to love like Romeo when you look like Bluebeard!". I think that's what worse is that women often don't acknowledge that it's possible that such a man could have the feelings of Romeo, as if only pretty and graceful men could feel like that. Something that should never be forgotten is that passion is something everyone feels.
Brief summary of the plot is that Bluebeard is a rich man rumoured to have murdered previous wives. He takes new wives without dowry, and persuades Marie-Catherine, a child bride, to marry him. There are some funny post marital scenes, like when Bluebeard is sat eating an ostrich egg, and Marie-Catherine is sat eating a quail egg side by side.
I really am fond of the movie, but I would have liked to see more mise-en-scene, the movie as I say, is far too casual. There is a feeling of great boredom that arises from the last scene of the fantasy strand, in a scene that should perhaps be incredibly stirring.
The way that Bluebeard is shot is very casual, almost matter-of-fact and Rohmerian, strangely for what is potentially such an atmospheric story. The level of graft going on is very low, more befitting a conversational type film a la Rohmer. I also took badly to a scene of animal slaughter that seemed inhumane.
I think comparisons with Tarsem Singh's wonderful movie The Fall are beneficial. In both movies there have two timelines, the first, the timeline of narration is set in the early Twentieth Century, the second is a period fantasy being narrated. In both movies there is a charming child actress, in The Fall it's Catinca Untaru. Where The Fall succeeds in my view is that the fantastical narrative really feels like a product of the narrators' minds. In Bluebeard, even though the girls are reading from a book, the resultant fantasy doesn't feel like a product of their minds, but distinctly a product of Catherine Breillat's mind, too knowing and sophisticated. Quite clearly for example the children would not have been imagining the squirming of a dying animal. Even though the narration is less ostentatious, and takes up less screen time, as with The Fall you really can make a case for it being the most moving part.
I think Breillat did manage to access the essence of the Bluebeard story which is that if you are a big ugly sensitive oaf, you are condemned to not participate in life, one of my fondest quotes, from Le Quai Des Brumes / Port of Shadows (in French it's more eloquent) is "It's horrible to love like Romeo when you look like Bluebeard!". I think that's what worse is that women often don't acknowledge that it's possible that such a man could have the feelings of Romeo, as if only pretty and graceful men could feel like that. Something that should never be forgotten is that passion is something everyone feels.
Brief summary of the plot is that Bluebeard is a rich man rumoured to have murdered previous wives. He takes new wives without dowry, and persuades Marie-Catherine, a child bride, to marry him. There are some funny post marital scenes, like when Bluebeard is sat eating an ostrich egg, and Marie-Catherine is sat eating a quail egg side by side.
I really am fond of the movie, but I would have liked to see more mise-en-scene, the movie as I say, is far too casual. There is a feeling of great boredom that arises from the last scene of the fantasy strand, in a scene that should perhaps be incredibly stirring.
I can't tell you how disappointed and bored I was while watching this movie.
I kept hoping with all my heart that it will pick up its feet at some point and start delivering some feeling, magic, action or whatever. But alas, that was all in vain.
It keeps the same slooooooow pace from start to end, the actors keep showing the same inexpressive faces and delivering the same emotionless dialogs.
That is when they bother to speak. In the rest of the time they keep staring in some more or less distant point for quite long periods (I suppose it's meant to show us how deep they feel or think).
I don't know how the book ends... but the end of the movie looked pretty fuzzy and stupid to me.
You're never told why Blue Beard did all those horrible things or how did the little girl managed to escape.
The only good things in this movie were the costumes and locations, I guess.
All in all, if you expect some bit of fairy-tale, of magic, of fantasy or anything at all which would glue you to the chair in front of the screen, I think you'll be pretty disappointed.
I kept hoping with all my heart that it will pick up its feet at some point and start delivering some feeling, magic, action or whatever. But alas, that was all in vain.
It keeps the same slooooooow pace from start to end, the actors keep showing the same inexpressive faces and delivering the same emotionless dialogs.
That is when they bother to speak. In the rest of the time they keep staring in some more or less distant point for quite long periods (I suppose it's meant to show us how deep they feel or think).
I don't know how the book ends... but the end of the movie looked pretty fuzzy and stupid to me.
You're never told why Blue Beard did all those horrible things or how did the little girl managed to escape.
The only good things in this movie were the costumes and locations, I guess.
All in all, if you expect some bit of fairy-tale, of magic, of fantasy or anything at all which would glue you to the chair in front of the screen, I think you'll be pretty disappointed.
I was curious about a new adaptation of this classic story. After all, there is nothing like a good old story to sustain a movie. As i watched, i was more and more surprised. I kept wondering how can a film maker do such a bad job and let it out for the public to see... I tried to give it a chance, hoping that it will improve, but i was too optimistic. I wouldn't want to criticize something to the point of convincing others to avoid it, but in this case it felt like a civic duty. To put it briefly, bad scenario, awful dialogues, unremarkable camera work, unbelievably bad cinema; a pittiful adaptation. I'm sorry to say such bad stuff about other people's work. I'm sure they didn't want to do a bad job, but sometimes that's how things go. Wish them better luck next time. OK now. Time to forget this disappointment. Don't waste time on this one.
Catherine Breillat's canny revision of the Bluebeard myth is rigorous and assured like her other work. This time she keeps her usual provocations at bay, but the movie is no less compelling for it, with human folly bubbling at the surface of every interaction. The casting, acting, camera work and editing are subdued but still expressive, and the director interrupts the plain and direct storytelling at just the right moments in order to get at her points--albeit in curious and elusive ways.
Some remark how this movie feels boring or its commentary is obvious, but for me the approach makes room for as much complexity and humanity as Breillat brings to her other, more notorious work. If you are a fan of the more cerebral classics of world cinema, this one courses with the energy of the old masters: traces of Buñuel's Tristana are here, as are Bresson's The Trial of Joan of Arc and Mizoguchi's Life of Oharu.
Some remark how this movie feels boring or its commentary is obvious, but for me the approach makes room for as much complexity and humanity as Breillat brings to her other, more notorious work. If you are a fan of the more cerebral classics of world cinema, this one courses with the energy of the old masters: traces of Buñuel's Tristana are here, as are Bresson's The Trial of Joan of Arc and Mizoguchi's Life of Oharu.
I felt like I was attending a Riannesance Faire with all the costumes and dancing and people eating without utensils. It was a beautiful movie in that regard.
I wonder at the significance of Bluebeard's clothing. He wore a robe at one time that had IHS on the back, and another time, he seemed to be wearing a stole over his clothing like a priest saying Mass. A disparagement at the patriarchal Catholic Church?
But, that aside, the film which is really two stories in one, is a feminist telling of the Bluebeard story. In both stories, we see a highly patriarchal society, where women are an afterthought. The rules of men must be obeyed.
It is left up to the viewer to determine if things resolved themselves satisfactorily. A bow to Salome in one story, and wish fulfillment in sibling rivalry in another.
It is not your usual Catherine Breillat film. A PG rating would probably be stretching it, only for the blood.
I wonder at the significance of Bluebeard's clothing. He wore a robe at one time that had IHS on the back, and another time, he seemed to be wearing a stole over his clothing like a priest saying Mass. A disparagement at the patriarchal Catholic Church?
But, that aside, the film which is really two stories in one, is a feminist telling of the Bluebeard story. In both stories, we see a highly patriarchal society, where women are an afterthought. The rules of men must be obeyed.
It is left up to the viewer to determine if things resolved themselves satisfactorily. A bow to Salome in one story, and wish fulfillment in sibling rivalry in another.
It is not your usual Catherine Breillat film. A PG rating would probably be stretching it, only for the blood.
Did you know
- GoofsWhen Marie-Catherine is saying her goodbyes to her father's corpse, you can clearly see his chest rising and falling with each breath.
- ConnectionsVersion of Bluebeard (1901)
- SoundtracksKyrié Eleïsson
Performed by the Limousin Youth Choir with the direction of Annette Petit
- How long is Bluebeard?Powered by Alexa
Details
Box office
- Budget
- $2,400,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $33,490
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $8,370
- Mar 28, 2010
- Gross worldwide
- $38,696
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content