mfoxartist

I wanted to like this, I really did. But it was a struggle to get through the first season. There were so many ridiculous plot lines and absurd interactions between the characters that I barely got through it. Then I tuned in for the second season and instead of getting better, it immediately went even more absurd and ridiculous. I had to give up rather than commit to watching 20 more episodes of what is essentially a poorly structured farce.

I managed to enjoy a few aspects of the show, but the repetitive nature of the scenes and the plotting just wore me out. And given the central subject matter (sex in the movies...and elsewhere), the series was remarkably tame and frankly boring. I don't understand how Brazil could be this far behind in cinema, as I've watched SO many brilliant international movies and series.

If you can be entertained by simple-minded plotting and mediocre writing, give it a shot. The actors aren't all that bad. But you'd really be better off seeking better entertainment elsewhere.

Any cinemaphile who still claims this film is a brilliant work of erotica or psychological drama should be ashamed. And I don't think you can chalk up my boredom to just the age of the film. It's clearly lacking attributes that would have made the film interesting 50 or 60 years ago.

It certainly isn't erotic. It's almost ashamed of eroticism, and Catherine Deneuve (playing Séverine) led the way (as directed by Bunuel, I'm sure), going so far as to make an awkward pivot during a scene where she undresses to avoid showing her breasts on camera. It's just so obvious and the gutless staging of the scene drained any sexual energy from it.

And Bunuel doesn't appear to know the first thing about sex, as exemplified by the scene where two hookers and their madame are discussing a client having sex with Séverine in another room. "Mr. Adolphe is sure taking a long time," says the madame. "He always does" says one of the hookers, eliciting knowing smiles and laughter from all. As if a lover "taking a long time" to have sex is somehow a sign of a bad lover. Much better to be done in two minutes, right, Bunuel?

I could go on and on about the dry, boring sex scenes and complain further about the terrible scripting, bad production, feeble acting and pathetic "fantasy sequences" of "Belle de Jour." But nothing I say will convince those old-school cinemaphiles. But for a movie with a reputation for being an erotic classic, "Belle de Jour" has an antiseptic soul and left me decidedly unmoved. Big yawn.

I don't mind complex movies that you have to pay close attention to. I watch a lot of them and typically chuckle at reviewers who "don't get it" when they give the movie a 1 or a 2.

But for once, I'm in the same league as the other baffled viewers. Sure, in the end, I "got it" and basically understood what happened. But that's where the "ultimately way too little" part of my review title comes in. All this subterfuge and ultra-clever yet nonsensical plotting just to end up with that ending?

For me, it just wasn't worth the trip. The production, set designs, acting and score were all fine. But the script...the most critical element of all...was the weak link. And that led to weak direction as well (or perhaps the director made a weak script even weaker).

I like M. Night Shyamalan movies, but he didn't write or direct this movie (Celine Held and Logan George co-wrote and co-directed). Shyamalan was the key producer and he probably felt the finished product was a winner. For some viewers, it is. For others like me, it was too much trickery and gamesmanship for too little reward.