remote-viewer
21Oct11
How were you able to write such a long comment? I had to split my much shorter one into two...
Wall
Displaying wall posts 1 - 30 of 84 in total
Tiago Vitória
11Jan12
I don't know if it's just me but the film lost himself through Eva Green's body. It begins very very well with the May of 68 back grounding the film and the shots of another movies such as Persona, Band a Part, Top Hat dividing the actors moves and actions. However, before the middle of the film some plasticity dies with Bertolucci. The 3 youngers start to live in their special relationship throughout the end. Just.
grigiss
4Jan12
Apologies for the rant, in case you didnt notice this movie arises contempt in my Heart.
Rrreeeiiiddd likes this
grigiss
4Jan12
... Want to punch someone if I were unable to punch "Berty" and smack the spit from his mouth. like the Prof. standing in line behind Woody in ANNIE HALL, but this is really INDULGENT, and you know what? Sometimes it's actually true. Watch Garrel's purported response to this movie: REGULAR LOVERS, and let me know if you feel the same way. At least I suppose this elicited an emotion for me...
grigiss
4Jan12
If there were a way to provide a "film" as called this negative stars, I would immediately. Yes, I understand "Berty" you wanted to make a movie about '68 they way you didnt with Ultimo Tango a Parigi, but was it really necessary to put the entirety of your ego within its framework? I attempted a 3rd viewing of this movie recently, and I was not surprised that it made the hairs on my neck stand on end and made me..
Rolph90
14Dec11
every time i see this film i want to sell my computer buy a record player move to paris and read poetry.
Mikhael Tarigan
3Dec11
Much better than I expected. Love this film. Didn’t expect it to have a lot of references to old cinemas.
Tisa
12Oct11
Ah, the French! I was sucked in just as much as Matthew was. I agree with Alder Adler, decidedly not erotic; although, I think it's got more value than the erotica people often associate it with. Worth my four stars and more (8 out of ten, yes?)! The fifth star is for the ending which I found quite lacking.
Katia Baghai
3Oct11
Bernardo Bertolucci’s “The Dreamers” (2003) is one of his most intellectually challenging films – not less than “The Conformist” (1970), and even more semantically intricate than his “The Spider’s Stratagem” (1970). It is a film about the pernicious influence of repression of infantile sexual urge (incestuous desire) on person’s psychological development. “The Dreamers” depicts incestuous brother/sister twins in their early twenties (Isabelle and Theo) tormented by their barren sexual fixation on each other. If they could give themselves to their desire they would go through and out of it to sexual adulthood (incestuous need makes sex more important than it really is exactly because it is forbidden). But beautiful French twins are psychologically repressed and therefore stay forever fixated on their infantile sexual obsession. So, they instinctively need a sexual ersatz-object which unexpectedly became personified, for them, by their recent American friend (Matthew) who has his own psychological complex that makes it possible for him to agree to be sexually involved with Isabelle in spite of not being loved by her and despite the fact that he himself was just attracted to her beauty and sexiness (without amorous complications). According to Bertolucci’s images, this whole situation is quite common and widespread in Western civilization, and this allows the director to make daring generalizations about why young people, with all alleged openness of democratic societies to humanistic progress, are not able to promote social change towards a more democratic life. Fixation on infantile sexual object of those who (like Isabelle and Theo) are traumatized by their unconscious or conscious incestuous desires, and proclivity of many who (like Matthew) are ready to mate with a sexually attractive object without a simultaneous amorous need - are two halves of Western youth with sexual life as a symptom of emotional and psychological underdevelopment. One group needs incestuous ersatz-object and leads a pseudo-conventional sexual life, and both groups need to be passionately occupied with artifacts to which they are emotionally tied symbiotically, in infantile manner (consumer goods, hobby or technical toys) inside today’s omnipresent mass-cultural setting. That’s why the drama of our “dreamers” takes place amidst the student rebellion in Paris in May 1968, and all three of them are hooked on cinema like a child on his/her toy (they use cinema instead of living; they live inside the films, their love for cinema has a symbiotic immediacy that is characteristic of consumerist tie between subject and things he/she possesses or images or ideas he/she bonds with). Repressed incestuous object (Theo) in Isabelle’s life returns/reincarnates as incestuous ersatz-object (Matthew) and as incestuous artifacts (cinema for all three main characters). The film includes a lot of sexual action and multifaceted (and multi-angled) nudity, but everything in it is colored by Bertolucci’s sadness about the lost existential direction of our civilization. Does he love young people? He is worried about their general sensibility distorted by psychological repressiveness and ideological and consumerist predatoriness of today’s society. Please, visit: www.actingoutpolitics.com to read the essay about “The Dreamers” and other Bertolucci’s films (with analysis of stills), and also articles on films by Godard, Resnais, Bergman, Bunuel, Kurosawa, Bresson, Pasolini, Antonioni, Alan Tanner, Cavani, Fassbinder, Anne-Marie Mieville, Werner Herzog, Ken Russell, Wim Wenders, Maurice Pialat, Jerzy Skolimowski, Rossellini, Moshe Mizrahi and Ronald Neame. By Victor Enyutin
rado and mariette-redshoes like this
Alder Adler
23Sep11
Ridiculous. Decidedly not erotic, though intended to be. Pretentious? A melodramatic script substitutes the trite for the profound. Matthew's zeitgeist-y rejection of Theo's violence, his lighter and the tablecloth are beyond pedestrian/heavy-handed. Pitt's the pits. Why would the twins want this sniveling, ugly, and affected popinjay in their set? The serviceable supporting cast (Green, Chancellor) is squandered.
remote-viewer likes this
AnAppleScruff
14Aug11
I watched it again yesterday for like the sixth time, and every time there is always a little detail that impresses me, a reflection in the mirror I didn't notice before, some unimportant object in Theo's room that catches my attention, etc. Bernardo Bertolucci is the proof that good Italian filmmaking is not dead yet.
rado and James Evans like this
Gail_La likes this
Carolina Cecatto
25Jul11
A film that mentions others films. The reality inside of brothers's house is dream. The reality out is revolution, disorder. There is a doubt inside each other: to live of dreams or not. Always showing a culture different, with many ways of love and a beautiful soundtrack.
Cecile Zanotti likes this
Thomas Henry Gould
23Jul11
The chemistry between these 3 actors is AMAZING. Considering the challenging scenes that they had to participate in, they done an unbelievable job and yes, the writing could be a bit better but the thing that's key in this film is unquestionable the actors which shouldn't be overlooked. Another thing I enjoyed is the feeling of being young. Youth is a major theme throughout this film and I think it is summed up when they run through the museum, imitating a past classic, is just wonderful. They're young, at liberty and rebellious which again justifies the epoch of which period the film is set in.
liesbet vanessche
17Jul11
I liked the movie. The music was very fitting and typical for french movies. Really good acting, and three beautiful people. There is not a lot of 'story' but I still liked it. the trailer gave a perfect feeling of what the movie would be like. It was what I expected.
Langston Young
15May11
It succeeds at being atmospheric but I didn't find it compelling or interesting in the least.
remote-viewer
26Apr11
1. On the surface this reminds me of Bataille's Story of the Eye, which is enticing, but then it proceeds to indulge in a lot of boring, vapid, self-satisfied debauchery. I find its smugly aloof characters and their actors to be repugnant. Their supposed love of film feels lazily narcissistic rather than intellectual; their "cinephilia" seems hollow and masturbatory.