Regular Lovers (2005)

Just so...so bad

It's a mild crowd pleaser for people who are exhausted by blockbusters.

Fanciful, disturbing, and wildly original, it announces the arrival of a fresh, bold voice in American cinema.

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

Well , of course everybody is entitled to have an opinion about a thing ...everything. The presentation was interesting : black and white movie , the year 1968 , students manifestations , general strike , youth , ideals, love.....etc. Sorry but I did not sense LOVE , ROMANCE . A lover who is all right that his girlfriend sleeps with no matter who ? That is love ? But not only that , the movie is very long and for no reason , I had to stop watching the movie several time because I simply lost interest. I waited for something to happen but .......NOTHING. The only thing I was impressed during the movie : Gypsy fiddler playing in the streets , yes that was nice. I do not think that art should be complicated , encrypted , hidden in secret meanings , confusing .Big disappointment and waste of time !

This is a very long movie, indeed. But it is quite beautiful, and a good example to show why cinema can be considered art. A story easily told cannot be expected in Les Amants Réguliers, but every scene, every silence here tells much more than a hundred dialogs. Touching, different, perfect in its pictures and soundtrack, showing why the close brought by the cinema as one of its main features became the greatest innovation in any dramatic representation. Someone who is used to that kind of movies where everything is told, and action takes place all the time, will find this tiring. But it is worth watching, to find out other possibilities of feeling a story.

This film is probably the best new French film I've seen in this century so far. There have been some great ones including Noe's Irreversible, Green's Le Pont des Arts and Hadzihalilovic's Innocencebut none of them come close to Les Amants Reguliers' timeless glory.The movie is a description of the events of May 68 and what followed in the wake of it and furthermore it is and update of, and a homage to, the Nouvelle Vague-movies of those days. Concerning the depiction of the riots in Paris the movie is meticulously accurate (I'm only 19 and I wasn't there myself but you know what I mean)and the almost real-time and very long riot scenes set the stage perfectly for the aftermath of the events in the streets of Paris. The riots are not glorified or beautifully photographed like the ones in Bertolucci's The Dreamers (to which the movie is comparable in many ways) instead they are filmed in grimy black and white shots courtesy of the excellent William Lubtchansky. The love story that is the movie's main concern after the riots in 68 is filmed in stunning and far less blurred shots and manages to evoke true feelings of love and adolescent confusion in the midst of the otherwise politically concerned and seemingly cold environment.This film is a beautiful love story and it radiates through it that the director wants to depict his own experiences of those mythical late 60's which makes the film all the more compelling. But the film is also a homage to the whole Nouvelle Vague canon. Much of the dialogue evokes early Truffaut, and the length and non-action and plot less structure is reminiscent of Eustache or Rivette. There are even Godard-like verfremdung-effects with the persons looking directly into the camera and even addressing Bernardo Bertolucci directly. This film is no doubt an answer song to Bertolucci's The Dreamers and it is also a Nouvelle Vague homage but still it stands by itself as a beautiful and radiant love story.Bottom line: This movie is incredible and if you love French cinema you shouldn't sleep on it. It may be the finest french film since Eustache's La Mamain et la Putain.

I saw this at the Toronto Inter. Film Festival in Sept. 2005. The description seemed intriguing--how wrong I was! This could easily be the worst movie I have ever seen--in 50 years! I see the director is my age (b. 1948) and lived with Nico of the Velvet Underground, which leads us to Andy Warhol, which coincidently is the one I thought of while watching this--Warhol's 24+ hour movies of nothing much happening. This is not art, this is boredom.Specifically: black & white. OK, maybe...but what is the purpose here? Surely they had color in 1968! And there is no contrast with the present. And yes, the subtitles were in white, naturally. I don't think I missed much, but that made about 20% of them illegible.Next, it's pure chronological order, but with seemingly random events thrown in. What's the purpose of the conversation with the old man at the dinner table? It adds nothing to the movie. There were many similar scenes--almost like someone took a camcorder and filmed random people and spliced them together to make a movie.Plot? None. The "riot" consists of some figures in the distance occasionally heaving a rock off screen. Mostly it's an excruciating length of time watching people (in the distance!) stand around. The repetitive opium smoking is just as boring. When the main character got a cute girlfriend, I perked up, but no, she was boring too! This is perhaps the only French film I've seen where no one takes off their clothes. Probably they were too bored to bother.Romance? None. The girl seems totally indifferent to everything--maybe her sculpture holds some interest, but if it does, we're not shown that. We are completely indifferent to the fate of the characters because they are all unappealing. Maybe that's the point of all this?