Heartbeat (1968)

Overrated

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

The movie's not perfect, but it sticks the landing of its message. It was engaging - thrilling at times - and I personally thought it was a great time.

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

I will admit it up front that I am old fashioned. I believe in monogamy and many old fashioned values. So, when I see a film like "La Chamade", I have a great difficulty enjoying it. After all, the folks in this film seem awfully amoral and selfish. So why should I care about them and their petty problems?! The film begins with Lucile (Catherine Deneuve) being Charles' (Michel Piccoli) mistress. She lives well, as Charles is rich and indulgent--he obviously loves her. However, when she meets Antoine (Roger Van Hool), she falls for him and decides to keep both men as her lovers. But, Antoine is the jealous sort and after leaving his wife, he insists that Lucile leave Charles--which she eventually does. However, now that she no longer has all of Charles' money, she needs to work-and work is not for pretty people like her. So, she sells off all her jewels and just lounges about doing whatever she wants. Eventually, she becomes pregnant and bored with Antoine. So, she gets an abortion and returns to Charles. And, considering how nice Charles has been about all this, you wonder why he wants her back (apart from all their hot sex).When I write all this about the plot, I realize exactly why I disliked the film--the main character, Lucile, is morally bankrupt. She doesn't like to work, mistakes sex for love and just seems very shallow and self-absorbed. So why should I care about her and her petty problems? I dunno. It's a shame, as this IS a beautiful film--nicely filmed and the actors were quite food. But when the story involves people you cannot relate to and seem so selfish, you aren't left with much.

Lucille (Catherine De Neuve age 28) is the mistress of Charles (Picolli age 46) she lives the beautiful carefree life of luxury. She meets Antoine a young artist (real age 30) and starts an affair with him. Charles is willing to allow it but Antoine is jealous.De Neuve lives awhile with Antoine and predictably it doesn't work. She epitomizes that carefree 60s spirit that another reviewer analyzed correctly as women not really knowing what they wanted (and they never found it).In any case you watch this movie for 60s nostalgia (all the Citroen DSs) not intellectual content and for that purpose if is first class even if it is an airport novel adapted to movie.The actors were perfect for the roles they play...Antoine a little too Anthony Perkins looking to be totally handsome...and Charles the perfect rich sugar Daddy. De Neuve of course the prize.

Mark Twain once said that anyone who picked a cat up by the tail learns never to pick a cat up by the tail again. In this film, no one picks the cat up by the tail, therefore no one seems to learn much. It is painful to see an actress of Deneuve's quality going from scene to scene without intensity. Most the time she is either walking, walking, walking or drinking, drinking, drinking. To me, she is simply unconvincing as lover in this film. Except for the first few scenes, one feels one is looking through a photo album haplessly put together. There seems to be very little passion in Lucille falling out of love for Charles, into love for Antione, and out of love for Antione. Consider this: Perhaps the film is a victim of the times. The intellectualism of the Beatniks of the 1950s and the rebellion of the hippies of the early 1960s was morphing into the leisure suits of the 1970s. And the logic of the film seems askew. Can an expensively kept partner of a very wealthy member of the upper class find love and happiness with a poor immature writer living in a one-room apartment in the projects? It all seems too unlikely. All film fans have to suspend a certain amount of disbelief, but you'd have to live on another planet to accept the plot of this film. I can't recommend this movie.

A heart that beats "the chamade" (la chamade is a particular drum beat) is a heart ready to surrender to the charms of an adversary. This film is a poor adaptation of Françoise Sagan's tedious novel of the same name. In the novel, Sagan, faithful to her fetish themes of indolence, gilded youth, easy money, and fast cars, depicts in unflattering terms the superficiality and immorality of the French high bourgeois society of the 1960s. Sagan and Chevalier collaborated on the thin, tiresome screenplay. The three main characters are so flatly drawn that even two high-caliber actors such as Deneuve and Piccoli must continuously struggle through tepid platitudes and situational predictability throughout. Roger Van Hool as Deneuve's young lover is so insipid as to effectively block any audience sympathy for the story. We are quickly bored with the comings and goings of these three uninteresting characters, and we don't care about what happens by the film's end.Of course, I know of many fates worse than spending 100 minutes watching the camera caress La Belle Catherine -- a forty-years younger one, as well -- but if that's all the film has to offer, then ultimately it's just not worth watching.