Fresh and Exciting

The film never slows down or bores, plunging from one harrowing sequence to the next.

Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.

Actress is magnificent and exudes a hypnotic screen presence in this affecting drama.

Contains spoilers! Well this is a very odd little movie, and one that has a lot of similarities to another movie I saw (and reviewed) recently, the "Kate Winslet" version of "Mildred Pierce". Both movies are based on novels of no great distinction that should have otherwise been relegated to the pulping machines. Inexplicably this is the second film version to be made of both novels. Since both novels are now quite old the latest movie renditions are now period pieces, and that seems to be the only possible interest to a viewer and rationale for making a film which if not deep is at least "beautiful". Both movies feature woman protagonists of low/no charisma, yet both are played by actresses of considerable talent and acclaim. Both actresses are called upon to display absolutely none of the skills for which they are noted, producing what is probably the nadir in both actresses portfolios.The movie opens with a breathless and hopelessly overacted sequence involving two young girls, and we gather there is a special bond between them, possibly to the extent of lesbianism. For reasons which are unclear one of them not only shoots a bird but considers it necessary to also wring its neck. This scene is apparently significant because it is reprised later in the movie. The dialog implies that it is intended that one girl's sister will in the not too distant future marry the other girl. We then abruptly cut to this predicted courtship but, at least to my surprise, the "girl" now looks about 40 and the brother/fiancé looks about 50. In the intervening 20 years since the introductory sequence the girl seems to have morphed from a flighty, babbling youth to a middle age woman with all the warmth and passion of a sack of spuds. The girl/woman and the brother duly marry not out of love but out of duty to their families and their mutual business interests, and the marriage is consummated with the girl acting like the afore-mentioned sack of spuds. Meanwhile the husband's sister has found the real deal, or so she thinks, she has fallen head over heels in love with a guy who sails a nice boat but who unfortunately does not pass muster in the social stakes. The sister's family lock her away in the time honored tradition of discouraging unsuitable suitors, and her old friend (her brother's wife – are you following all this...?) is called upon to encourage her lover to desist from the relationship. As it happens the "lover" is just a big scumbag who doesn't care about the girl at all. He is a "free spirit", a liberal, an avantgarde who quotes poetry and philosophy, the world is his oyster, he was just having a bit of fun and no one is going to tie him down, he is off to Paris. All this talk of freedom ignites a little spark in the brother's unfulfilled wife and she goes off into a little fantasy world which seems to suggest that she might shack up with this neer do well. But all this comes to nothing, that little thread peters out and goes nowhere. The wife has a baby she doesn't like, she tries to poison her husband and she may or may not have had a hand in burning down a good part of their combined pine plantation. She moons about a lot not looking very happy and she doesn't seem to know what she wants. Eventually her long suffering husband agrees to let her go to Paris to start a new life. In the final scene she still doesn't know what she wants, she doesn't know why she tried to poison her husband, in fact she doesn't really know anything. She is really a complete waste of space.Was there a message here? Was this novel/movie supposed to be some sort of comment on the role of women and their suppression by men and society? Was it supposed to be a celebration of liberation? A triumph of passion over societal expectations? Should we care about this woman, someone of zero passion, drive or warmth, or about her not very likable husband? What happened to the only interesting character in the story, the husband's sister? Or to her baby? Why were so many story threads started only to be abandoned? Why did they take a talented and attractive actress like Audry Tatou and made her look so ugly, boring and stupid? All these questions and more.All in all, much ado about nothing.

I found this movie on Netflix streaming movies. It is in French with English subtitles. I speak a bit of French, but man generic French is so quick that I could barely understand what they were saying, so the subtitles are important.I became a big Audrey Tautou fan when I saw "Amelie" the first time. Since then I have seen a total of six of her movies, she is always good, as she is here.It is set in the 1920s France, Audrey Tautou is Thérèse Larroque, in a family that owns some property laden with pine forests. This becomes a significant fact during the movie, as she gets married to a man who also owns land with pine forests and together their pine forest wealth will be great. But it also becomes a threat when, during a period of drought, a forest fire threatens their holdings. Almost as a ritual rather than a love affair Thérèse marries an older man, fine actor Gilles Lellouche as Bernard Desqueyroux. He is a nice man, reasonably handsome, loves his hunting, and sees Thérèse mostly as a way to have a family. And hopefully a son to carry on the family name. But there never was any passion in their relationship.The movie, as titled, is about Thérèse, her unhappiness and feeling trapped in the marriage. Her husband has some symptoms which require medication, and he is prescribed some sort of arsenic drops, only three a day with water. But soon Thérèse sees this as an opportunity, maybe a few more drops each day will do the trick. Of course he gets ill but recovers, her ruse is exposed and she even has to defend herself in court, with the cooperation of her husband. But their relationship, whatever there was of it, is badly damaged. Thérèse has a daughter, the baby is virtually taken away from her by family members, and seems to be growing up without even realizing Thérèse is her mother. Thérèse seems only mildly upset by that development, if at all. Seems maybe she wasn't cut out to be a wife or a mother!In the very last scene, in the city as Bernard tells her goodbye (pronouncing her name 'tezz') then we see her walking among all the people in the street, a wry smile on her face. Was she thinking, "All-in-all that worked out pretty well. Now I can start my life." An excellent character study, Tautou is great.

This excellent film, like the novel, has a challengingly "modern", existential feel, with themes that bring it closer to the ideas of Camus and Sartre than many of Mauriac's other works.Thérèse isn't really sure why she acts in the way she does, but her character, thanks largely to Tautou's performance, is so complex and nuanced that, far from leading to "confusion", as another reviewer has suggested, it simply seems real. Perhaps too "real" to be hugely dramatic, but real enough to be compelling and fascinating.Gilles Lellouche plays husband Bernard to perfection, too, with just the right amount of odious materialism and hypocrisy, combined with a tinge of genuine sympathy. He genuinely can't comprehend his wife and her actions, and responds in the way that he thinks best.The movie is beautifully and atmospherically shot - the best compliment I can pay is that it looks just how I imagined it when I read the book. Plus it made me want to read the novel again, because it reminded me just how powerful and "modern" a work it is.Despite the film's length, there are no "longueurs" (boring bits), and the plot feels surprisingly tight given the lack of action.So watch this film, enjoy the "look", and be surprised and challenged by the characters and their motivations, and by just how modern Mauriac's ideas were, way back in the 1920s. Definitely recommended.

Clearly Audrey Tautao has now acquired sufficient clout to cherry pick her roles and equally clearly she is weary of playing adorable air-heads and, looking around for something with which to display her acting chops, came up with Francois Mauriac's old war-horse of a novel from 1927, already filmed half a century ago by Georges Franju. Claude Miller was a sick man - he actually died shortly after the shoot - and arguably in no position to say nay so here we are. No one is going to accuse this of being a laff riot in fact Tautao cracks a smile only on one - or possibly two - occasions otherwise it's all very sombre, long takes, longer faces, an attempt to make boredom photogenic, for yes, Therese and Madame Bovary are sisters under the skin albeit Therese has a tad more sand, and has also a little in common with Madeleine Smith, late of Edinburgh. Gilles Lellouche turns in yet another fine performance and the movie tests high on atmosphere but I doubt it will find its audience.