|
Directed by: François Ozon Starring: Charlotte Rampling, Ludivine Sagnier Swimming Pool is about the writing experience. It's about how an author observes the world around them and begins to piece together characters and plot. Swimming Pool is about the magic of creativity. Swimming Pool is also incredibly boring and uninteresting. I have this theory that any film that centers around the writing "experience" is imediately loved by film critics around the world. Movies like this speak to the failed writer in them. Swimming Pool is about Sarah Morton, an established English mystery writer. Sarah is frustrated with the genre that she has been pigeon-holed into. John Bosload, her publisher, suggests that what she needs is a change of venue, and offers her the keys to his charming villa in Provence. This is working out just smashingly for Sarah until the publisher's French tart of a daughter shows up and throws a wrench into the whole thing. Most of this movie is about the clash of sexuality between Sarah and Julie. Sarah is british, so therefore is prudish, bitchy and sexually repressed. Julie is a french teenager, so therefore fucks whatever is closest and has a severe phobia for clothing. If you were to rent this just for seeing some tittie, you'll probably be very pleased. Ludivine Sagnier's body is outstanding, and the director makes a point of giving it an ample amount of screentime. I picked it up because the box touted it as a sexualy charged thriller, and had seen a few critics gushing over it. To call this movie a thriller, or even a mystery is a stretch. Most of the actual mystery consists of trying to fill in all the huge plot holes, and reading into the movies limp "twist" ending. It's not to say that the movie is poorly made. It has some great acting, and beautiful scenery. There is even a good sense of mysterious atmosphere to it, but the final payoff is just dissapointing. I'm curious to hear from those that liked it. So far I haven't read any reviews that have been able to point out "the point" that I so obviously missed. RATING: 2.5 PROS: Ludivine Sagnier's constant nakedness CONS: Plot holes, Dry as burnt toast ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0324133/
|
#
?
May 7, 2004 16:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 07:11 |
|
|
I normally really like these "critic's" movies that are supposed to be deep and insightful and subtle, but this one absolutely bored me to tears. I couldn't get beyond how very unpleasant Charlotte Rampling's character was; it's one thing for a character to be dislikable within the context of a film, but in this case I just hated watching her. There was nothing engaging about the Julie character, either, although it does have to be admitted that she is incredibly hot. But you could go to an interesting movie and see beautiful naked women, too. 1.5
Propaniac fucked around with this message at 21:23 on May 8, 2004 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2004 21:09
|
|
|
I found it to be too complicated for the story it was trying to tell. Nearly the whole movie is symbolism, which is hard to do in movies (this would've worked much better a book I think) and some of the stuff sort of comes out of nowhere. The Julie character was pretty drat hot though. Overall, either I didn't "get" it or I just found it to be too pretentious.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2004 05:31
|
|
|
I agree that it was a movie that was not sure what it proported to be. The main characer was really bland, and the girl was the total opposite and unrealistic as you never hear anything about any of her motives. The whole idea is to figure out what is really happening and what is really the story inthe book she is writing and none of that is ever really clear. This movie is kinda bland, the acting is decent but the director seems to not know how to tell a story. I give it a 3/5.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2004 20:27
|
|
|
This movie could of been fantastic, but the plot and the writing definetly reached a stall in the last 30-40 mins of the movie. I love the atmosphere and especially the local. I would even venture to say that at times this movie had a lot of Lynchian motifs(creepy midget!), but with that said the movie did lack a certain amount of substance and its attempt at symbolism was half-assed and amaturish. Nontheless, i still think the craft that was exhibited was quite good. Also i think that they could of done without the obtuse ending, i think that most people watching realized that Julie was an apparition. 4/5 vivisectvnv fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Jun 10, 2004 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2004 23:01
|
|
|
I think if you want to get everything out of this movie you need to watch it in film school geek mode, because there's so much going on you can quickly get lost and only 'get' the surface interpretations and symbology. Part of the problem is, there's so much symbolism that if you miss one, or misinterpret it your interpretation of the rest of the film is hosed. I'm not saying I got all of it, or indeed, perhaps any of it (to hear a REAL film geek carry on about go to http://www.francois-ozon.com/anglais/index2.html and click on the 'analysis' by Alan C Shaw, who I think has a fruedian fixation on sexual abuse)<- spoilers obviously. What I did get was the pool represented some sort of subconscious phenomenon and that until it was 'clean' uptight british writer lady wouldn't get into it. As the movie progressed she got more and more feminine and less uptight and this was reflected in the pool's status. I think that 'julie' was an invention all along, basically us seeing the novel as it is being written. Other popular theories are that she is the ghost of her mother, rampling's repressed sexuality, and a host of others. Anyway, I think the film succeeded in one thing at least, which for me is usually quite difficult; making me think. Yeah it's all euro and arty and slow paced shots of the gorgeous french countryside but it's still a pretty cool movie, though as a 'thriller' it basically fails. 3.5/5 Pro: An actually interesting 'gotcha' that you have to think about instead of "HE WAS DEAD ALL ALONG!!!" Con: Slow moving, surface interpretation isn't that exciting, requires work on the part of the viewer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2004 03:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 07:11 |
|
|
Decent movie, but really overrated. You almost want to catch yourself when you figure it out, because it just feels like it couldn't be that obvious. But it is, and other than constant boobs, you'll be treated to a fairly dry 'thriller.' 3 - Distinctly Average.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2004 05:55
|
|
