Rating: 
Summary: AS IF "ENCHANTED APRIL" HAD BEEN SCRIPTED BY PAT. HIGHSMITH
Review: Imagine the story of "Enchanted April" reworked by the devious mind of Patricia Highsmith and you'll get an idea of the kind of kinky pleasure that awaits the viewer of this film. Here we have two women sharing a lovely country cottage in a romantic locale. But instead of discovering love, they discover hidden animosities, secret connections, and murder. But the story is not entirely downbeat. In fact, it shares a number of similarities with the Diane Keaton/Jack Nicholson comedy, "Something's Gotta Give." Both films feature a successful fiftysomething female author who is enjoying the solitary life in a beautiful country cottage when suddenly everything is turned upside down by the unexpected arrival of an oversexed commitment-phobe. In "Something's Gotta Give" the unexpected guest is the boyfriend of the author's daughter. In "Swimming Pool" the guest is the daughter of the author's boyfriend. As in "Something's Gotta Give," the author/protagonist takes an early disliking to the intruder and then, over the course of the picture, gradually revises her early opinion until, ultimately, a strong bond is formed between the two of them. In both films the author's creative juices are reenergized by the stranger's arrival. Each author ends up producing her best work simply by writing about her relationship with the intruder who has so topsy-turvied her life. The movie is funny, intriguing, beautifully photographed and flawlessly acted. Overall, it's a more truthful picture than "Something's Gotta Give" and a more exciting picture than "Enchanted April."
Rating: 
Summary: Disappointed
Review: I usually pride myself on being able to understand and appreciate movies with dark, complex or subtle themes. True, the acting is good in Swimming Pool, but I failed to enjoy this DVD at any other level. Note: If the beginning 7 minute inability to access a menu or skip ahead becomes a trend I hope consumers will be very vocal in their outrage.
Rating:
Summary: very perverse, high quality suspense
Review: First of all, the movie is not very erotic. I don't think it's particularly meant to be. However, there seems to be a purpose for each nude scene, which speaks volumes. This is really why I liked the movie. I totally understood the addiction of sex through the daughter to the point that when I viewed her sexual activities, I wasn't aroused, only confused and saddened.
Rating: 
Summary: Make it stop!!!!
Review: This was such a waste of time. I think the main reason it confused me was that I wanted there to be more to it than there was. I wanted there to be a point. I wanted there to be a coherant story. I wanted there to be more than wasted space and time. I wanted it to have one theory to work with, not hundreds. I wanted payoff for my time spent watching it.
Now, up until the end, I was really into it. I was very much in to what was going on. I wanted to know why, I wanted to know how, I wanted to know who. What I did not want was the answers it gave to those questions. I am very lucky that there was no knife or sharp object near me when this movie ended cause I would have killed someone if there had been.
I am soo sick of all this "did it or didn't it happen" crap that I could just scream. Well, in fact I did scream when it was all over. If you liked this movie I am not going to knock you for it, to each his own, but this was not in any way, shape or form a movie that I would recommend to anyone.
There was never a moment in the movie that I would refer to as thrilling. There was nothing erotic about it. Yes, there was lots of nudity, but even that was rather lame and boring. The actress was not one that I would care to see naked.
There was one moment of tension that quickly vaporized and went away. The only mystery was why did anyone make this movie.
The only thing that made sense was that there was a swimming pool in the movie and it had a lot of screen time.
If you want real mystery or suspense or Hitchcockian style then stay with a Hitchcock movie.
I will not discuss anymore of the movie as there is really no reason what so ever to do so. If you want to see it, do. If you don't want to, don't.
Do not use this as any reason to see it or not, I just hated it and wanted to vent this so that others who see it and hate it will not feel alone.
Rating: 
Summary: swimming pool
Review: If someone would like to explain this movie to me it would be very helpful and I would not feel as if I wasted 2 hours of my time. Don't worry about "ruining" it for me since I saw it already. This is not the worst movie ever made or that I have ever seen, but the ending did not make much sense. Are we suppose to guess what happened or did I miss something?
Rating:
Summary: Erotic Thriller? This movie was neither.
Review: Average. That's all this movie is. It's not very suspensful, it moves rather slow through most of the movie. Alot of scenes with very little dialog and nothing important happening. There was one very nice scene for those of you looking at this for the erotic parts. Ludivine Sagnier's wardrobe is rather skimpy most of the movie, many times without a top, if that excites you... For the most part the movie is rather predictable and any suspense lasts for maybe five minutes before everything is revealed, of course the smart people have already put two and two together to see that it adds up to four. WOW. Nothing new here. Nothing to speak of in terms of bonus features either, I should dock it another star just for that. A montage of deleted scenes that IMO should have been much, much longer. Probably could've left another half the movie on the cutting room floor and moved things along a bit faster. No commentary, very dissapointing. Also why is both the unrated and R-rated versions 103 minutes? A marketing gimmick I imagine.
Rating: 
Summary: understated psychological thriller
Review: I had seen 8 WOMEN, the previous film by Francois Ozon, but that did not prepare me for SWIMMING POOL. Sarah (Charlotte Rampling) is a mystery writer vacationing at her publishers home in France. She's enjoying the peace and quiet, until the arrival of Julie (Ludivine Sagnier), the publisher's sexy teenage daughter. Where Sarah is repressed, Julie is a free spirit. The personalities of the two women clash at first, but Sarah is subtly inspired by Julie's impulsiveness. Things come to a head when both women develop an attraction to the same man.
The tone of the film is very cool and quiet throughout, and the casual viewer may miss the signs of Sarah's awakening. (Note how what Sarah eats changes throughout the film.) Both central performances are impeccable, and Charles Dance (GOSFORD PARK) lends able support as Sarah's slippery publisher.
The DVD package is disappointingly slim, I would have enjoyed a commentary or two, but the final deleted scene does help explain the film's surprise ending. Recommended for world cinema lovers.
Rating:
Summary: Ozon creates an atmosphere full of passion...
Review: The successful mystery novelist Sarah Morton (Charlotte Rampling) requires an escape from the stressful life in London and she needs to begin to write a new book. She also wants to get away from her publicist with whom she is having an affair with that is wearing her out. Her publicist tells her that she can go to France and stay in his house while she is writing her book. He promise her that he will come down for a weekend during her stay in France. When Sarah has settled down and begun writing on her book she has an unexpected guest arriving to the house, which she is staying in. It is her publicist's daughter, Julie, and she is breaking the silence and solitude, which Sarah has sought. This causes friction between the two women, and it gets worse as Julie brings home strange men at night. As the tension climaxes, Sarah discovers a dark secret that she begins to investigate, but there is also looming danger with the mystery. Ozon creates an atmosphere full of passion that intensifies as tension feeds the passion, which is enhanced by the use of vibrant colors in the cinematography. Lastly, a terrific performance by a fabulous cast moves the audience and it pushes the film to an astonishing cinematic experience.
Rating:
Summary: My take on it...
Review: Everyone's got there own little theories on this movie as you'll see. I believe mine is correct. First off you'll note the main colors in the movie were red and blue. Couple that with all the white women and guess what you have? You guessed it: red white and blue or the USA. You'll note the rampant sex and lack of responsibility the little girl had? She's the UK's view of the USA personified. The clincher was how they just walked out in the open, buried a body IN THE BACKYARD, and then called the yardman over the next day to CUT THE GRASS!!! As if to say, "HA! Screw you; we do what we want and there's nothing you can do about it! Piss on all you!!!" (Political reference.) The yardman symbolized the American people: distracted and titilated by all the flashy terms and sights thrown around (a naked Sarah). Furthermore...... Just kidding. If you've heard theories on this film let me tell you one thing you can believe: the person relating it was a pompous moron too embarrassed to admit that they, like you and everyone else, had no freaking clue what the hell this movie was about. Either that or they were even more egotistical and out of touch with reality to think that their baseless, crackpot theory was actually correct. Proof is in the number of theories about this movie (none of which agree mind you). I've seen one really good review of this movie. It said: "What the...??!!!" and that was it. Accurate and to the point. This movie made no sense. None. Zip. Nada. Now some people get off on all that "Wow, it was soooo great because it left more questions than answers" thing, and that's all fine and good. (To be honest, this movie answered no questions but did in fact raise one every two seconds.) I personally see that as plain laziness and/or incompetence (and/or evidence of insanity and/or narcotics). Anyone with half a brain can create a film that leaves viewers going "Wha'...???" I could whip one out in five minutes if you'd all go see it and pay me for it. So, pardon me if I have no taste and don't go all fanboy over this piece of "film".
Rating:
Summary: Erotic mystery thriller
Review: I hadn't even heard of this movie when my fiance rented it and we brought it home. I guess from reading other reviews it has become somewhat infamous due to the nudity. Putting that aside, it wasn't a bad movie. It was puzzling though, with a disturbing ending that I still don't quite understand. I was hoping for more explanation, but there was none! I can't give more details without spoiling the movie for those who have not seen it. The basic story is mystery novelist Sarah Morten (played by Charlotte Rampling) is middle-aged and burned out and needs a vacation. Her publisher, John (Charles Dance), offers the use of his house in France for her to relax at. When she arrives, she really enjoys the house along with the solitude, until John's sexy daughter Julie (Ludivine Sagnier) arrives and stirs things up. Julie has loud random sex with a different man every night, sunbathes and swims in the pool nude, and basically disrupts the uptight Sarah's life. Sarah starts to become a sort of voyeur and constantly spies on Julie, watching practically her every move. The ending of this movie is incredibly confusing and the director offers no answers. I suppose its meant to be a puzzle for you to figure out. Every time I come up with a plausible explanation, something in the film contradicts that and I have to start from scratch. I've finally given up and just let it go. The first hour of the film is VERY slow. I found myself getting bored and even fell asleep the first time I tried to watch it. After that however, it picks up and becomes much more interesting. The scenery is excellent - they shot the film at a very beautiful location! Overall, I'm giving the film 3.5 stars, rounded up to 4. While the acting was wonderful, I didn't fully appreciate the ending with no explanation and I also felt the start of this film dragged on way too long.
|
