Thanks for the memories!

If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

Best movie of this year hands down!

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

A parasitic form of life, women love nothing more than being slapped in the face. That's the idea behind Roger Vadim's first movie, which alternative title could be St Tropez… In the Beginning, a quainter than quaint piece, dated before being contemporary. It nevertheless drew massive crowds, and placed Brigitte Bardot's on orbit as THE French sex Goddess. To each his own.Arguing that Vadim was more interested in playing God with women than in cinema undoubtedly has a point. His track record in womanizing is impressive. His writing and directing are far less stellar though, a curious case of zeitgeist marginally interfering with melodrama, present movie being the prefect case study.The mother of Tropezian Tart, Juliette (BB) is a despicable tease and a sloth. She wants to be happy and makes everyone miserable in the process; she is a black hole of selfishness and stupidity. Far above her head when it comes to even wake up, she sow frustration and destruction wherever she goes, barefoot, under St Tropez's stupid, selfish sun. She's in love, but not quite, with one guy whose brother Michel (Jean-Louis Trintignant, handsome in his prime) she will marry, precipitating a not very interesting chain of events including guns, a juke box, a torrid mambo scene and Curt Jurgens as the cosmopolitan vile seducer without whom the whole piece would play out like Marcel Pagnol.Bardot is a complete cipher, reluctant to act as to be filmed. She either pouts in rebellion or pouts in lascivious oblivion of said rebellion. She's the French Megan Fox, at an antiquated time when a novelty actress career could last for more than three movies. Jurgens is straight out of an Eddie Constantine movie and Trintignant, still inexperienced, is by far the best of the lot.Scenes abruptly fade to black after half hearted one-liners, leading to nothing but the oh-so-slow build-up of a presumably dramatic end but fear not, if you have the leisure of feeling involved between two yawns, nothing bad will happen and the status quo will prevail. "I would like to think of nothing", says Bardot, meaning herself, then she dances in front of a mirror since she only likes herself and not even that much. A couple of slaps later she's back in the marital bed; a sex Goddess indeed.Vadim and Bardot kinda invented reality TV, And God Created Woman a precursor of Temptation in the Kardashian Island. Is that worth of your time 60 years later? Definitely not, according to Vadim, whose last movie was a remake of the same, featuring Rebecca de Mornay, the American Brigitte Bardot. Sigh.

one of films who seems have a single actor. because Roger Vadim use the eroticism of young Bardot for a touching story about youth, choices and love in real inspired manner. but that option has the importance for build a large mirror of a period. the borders of an age who seems more present in our society than in "50's and that could be the key of its success today. the grace to explore the desires of a young woman looking for a strange, obscure form of happiness. Trintignan in a of role who reminds the noble characters by Dostoievsky and the Romantic idealist . Curt Junger as the lover who use his power for define his age , cruel analyzer of the others. a film who seduces. and a film who gives precise definition for an obscure state of soul.

and nothing more. because the expectations are far to be high.result of Bardot - Vadim collaboration , it has the basic gift to remember the flavor of a period. so, it is nice, sensual, naive, like the adventures of a teenager. axis of a film about woman and men relationship, Brigitte Bardot is innocent, smart, sinful, lovely, sexual icon and author of a pretty nice performance. but not more. because, like a summer morning, the film is only a nice event , not profound, not remarkable, but useful support for remember/discover an age of French cinema. a film about youth and freedom, joy and temptation, sexual freedom and comedy in right dose.

"the problem with the future is that it always ruins the present", says Bardot at the beginning. my intuition relates this sentence with some of the role this picture would perform in cinema context in years to come.This is a really important film. From a sociological and cinematic point of view. Nevertheless, it is NOT a good film. It hasn't got a strong plot, a strong idea nor strong performers. But it has BB and a boiling revolution in cinema that was to come in just 4 years and that shows its claws here.Social phenomenaBrigitte Bardot popped out here. The first scene grants her a place in collective imagination of the western society. The rest of the film defines a new personality for sex symbol. The one which is not so much different than the ordinary person, only more beautiful. This is her film, and she's the only one you will remember after a very short time after watching it (her, not the character).Cinematic issues(1) I can't tell exactly how far Vadim was self-aware about what he was doing here, or if he predicted that he was, probably, beginning something which would bring consequences to our days. Anyway, what he wanted to tell with this picture, was his own story, in which Bardot was, at this moment, the main character. Carradine (Jürgens) was, i suspect, Vadim himself. Bardot is liberal, does whatever she wants, out of innocence and joy. Carradine is experienced, sees everything, or at least knows about it, allows everything, but always controlling in the distance, always caring for what happens and always planning over it.(2) The composition is not old fashioned anymore, even though the plot line and themes depicted could report to some classical light comedy, used to exhaustion until then. The camera movements are bold, though useless most of the times, Vadim is trying to change, even though he wasn't competent enough to make it worthwhile (that job would go to Godard, mainly, and Truffaut). Also the development-climax-conclusion form doesn't apply so clearly here.So, this film is (1) self-referential to its author and (2) searching a personal innovative way to expose a story (film about cinema). That makes it maybe the first nouvelle vague constructed film, 3 years before "4 cents..." and 4 before "a bout de soufflé". Here, as with Barbarella, Vadim introduces elements of innovation, that would change pop thinking and pop culture, without producing really good watchable films, almost on the contrary.My evaluation: 3/5 This an important worthwhile seeing NOT good film.