The greatest movie ever!

SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

A Surprisingly Unforgettable Movie!

Excellent characters with emotional depth. My wife, daughter and granddaughter all enjoyed it...and me, too! Very good movie! You won't be disappointed.

I must confess that I will watch anything with Emmanuelle Beart in it. Her first role of note was in Manon of the Spring as a shepherdess. A great movie featuring the young and beautiful Beart bathing nude at a spring. Here she is Nathalie, a prostitute hired by a woman to pose as a college student and seduce her philandering husband. The wife, Catherine(Fanny Ardent) hears a phone message from a girl sounding a bit to friendly to her man, Bernard(Gerard Depardieu). She pays Nathalie for the hook up and then meets with her after each encounter and has her describe in graphic detail, what Bernard did. Catherine is a cold woman who seems to get off in a voyeuristic way while listening to the sexual play by play of Nathalie and her soul mate. It is all very strange but Depardieu and Beart make it worthwhile as an interesting curiosity.

the last film i commented on was something i considered offensive, "les anges exterminateurs". It earned me some criticism by an angry reader, and i reviewed that film after so i could re-consider my opinion. I stand for my opinion: the film was offensive in how it assumed it was a film about voyeurism and its relation with sex while being simply the result of an adolescent approach to sex, and its director looks at those women as a 14 year old who gets to look at a girl's locker room through a broken glass. It's superficial, and offensive because it takes itself seriously.So, after that, i looked for this one. Still french, still about picturing sex situations. But this is a whole different sport. It's directed and conceived by a woman, and that is significant to the whole final product. I think women are more internal when looking to others. So this film has an interesting dimension of using the female body (and face!) to dig into the women. Those women are fictional, but good fictional characters. The two leading ladies acting is good and supportive of the director's intentions i think. And above all, what we have is not gratuitous. Images come as visual supporters for a story, not as mere illustration. And most important, unlike "anges", here we have images that allow for the development of the story in our minds (thus visual storytelling). In "anges" we had some story about some director wanting to make a sex film, that was a mere excuse for the depiction of nudity.It is the honesty of this film that i crave, every time i see a film. The film may not be as original as it could (and this film certainly is not so original) but i praise its intellectual honesty.Stick with this, it will mildly challenge you. Not the other one.My opinion: 3/5 http://www.7eyes.wordpress.com

I found it very hard to be that involved with this story--and not just because I think the characters (particularly Fanny Ardant) are so tough to believe. No, this tale of infidelity and voyeurism suffered from a major problem--it was dull! Yes, a film that TALKS and TALKS about sex (and we're not talking about the "missionary position" here folks, but just about every other style of sex you could think of) and shows a bit of skin here and there but it just isn't very interesting--and much of it is due to the way the characters sleep-walked through their parts. There was absolutely no emotion, no "humanity" about the characters. All three were so non-emotive that it made the whole film seem very artificial. Plus, the sex and the characters were just not at all engaging.It's sad, really, as there are some good elements to the film--such as the real relationship between Emmanuelle Béart and Gérard Depardieu (the film is deliberately vague here--not a bad thing, really). The film also attempted to try to say something about infidelity--but then seemed to lose its way. But what left me confused was the strong undercurrent of lesbianism in the film. The lesbianism was only hinted at, but if I think if the film had gone more in that direction, then it would have at least infused a little more life into the production and explained why Ardant behaved in such an illogical and scatter-brained manner. It also would have explained her failed marriage, her frigidity and her obsession with Béart. As it was, I could easily see how a viewer could be left confused and unsatisfied by this film.There have got to be better films about infidelity or marital discord than this. Oh, and of course, due to the very graphic nature of this film, it is strongly recommended that you DON'T show this film to your kids (duh).

The French have a way with steamy films that makes the rest of the cinematic world seem bland in comparison. NATHALIE is fine case in point. Based on an idea by Philippe Blasband and transformed into a superb screenplay by Jacques Fieschi, François-Olivier Rousseau and the director Anne Fontaine, this incredibly well acted, subtle, understated film explores the many facets of adultery - from the woman's point of view. The result is a suspenseful, erotic, intelligent film that provides an opportunity for three of France's greatest actors to demonstrate their credentials.Catherine (the still very beautiful and gifted Fanny Ardant) is a gynecologist married to the successful Bernard (Gérard Depardieu in one of his more subtle roles) and they have a stay-at-home hippy son (Rodolphe Pauly) who goes about his life much the same as his parents: there is superficial companionship but little in depth relationship. The marriage seems satisfactory until Catherine suspects Bernard of having affairs, a fact that Bernard very honestly confesses to having: in his eyes the affairs are sexual dalliances that mean nothing. Catherine is shocked, attempts to gain some support from her insular but worldly mother (a fine Judith Magre) who tells Catherine it is a normal situation in older marriages.Catherine visits a bar, a private club for consignations, and there she meets Marlène (the extraordinary Emmanuelle Béart) and eventually buys Marlène's services as a prostitute to meet her husband and then tell her all about the encounters. It is agreed that Marlène will be known as 'Nathalie'. From this point on Catherine and Nathalie meet after Nathalie has encounters with Bernard and describes the acts of the encounters in vivid and lurid detail. Catherine is fascinated and continues to pay Nathalie for on going encounters and subsequent voyeuristic descriptions. Catherine even has a one-night stand of her own with bartender François (Wladimir Yordanoff) in an attempt to understand her husband's need for infidelity.Despite the setup of 'private investigator and prostitute detective' the two women become friends. When Catherine realizes she has enough evidence against Bernard to leave him there is a final encounter of the three (Catherine, Bernard, Nathalie) that brings the ingenious surprise ending - an ending to fine to share as it would spoil the film for viewers new to the story.Ardant is simply radiant as Catherine, playing the role of the victim wife of an adulterous husband with supreme dignity. Likewise Depardieu makes his Bernard so understated and profoundly honest that the conclusion in retrospect should have been suspected. Béart is at once wholly physical in her prostitute role yet maintains the inner core of a confused woman that keeps us on her side as she does her job. The production values are all first rate (except for some ragged editing) and the direction of Anne Fontaine is bristling with intrigue and wholly convincing in her development of this strange tale. Despite the dialogue being X-rated there is very little actual sex in this film: that makes it not only more powerful but as the ending is revealed adds to the solidity of the story. In French with English subtitles. Highly recommended for art film lovers. Grady Harp