just watch it!

Horrible, fascist and poorly acted

Absolutely brilliant

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Before watching Swimming Pool I had in mind that I was going to watch a mystery thriller so in the end I was a bit disappointed because even though there is that vague mystery feeling floating during the movie it's only in the last twenty minutes that something is really happening and to me it could have come much sooner. The rest of the story was just too slow and not entertaining enough to me. Watching a grumpy Charlotte Rampling, like most of her roles, being jealous of a young nymphomaniac French girl is only good for about twenty minutes, after that I'm getting bored. The acting wasn't bad, but the story wasn't good enough to be remembered, at least not to me.

The last 20 or so minutes of this movie was completely absurd!!! Here are some things I found myself baffled by while watching: 1. Of course someone (especially the gardener) is going to notice a freshly dug grave! Anyone who has ever watched an episode of CSI would know that, let alone someone who we're supposed to believe is a detective crime writer.2. "Sarah" awkwardly presents her naked body to Marcel so that he won't spill the beans, and we're supposed to believe this man who just appeared totally horrified by his discovery takes her up? I don't know, maybe it's because I'm female and/or not an old man who hasn't got any in years so I can't imagine that. What they *should* have done is made Sarah go psycho and kill Marcel! I could totally picture her doing it. And anyway, she's been all over town asking questions about his disappearance, won't somebody get suspicious?3. It suddenly turns very detective crime novel-y. This is not something I would object to, but it came completely out of nowhere. 4. The book within a book within a book crap really did not work. 5. I can think of a million different endings for this book that would have made a lot more sense and been better than what's presented to the unfortunate viewer. For example, Julie's character was quite believable, as was the murder, so it's unfortunate to have her psychosis not explored at all. I honestly believe it was just extremely sloppy writing, with no thought put to making it cohesive and coherent in any way. They took all this time working on the characters and building the intrigue, then just threw a bunch of ideas together. I did like the Sarah-Julie dynamic that developed very much. And also the little touches, like repeated motifs and symbols and Marcel's creeeepy daughter. This attention to detail is what makes the ending so baffling.

Directed by Francois Ozon. Starring Charlotte Rampling and Ludivine Sagnier. Swimming Pool is a tale of a middle-aged author (Rampling) who has hit a bit of a slump in her writing career. Feeling like she is missing something in her writing she approaches her publisher, who offers her his house in France as a way to clear her head. Upon arriving at the house, Sarah (Rampling), finds the place peaceful and relaxing and eagerly begins work on her new novel. Events begin to change when her publisher's sexually uninhibited daughter arrives, bringing a wildly different lifestyle from the uptight British authors. A shaky relationship begins to form between the two but as time passes Sarah begins to realize that things are not what they appear to be; leading to a controversial ending that will leave viewers stunned.Let me start off by saying I don't find myself watching this type of movie on a regular basis, unless its strongly suggested to me or I'm being forced to watch it. When I say, "this type of movie", I'm not referring to the mentally contemplating script, sexual nature or specific genre; instead I'm referring to an older, slow paced, foreign film with little to no hype by my knowledge. That being said, I will now be broadening my movie horizons to include these films as this movie, overall, delivered wonderfully. Kudos to the cast, director, writers and everyone else involved as they brought a thought provoking movie with a nice Alfred Hitchcock type style thrown in.Dissecting the movie piece by piece to give you an understanding of whats right with the movie and whats wrong with the movie would be pointless; because if you look at the film as individual scenes or characters it becomes quite boring, with low to no action, no unique or special characters and, in my opinion a bit of a snooze fest, unless you have a strong fascination with female nudity. But, when you look at it as a whole picture, watching it from beginning to surprising ending you get an appreciation for the film and what its done. Suddenly you go back and notice little details throughout the movie that weren't significant before and you realize just how well the actors played their roles; or how tiny little details, insignificant before, become vital in helping you understand what is really going on.Normally I would tell you the great aspects of the film but because it is one of those movies that is only good once you watch it in its entirety, I find it hard to highlight specific items. I will tell you the actresses play their parts to a T. The twist at the end will get anybody who paid attention, and only confuse those who hardly focused. I consider myself a pretty decent movie detective but I still failed to guess what was really going on.There is a fair amount of female nudity. For the most part its only breast being displayed, which any teenager these days has seen on cable TV more than once; but there are also some full nude shots and sexual acts committed a couple of times throughout so if that bothers you, you might want to skip this film. What I found surprising was that Charlotte Rampling, who this is my first time watching I believe, seems like such an actual uptight semi-proper woman that I didn't believe she would show anything for the camera but actually goes completely exposed for a scene. So yes, expect sex and expect both female leads to be naked at some point; but don't expect it to be just thrown gratuitously in; there is a deeper reason for everything happening including the sex.The reason this movie falls to a 8 instead of anything higher, is due to a couple of things. One, there is a lot of dialogue spoken in French, so much that I feel I missed important or at least interesting conversations and with no subtitles there was no way of interpreting it. But I have been informed that not all copies are that way and most do feature subtitles so I'll be sure to look into that next time. Ignoring that, if you choose, the biggest reason this film fails to be higher then a 8, to me, is because actually watching the movie is a bit of a challenge. The film moves incredibly slowly with not a lot of scenes that keep you entertained. There is little to nothing that resembles an actual thriller, which this is billed as, until the final thirty minutes or so of the film. Which means for over an hour your watching an author write, eat and watch her house-mate swim and have sex; with conversation that doesn't really become meaningful until the end. Also, for a woman staying in beautiful France not much of the environment is shown other than a villa and restaurant. So the scenery could have used some work.PROS:If you can get through the film, which many have, I promise it will be worth it. You may even end up going back through the film to validate your conclusion, as the ending really is left up to you to decide. Sex and nudity, if that's your thing.CONS: Slow movie. Language Barrier unless you view it with subtitles. Sex and nudity, if that's not your thing. No scenery.I'd recommend to anyone looking for something slower paced, more character driven rather then action oriented. Or Someone who enjoys films that leave you to think things out.8/10 from me. P.S. I gave it an 8 because there simply wasn't much to fault the movie on not because the film itself was necessarily great, the ending in my opinion saves it.

(Spoilers!) This film is not for those who want everything spelled out for them, since it is open to many interpretations. I add mine here.The movie gave me some insight into how fiction writers create their work, since it delves into the things that spark an author's imagination. The writer in this movie is Sara Morton (Charlotte Rampling), a popular British author of crime fiction. When we first meet her, Sara is a bit burned out and when her publisher offers her his country house in the south of France as a temporary retreat to get her back on track, Sara accepts.We get to know some things about Sara as we see her settle into the house in France. She dresses rather plainly and is quite reserved. Even though she speaks French well, she is not very adventuresome, sticking close to the house with occasional visits to the local village. She seems to be immune to the French obsession with food, settling for fruit and yogurt. She hopes for a more intimate relation with her married publisher, John, and is disappointed when he reneges on coming to join her for a weekend on occasion. Nearing sixty, Sara seems sexually frustrated and very much alone.The movie moves into a different gear when Sara starts to conceive of a storyline for her next novel that involves an imagined visit from Julie, a fictitious version of John's daughter. For many reasons I think that there never was a real Julie. For one thing, when still in London in John's office, Sara asks him, "Would you come and visit me?," John answers, "Well, I have got my daughter." He didn't say, "I have got my younger daughter," or "I have got one of my daughters," but, "I have got my daughter." This indicated to me that John indeed had only one daughter. Sara never talks to John directly about Julie. When Julie is seen talking to her father and passes the phone to Sara, John is not on the line, and when Sara calls back, he is out of the office. If John's French daughter frequented his country home, wouldn't John tell her that Sara would be staying there? Also, the ending makes sense if there was never a Julie, since Sara's waving goodbye is seen as waving goodbye to her imagining of John's daughter for her fiction as well as her imagining of John's real daughter, whom we see at the end she has never met. Indeed I think John's comment, "I have got my daughter," was probably the initial spark for Sara's vision of an attempt at a novel.Most of what we see is Sara's conception of her novel. It is interesting how certain real events weave themselves into her fiction. Franck, the waiter at a local café becomes a character in the fiction, fantasized as one of Julie's lovers, but also fantasized by Sara as a lover for herself. Engaging to see how fiction writers may actually become involved with their imagined characters in a non-trivial way. Sara identifies with her imagining of Julie's mother to the point of wearing a dress she ascribes to her. Perhaps like actors, authors can temporarily take on the identity of their characters.Sara's fiction moves on as a rather unbelievable crime story that has Julie killing Franck and covering up the murder. At this point I think that Sara became disenchanted with what she was writing as being just another crime story; she had indicated earlier in the movie that she was tired of writing such stories. And this story seemed particularly uninspired and unbelievable (I think I have never seen a more artificial looking rock than the one Julie uses for the murder). I think that Sara, realizing the inanity of where her story was headed, then abandoned that whole effort in favor of writing the novel that Julie's mother supposedly had written. At one point Sara is sharing a meal with Julie and, after asking Julie a lot of questions, Julie remarks that Sara is showing a little too much interest in her life. Sara then says, "I am not so much interested in you as I am in your mother." I think that signaled the turning point when Sara started thinking about jettisoning the Julie story in favor of writing the romantic novel that Julie's mother supposedly had written.As to what Julie represented for Sara is anybody's guess I think. Was she an imagining of what Sara would like to have been as a young woman? Was Julie realized as part autobiography? What is real and what is imagined in a work of fiction seems to be a tricky thing. Perhaps a good deal of fiction is an expression of wish fulfillment on the part of the author.There are many elements in the movie whose interpretation is totally up for grabs. For example, what is the meaning of the egg that we see in several scenes that is constructed of several interlocking pieces? Is it a puzzle to be cracked, like this story? Is it the symbol of a new beginning for Sara? Or is it simply an ornamental knickknack? And what is the significance of the dark red inflatable mattress? How does the caretaker fit into the puzzle? Ozon and his screenwriter Emmanuèle Bernheim have presented the audience with a skeletal story that can be fleshed out in a multitude of ways.Whatever you think of the story, the movie is crisply filmed. We get a peek into what it might be like to live in a secluded area in southern France. Charlotte Rampling is in good form; it is a treat to see that she is getting good roles as she ages. Ludivine Sagnier is remarkably comfortable playing the voluptuous Julie and Charles Dance has a good turn as Sara's publisher. The score is suitably low key, but not without effect.