Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

Gurlyndrobb While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Leoni Haney Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin The movie really just wants to entertain people.

kekseksa If nothing else, Vadim had plenty of brass neck and he needs it all here in remaking one of the great classics by one of the greatest of all directors, Max Ophüls.With some inevitability the Vadim film really only serves to point up how wonderful the Ophüls film is. Vadim and Ophüls are of course chalk and cheese. The latter was the great genuine master of the ellipsis (as opposed to Lubitsch who faked it) and could make something elegant out of the most sordid realities; Vadim on the other hand could have made a concert of baroque music seem vulgar and rendered a vicarage tea-party pornographic.Schnitzler's play, controversial when it appeared, is cynical and sordid in many ways (and quite intentionally so) but in the hands of Ophüls it becomes something of remarkable beauty without any loss of its satirical effect. Both in structure (the reflexive frame with an Anton Walbrook on the top of his form directing the symbolic roundabout - the original sense of the play's title - Der Reigen)and in substance (even at their most debased, his lovers have a certain innocence and a certain charm), the 1950 film delights at every turn. The 1964 film makes one feel a bit queasy, as Vadim transforms Schnitzeler's material into something resembling primeval slime.The contrast I expected but I did not imagine it would be quite so marked and it is almost shocking to observe how the same material can produce such vastly different results and induce such vastly different reactions.This is not to decry Vadim whose importance during these years is undeniable and who, in his better films, pushed forward the barriers of what could be said and shown in films in important ways and whose work, although always a shade dubious (that inescapable vulgarity) has often survived better than one might have supposed. Et Dieu créa la femme, the film that made his (and Bardot's) name and gave him the license for everything he did later, still has a zest and energy that is breath-taking, Barbarella, which I once thought would simply appear silly in years to come, surprises me every time I watch it by how enjoyable it remains and how excellent some of the ideas still appear.Vulgarity where it is combined with a real sense of fun is, to my mind, always excusable and sometimes a real if slightly guilty pleasure. One might think of Lubitsch, of early DeMille, of Dino Risi, of spaghetti westerns and gialli.... but this, on the other hand is quite simply a film that should never have made, one for which Vadim's special but strictly limited talent was insufficient qualification. After the lame 1941 remake of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, Fredric March, who had starred in the superb Mamoulian version of 1931, supposedly telegraphed Spencer Tracy (star of the duff version) to thank him for having so greatly (but unintentionally) enhanced his (March's) reputation as an actor. Had Ophüls still been alive in 1964, he could (and probably would) have thanked Vadim in much the same spirit.

Charlot47 Updates the 1950 masterpiece to Paris in 1914, shot in rich colour with evocative music, dance and song. A witty script from Jean Anouilh travels through the emotions lightly and, this being France, has slightly weightier moments of literature and philosophy. Since the men are close to being caricature lovers from a sex farce, which some of the time this is, the film belongs to the women. And what a wonderful collection of beautiful, sexy, so often poignant women! Top billing probably has to go to a gorgeous Jane Fonda, then the lover of the director and later his wife, as a young bourgeois wife. But several others play her close: Anna Karina as the housemaid Rose, Catherine Spaak as the mystery girl, Francine Bergé as the actress Maximilienne, and Marie Dubois as the soft-hearted Breton tart. All good roles, taken with gusto and a joy to watch.

mp99 There are a few moments in this film that transport you almost bodily back to Arthur Schnitzler's play REIGEN; the first is a long shot of Anna Karina sitting, lonely and abandoned, in a crowded dance-hall while her soldier boyfriend (Claude Giraud) makes time with other women. The unspoken pain that Karina radiates in this scene is palpable (it's also yet another reminder that she was often the only good thing about several films directed by her then-husband, Jean-Luc Godard).More laurels to Jane Fonda, who is wickedly funny as a cheating wife whose fear of getting caught far surpasses any moral qualms she may have about committing adultery. The scenes with her twit of a boyfriend (Jean-Claude Brialy) and her pompous hypocrite of a husband (Maurice Ronet) genuinely sparkle.Alas, the rest of the film is mostly middlebrow ooo-lah-lah; pretty sets and costumes, lovely photography by Henri Decae, and a great title sequence by Maurice Binder. The actors are all certainly competent and then some, but few of their performances really score. And the film as a whole has neither the savage aim of Schnitzler's original play or the gentler wit of Max Ophul's 1950 film of the material. I suppose it gave audiences a few naughty frissons back in the mid-60's, but not enough real entertainment . . .

bill98281 I remember first seeing Jane Fonda in this movie back in 64. She was the most beautiful woman i had ever seen. Jane was married to Roger Vadim the director, the lucky b*****d.This movie was made in France and as such there was not too much censorship at that time. I hope that in the near future all of Janes early movies will be on dvd. I do recommend this movie for any fan of Jane Fonda.