Platicsco
Good story, Not enough for a whole film
Spoonixel
Amateur movie with Big budget
Rio Hayward
All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.
Bob
This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.
fedor8
The typically pretentious, existentialist French mon-Dieu-what-is-this-thing-called-life-all-about nonsense wears out its welcome fairly quickly, leaving us to survive the drudgery of 90 minutes of two dull characters droning on and on, with scenes thrown around as if discarded by a garbage-disposing stewardess leaning out of the window of a flying plane. I would have loved to be in the editing room when they made this flick. "Where does scene 59 go?" the editor asks. "Just stick it somewhere in the first half," replies the director. "But what if it confuses or bores the viewer?" asks the editor. "What's your point?" replies the director.Therein lies the film's crucial rub: the notion that pasting together a bunch of often unrelated or only vaguely related scenes in an almost random order can somehow make for riveting cinema. The movie drags on and on, and the tedium rarely lets up. One keeps hoping that eventually the director gets tired of his collage-like approach, but he never does. Yes, we get it; this isn't a conventional time-travel sci-fi but a semi-pretentious psychological drama with plenty of fortune-cookie philosophy hoping to pass of as profound insight into life's many mysteries. Or is it just a pointless analysis of the downfall of a skinny Frenchman? Bla bla bla bla. Big f-ing deal. The whole existential shtick is some kind of a loony obsession by France's New Wave buffoons, and gets old fairly quickly (except the cat hypothesis).JTJT is also typical of many French dramas from the 60s and 70s: 1) the male protagonist is skinny, 2) he sleeps around with attractive women, 3) he is unfaithful, 4) his unfaithfulness is portrayed as commendable and a badge of honour not to mention proof of high machismo, 5) he is way out of the league of all the women he sleeps with and yet he somehow gets them into bed despite not being a wealthy man, 6) all the women he has affairs with are half his age (admittedly, that's a small difference; many French films have an age ratio of 56:15 i.e. a 56 year-old man dating a 15 year-old Lolita), 7) at least one of the characters is a hobby philosopher, constantly musing about this fascinating world, and 8) the skinny Frenchman cheats on his attractive women – rather than the other way round, which would make a whole lot more sense.How many women have any of you ever met that constantly philosophize about the world? Who make up unusual theories about the world? Exactly: you don't know any and you've never met anyone who has ever known such a woman. It is characteristic of French movies to be cut off from reality, i.e. how real people behave. God forbid a Frenchwoman in a French drama should talk about shopping all the time – that would be too realistic (though in this case no duller than most of the conversation pieces we're subjected to). After all, French movies are to the most part male fantasies disguised as meaningful dramas, to varying extents: either the middle-aged male protagonist dates women in their 20s or those in their early teens; that's the only difference. Also, sometimes the male protagonist is bald and ugly, whereas sometimes he is merely skinny and average-looking, as is the case here. But essentially it's the same shtick over and over: male fantasies told in a number of more-or-less not-that-different ways: this time it's time-travel, but Resnais could just as well have picked a costume drama, or a rundown post-office.By the time the plot's tempo finally shifts from turtle speed to occasional frog-hops (baby frog), I'd lost interest. Claude's time-travel maze is hardly a cinematic extravaganza. Instead, the time-hopping is filmed and offered in such a dry, lazy and sterile manner that it makes a mockery of the genre term "sci-fi". The photography is fairly poor for its period, the hundreds of scene-changes were glued together in a dull, unexciting manner, and the characters are neither interesting nor likable. It's hard to give a toss about this man; he is neither fascinating nor a man of high morals. So why give us this much insight into his life? Given a choice between a more conventional time-travel flick and a lame character drama, the choice is simple – at least given THIS kind of dialogue, this director's lack of imagination (or sheer incompetence?), and the non-exceptional cast.Catherine's "God as Cat" idea, however, is quite good. (She says that God might have created the cat in his own image, and then created man to serve the cat.) It would certainly explain why cats rule the world, whereas French movies don't.A clever twist would have been the revelation that the team of bored-looking scientists had in fact used this man for the experiment over and over, time and time again, leaving the movie in a sort of endless loop. Obviously, some scenes at the beginning would have to be re-written, and it's not terribly original either, but at least that would give us SOMETHING as a conclusion. As it is, we find out that the experiment had failed (well, not really: he did travel to the past, didn't he? So why was everyone so down on themselves?) and that's pretty much it. Not enough by a long shot.I shall now explain to you why this movie has such a high average. It is because it is a French drama made in the 60s (although any other period would do) and by a left-wing French director. If this had been an American drama, with the exact same kind of dreariness and Philosophy for Beginners 101, it would have had a much lower rating. That's because movie-goers – generally so against prejudice – are prejudiced against American cinema, while prejudiced in favour of French, Iranian and Swedish ones. Stupidity and confusion have many manifestations, and this is but one of many.
Frances Farmer
Je t'aime je t'aime has many passionate fans but I cannot count myself particularly among them. The characterizations and the set up are not especially original: a man disillusioned and wrung out by his loves and his life tries to kill himself and, failing that, winds up listless and bitter. He is seized upon by a cadre of researchers almost as spiritually dead as he is, and made the willing subject of an experiment in time travel that goes badly awry. So we have the cruelty of love, the self destructiveness of man and the heartlessness of monolithic industry as the less than novel foundation of this movie.Going back in time with the man allows us to glimpse fragments of his deteriorating home life and of the romantic dalliances he engages in to spice things up and make his existence tolerable. It is challenging to piece together who met whom, when, but whatever plot exists in the innumerable and disjointed flashbacks consists of the man meeting, talking with and bedding several women. There is his mistress of 7 years, a woman who often seems like the dictionary definition of depression and whose wailing and gnashing of teeth grow exceedingly tiresome for her lover as well as the audience. There are two other women -- I think there are two, but may be wrong since it is quite hard to tell -- who are uncharacteristically tolerant of his incessant commentary on his lover's emotional problems and his ultimately unorthodox response to those problems.While all of this is going on the various corporate scientists are monitoring developments but cannot seem to bring themselves to do anything to intervene. This seems unrealistic but it would of course hinder the time travel of the protagonist if he were stabilized once again in the movie's present tense. Thus the scientists wring their hands unconvincingly and the time travel goes on until its rather interesting denouement.This is not a bad movie but calling it a "masterpiece" as some reviewers do seems excessive to me. It's worth watching, but don't see it on a day when you're depressed because it may exaggerate your symptoms to an unhealthy degree. Whether you love it or not, this was decidedly not the feel-good movie of 1968.
tualek
Je t'aime, je t'aime (Alain Resnais, 1968, 91')My last film review for amazon (uk and us) was Vilgot Sjöman's I am Curious (Yellow- Blue) (1967-1968, 122'-93') of 30/5/2013 for amazon uk. Today's is my first review again after a nearly five month break. I mainly used the time to further develop my publication of "bloc notes", a cultural record, containing amazon film reviews, film book reviews and revIews of some Malaysia Philharmonic Orchestra (mpo) performances. My new film series (ie No 251 onwards) will first review a series of films which have been neglected for a variety of reasons, mostly unavailability of minimum quality copies. The reviews here are also meant to complement some earlier country or author series. - Now the movie:>>>In this provocative sci-fi drama from Alain Resnais, a man wakes up in a hospital after an attempted suicide. He has invented a time machine that has proved effective, but only transports the subject back in time for one minute. Upon his release, he gets his hands on the machine to go back to a time he fondly remembers spending with a woman he apparently has feelings about. The two stroll on the beach before she leaves for Scotland. He follows her, but tragedy ensues and it is not clear if he has killed her or if she died an accidental death. The time-machine angle of the film features a dreamlike series of flashbacks making it unclear if the action is presently unfolding or is merely a vague memory from the past. ~ Dan Pavlides, Rovi/IMDb<<<The Wikipedia free encyclopedia Alain Resnais article gives much more material on Resnais' work, but tends to overvalue his achievements, This film was meant to be presented at Cannes 1968, but expecting from radio news the chaos which then ensued, Alain Resnais broke his train journey to Cannes at Lyons and turned back to Paris. The festival was cancelled, the film was lost for a festival presentation and hence never really made it into the commercially relevant distribution circuit. Accordingly, it was near-impossible to get hold of a copy - no DVD's then, and DVD's now, but not released until very recently (I waited four years for it), still highly priced. The film was not worth any of these efforts. A bit nouveau roman, a bit love and death philosophy, the whole in a very old fashioned, very petit-bourgeois Belgian university environment, late Victorian, science hocus-pocus, but catholic? Acting flat, Claude Rich his worst, so Olga Georges-Picot, the rest of actors (if that is the word) an amateurish bunch of no skills. Bad, useless, horrible. Perhaps Resnais' worst.251 - Je t'aime, je t'aime (Alain Resnais, 1968, 91') -A miss for the miss, and the boys as well – 29/10/2013
Rodrigo Amaro
A man (Claude Rich) is selected by a group of scientists to participate in a new experiment that involves time travel. It seemed to have worked with laboratory rats but since those can't speak they need to test with a human, in this case a man who is recovering from a failed suicide attempt after the death of his lover. As the researches claim, he's a perfect choice because he has nothing to lose. The tragic "guinea pig" thinks the same and joins the test, confining himself into a strange machine that goes back in time, although very jumpy, going back and forth without any logic, replaying facts of the man's life before his suicidal act. Most of the flashbacks revolve around the time spent with the woman he loved, good moments turned into painful memories to the subject trapped in the machine, who wakes up from time to time due to the project's malfunctions.Alain Resnais devotes his time here in presenting who the main character was instead of focusing in the utility of a time travel projects, which reveals to be quite empty since it's very risky, actions can't be altered, everything is doubtful and flawed. It deconstructs the character through random flashbacks, completely out of order and very repetitive, almost like waking up every morning in "Groundhog Day" (instead of punching the clock alarm, the recurring scene is a happier moment of the man coming out of the sea talking about the fishes he saw there, a tender moment with his lover). Sometimes it goes forward when it's time to explain what truly happened with his woman, by the time everything gets deeply confusing and a little more frightening. This movie's concept is great, but there isn't much gain when you don't have answers to some questions, and above all it's lack of a true purpose makes of "Je'Taime, Je'Taime" ("I Love You, I Love You") something remotely interesting, difficult to endure and more off than on. I loved the fact of this being a sci-fi movie that doesn't circulates with scientifical mambo jambo, it's more humanistic in this aspect. But in the real human level it's very brainy, exquisite, lacking in heart, passion and exceeding in small talks and distractive actions. I didn't fell anything for the couple, the fragments of what they had in common wasn't enough for me to develop any kind of feeling for them; the man, on the other hand, was a brilliant and tragic character with genuine emotions, slightly uncertain why he went ahead in joining the test, enjoying in revive the life he had but at the same time hating the awkward experience of not seeing things as they were, with clarity - the machine, the drugs taken interfere in everything, causing him some pain. We ask ourselves if we would do something like that. Technically fascinating with its unusual editing (for the time) but a little dead inside, this is a nice film that surely leaves you thinking but not much loving and dreaming and wanting more. Would benefit of an American remake, but too bad some would see it as a clone of "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind". 6/10