Develiker terrible... so disappointed.

Ensofter Overrated and overhyped

Neive Bellamy Excellent and certainly provocative... If nothing else, the film is a real conversation starter.

Francene Odetta It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

cronostitan The trendy statues being unmovable in the ordinary I add nothing not to go into the fawning, but for this movie which is one of better of Rohmer I allow myself a precision: as usual the director offers us stereotypes and the being fact that they are so much calcified, that they take an inverse shape during the movie. Whatever it pleases or not to these fanatics of the author of the legendary author from the french "Nouvelle-Vague".To begin with the central figure, Jean-Louis, the Catholic who does not know what he wants (as all the Catholics, moreover and I know what I'm talking about.) Thus, if we cross by the bourgeois à-priori very often seen - and a little bit terrible it is necessary to say - in the movies of Rohmer, many options during the narrative make that the story is easily allowed to follow.All in all the femme fatale of the intrigue, Maud (Françoise Fabian) is in fact the most romantic otherwise the one who thinks most: there is only to see the last sequence in the beach... As for the blonde Françoise (Marie-Christine Barrault) his character of future "femme-au- foyer" becomes in filigrame the most perverse, the most painless and in any case the character the most revealed by the end of the movie. Delicately perverse, as a matter of fact...Between the smart and wily brunette and the subdued blonde, opposite take off and let appear after all a situation other than we can think of formerly: everything is not as well simple as we are willing to believe it.Obviously it talks a lot and the whole contains a happy-end corresponding as in all the works of Eric Rohmer but its paradoxical and basic aspect is to be discovered.A must-see classic to see anyway with also a magnificent music.*I've got a lover

writers_reign Come on, we've all done it. You move to a new town (in this case Clermot Ferrand in the Auvergne)and six months later by complete chance run into someone who was at the same school and who you haven't seen for 15 years. You take maybe 45 seconds for small talk then jump into a discussion on Pascal or, by definition, begin philosophising. Me? I do it all the time. More? The acquaintance from school (Vidal)suggests you go with him to meet the divorced doctor (one child) he's in love with. You go, have dinner, talk about Pascal, natch, it starts to snow lightly, the doctor says, stay here tonight, there's a spare bed. She herself gets into 1) a nightie and 2) bed, from where she continues to play hostess. Eventually Vidal leaves. You say to Maud (for it is she) where's the spare bed, she says, there isn't one. You say, does Vidal know, she says, of course. The third element is the girl you have seen at Mass and determined to marry.I've fallen for Rohmer's watching paint dry idea of filmmaking before and said never again but this time I mean it.

Ilpo Hirvonen Ma nuit chez Maud AKA My Night at Maud's is Eric Rohmer's third Moral Tale. Eric Rohmer, together with Truffaut, Godard, Chabrol & Rivette, formed the French New Wave, which offered a new view on narrative. Rohmer's films are often seen as more mature compared to his other French New Wave companions. My Night at Maud's is a moral study, which dialog achieves to catch the viewer right from the start.Two men, Jean-Louis and Vidal meet again after 15 years. They decide to go to visit Vidal's friend, Maud. In Maud's apartment the group of three have interesting discussions about Pascal, philosophy, moral and religion. What makes these discussions so interesting is the difference of Vidal, Jean-Louis and Maud. Jean-Louis is a catholic who believes in the holiness of man. Vidal is a Marxist who replaces God with history, he believes in history instead of God. Maud is an atheist, who believes in true short-term happiness. When Vidal leaves the apartment, Jean-Louis gets to a moral dilemma.Jean-Louis talks a lot about a young blond woman he saw in church, Francoise. He doesn't know anything about her, but she represents religious and an ideal woman to him. Where Maud is the opposite to him. Jean-Louis doesn't believe in short-term happiness. So as he spends the night at Maud's he gets to a moral dilemma. According to his religious beliefs he should resist the temptation of Maud. Again his lie to Francoise is Christian compassion, but it's also a desire to hide his dishonesty.My Night at Maud's goes very deep. It's not just about what's on surface: the intellectual dialogs and the moral dilemmas. The intelligence of Rohmer goes much deeper. And that is what I like in his films, even if you don't understand everything, the films have something that make you watch them again and again. I'm 17 and when I walked into a dark theater to see this fine film, I was blown away. When the film is over, you have came from a moral journey. So Eric Rohmer's film, obviously doesn't just stop at being the battlefield of ideologies.

MARIO GAUCI Certainly among Rohmer's better work due, more than anything else, to his using top actors - as it's actually one of the film-maker's more cerebral efforts; in fact, its relentless preoccupation with religion and morality makes it pretty heavy-going (as much, I'd say, as Bunuel's THE MILKY WAY [1969])! The plot, in itself, is pretty simple but - even in spite of rather murky black-and-white cinematography - it holds one's interest because the three main characters are so well written by Rohmer and enacted by Jean-Louis Trintignant (such a consummate performer that he could virtually adapt to the style of any director!), Francoise Fabian and Marie-Christine Barrault.Not being a great fan of Rohmer's, I opted to rent this one before deciding whether or not to buy Criterion's upcoming Box Set of his "Six Moral Tales" (of which this is the third) - even though I had previously watched LA COLLECTIONNEUSE (1971; actually shot in '67), which didn't impress me, and CLAIRE'S KNEE (1970), which I recall being quite good...