Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Glucedee It's hard to see any effort in the film. There's no comedy to speak of, no real drama and, worst of all.

Kaydan Christian A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

Paynbob It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

rgcustomer Normally I hate remakes, but I think it would be hard to make this film worse than it already is, so I say "Go for it!" because the story might be worth telling.The story actually isn't much, and deserved a better script and tighter editing to keep the audience interested, not to mention better direction, and acting (including Seberg). I was constantly having to replay scenes, because my mind would drift away from the film, as it was so dull.Even the music was bad. I mean, by the zillionth time they play a variation on that theme ... good grief, we get it already! It must have been a bargain.The characters never really evolve one way or another. They just sort of change (or not) for no particular reason. It's devoid of feeling, even when there should be feeling. We're just supposed to assume it makes sense, without actually taking that journey with the characters.The narration was a big negative as well. Sure, the character may be annoying and childish, but that's no reason to subject us to annoying and childish ramblings.I did enjoy the cinematography, and the use of colour.Even in the 6.5 - 7.0 range, this film is overrated. The pity is that it could have been done well, and wasn't.

JasparLamarCrabb Otto Preminger directs this light as a feather story. Bohemian Jean Seberg and her equally bohemian widower father David Niven holiday in the South of France with nutty Mylène Demongeot. Things are fine until family friend Deborah Kerr shows up. Nivens, a degenerate womanizer, finds the conquest of Kerr too hard to resist. That's fine with Seberg, as long as Niven loves her and leaves her (as he's done with all the women in his past...including Demongeot). When it appears as though she's becoming second banana in Niven's life, Seberg exact revenge on Kerr. Preminger tells the story in flashbacks from Seberg's perspective and cleverly combines black and white with sunnier color scenes. The cinematography by Georges Périnal is stunning. The film features some of Preminger's least heavy-handed direction, although he rarely allows any close-ups, which makes it difficult to make out what the actors are really feeling. Arthur Laurents wrote the script and it's full of acidic dialog and funny scenes (mostly involving bird-brained Demongeot). Seberg acquits herself fairly well, but Niven is at his least appealing...and he shows no chemistry with either Seberg or Kerr. Preminger really mis-steps with that casting. It's a role that seems tailor made for someone closer to Charles Boyer. With Geoffrey Horne as Seberg's would-be suitor and Martita Hunt as his daffy mother. Juliette Gréco, playing herself, sings the title song in a Paris nightclub. The great titles are by Preminger regular Saul Bass.

marc-herbert First, one of your commentators remarked that the Riviera looked great. I do not believe Preminger filmed it there. The site was probably Lake Tahoe, with a few shots taken in the south of France, of course, to add authenticity. Interiors were all made on Hollywood sound stages. The book is far more subtle and carefully crafted than the screenplay. Near the end, when Anne discovers Raymond and Elsa together, she overhears him saying several deceitful and insensitive remarks, remarks that portray him as shockingly depraved. The book does not reveal those remarks to us; we continue to think of Raymond as, well, yes, promiscuous, but basically charming and decent.

T Y Bonjour Tristesse covers similar ground as 'The Member of the Wedding.' to wit, a possessive daughter tries to prevent a relationship from forming between a beloved family member and an interloper. While critics love 'Member of the Wedding,' I find Julie Harris to be a jumbo-drag and an adenoidal, scenery-chomping thespian in everything she's been in. This portrays irritating, rich idiots as in Last Year at Marienbad, but this time it's a travelogue.In this Preminger movie sequences develop, but characters do not. For the first 30 minutes he's content to blur the father-daughter relationship between Seberg and Niven, making uncomfortable sexual readings possible. Once the conflict is introduced, Seberg can't deliver the depth the part requires. Kerr pulls rank and turns the film into 'Endless Love.' Seberg's vacuous narration, is like something out of Strange Interlude - it is not good. I really wish someone other than Niven was in his role. He spends so much time normalizing orthodox British behavior in all his movies, he never gets around to the character.In the most memorable sequence, an evening out dancing becomes a free-for-all in a harbor. Bertolucci steals the entire scene for his empty exercise, 'The Conformist.' Kerr is on board to clasp her hands and portray another major pain (as in Black Narcissus, Night of the Iguana, King and I, Heaven Knows Mr. Allyson, Tea and Sympathy, etc. etc.). Really, Kerr was a horrible actress. I wish every movie with her could end with a fatal car crash, or even better, start with one.People uncomfortable with ambiguity should avoid this.