Watch Swimming Pool For Free

Did you people see the same film I saw?

Absolutely the worst movie.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

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.

Sarah is a British author of mystery/crime novels. She's also a miserable despicable woman who isn't satisfied until everyone around her is miserable too. Her editor is expecting a new work of hers so he sends her to his vacation house in France to get inspiration. He lets her know that his daughter may stop by.In France Sarah sort of regains her humanity. She meets the older care-taker of the place, a server at a cafe/restaurant she goes to every day. Eventually the editor's daughter does show up. Julie is young, wild, free-spirited, brings different men home and has loud sex with them to the annoyance of Sarah who claims to need peace and quiet to write. That causes strife between the two. Julie lives life to the fullest, swims, sunbathes, eats good food. Sarah eats every day the same junk, thinks too highly of herself to swim. Sarah goes through Julie's stuff, reads her diary, finds some things that interest her, and now is more open to her. They start getting along. It turns out that Julie is the inspiration Sarah needs not just for her writing but for life. Julie discovers that Sarah went through her stuff, so she goes through her stuff. Now things take a turn for the worse as they are both suspicious of each other.One night Julie brings the server home and gets Sarah to dance with him. Later though Sarah out of spite interrupts a sex act between Julie and the guy, things get a bit nonsensical. Next day Sarah discovers that the server and/or Julie have vanished. A crime has taken place and Sarah, the expert in crimes helps to cover it up. Sarah becomes interested in knowing more about who Julie is and at the end she and we make a surprising discovery.While I do appreciate movies about writing and inspiration, Swimming Pool follows the formula of making the author a crime mystery author who apparently mixes up reality and fiction. We've seen that before. The movie also fails to some extent because it doesn't really get the audience to care enough to pay close attention from the beginning given that it will turn into some puzzle for the audience. So I guess one can say the surprise succeeded but at the same time the setup is so dull that I wasn't paying all that much attention to what was going on or the details. Reading the various interpretations, it doesn't look like there isn't any one answer, which also makes it less interesting for me and shows that paying full attention would not have been any more rewarding. With a different cast and a less stiffer direction perhaps Swimming Pool would have been more effective.

Released in 2003, "Swimming Pool" is a drama/psychological thriller about a popular English novelist named, Sarah (Charlotte Rampling), who vacations at her publisher's villa in France to find inspiration for her next book. Unfortunately, the publisher's oversexed daughter, Julie (Ludivine Sagnier), visits and disrupts her activities.If you remember 70s' films like "Orca" and "Zardoz" you'll know that Rampling was stunning in her physical prime in a looks-that-kill way. In "Swimming Pool" she's still in decent shape for a woman verging on 60, but her character's a joyless biyatch desperately seeking inspiration. Julie, by contrast, is young, friendly and overflowing with sexuality, but – like Sarah – she's not a pushover in the least.Sagnier shines as the wild child French hottie. There's just something about the female French accent that's a turn-on. Despite her sexiness, it's clear in some scenes that Julie's actually sort of plain in a girl-next-door kind of way. It's what she does with what she's got that makes her stunning.Like 2005's "Match Point," "Swimming Pool" is the antithesis of the modern 'blockbuster' and all its moronic trappings -- there's no quick editing, no CGI, no goofy one-liners, no explosions and no promise of $400 million at the box office. No, "Swimming Pool" is movie-making based simply on excellent writing and cinematic storytelling. The end is a revelation to the viewer even if you were expecting it, particularly because, if you research it, it's way more than even that, believe it or not. It's amazing how good writing & storytelling can create a 'Wow' reaction more so than the most elaborate overkill action sequence with all its requisite CGI and explosions.The film runs 102 minutes and was shot in Luberon, Vaucluse, France, and London.GRADE: A- ***SPOILER ALERT*** (Don't read further if you haven't seen the film) The obvious interpretation is that Julie isn't real, but rather a character created by Sarah for her next book whereas Julia is the publisher's real daughter, revealed at the end. People who draw this conclusion, like me on my first two viewings, are on the right track, but this interpretation is only accurate to a point. For details see the thread on the IMDb message board "The Definitive Answer / Color-Key to Swimming Pool."

The plot in a giant SPOILER: A female London-based mystery novel writer spending a summer at her publisher's villa in France helps a young woman (Julie) claiming to be the publisher's daughter get rid of evidence of her murder of a local young man interested in both ladies. The writer ends up writing a book based on this girl and a book by her mother based on her romantic relationship with the publisher, and publishes it behind his back. The final sequence reveals another similarly named girl (Julia) to be the daughter of said publisher. The writer waves at both girls in the final scene, and the silhouette she waves at mimics her. Further SPOILERS: The first girl is topless through a lot of the movie, and BIG SPOILER: the older writer also goes Full Monty for one scene. No one else that matters gets naked.I immediately looked up interpretations of the film because it does not hold your hand in its conclusion. Julie's existence, her relationship with Julia, with the publisher, and with the writer all come into question. One character (if we accept he existed) grounds Julie in reality, it's the gardener Marcel. He has a dwarf daughter whom at the mention of her mother shuts herself in terrified, insisting she died in an accident. When he stumbles upon the freshly dug grave of Julie's latest victim, it is as if he had already seen this before. The writer looks at Julie for help, but since she's asleep, offers herself to the gardener instead. Julie is playful with Marcel, and in one scene stops him from working and pulls him in the bushes with her newly met sex partner. Julie might have had to gain the gardener' silence previously. Maybe she killed his wife. The hysteric way in which Julie pleads her mother not to leave her and her agony when she realizes she's talking to the author and her mother already isn't there could suggest she's reliving the past trauma of having been abandoned by her mother after a similar incident. Since the writer wouldn't have been there before, the gardener might have been Julie's former accomplice. Work at the villa might be compensation, it explains why neither parent wants to go back there or see Julie. Julia is younger than Julie, and could be the official family the publisher approves of. She has braces. Julie absolutely does not wear bras. She is too free, the unwanted child of a sex orgy. The book the writer publishes behind the publisher's back is an "illegitimate" product itself. It is more personal and vindictive. Etymologically, I don't know how much the director likes to play with names, but Julie's mother fled to somewhere Nice, her relationship with her father is Long done, and at the end she herself drives off to St Tropez, or Saint too much. When I first saw the writer seeing Julia for the first time, I thought Julie had duped her. The final scene might suggest the two are the same, but Julia does not seem to recognize the writer at all when they meet in London. Perhaps the writer is projecting one onto the other, but Julia is in London and wouldn't come without her father, Julie is gone to St Trop. The shadow she waves at happens to mimic the writer's wave, suggesting both are her puppets, imagination, or own projection. The movie ends leaving the silhouette anonymous. It also puts the writer back in France. Maybe the publisher gave her the villa as compensation. She did warn him her detective series would be coming back, a not so subtle blackmail after delivering him a book digging up old bones literally in his backyard. The best way to shut her up would be to give her a reason to keep people off the property he doesn't want to go back to himself. As soon as I finish writing this I'm sure I will come up with another interpretation, and I've already spent more than the movie's running time on this. This is perhaps the beauty of the Swimming Pool.

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.