Watch A Day in the Country For Free

It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

I didn’t really have many expectations going into the movie (good or bad), but I actually really enjoyed it. I really liked the characters and the banter between them.

The 40-minutes may be flawed, but the following is my take on the short's quietly compelling nature.Apparently, moviemaker Renoir was unable to complete the film. Still, the results amount to a subtle look at the seductive powers that nature can produce on sensitive souls. The story line proceeds more on tracking these poetic expansions than anything like a standard plot. City girl Henriette is immediately captivated by a lyrical expansion on her first visit to the French countryside. Sitting for the first time in the wild grass, her awareness responds both verbally and non-verbally to what is now a revealing enchantment beckoning to her. The trees, the grass, the river, even the critters that crawl. It is these moments of revelation that comprise the film's heart both literally and figuratively. And when in that same grassland, she later gives in to Henri's persistent pawing, it's like her surrender is not to a man, but to a climactic idea. To me, this is all provocatively rendered by Renoir and Co. What's not compelling are the goofy male characters who seem to have wandered in from a Laurel and Hardy short. Then again, maybe these antics are intended as sportive comment on less sensitive souls, especially male. It also appears that their only concern is what they can extract from the natural world (fishing), not for what that world has to reveal. A partial exception is Henri. Instead, he amounts to a man somewhere between the two poles. Despite his rural background, he apparently retains a certain clouded openness. That's implied when he moves from simple sexual desire for Henrietta to a glimpse of the sublime once they are in congress together. For each, it's that moment of unity that amounts to an unforgettable experience, but one whose pristine nature can never be repeated. Thus each is left to endure a lifetime of wistful longing. The sublime thus carries a price.Anyway, this is my take on a 40-minute film that may be flawed, but is also quietly provocative in a compelling way. It's also one I'll take with me, warily, next time I manage to backpack.

The family of a Parisian shop-owner (André Gabriello) spends a day in the country. The daughter (Sylvia Bataille) falls in love with a man (Georges D'Arnoux) at the inn, where they spend the day.This simple film, less than 45 minutes long, is now available thanks to Criterion. Who can say no to Jean Renoir in the 1930s? So many of us are preoccupied with American comedies of the era, we forget that other countries exist. And this one at a time that France was just about to be invaded by Germany!Although her career spanned over 20 years, this would turn out to be Sylvia Bataille's most memorable role. Renoir never finished filming due to weather problems, but producer Pierre Braunberger turned the material into a release in 1946, ten years after it was shot. Braunberger was right to release the film.

Plot: On a day out in the country, a city girl is pursued by two young men.Review: This was a pleasant, short piece, with little moments that almost anyone can relate to. The general setting is a city family's outing to a countryside inn. The father tries to make out he's an expert on everything they see, the mother is more concerned about ants climbing into her underwear, the grandmother falls asleep with a kitten on her lap, and the daughter plays on a swing. Two local lads immediately engage in their favourite sport – girl watching, and the girl (Sylvia Bataille) quickly attracts their interest. After vying with each other for her attention, they quieter of the two boys finds himself alone with her and they share a passionate moment.As the movie rolled by, it did not make an immediate impression as anything very special, but an unexpected bitter-sweet twist at the end helped explain why this short is held in high regard, in spite of being unfinished. Renoir had to abandon the movie because of bad weather and a commitment to another piece of work, but the pieces he'd shot were later put together to make a complete and coherent tale. It may be all the better for it, as I wouldn't have been so interested in sitting through a longer version, as good and more polished as it might have been. Very 'French' in tone, worth a look at if you get the chance.www.thebestmovieof.com

When I see lists of the supposed 'great films', I often wonder some films makes these lists and others do not. Two films that often make such lists and make professional reviewers drool are a couple shorts which I'm not even sure belong on any such list--since they are SHORT films! While good, the films seem to be considered among the greatest works of art as well--and I just don't get it. Both films are French and I have no bias against French films--in fact, French films are probably my favorite of all the international cinema. But, I still can't see why "Zero for Conduct" and "A Day in the Country" are considered such amazing films--especially "Zero for Conduct". Yet, I know that many sophisticated people would immediately assume I'm a Neanderthal for not loving these films! As this review is specifically about " A Day in the Country", I'll confines the rest of my comments just about this particular short. I see that it's currently rated 8.2 and as I said above, makes many 'must-see' lists. While I might agree that it should be on a list of the top 100 shorts, you can't seriously compare it to a full-length in my opinion for many reasons. First, the film seems like a fragment--without the completeness or structure you'd find in a 'normal' film. Second, director Renoir himself intended to make a full-length film but only stopped part-way through the project because of time constraints--there was too much rain and he had to wrap up filming! While I think another film, "Fitzcaraldo" is a bit overrated, at least Werner Hertzog went to hell and back to get this incredible film made--yet Renoir gets a pass when he just calls it a wrap! So is this a bad film? Certainly not! In fact, it's one of the most artistically satisfying shorts I've ever seen. The combination of music, great camera work and restrained acting make this a lovely piece of art. But, with a woefully incomplete story and not much plot, I just can't take the film as serious as some have. Good, yes. Great, no. It's well worth seeing--just don't try to convince me it has achieved greatness or should be compared to traditional films.