Watch Heartbeats For Free

the audience applauded

Highly Overrated But Still Good

Good story, Not enough for a whole film

Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

The thing is this, despite having a relatively short screen time, the film still manages to feel like it's spinning in the same wheels for most of its runtime. The actors are fine (although Dolan's starting to show his limitations as an actor and perhaps he should cast others, something that he wisely did for Mommy). The film seems to feel like it's mostly just style and no real substance. There could've been a rather normal love triangle film in here somewhere, and yet Dolan doesn't even really want to do that. I'm not even sure what he really wanted to do, either way. Easily his weakest film and not one I'd recommend. There's simply nothing original here to recommend, certainly not in terms of theme.

On the whole, I enjoyed many moments of 'Heartbeats' ('Les Amours Imaginaires'), and I disliked many others -- such as the self-indulgence of the filmmaker/actor, in obviously relishing at showing to the camera his face (too elongated chin and very long teeth ?), his hands (with rather very unkempt nails). His very short stature may be fine, for now (when he's boyishly young), but later.….. ? I have the impression that he is unable to watch the 'rushes' of what he films with much objectivity. And all these slow-motioned scenes ….often boring, I thought. About the songs he uses in the background: they often 'reflect' or even 'explain' some situations, but when used in these ways, are they WELL used -- I mean a movie's script and acting should be self-sufficient. Sure, music can set a mood, even amplify it -- but rarely more -- in very good movies. Anyway, Dolan may well be a genius: only the future will confirm or infirm this. Good luck to him -- at the very least for his determination to express himself and his apparent total lack of self-consciousness. As someone noted, 'The Innocents' almost dealt with the very same subject -- but in my humble opinion, to much better results. And Dolan knows it very well, since he has the 'honesty' of having one of the young men of Bertolucci's movie appear in the very last scene -- hinting that the pattern is set and about to start, all over again -- for the two main characters, played by Miss Monia Chokri and Dolan himself. Very good point and so accurate about infatuation : do we ever really learn from our past mistakes – when our UNHEALED emotions are concerned ?

Best Canadian film of the year, or any year without Arcand of Egoyan in the spotlight! One word of caution: don't jump to evaluate the plot. Like a good book, this film is better in the introspection it causes than the story per se. Great visual effects, a soft French style story, witty intrusions and a general sense of elegant joy when watching. The story is as natural as life itself. Andy Warhol meets Almodovar in this Xavier Dolan, a paella of colour and music, of pain and elation all making an experience. It exudes the thinking behind every frame, the carefully chosen colours and outfits, the engaging music, the nerdy framing. As a respectful critique, I just think some frames look too much like video clips. Still it captivates and never gives you a chance to go to the fridge during watching. Some may like simple biological stimulus, (watch then some blockbusters with Julia Roberts in all her pectorally enhanced glory) but this film is about complicated humanity. A deserved Cannes selection, will follow the director with interest. Given his age, the future may bring us finally some more quality Canadian Cinema. © Dan Gabriel 2012 [email protected]

Having a threesome often means dealing with very difficult personal issues. If you don't succeed, then this strange relationship is doomed to fail. When Francis and Marie meet Nicolas, a young, blonde, rich and highly intelligent boy, their lives change. Although at first they try to deny it, they fall deeply in love with Nicolas.Nothing can guarantee a healthy relationship, but here the protagonists embark upon an almost impossible journey. Nicolas acts like an unprejudiced and very liberal young man who doesn't care about Francis' homosexuality or Marie's uptightness. As they become friends, Nicolas transforms himself into the object of desire of both Francis and Marie.Nonetheless, nothing seems to indicate that Nicolas has feelings towards Francis, after all they have only shared a handful of meaningless –although rather intimate- moments: Nicolas had been roughhousing with Francis in the woods, and also, after sleeping together, Francis had noticed Nicolas' leg rubbing against his own. These are just minuscule details but Francis starts to get obsessed about his young friend. At the same time, Marie convinces herself that Nicolas is the love of her life; she is now worried about Francis advances, and because of that their friendship might come to an end.Nicolas is very handsome and exudes a sex appeal unlike any other youngster, and it's because of that that he turns into a symbolic phallus, ascribing to the genitality that condenses the nature of the object of desire. To explain this situation better, let's remember that Marie keeps dating other men but she finds these dates dull and completely forgettable. Francis does the same, but as he has casual sex with other guys, he realizes that none of them can be compared to Nicolas. Erotic objects, for man, are frequently aberrant, multiple and interchangeable. This is why Francis can still have sexual intercourse with multiple partners, who have no real defining features, they are, after all, interchangeable and, ultimately, aberrant. Under these circumstances, Francis' pain and suffering can only be subsidized by the tacit competition he maintains with his friend Marie. Jacques Lacan said once that no object of need and/or demand will ever satisfy the desire/subject. This is why Nicolas inserts himself in the realm of the phantasm; id est, he's an idealized figure that can never defy reality nor exist in the real.The more time Francis and Marie spend with Nicolas, the more elusive and ungraspable he becomes. As they get closer to him, a barrier, a distance, is made evident. When the objects of need are metabolized ('eroticized') into signifiers of desire by virtue of the demand, it's rather obvious that any object will do as "object" of desire, since none will do. When Francis is alone in Nicolas's bedroom and starts smelling his pants and shirts, he cannot stop masturbating, evoking not the real boy but his traits, his invisible presence that has no place in the realm of the real. Nicolas, after all, is the object a, the object of desire, and since he is the target of men and women's libido he's also, in general terms, a nonexistent character.This doesn't mean, however, that Nicolas' presence or absence doesn't have a profound effect in the lives of Francis and Marie. Director Xavier Dolan creates a fascinating group of characters and a really complex, intense and innovative story. Xavier Dolan is not only a magnificent writer and filmmaker, he's also a wonderful actor (he plays Francis, although he also had a part in another gay-themed production: Miroirs d'été, which I reviewed a few months ago). Niels Schneider gives an astounding performance as Nicolas, and so does Monia Chokri. Not only is the acting great, but the cinematography in general and the soundtrack of this film are truly unforgettable. In the end, as Lacan explains to us, the object of desire is bound to impossibility… and that's what the protagonists learn the hard way. Poignant, sad and powerful, Dolan's film is a masterwork.