Watch Belle Toujours For Free

One of my all time favorites.

Nice effects though.

How sad is this?

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

Luis Bunuel's Belle de Jour is a classic of 1960s dark comedy, with the touches of surrealism that made the director such a house-hold name (for art-film households anyway) and had a seductive, sometimes cold but never less than interesting performance from Catherine Deneuve as Severine, who spends her days as a hooker in a brothel while her husband doesn't know. You may or may not recall Michel Piccoli was in the film as well, and had a pivotal moment - following being the one who originally gave Severine directions to the brothel - who may or may not have told her husband. Bunuel was smart and clever and right enough to not show us this conversation, only Severine seeing a single tear running down his cheek. We can read into it whatever we wish, which was the sly gift from the mater.The (now late) director Manoel de Oliveira decided in 2006, at the age of 100, to make a sort of "homage" to Bunuel and his collaborator Jean-Claude Carriere by making what is in all actuality a sequel to that film, where Piccoli's character Husson sees Severine at a classical music concert, tries to follow/track her down, and then when he does has dinner with her to talk about things. Will he finally tell her what she said? In truth, does it matter either way, one might ask? Certainly de Oliveira doesn't care.Despite an opening sequence at this concert hall that is simple and magnetic and wonderful to sit through - maybe in large part due to the music itself from Dvorak being so powerful - and a final dinner scene that has a couple of nice visual touches, this is just not that interesting. It doesn't work that Deneuve isn't back as Severine; I'm sure the director would argue this is a further homage to Bunuel (two actresses were used in That Obscure Object of Desire), but it just feels off seeing another actress there, who doesn't have the same looks (Deneuve, at her age today, is still astonishing looking by the way). The film is a scant 70 minutes long - 65 not counting credits - and it still feels padded out with scenes of watching characters eat their dinner, the waiters cleaning up, and lots of walking around.Belle toujours wasn't a bad idea, per-say. Revisiting such memorable characters years later and giving a new perspective could be captivating or enlightening, and as a stand-alone short film it could have worked (imagine, for example, if Husson and Severine meet right after the concert hall and grab a bite and talk, you cut out ALL of the mid-section and don't really miss much at all, other characters here are inconsequential really). At the same time, it was hard for me to also grasp what the "homage" was ultimately. There are two Bunuelian moments of surrealism, one involving a golden horse statue outside in Paris that may have real eyes (this works because there's build-up as Piccoli is staring at it), and another with a chicken that is just weird but weird for weird's sake, if that makes sense.The performances aren't terrible, and some of the camera-work is fine, but the film has not much reason to justify its existence. And the mystery and fun of Belle de Jour was that it was kept in its own, satirical 1960's Parisian world. Maybe there's something to be said about the nature of remembering things and how time changes people, but that feels weak here too. Again, as a short, this might be worthwhile. At 70 minutes, somehow, it feels too long. Not to mention, perhaps a nitpick but something I caught on to as this WAS a 100 year old director, all of the sound is turned up really high on things that don't matter.If you've been waiting to hear Michel Piccoli gulp his whiskey and chew his food, this is the movie for you I guess.

But not succeeding anyway. Buñuel was a genius and de Oliveira only a very talented movie director. A parenthesis to say that for you to understand fully this movie you must have seen Buñuel's movie "Belle de Jour" which dates from the sixties of last century. This movie now aspires (as some kind of homage to Buñuel's work) to be some kind of continuation of the latter but a feeble one indeed. Those who have seen Buñuel's movie probably will remember the story: a beautiful woman (Catherine Deneuve then) who loves her husband has however some masochist tendency which pulls her to prostitute herself in a luxury brothel. Buñuel tells this story brilliantly in images and dialogues diving deeply in the arcana of the human soul. De Oliveira's movie profits (or tries to profit) from that story by concocting a supposed not very meaningful end to it (which becomes a poor open end after all). The story of the movie we are reviewing now is based in the encounter many years later of the woman of the first movie (Bulle Ogier now who resembles Catherine Deneuve as much as a screech-owl resembles a dove)and a close friend (Michel Piccoli) of her and her (now already deceased) husband, who tries to convince her to have dinner with him in a private room in a posh restaurant by promising to tell her if he had or not told her husband at the time of the events above mentioned, about her behaviour also above described. This has not much interest in itself as the continuation of Buñuel's story to be given as the climax in de Oliveira's movie. To the movie's credit however we may refer the excellent performance of Michel Piccoli, a few nice images of Paris and some beautiful interiors and visual details and the smooth visual development of the story showing the de Oliveira's real talent in what regards movie's and actor's direction. And that's all.

I am fortunate enough to have had the opportunity to view both this film, and the film "Belle Du Jour" upon which it is a sequel, for the very first time in 1 sitting. I was impressed beyond expectation with the first film "Belle Du Jour" directed by Luis Bunuel, only the second film I have seen of his after the very well done "the young one" and am convinced of how great a director he was. That being said, despite the fact that I was very intrigued by the premise of this movie, "Belle Toujours", where 39 years later a sequel was made in which the same characters and one of the original actors meet after so many years to relive their experiences, this movie proved to be everything I feared it would be; a stagey contrived mess filled with pseudo intellectual dribble contained within unrealistic overly dramatized situations, and at best, having no real purpose or unique value of its own.The movie begins with lengthy excerpts in a concert hall which last roughly 8 minutes at which point Henry Husson notices Severine in the audience. You cannot go wrong in opening a film with classical music in this way, though it has been done countless times before. It could have even been very poignant if the two main characters had met outside of the theatre. There are at least three 30 second scenes of shots of Paris with classical music playing, which MIGHT have been poignant if they had first met at the theatre, but which transparently comes across as filler in order for the director to reach an hours length for this waste of film, which only runs 65 minutes long.Instead, Husson did not find Severine outside the theatre, and after wandering the streets aimlessly, he just happened to spot her leaving a bar into a cab, where she just happened to leave the barman with the address of where she was staying. "lucky" as Husson describes it... I would describe it as stagey and poorly conceived, though even here if the director were to spare us from more "luck" the film may have been bearable. Afterwards, Husson goes to the hotel where Severine is staying and just as he enters the elevator she exits the adjacent one, after which he comes down again much too quickly only to see her leave. The hotel clerk then tells him she is leaving the city. Finally, later as he is walking along the street he just happens to bump into her again, where he is talking to her and she walks back and forth, clearly imitating some of the behaviour of Severine Played By Catherine Deneuve in the original film, though to a nauseatingly exaggerated degree. So in the end these 2 re-unite.. after FOUR chance encounters. A Single, might have been poignant. 2 pushy, but 4, utterly ridiculous. This scene which is all shot outside in sky view ends with Husson entering the boutique and emerging 30 seconds later. We later find out that he therein purchased the box with the perverted sex toy held by the oriental client in the first film.... right where he bumps into her for the 4th time; Convenient to a writer and director unable to create a realistic and coherent plot, bust most importantly his character in the first film did not know anything about her encounter with the Asian client.That essentially is the entire plot, not aided at all by the ridiculous fact that in all 3 times the male lead enters the bar where he was able to obtain Severines address, each time there are 2 sex workers there who observe him and interest in his story as if they are fixtures there with no real lives, and nowhere else to be. Almost a third of the movie takes place here, and the worst aspect is that it in no way gives the viewer anticipation for when Husson and Severine finally will speak to each other. Instead it is a reflective and unengaging speculation upon the first movie, which anyone who has seen the first movie could reflect upon as good or better on their own.Finally when the 2 leads meet at a dining room, where they had arranged, after some simple words of exchange, they eat and say nothing to each other for almost 5 minutes. Anyone who finds a single shred of meaning out of this, and doesn't see it as the mindless filler that it is, is the kind of person who would find meaning in a single line drawn on a blank piece of paper. They have a short discussion about the past as the candles on the table 1 by 1 extinguish, a very obvious and somewhat contrived bit of symbolism, until finally they part and the movie is ended by this very empty climax.This entire film is I believe the biggest disgrace upon another movie I have seen. If the plot was at the very least put together in an intelligent and plausible manner, it would at least be acceptable, though still even that disregarded, this film seems like it was put together by a 10 year old with nothing original or new to offer, and literally no plot, based purely on a script contemplating the events in the original movie which could have been written in a couple of hours, and much better done at that. I do not know why Catherine Deneuve did not reprise her role from the first film, but thankfully for her she does not have to associate her name with this absolute disgrace. Michel Picolli should be ashamed of himself for taking part in this pile of film stock. This movie is not even a film of its own. At best it is a meandering reflection upon a true film, and has no purpose to it whatsoever.

Last Thursday start the most famous film event in Mexico City: La Muestra International De Cine. This event show recent films that were in the biggest festivals like Cannes and others. This year there are two films that i can't miss: Paranoid Park and The Darjeeling Limited and also i want to see 4 months 3 weeks & two days, but for me is always nice to can watch the rest of the films.Last weekend i have the chance to see Belle Toujours and i was a little disappointed about the film. Luis Buñuel make Belle De Jour in 1967 and this film is like a second part and a tribute to Buñuel. I have to say that i haven't see Belle De Jour and after see this one i don't feel the need to do it.Well about the film: Is about this same characters of Buñuel's film that have this secret affair and now 30 years later they met again. The film start in the opera and is very good because is like you are in the concert and when the song ends i almost clap. Later the film doesn't have a real point and for me was a little boring, more in the part when they are eating is a very strange scene. I put 6.6 out of 10 to this film, just for the part in the bar that i really like, is like a film of Jim Jarmsuch, slow and with excellent dialogs between the characters in strange situations.So i found this as a very strange film that maybe work better without the need to be a tribute to Luis Buñuel.