Watch Brownian Movement For Free

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

Instant Favorite.

The movie's neither hopeful in contrived ways, nor hopeless in different contrived ways. Somehow it manages to be wonderful

Watching it is like watching the spectacle of a class clown at their best: you laugh at their jokes, instigate their defiance, and "ooooh" when they get in trouble.

I like artsy films for the simple reason that they make me think. And Brownian Movement's point to ponder is, I believe, what sort of mental illness creates such a closed personality as Sandra Huller's character. At least, that's what I think it is. Such a study requires character development and dialogue that leads to discover exactly what makes the lead character tick. Instead of dialogue we are treated to long silences between characters or without characters in empty bedrooms or bathrooms. Whatever dialogue exists is in such basic English or French that it made me wonder if the scriptwriter was fluent in either language.Any action that takes place between the sterile room or scenery shot is similarly sterile. The sex scenes are so devoid of feeling that they can only be classed as porn and not well made porn at that. The only compliment I can pay part 1, where most of the sex takes place, is that it answers a burning question that must be on every movie-goer's mind: Do German actresses have Brazilians? If Sandra Huller is a typical example, apparently not.Not recommended unless you need to experience terminal boredom.

In the Forties radio dramas used to use up allotted time with dramatic music passages, or by having lengthy walking scenes or stage business that didn't really advance the story or develop characters ("Here's the doorbell. I'll just ring it. Should I ring it again?"). Apparently the director of The Brownian Movement discovered the cinematic version of this. Have a movie 96 minutes long with very little dialogue and almost no action. Even the sex scenes were static, stopping just short of being still photographs; uninspired, photographs at that.There is the potential here for a story: Woman with handsome husband has an unaccountable fetish for sleeping with unattractive men. Unfortunately that story wasn't presented in this movie. Instead we have dreadful, unending scenes of people looking thoughtful. Not pained. Not horrified. Not terrified. Just thoughtful. Maybe they're bored. I can see why they might be.Here is a fundamental truism of fiction: Your characters need to have a motivation for their behavior. It can be concealed for a while and unveiled suddenly or gradually, but ultimately your characters have to have reasons for behaving as they do. Not in this film.I tried to discern what most of the budget for this movie went into. Obviously it was Ms. Huller's salary. The rest of this pretentious nonsense couldn't have cost more than a few thousand dollars for plane tickets. There were no tricky or interesting camera shots; just painful drawn-out shots of nice interiors (maybe some money was spent on hiring locations). Since there was nothing going on, and not much said, the need for a crew was probably minimal. We're supposed to think of this as arty and deep. No it was someone's way of getting someone (a government agency?) to finance a film that has no substance and doesn't do anything.I assume someone pocketed the money saved from not buying a real screenplay or hiring sound stages where real action could be filmed, or a sound person, or a makeup person, or much of anything else, for that matter. It is surprising that a movie which showed so much of Ms. Huller's attractive epidermis could be so excruciatingly dull and silly. It is so stultifying that her nudity can't save it.

Charlotte rents a secret apartment. She lives with Max and their son Benjamin in Brussels. She's a researcher professor and she takes some of her male patients to the secret apartment to have sex. She encounters one of those men later and violently attacks him. She goes to therapy with Max and she loses her license to practice. Next, they're in India with the new addition of twins but it's not as good as it first appears to be.There is little dialog especially with the large number of sex scenes. It's a quiet movie. My main problem with that is the lack of emotions for much of the movie. Sandra Hüller plays the cold lead character. She never really lets the audience into the character. Nanouk Leopold is the writer/director. In between the sex scenes, this is a character study movie but it doesn't necessary do a good job. There are little snippets of insight but a whole lot of nothing.

Insufferable longueurs that test the patience to breaking point, posing as artiness. Complete failure to supply backstory so that we actually know nothing about the characters while pretending to think about them. Baffling behaviour by a medical doctor --- well, that's understandable enough, considering what they endure to achieve their licence. But that behaviour is never explained, and the character says smugly that to explain "would only make it worse". Since she had sexual intercourse with men selected from her hospital's patients, she loses her licence to practice and she and her man and their children head off to India, where nothing further happens at all. I could not understand why they spoke English, in rather sketchy accents, and why the French in the movie was not subtitled. The whole thing was so anti-audience and so extremely uningratiating that I felt totally uninvolved and not motivated to watch, which is a feeling evidently shared by the vast majority of humanity. How can someone do this to European cinema? How could the Dutch pay for it?