The Dreamers (Original Uncut NC-17 Version)

I can honestly say I've never been more torn about a movie before. I'll freely admit I saw it based on: "Twins play sex games with American student in 1968 Paris." Uncut NC-17 led me to believe there was good sex, sensuality. Not in this movie. There's a lot of full frontal nudity, male and female. Did I say a lot? There is some sex and a particularly graphic scene, in fact. But none of it is sexy. None of it will give you that little twinkle in your eye. All the sex, all the nudity, all the sounds of sex (lots of those too), are part of the flow of the story ... a means to an end.

The background was a bit confusing. The three meet and get together because they have an obsessive interest in cinema and are protesting the ouster of France's Cinematic Director. That sets in motion (eventually) the [Anarchist/Worker] uprising of May 1968. Don't expect more about that, though, it's touched on at the beginning and then you get another 5 minutes at the end.

There really isn't much story. I figure they cut half the movie out for "varied" reasons and put the other half on the screen. Maybe to save it from an "X" rating? I can't figure it out. Sorry if I'm spoiling something here, but I think the gist is fairly obvious: incestuous twins bring in american boy to [assuage guilt, have fun with, etc]. The [assuage guilt, have fun with, etc] should have been the plot. It was never given the chance.

There was the girl/guy relationship -- allowed to play out. There was also supposed to be a guy/guy relationship (read about some of it - too risqué) AND an incestuous relationship. That relationship did NOT exist in this movie. Psychologically, yes, but never really physically consummated. There is one scene where they hold each other topless while asleep. No other physical contact is had. At the end a feeble attempt is made to make us believe there was such a relationship, but passing out facing one way with all clothes on ... fade to black ... waking up naked with bodies askew - when no such act has even been intimated throughout the entire movie - is a little much to believe. This one scene has the weight of the movie on it. One scene to make you believe everything you'd seen up to that point was unimportant? Come on.

Had we been allowed to concentrate on the true dilemma, I think this movie would have been the ultimate.

Why three stars? Because I didn't move the entire time. Not once. I was completely and totally captivated. Every piece of this move - every action, every piece of scenery, costume, etc., all of it was so precisely placed it was unbelievable. When the movie ended I felt like I had been played for a fool. I wanted to scream, "Hey, I want my 2 hours back!" (or at least give me a better ending.) Then it occurred to me that I truly had been entranced. So that's why the three stars. It's been a very long time since I didn't look at my watch or go get something to drink or hit pause for one reason or another during a movie.

Bertolucci is my favorite film director. No doubt others would disagree - if so, this is perfectly understandable because he is a flawed director with as many failures as spectacular successes. This is one of them. I don't understand the magic of artistic perfection any more than I can explain artistic failure, but one thing I'd venture is that nostalgia is a dangerous subject. Bertolucci is a great romantic, a man whose vision springs from his essential belief in the perfectibility of man. Stripped of any ideas other than nostalgia, the 60s haven't much to offer beyond what the director gives us, namely, chic porn. The film desperately seeks to shock with nudity and sex, incest, and the rest. Finally, we are as bored as the characters in a dull, pointless indulgence of self-consciousness. I was embarrassed for the great master as much as anything. I also felt that the 60s had finally hit bottom, having floated for years above the dregs of its sordid past, only to fall flat finally weighted down as it was with sex, drugs and self-importance. Bertolucci has a hard time connecting the glory years of the student revolution with anything in history; its ties to any revolutionary tradition proved long ago to be tenuous. It was after all is said and done just a panties-raid, as shown by its veterans whose lives now resemble more closely those of Marie Antoinette's Court than those of Jean-Jacque Rousseau's circle. "The Dreamers" were just a bunch of kids having the time of their lives, like other degenerates.

This is actually quite a deep movie, if you enjoy the 60's when, of course, everything on the side was rebellious and what people thought was fun. It's also got lots of nude scenes, with good-looking young people, if you like that sort of thing.

I will say it again, this is a devastatingly beautiful movie! I love Michael Pitt on principle, so I had to get it but I wasnt entirely sure of how it would pan out once I actually started watching it. But I was pleasantly suprised as I realized, that from the opening scene I was completely engrossed. Paris is beautiful, the cast is beautiful, the dialauge is beautiful, and not to mention witty and intelligent.
Matthew(Michael Pitt)is a wide eyed, slightly shy, charming young man who meets Isabelle(Eva Green) and Theo(Louis Garrell) purely by happenstance. Isabelle has mock chained herself to the gates of the cinamatique(the movie theater housed inside a palace) as a riot about the theater is going on outside. She and Matthew immidetly strike up a conversation and when her brother Theo happens along after speaking to the lead rioter, a noticable spark is ignited between the three of them. Within the course of the next few days he has dinner with them, spends the night at their house and then eventually moves in because of the invitation issued to him by Izzy and Theo. The first night he spends there he walks by Theos room and sees them naked in bed together, asleep. He is shocked and confused, as you can tell by the look on his face, but he says nothing about it the next day. Other odd behaviours arise from the Izzy and Theo, such as Izzy licking the sleep out of Matthews eyes, them tag teaming matthew while trying to shave off Matthews pubic hair, and Izzy making Theo jack off in front of them after losing a game. Most people would be repelled by their strangeness, but some how, for some reason, Matthew is drawn to it like a moth to a flame. We find out later that there is a sort of reason behind the Izzy and Theos closeness, the reason being that they are siamese twins. I will say and spoil no more and only encourage you to be open minded and watch this film!! It is definetly on my top ten movies to watch!!

This is a very pretty film. Paris is as rich and gorgeous as ever, and the main trio of actors are beautiful (and you get to see plenty of them!) But the film suffers from a seeming need to make the characters "quirky" that winds up coming across as some cross between pretentious and weird. We got the film because it was supposed to be erotic, but...um?

I guess the bottom line is, I just didn't believe in these characters or their relationship -- it felt contrived, calculated for effect (the "shocking" relationship between the siblings, etc. And hasn't the "American falls in with decadent Europeans" thing been done to death by now?)

I'm sure if you're a fan of one or more of the actors, that's probably enough to carry you through. As I said, they are pretty, but that wasn't enough for me.