A young American studying in Paris in 1968 strikes up a friendship with a French brother and sister. Set against the background of the '68 Paris student riots.A young American studying in Paris in 1968 strikes up a friendship with a French brother and sister. Set against the background of the '68 Paris student riots.A young American studying in Paris in 1968 strikes up a friendship with a French brother and sister. Set against the background of the '68 Paris student riots.
- Awards
- 2 wins & 11 nominations total
Jean-Pierre Léaud
- Jean-Pierre Léaud
- (as Jean-Pierre Leaud)
Gilbert Adair
- Man in the Louvre
- (uncredited)
Fred Astaire
- Jerry Travers
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
Jean-Paul Belmondo
- Michel Poiccard a.k.a. Laszlo Kovacs
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
Charles Chaplin
- A Tramp
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
Virginia Cherrill
- A Blind Girl
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
Marlene Dietrich
- Helen Faraday, aka Helen Jones
- (archive footage)
- (uncredited)
Featured reviews
8ks4
Matthew is a young american student in france, his passion for movies leads him into Theo and Isabelle, two twins that shares his passion, they quickly build a deep friendship and Matthew gets invited to stay with them while their parents are gone. However once he gets settled with them he discovers sides of both that he had not expected. While they spend their time talking and playing, the riots of Paris 1968 goes on in the "real world".
This is a very brave film in the way it has been build, but it is also a complicated movie that will leave you both confused and thinking, it's beautiful and it can almost be described as cinematic poetry, however this poetry also makes it a difficult one to relate too.
After seeing this film i am confused in what i feel about it, the movie feels very divided, and some times it is an extraordinary brave and experimental film, other times it is confuing, and at some times boring too. It's really a hard movie to understand because of the poetic feeling it gives, it's like reading a poem where some of the lines doesn't make sense, but i guess that could be an advantage as it can be seen more than once. I feel the strength of the movie is the way it challenges and explores like no american or typical mainstream movie would do, the often use of nudity and raw sex scenes would never be seen elsewhere, and even though it may annoy many people, Bertolucci portrays the scenes very beautiful and they never seem like dirty scenes, the most impressive scene is the one where Matthew and Isabelle have sex, never have a full sex scene been portrayed in such a beautiful and realistic way on screen. And there are many examples of this.
What brings the movie is first of all the very slow storyline, it barely moves at all, the whole 2 hours are pretty much circulating around one thing, which is the way these 3 youngsters spend their sparetime, it's an mysterious movie that really brings up interesting situations a lot of times, but other times it simply gets too slow and gets a little boring. Another partly negative thing is the understanding of the movie, as I earlier mentioned the movie is like a poem, if you have problems with a few lines the whole deeper meaning may fall apart. I wouldn't say i did not understand the fully deeper meaning of the movie, but i think each individual will understand this movie differently, due to the complex way it has been made. But i honestly think Bertolucci wanted it to be like that, a movie that will leave you thinking about many things, but i think what it really is about is finding yourself in a world where there are 6 billion people looking like you on the outside.
The movie is very well directed, a solid directing and you can clearly see the trademarks of the director, one thing i noticed was the floating camera. The floating camera gives a feeling of being there, it is mostly used in the first part of the movie where Matthew learns more about his mysterious new friends, it gives us a feeling of curiousity towards these two new persons. Two persons whom we soon discover have more to them than showing on the outside.
The acting in the movie is solid. I usually don't expect much from new and coming actors and actresses that i have not heard about before, this was also the case for this movie. But the acting is really good, Michael Pitt and Louis Garrel really gives an above average performance, great to see that there are still new actors who can take over when the old ones will be gone. But the star of this movie is Eva Green, what a mysteriously and unique performance, and what a brilliant casting, she is unique, beautiful and most importantly interesting, erotic and challenging. Also i give props to all the three main characters for their brave and realistic portray of nudity and the complications of sex among unexperienced youngsters.
As i said earlier this movie is very complex, it's hard to understand, and i could probably talk about it forever, but i got to stop somewhere. I think the movie is definetely worth watching, it's very artistic and does indeed stand on its own feet, it takes chances you don't see many movies take, and it's all done very well. On the negative side i think the movie sometimes get too complex and slow, but overall i don't regret seeing it, and i think that i will be seeing it again due to the complex story, it will probably bring me new thoughts when i see it next time.
6/10
This is a very brave film in the way it has been build, but it is also a complicated movie that will leave you both confused and thinking, it's beautiful and it can almost be described as cinematic poetry, however this poetry also makes it a difficult one to relate too.
After seeing this film i am confused in what i feel about it, the movie feels very divided, and some times it is an extraordinary brave and experimental film, other times it is confuing, and at some times boring too. It's really a hard movie to understand because of the poetic feeling it gives, it's like reading a poem where some of the lines doesn't make sense, but i guess that could be an advantage as it can be seen more than once. I feel the strength of the movie is the way it challenges and explores like no american or typical mainstream movie would do, the often use of nudity and raw sex scenes would never be seen elsewhere, and even though it may annoy many people, Bertolucci portrays the scenes very beautiful and they never seem like dirty scenes, the most impressive scene is the one where Matthew and Isabelle have sex, never have a full sex scene been portrayed in such a beautiful and realistic way on screen. And there are many examples of this.
What brings the movie is first of all the very slow storyline, it barely moves at all, the whole 2 hours are pretty much circulating around one thing, which is the way these 3 youngsters spend their sparetime, it's an mysterious movie that really brings up interesting situations a lot of times, but other times it simply gets too slow and gets a little boring. Another partly negative thing is the understanding of the movie, as I earlier mentioned the movie is like a poem, if you have problems with a few lines the whole deeper meaning may fall apart. I wouldn't say i did not understand the fully deeper meaning of the movie, but i think each individual will understand this movie differently, due to the complex way it has been made. But i honestly think Bertolucci wanted it to be like that, a movie that will leave you thinking about many things, but i think what it really is about is finding yourself in a world where there are 6 billion people looking like you on the outside.
The movie is very well directed, a solid directing and you can clearly see the trademarks of the director, one thing i noticed was the floating camera. The floating camera gives a feeling of being there, it is mostly used in the first part of the movie where Matthew learns more about his mysterious new friends, it gives us a feeling of curiousity towards these two new persons. Two persons whom we soon discover have more to them than showing on the outside.
The acting in the movie is solid. I usually don't expect much from new and coming actors and actresses that i have not heard about before, this was also the case for this movie. But the acting is really good, Michael Pitt and Louis Garrel really gives an above average performance, great to see that there are still new actors who can take over when the old ones will be gone. But the star of this movie is Eva Green, what a mysteriously and unique performance, and what a brilliant casting, she is unique, beautiful and most importantly interesting, erotic and challenging. Also i give props to all the three main characters for their brave and realistic portray of nudity and the complications of sex among unexperienced youngsters.
As i said earlier this movie is very complex, it's hard to understand, and i could probably talk about it forever, but i got to stop somewhere. I think the movie is definetely worth watching, it's very artistic and does indeed stand on its own feet, it takes chances you don't see many movies take, and it's all done very well. On the negative side i think the movie sometimes get too complex and slow, but overall i don't regret seeing it, and i think that i will be seeing it again due to the complex story, it will probably bring me new thoughts when i see it next time.
6/10
'The Dreamers' is Bernardo Bertolucci's bizarre and fascinating (if not altogether successful) distillation of the radical '60's mentality. Since the film is set in Paris in 1968, the radicalism naturally takes the form of perverted sexuality and extreme cinephilia. Leave it to the French to be exploring l'amour in all its myriad possibilities!
In terms of plotting, 'The Dreamers' is much like an incestuous version of Truffaut's menage a trois classic 'Jules and Jim,' with the new film's subject matter as shocking today as was the earlier film's in its own time. Time and culture sure do march on, and it always seems to be the French leading the way. In 'The Dreamers,' Isabelle (Eva Green) and Theo (Louis Garrel) are twins who have developed a rather 'unnatural' attraction to one another, becoming 'one' in virtually every way imaginable - physically, spiritually, psychically. Matthew (Michael Pitt, who looks for all the world like Leonardo Di Caprio) is the young American in Paris whom they pull into their strange little world of sexual intrigue and emotional games. Matthew is a product of his time, a young man who is not very experienced in the ways of the world but who is willing to partake in the moral relativism that is permeating the culture. Thus, he becomes the perfect candidate for Isabelle and Theo to work their magic on. Their power of attraction proves overwhelming and irresistible for Matthew, for they are both exotically beautiful creatures, seemingly in tune with the trendy radicalism swirling around them. Yet, Mathew eventually discovers that they are really only passive observers paying little but lip service to the cause, too obsessed with their own twisted relationship to actually step out and participate in those grand social movements they talk so freely about. Isabelle and Theo are 'radicals' to be sure, yet their radicalism seems to be channeled in a self-destructive, ultimately futile direction. Only over time does Matthew awaken to this realization.
Due to the extremely sensitive nature of the subject matter, Bertolucci often seems more interested in shocking than enlightening us. Isabelle, Theo and Matthew are so insulated and cut off from the outside world that the points Bertolucci seemingly wants to make about the times - as reflected in protesters marching in the streets, the references to Vietnam, Mao and Jimmy Hendrix - feel tacked on and superfluous, not particularly integral to the film as a whole. He is never quite able to bring these background elements and the foreground story together in any meaningful way. What Bertolucci does capture well is the obsessive love the French have always had for the cinema as both entertainment and art form. His characters live, breathe and think films, often acting out favorite scenes while the director intercuts snippets from the movies themselves. The beautiful thing about the French is that they have always had such an eclectic taste in film, embracing both American studio and French New Wave products with equal passion. And this artistic open-mindedness Bertolucci captures with gleeful abandon. The film, in many ways, becomes an homage to Chaplin and Keaton, Astaire and Rogers, Samuel Fuller, Truffaut, Godard, Greta Garbo and many other icons of movie history.
'The Dreamers' doesn't entirely hold together and the sum of its parts is better than the whole. Still, the acting is excellent and Bertolucci has lost none of his skills as a director, making each beautifully composed shot stand for something - a real treat for audiences bored to tears by the kind of by-the-numbers film-making we get so often today. Bertolucci is a true film artist and it is a joy just to sit and watch what he does with his actors and his camera, like a master painter working wonders with his canvas.
As for the much-vaunted sexual content of the film (it is rated NC-17), certainly those who are easily offended by nudity and provocative sexual themes had best avoid subjecting themselves to this film. Those, however, with a more open mind will find little that is overtly offensive about what is shown here. In fact, if Isabelle and Theo weren't brother and sister, there would be little controversy at all generated by the film. My suspicion is that Bertolucci and writer Gilbert Adair made their film about incest because an ordinary love triangle would have seemed just too commonplace in this day and age to serve as a successful plot device for a film whose very theme centers around radicalism. They really needed to shake the audience up and this was as effective a way as any to do that. Whether it repels more people than it compels is something only time will tell.
As it is, 'The Dreamers' is not an entirely successful film, but those impressed by fine film-making had best not pass it up.
In terms of plotting, 'The Dreamers' is much like an incestuous version of Truffaut's menage a trois classic 'Jules and Jim,' with the new film's subject matter as shocking today as was the earlier film's in its own time. Time and culture sure do march on, and it always seems to be the French leading the way. In 'The Dreamers,' Isabelle (Eva Green) and Theo (Louis Garrel) are twins who have developed a rather 'unnatural' attraction to one another, becoming 'one' in virtually every way imaginable - physically, spiritually, psychically. Matthew (Michael Pitt, who looks for all the world like Leonardo Di Caprio) is the young American in Paris whom they pull into their strange little world of sexual intrigue and emotional games. Matthew is a product of his time, a young man who is not very experienced in the ways of the world but who is willing to partake in the moral relativism that is permeating the culture. Thus, he becomes the perfect candidate for Isabelle and Theo to work their magic on. Their power of attraction proves overwhelming and irresistible for Matthew, for they are both exotically beautiful creatures, seemingly in tune with the trendy radicalism swirling around them. Yet, Mathew eventually discovers that they are really only passive observers paying little but lip service to the cause, too obsessed with their own twisted relationship to actually step out and participate in those grand social movements they talk so freely about. Isabelle and Theo are 'radicals' to be sure, yet their radicalism seems to be channeled in a self-destructive, ultimately futile direction. Only over time does Matthew awaken to this realization.
Due to the extremely sensitive nature of the subject matter, Bertolucci often seems more interested in shocking than enlightening us. Isabelle, Theo and Matthew are so insulated and cut off from the outside world that the points Bertolucci seemingly wants to make about the times - as reflected in protesters marching in the streets, the references to Vietnam, Mao and Jimmy Hendrix - feel tacked on and superfluous, not particularly integral to the film as a whole. He is never quite able to bring these background elements and the foreground story together in any meaningful way. What Bertolucci does capture well is the obsessive love the French have always had for the cinema as both entertainment and art form. His characters live, breathe and think films, often acting out favorite scenes while the director intercuts snippets from the movies themselves. The beautiful thing about the French is that they have always had such an eclectic taste in film, embracing both American studio and French New Wave products with equal passion. And this artistic open-mindedness Bertolucci captures with gleeful abandon. The film, in many ways, becomes an homage to Chaplin and Keaton, Astaire and Rogers, Samuel Fuller, Truffaut, Godard, Greta Garbo and many other icons of movie history.
'The Dreamers' doesn't entirely hold together and the sum of its parts is better than the whole. Still, the acting is excellent and Bertolucci has lost none of his skills as a director, making each beautifully composed shot stand for something - a real treat for audiences bored to tears by the kind of by-the-numbers film-making we get so often today. Bertolucci is a true film artist and it is a joy just to sit and watch what he does with his actors and his camera, like a master painter working wonders with his canvas.
As for the much-vaunted sexual content of the film (it is rated NC-17), certainly those who are easily offended by nudity and provocative sexual themes had best avoid subjecting themselves to this film. Those, however, with a more open mind will find little that is overtly offensive about what is shown here. In fact, if Isabelle and Theo weren't brother and sister, there would be little controversy at all generated by the film. My suspicion is that Bertolucci and writer Gilbert Adair made their film about incest because an ordinary love triangle would have seemed just too commonplace in this day and age to serve as a successful plot device for a film whose very theme centers around radicalism. They really needed to shake the audience up and this was as effective a way as any to do that. Whether it repels more people than it compels is something only time will tell.
As it is, 'The Dreamers' is not an entirely successful film, but those impressed by fine film-making had best not pass it up.
My rating: 6/10
There are two types of dreamers in `The Dreamers': the three main characters, who create their own interior world and prefer to view the outside world by watching classic 1930s cinema; and the socialist street revolutionaries of riot-torn 1968 Paris, who attempt to overthrow the political and economic power structure. `The Dreamers' focuses more on the former than the latter, and Bernardo Bertolucci is careful to leave his film open to interpretation, but ultimately the dream world of the three main characters is shattered by the realities of life. The film ends before resolving the outcome of the second set of dreamers, but we all know our history. Some may think it a shame that the dreamers fail, but others like myself will view it as something that has to happen, if the dream is unrealistic and unsustainable.
The relationship between the three main characters is unlike anything that I've ever seen portrayed on film. The twins, Isabelle and Theo, are almost as close to each other in young adulthood as they were during the nine months they spent together in their mother's womb. Matthew, a U.S. student studying abroad in Paris, inserts himself into the middle, and when he receives early indications that portend the depth of the relationship between the twins, he does not run away. To me, this required too much suspension of disbelief, but I'm certainly aware that others have different proclivities. If Bertolucci's intent was to show a high degree of separation between his three dreamers and the rest of society, he certainly succeeded.
The three dreamers have some, but ultimately too little, awareness of their separation from reality and the unsustainable nature of the world they create. While sympathizing with the revolutionaries in the street, they actually are the ultimate materialistic consumers: they produce nothing that they consume (neither food nor art), and when the money their parents provide runs out, and they've drained most of the wine cellar, the harsh realities of life set in. Rooting through trash heaps isn't the answer, and the choices that they leave themselves in the end (self-annihilation or nihilism), I believe, show just how flawed their ideal world is. My interpretation is that this lesson also applies to the other set of dreamers, the street revolutionaries, but those who even today sympathize with the views of those revolutionaries will reject this interpretation.
`The Dreamers' is very voyeuristic, and Bertolucci puts his three leads through some incredibly intimate moments. All three leads are quite good, with Eva Green in particular deserving special notice for a completely uninhibited performance (at least the two male leads had each other's example to follow). It's hard to come up with an accurate overall rating for this film, because I think there will be a widespread variance in how different people react to both the storyline and the images. Read the reviews carefully, and if it sounds like something that interests and won't shock you, then give it a try. My middle-of-the-road rating is mainly due to my not being terribly interested in the type of relationship formed by the three main characters.
There are two types of dreamers in `The Dreamers': the three main characters, who create their own interior world and prefer to view the outside world by watching classic 1930s cinema; and the socialist street revolutionaries of riot-torn 1968 Paris, who attempt to overthrow the political and economic power structure. `The Dreamers' focuses more on the former than the latter, and Bernardo Bertolucci is careful to leave his film open to interpretation, but ultimately the dream world of the three main characters is shattered by the realities of life. The film ends before resolving the outcome of the second set of dreamers, but we all know our history. Some may think it a shame that the dreamers fail, but others like myself will view it as something that has to happen, if the dream is unrealistic and unsustainable.
The relationship between the three main characters is unlike anything that I've ever seen portrayed on film. The twins, Isabelle and Theo, are almost as close to each other in young adulthood as they were during the nine months they spent together in their mother's womb. Matthew, a U.S. student studying abroad in Paris, inserts himself into the middle, and when he receives early indications that portend the depth of the relationship between the twins, he does not run away. To me, this required too much suspension of disbelief, but I'm certainly aware that others have different proclivities. If Bertolucci's intent was to show a high degree of separation between his three dreamers and the rest of society, he certainly succeeded.
The three dreamers have some, but ultimately too little, awareness of their separation from reality and the unsustainable nature of the world they create. While sympathizing with the revolutionaries in the street, they actually are the ultimate materialistic consumers: they produce nothing that they consume (neither food nor art), and when the money their parents provide runs out, and they've drained most of the wine cellar, the harsh realities of life set in. Rooting through trash heaps isn't the answer, and the choices that they leave themselves in the end (self-annihilation or nihilism), I believe, show just how flawed their ideal world is. My interpretation is that this lesson also applies to the other set of dreamers, the street revolutionaries, but those who even today sympathize with the views of those revolutionaries will reject this interpretation.
`The Dreamers' is very voyeuristic, and Bertolucci puts his three leads through some incredibly intimate moments. All three leads are quite good, with Eva Green in particular deserving special notice for a completely uninhibited performance (at least the two male leads had each other's example to follow). It's hard to come up with an accurate overall rating for this film, because I think there will be a widespread variance in how different people react to both the storyline and the images. Read the reviews carefully, and if it sounds like something that interests and won't shock you, then give it a try. My middle-of-the-road rating is mainly due to my not being terribly interested in the type of relationship formed by the three main characters.
Beautiful Paris. Beautiful Eva Green. Beautiful Michael Pitt. Beautiful naked Eva Green and Michael Pitt. Sound promising? Unfortunately, the "reality" of The "Dreamers" is a letdown.
Against the backdrop of 1968 Parisian revolution, American student Matthew (Michael Pitt) meets French twins Isabelle (Eva Green) and Theo (Louis Garrel). The 3 share a passion for film and intellectual discussion and soon Matthew is staying with the twins in their parents' apartment. Insulated from the "reality" of the streets the twins "dream" away the days drinking wine, discussing film and playing mind games with each other and with Matthew.
The film in inter-cut with scenes from classic films such as Freaks and Breathless just to name a few. These scenes were fun and worked well. The best scene in the film is when the main characters recreate a dash through the Louvre from A Band Apart.
Interesting but perplexing is the sexual politics at play between the three. The intimate relationship between the twins is supposed to be shocking but is merely curious. An attraction between the boys goes nowhere and when Matthew and Isabelle get down and dirty on the kitchen floor it isn't really sexy at all.
This is very obviously a European film and I mean that in the worst possible way. The characters are lifeless, naive and arrogant. Only Matthew seems to recognize the pretension. He is meant to be the voice of reason and even though he seems a bit dense he comes off all wise and worldly in comparison to the twins.
The last half hour or so of the film is the weakest part and doesn't seem to fit with the tone of what went on before.
I tried to like The Dreamers. I almost feel guilty for not liking it more. If it didn't try so hard to be saying something about youth, sex and revolution then it wouldn't have failed so miserably.
Against the backdrop of 1968 Parisian revolution, American student Matthew (Michael Pitt) meets French twins Isabelle (Eva Green) and Theo (Louis Garrel). The 3 share a passion for film and intellectual discussion and soon Matthew is staying with the twins in their parents' apartment. Insulated from the "reality" of the streets the twins "dream" away the days drinking wine, discussing film and playing mind games with each other and with Matthew.
The film in inter-cut with scenes from classic films such as Freaks and Breathless just to name a few. These scenes were fun and worked well. The best scene in the film is when the main characters recreate a dash through the Louvre from A Band Apart.
Interesting but perplexing is the sexual politics at play between the three. The intimate relationship between the twins is supposed to be shocking but is merely curious. An attraction between the boys goes nowhere and when Matthew and Isabelle get down and dirty on the kitchen floor it isn't really sexy at all.
This is very obviously a European film and I mean that in the worst possible way. The characters are lifeless, naive and arrogant. Only Matthew seems to recognize the pretension. He is meant to be the voice of reason and even though he seems a bit dense he comes off all wise and worldly in comparison to the twins.
The last half hour or so of the film is the weakest part and doesn't seem to fit with the tone of what went on before.
I tried to like The Dreamers. I almost feel guilty for not liking it more. If it didn't try so hard to be saying something about youth, sex and revolution then it wouldn't have failed so miserably.
THE DREAMERS (3 outta 5 stars) Interesting project by the renowned director Bernardo Bertolucci... dealing with the events of 1968 in France... a time of great social upheaval, as rioting students took to the streets to shut down the French government. The main characters are a young American student who has come to France to study film... and a very unconventional brother and sister who recruit him to their offbeat lifestyle. All three are obsessed by film (as many young people were in 1968... the glory days of the avant garde)... and also with the concept of breaking rules and societal taboos. With their parents away for the month and the flat to themselves, bets are made on film trivia and the penalties for not identifying a particular moment from a particular film become more and more shocking. Only leaving their home to watch films, the trio are basically oblivious to the growing trouble in the streets... until finally they can sit passively no more. Very intriguing concept and the acting is fine... but ultimately I thought the conclusion fell a little flat... the transition from sexual hedonism to political activism didn't really work for me... it all seemed a little abrupt and could have been explored a little deeper. Worth watching and discussing though.
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaTo make the actors feel comfortable and natural in the film's nude scenes, the director Bernardo Bertolucci would encourage them to be totally nude long before the actual shot so they could get used to be naked around each other. Source: Director's commentary on DVD
- GoofsOn the walk along the canal, Isabelle states that she "...entered this world on the Champs-Elysees, 1959." She is obviously much older than 9, but she is not referring to her actual birth. She is reciting a speech from Breathless (1960), whose clips are shown.
- Crazy creditsThe word "events" is misspelled in the sentence stating "The wevents, characters and firms depicted in this photoplay are fictitious."
- Alternate versionsUS R-rated version runs ca. 3 minutes shorter than the uncut NC-17-rated version. The following was cut from the NC-17 version for the R rated version:
- 45:40/45:40-45:45 Extended shot of Theo kneeing in front of the Marlene Dietrich masturbating while being watched by Isabelle and Matthew. The following shot of Isabelle lacks a second.
- 45:55/46:00-46:09 The scene with Matthew ends earlier in the R-Rated Version. In the Unrated Version, he's being shown from another angle while he's still masturbating. He slightly hits the wall with the head and touches the picture. The beginning of the following shot of Isabelle moving her head is missing as well.
- 46:02/46:16-46:29 A moment later, the R-Rated Version ends when Isabelle pets Theo's butt and back with a feather duster. Theo's waving hand can be recognized better here.
- 46:07/46:34-46:37 The end of the shot of Isabelle is missing and so is the beginning of the following shot of Theo masturbating. The R-Rated Version is back in the game when Theo's coming.
- 53:42-53:45/54:12-54:20 Alternate footage of Isabelle dropping Matthew's shorts in the R-Rated Version. In the Uncut Version, she drops his shorts and his penis is visible. Furthermore Matthew had a picture of her in his shorts. (7.97 sec) The R-Rated Version contains a close-up of Matthew instead. This exact shot is exclusively in the R-Rated Version. (3.21 sec)
- 55:03/55:38-55:55 The camera pans over their naked bodies. Isabelle has her hands at Matthew's crotch and supports him to penetrate into her.
- 55:20/56:12-56:21 Extended shot of Isabelle's face while they're having sex. She moans. The beginning of the following shot a little lower is also missing.
- 57:05/58:07-58:50 The R-Rated Version stops and goes on with alternate footage of Isabelle when Theo enters the kitchen. The footage is slightly different to the footage a little later in the Uncut Version. Theo slowly goes to Isabelle and Matthew who are still lying lying on the ground. The camera tracks to them over the table. Theo knees down in front of his sister, pets her und touches her vagina. His fingers are bloody and he smiles at her. Then he gets up and Matthew touches her, too. His fingers are also bloody and that is where the R-Rated Version continues.
- 57:31/59:12-59:41 The R-Rated Version ends when Matthew smudges Isabelle's face with her own blood while they're kissing. They keep kissing, then they hug. The beginning of the following scene is also missing: they're having sex and the camera tracks slowly to the top.
- 58:42/1:00:52-1:00:59 The camera tracks slowly ober Isabelle's legs to the top, an explicit shot of her vagina included. The R-Rated Version only shows her breasts.
- 59:17-59:21/1:01:35-1:01:42 The R-Rated Version contains alternate footage of Isabelle when Matthew puts is head next to Isabelle's hip and her pubic hair is visible for a short period. The beginning of Matthew's comment is slightly shorter. (3.67 sec) The NC-17 Version sticks with Matthew. (7.63 sec)
- 59:27/1:01:49-1:01:59 Earlier beginning of the shot of Matthew. His face is pretty close to Isabelle's pubic area.
- 59:35/1:02:06-1:02:10 Same here. This time he kisses Isabelle's belly.
- 1:25:32/1:28:08-1:28:18 Extended shot of Isabelle in the mirror. Then a shot of Matthew's head between Isabelle's legs, under the tied round blanket. Then Isabelle in the mirror again. she really enjoys what Matthew is doing up there. The first frames of the following shot of Matthew are missing as well.
- ConnectionsFeatured in Cinema Sex Politics: Bertolucci Makes 'The Dreamers' (2003)
- SoundtracksThird Stone from the Sun
Written and Performed by Jimi Hendrix
Published by Experience Hendrix LLC
(p) 1967 Experience Hendrix LLC/MCA Records
Courtesy of Experience Hendrix LLC
Under license from Universal Music Enterprises & Universal Music Special Projects France
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Official sites
- Languages
- Also known as
- Los soñadores
- Filming locations
- Rue Beethoven, Paris 16, Paris, France(group of friends walking back home after demonstration)
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $15,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $2,532,228
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $142,632
- Feb 8, 2004
- Gross worldwide
- $23,691,426
- Runtime1 hour 55 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content
