A dweeb who lacks charisma gets dishonorably discharged from the army, and then goes through a series of different jobs and women. This is as much plot as you'll get in this typical French (read = European) drama without a plot or a real point.
But hang on. After finishing the movie, I was informed by various movie catalogs that this is a comedy. Comedy?!! Leonard Maltin calls this an "alternately touching and hilarious film". Touching and hilarious? What movie was he watching??? I tell you, there is absolutely NOTHING touching about this movie. The movie is emotionally uninvolving. And there wasn't one funny moment in the entire picture unless you consider French humour funny. In fact, French humour is so unfunny that it is difficult for the non-connoisseur to even identify which bits are supposed to be funny. Maltin was probably referring, for example, to the early scene when an elderly detective catches a customer's wife cheating on him with another man. Is this supposed to be funny? Good Lord, if this is funny what isn't? It's a badly-directed scene with bad acting, absurd reactions by the characters, haphazardly put together. And that's funny Maltin further "informs" us that the dweeb is "inept but likable". Likable?! This man is so charismatic he makes the likes of Kyle MacLachlan seem like Sean Connery of Clark Gable by comparison. In another movie catalog I am informed that the dweeb is more-or-less Truffaut himself, i.e. the movie is autobiographical. Fair enough. If Truffaut was a dweeb, that's his problem. I am also informed by BOTH reviews that this movie is considered as Truffaut's best by many!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What are his other movies like then Don't get me wrong. The movie is by no means a disaster. It is watchable, which is the most important thing, and the photography is solid. But there is nothing here that will make you laugh (unless you laugh at other French films), and there is certainly nothing touching here. The dweeb sleeps with prostitutes, falls in "love" easily, flirts for years with a girl who is probably frigid and played by an actress who is probably even less interesting than he is. A stone-faced actress. Which brings me to the acting. Some of the cast aren't particularly good. And Truffaut, the "great director", occasionally offers us scenes that are, for want of a better word, "off". There is clumsiness in the editing, and clumsiness in scenes with many characters.
If you could just forget that this was done by one of the supposed "greats of cinema", and watch this without knowing anything about the movie, you'd have to be lying if you thought this was anything but an average movie.
By the way, Maltin also calls this "one of the best treatments of young love ever put on the screen". This comes from a man who thinks that "Teenage Caveman" is a better movie than "Blade Runner". 'Nuff said.
(Sick and tired of bad European dramas? Email me, and I'll send you my altered subtitles for various Bergman films, plus "Der Untergang".)
But hang on. After finishing the movie, I was informed by various movie catalogs that this is a comedy. Comedy?!! Leonard Maltin calls this an "alternately touching and hilarious film". Touching and hilarious? What movie was he watching??? I tell you, there is absolutely NOTHING touching about this movie. The movie is emotionally uninvolving. And there wasn't one funny moment in the entire picture unless you consider French humour funny. In fact, French humour is so unfunny that it is difficult for the non-connoisseur to even identify which bits are supposed to be funny. Maltin was probably referring, for example, to the early scene when an elderly detective catches a customer's wife cheating on him with another man. Is this supposed to be funny? Good Lord, if this is funny what isn't? It's a badly-directed scene with bad acting, absurd reactions by the characters, haphazardly put together. And that's funny Maltin further "informs" us that the dweeb is "inept but likable". Likable?! This man is so charismatic he makes the likes of Kyle MacLachlan seem like Sean Connery of Clark Gable by comparison. In another movie catalog I am informed that the dweeb is more-or-less Truffaut himself, i.e. the movie is autobiographical. Fair enough. If Truffaut was a dweeb, that's his problem. I am also informed by BOTH reviews that this movie is considered as Truffaut's best by many!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What are his other movies like then Don't get me wrong. The movie is by no means a disaster. It is watchable, which is the most important thing, and the photography is solid. But there is nothing here that will make you laugh (unless you laugh at other French films), and there is certainly nothing touching here. The dweeb sleeps with prostitutes, falls in "love" easily, flirts for years with a girl who is probably frigid and played by an actress who is probably even less interesting than he is. A stone-faced actress. Which brings me to the acting. Some of the cast aren't particularly good. And Truffaut, the "great director", occasionally offers us scenes that are, for want of a better word, "off". There is clumsiness in the editing, and clumsiness in scenes with many characters.
If you could just forget that this was done by one of the supposed "greats of cinema", and watch this without knowing anything about the movie, you'd have to be lying if you thought this was anything but an average movie.
By the way, Maltin also calls this "one of the best treatments of young love ever put on the screen". This comes from a man who thinks that "Teenage Caveman" is a better movie than "Blade Runner". 'Nuff said.
(Sick and tired of bad European dramas? Email me, and I'll send you my altered subtitles for various Bergman films, plus "Der Untergang".)