midwestguy-04174 *** This review may contain spoilers *** I bought this movie two years ago and finally finished it today. It took three separate attempts for me to make it through this dark, boring, masochistic tale. That says a lot.The only reason I finished it is because I wanted to get "closure". Kind of like going to a funeral. That says a lot, too.As another reviewer said, there is NO WAY that any man could be as utterly STUPID and NAÏVE as the main character. Especially a man who is a fourth generation plantation owner and runs a big factory. Here is a man who has been a leader all his life, led everyone from domestic servants to farm and factory workers. A man in his position would have encountered hundreds of manipulators and con artists in his life, as well as dozens of gold diggers. Yet he falls for this woman? Ha! The most eligible bachelor on the colony and yet he has to resort to a personal ad? Ha! This man would have had local girls in droves.Truffaut, like Goddard, started out great, but was making mostly garbage by the late 1960s. They ran out of ideas, and once the novelty of the Nouvelle Vague wore off, the magic was gone. They ended up being captured, propped up and supported by the Hollywood/French film industry that they had first rebelled against and criticized.After viewing most of Truffaut's catalogue, I just don't think he was as good as everyone has been led to believe. Either was Goddard, for that matter. Melville was a much better film maker on every level, yet never got a tenth of the recognition. I believe that when it all comes down to it, most of Truffaut's movies are a pain to watch. They are way too long. They go along slowly: boring, brooding, and hopeless. Filled with characters that go from one self-imposed hell to another. This movie is a perfect example.I don't have to mention all the impossible parts of the story line: The French government and the Catholic Church are sticklers for documents. How did they get married without anyone noticing anything funny about her passport? How did a bank in a small town – on an island - just happen to have 28 million French francs cash in the vault that day? (About $5.5 million at the time). You think that any bank manager would release that kind of money to ANYONE without an appointment and the presence of multiple witnesses and signed affidavits? You don't think he would make damn sure that one of the richest men on the island from one of the oldest families was notified before his accounts were drained? What I.D. did she use to get the money out of the bank? I mean, I could believe it if she got away with maybe a million. But basically all the money? Come on. The list goes on. These are really key aspects of the plot that make the story so unbelievable. Not to mention the ridiculous love angle.I believe that Belmondo and Deneuve did the movie just for the money. They were both past their peaks, especially Belmondo. Their presence in the movie, and the fact that Truffaut directed it, is the only reason anyone would ever want to watch this movie, or remember it. I didn't find anything inspiring about their performances.Many critics through the years have charged Nouvelle Vague directors with having outright contempt for their audience. In addition describing their movies as being direct attacks on the viewers' supposed naiveté. This movie really fits the bill on both charges. Movies like this remind me of how we Americans used to talk about foreign movies back in the 1970s. People would say how crazy, weird and pointless these foreign movies were, and RIGHTLY so. "Mississippi Mermaid" is a perfect example.The worst thing about the whole mess is all the artsy-fartsy wannabees who give this movie great reviews and talk about how "wonderful" and "inspiring" it is; how "great" the lead actors' performances were. Are you kidding me?

esteban1747 A very interesting plot of the film based on the novel "Waltz into Darkness" of the writer Cornell Woolrich. It is a drama rather than a film noir, which tries to send a message that love changes your own life, i.e. your love to any person and the love you received from him/her. A wealthy man really changed his life for love, while his partner finally understood that he was the only one that loved her. Belmondo played well as usual, while a somewhat still young Michel Bouquet played his eternal role of a detective or police agent. Frankly Bouquet was not so impressive in this film, but less than that was the performance of Catherine Deneuve. She was not so convincingly in her role as a prostitute then lover/wife of Louis Mahé (Belmondo). For those who like to visit the world, the film offers the occasion to see part of the Ascension Island, and also Lyon city in France.

Kara Dahl Russell This must be one of the most horribly titled films of all time. The kind of title that ruins a film because it neither evokes the plot nor the characters. A title like this makes a film flop, even the French title is not much better. Too bad - Truffaut & Deneuve must have been enough to sell it..This is a long film, but largely worth it. Clearly influenced by Hitchcock, we have an intercontinental story about a personal ad bride, her rich husband, a theft, an identity switch, and obsessive love. The plot here is actually very good, and takes us on an unexpected trip.The thing that works both for and against the movie is the focus on the relationship. It is an interesting study in how these plot developments are played out in "real life relationship" with these two people. Unfortunately, this is what bogs the film down, and makes it ultimately dissatisfying. We do like films to have a real sense of finality, and that is missing here.It was the case in many of her films that Deneuve became a canvas for Directors to play their fantasies out on, and this time it doesn't work as well. Messy here, is the fact that the Director clearly just wanted to have Deneuve take her top off a few times. Deneuve is an actress who always seems very deliberate and thoughtful, so these attempts to make her seem spontaneous fall flat. Basically, the script needed to be worked out better before shooting began, to make this film tighter and shorter and to snap. But Truffaut didn't snap, did he? So - it wanders a bit, but remains interesting.

MartinHafer The first 1/3 of this movie I loved and thought it was going to be one of Truffaut's best films. I loved the plot where a pen pal marries a man from half way around the world--sight unseen. Especially when this woman turns out to be a fraud and was responsible for the death of the REAL pen pal so she could take her place! She then cleaned out the husband's huge bank account and disappeared! I was really hooked and wanted to see more,...And then, the movie fell apart and became just plain dumb! Despite her coming from New Caladonia (an island in the Pacific) and he from Reunion (an island in the Indian Ocean), when he goes on a trip to the South of France, he stumbles upon her almost immediately. Hmm,....odds are 187,000,000 to 1 but he finds her. Then, instead of either killing her or turning her over to the police, he forgives her--even when she acknowledges what she has done. Okay--this is tough to believe, but okay,...but then he helps to hide her from a private detective by murdering him!!!! No one is that stupid! Yes, the character Catherine Deneuve plays is quite beautiful but come on folks--this is just silly. Plus, if he only wanted her as a sex object, then why would he do this for a woman who is often frigid and completely selfish and evil.This movie, due to it's very ridiculous plot, does not deserve such high ratings! Unless you are a die-hard Truffaut fan, try another film--even one of Truffaut's--just NOT this one.