ElMaruecan82 What we generally call a guilty pleasure is a film we'd feel guilty to admit we like but we watch it anyway, I'm not sure I'd like to watch "The Little Bather" again but I'd feel guilty to criticize it. But I'd rather have a guilty pleasure than genuine annoyance.This is obviously a product of its time that exploited the comedic talent of Louis de Funès, king of comedy and champ of French box-office since 1964, but all the comedic talent of the world can't carry a thin and plot-less story, one that can be summed up as a big and wacky chase across the French coast, one à la "Mad, Mad World" with less stars and less ambition.Louis de Funès, plays one of his trademark role, a little man but a big shot, a local entrepreneur of French naval industry named Fourchaume. He fires his red-haired engineer Castagnet (Robert Dhéry) after his last prototype lamentably sunk during when the bottle of champagne was thrown by a Margaret Dumont-like baroness who apologized because she didn't know her strength. It's always a bad sign when the funniest gag of the film happens so early.Bad timing causes Fourchaume to fire Castagnet just before he learns that an Italian businessman (Franco Fabrizi) wanted to buy the "Bather" after it had just won a famous race. Fourchaume tries to reach his fired worker to make amends and the rest is just a series of gags involving vehicles and transportation used during the trip, a running gag with Castagnet's step-brother played by Galabru and one with red-haired siblings that is so damn silly I'm actually glad they kept it.The film isn't bad at all, it actually offers some visually dazzling locations and in its own right, it's a fun action film with a great mix of slapstick and good deal of escapism across beautiful landscape and there's a scene involving a barrier and a bike that plays like a touching tribute to Jacques Tati's "Jour de Fête". Robert Dhéry who directed the film and one of Funès' earlier successes in the 50's show his heritage and makes the most of it through the film, but there comes a point where the energy runs out and even Fufu who usually carries any role seems to be as lost as us.The situations never really stop being funny but they betray a sort of desperation to make us laugh and that's rather cringe-worthy, as if the sights of men falling, screaming, or having their car cut in half was supposed to make anyone laugh. There's a sort of preconceived notion of comedy that seems outdated even by the standards of 1967. And I don't think the primarily concerned was oblivious to that as De Funès had often criticized the amateurship of some movies he's made and the lousiness of some scripts, I wonder if he had this film in mind.It still did well in the box-office in 1968 but it reminded of "The Tattoo" directed by Denys de la Pattelière, successful but forgettable. De Funès worked with a few directors near the end of his career: Jean Girault, Gérard Oury, Edouard Molinaro and Claude Zidi, by his own admittance, he felt at ease with directors he knew so he could have some control over his work. This is a film consists on the same pattern and things getting out on control with all the characters as rather passive observers, it's overplaying to such a point that even the ending can't really save it.You can tell it tries to play like "Oscar" with the final gag but actually, it made me realize that at least "Oscar" pushed its screwball concept to the limit of zaniness, I didn't like it much but it has a richness and consistency of its own. "The Little Bather" is a minor "De Funès", not his Top 10, but it has its moments, most of them before the first half hour is over. The visuals save the film, but surely you don't watch a De Funès film for them.

languedoc-586-836028 It took me years and years (and also some of my wife's persistence) to finally appreciate this movie for what it really is: an almost completely absurd, disjointed and surrealistic comedy, owing a lot to Jacques Tati ("Mon Oncle") and perhaps also to some Laurel & Hardy entries. I am thinking here of those Stan Laurel gags which defy logic, cinematographic or otherwise, which style I recognize here in scenes such as the hysterical one where De Funès "air-plays" some violin bit, which logically only the viewer can hear the in-sync sound of in the soundtrack, then accuses his wife of having actually played this music instead of him, since such things run in HER family… I think that viewers who cannot get or appreciate this kind of humor miss the point with this film because it relies a lot on such absurdity. And it is this absurdity which sets it apart uniquely in the De Funès filmography of this specific era.The direction and editing superbly serve this style of screenplay – see the scene where De Funès destroys his boats in a tantrum and how he interacts with objects which do not appear to be controlled by any off-camera prop men… just by the laws of gravity and the like! The boat chase at the end is also a nice, pleasantly rural/natural relief from the traditional car, plane or chopper chases in some of those other De Funès films, and I love how the gags with the wakes and waves are built and shot!

leplatypus Unlike Paris tag-line, this movie is sometimes like the Titanic: it floats and sinks. In other words, the movie has very good moments but also very, long and dull parts: the long endless ships race at the beginning, the carnage of the tractor and the chase of the floating toilets. Outside those moments, the movie is really funny: Fufu is the typical Fufu, embodying a mean, cupid and rich boss. His talent is to find spots to have fun with such mean person and almost make him likable and human! Around him, he finds a strange read-head family. All this happens a long time ago in France and in the country, so you can have a nostalgic travel into time as well.

LeRoyMarko Louis de Funès is so funny. A lot of his movie would be plain bad if he wasn't the main actor. He's so good playing the avaricious industrial, just like in "Les Aventures de Rabbi Jacob". "Le Petit baigneur" is not as good, though, as "Rabbi Jacob". It's funny but some scenes drag on and no (ex. the church who's crumbling apart or the tractor scene). But still a pleasant 90 minutes.Out of 100, I give it 72. That's good for ** out of ****.Seen at home, in Toronto, on November 25th, 2002.