lucasbuvinic I liked the movie but it was very dumb. It's funny to see and i enjoyed it. It's a good movie to watch without any expectation. It's not a movie to take it seriously. The story is basically this: Claude lives in Paris, France. And Ann and Muriel live in England. Claude meets Ann and Ann invites Claude to she's mother's house to vacations. Claude meets Muriel and he gets in love with Muriel. Claude asks Muriel to marry him but the first time Muriel says no. The second time she says maybe. And finally she says yes. But the two families says that they can't meet or send messages between them in a year. If after that year they still in love they can get married without any problem. But after 6 months Claude starts dating with another girls and he forgets Muriel. But Muriel still loves him and she gets in a terrible depression. Then Ann goes to Paris and gets in love with Claude. But they still dating with other people with no problem. So Ann goes to Persia with a boyfriend but when she gets back she leaves him and get back to Claude. But she dies of tuberculosis that she got in Persia, thats why she leaved her boyfriend. Then Muriel mets Claude in Brucelas and they both have sex. But Muriel leaves him to "make her happiness stay". And finally she have kids with another man.Finally the idea it's that finally she leaves him after being terribly depressed. This idea it's just dumb! And he have sex with Muriel because Ann died. The idea it's dumb! Finally Claude it's a douchebag. But it's a funny movie.

snucker there are two things that held this film back from being a truffaut masterpiece: the voice over and jean pierre leaud.the voice over is overused in this film and is hardly effective in many cases. the voice over always sound rushed, hasty and monotonous, it hardly treats the story sensitively and it sounds like truffaut (the one doing the voice over) is trying to say it as fast as he can so he can move on to something else in the story. the problem is he uses the voice over to explain complex emotions of the characters and he could have used someone else to do the voice over with more expression and pace. this brings me to my second problem with the film. the voice over is often explaining the complex emotions of leaud's character, claude, while leaud wears the same expression of confusion and dismay throughout the film. he says his lines in that same quiet, shy voice for most of the film and looks uncomfortable and timid in the role. my suspicion is that truffaut used voice over to compensate for leaud's lack of acting ability. leaud is thoroughly miscast as claude, a complex character who is at the center of the love triangle. but somehow, the film does pull together and is a very moving story about what happens when three people distrust their instincts and refuse to make decisions about their feelings for one another. anne and claude hide their intention of committing to each other behind this french idea of "free love" that neither really buys into. muriel is a very religious woman who treads very carefully with claude because of his ideas on love and sex and has some very strong guilty feelings about her sexual desire. claude...well according to the voice over, he prefers to love them from afar than to choose between them. he wants both women, but knows he can't so he subconsciously refuse to choose between them and just go back and forth between the two when the relationship with one becomes difficult. anne and muriel are similar to other truffaut heroines. anne is more forgiving and nurturing and patient, very much like Julie from day for night. muriel is the unstable passionate one who could sacrifice her sanity for a man, very much like catherine from jules and jim or adele H. they're both well acted by kika markham and stacey tendeter, and they're the ones who carry this film. the photography wasn't as lush as i expected it to be, but it has enough eye candy for those who love costume dramas with nice houses and gardens. the voice over and the dialogue are very well written and is poetic without sounding trite most of the time.the film could have been a masterpiece of truffaut if he'd got someone else to do the voice over and got a more competent actor for claude. the film compensates for these weaknesses with superb writing and good performances from the rest of the cast.

roger-134 Silly and pointless melodrama, good only for laughs. The fault is partly with the script, which calls for the characters to vacillate in their romantic yearnings without visible cause or motive. But mostly the movie fails because of the wooden and passionless "acting" of the male lead. His style is so non-expressive that the movie has to rely on voice-overs to reveal the passions he is supposed to be feeling. The actresses portraying the sisters do a good job with the absurd roles they are given. Along the way some clumsy symbolism is thrown in for good measure, such as the scene where, right after the concept of "physical love" is discussed, one of the sisters pulls an apple out of nowhere to hand to Claude. Unintentional comedic highlight of the movie is the letter from one of the sisters where she reveals that she is not as pure as she might seem.

hakkikurtulus Truffaut's this masterpiece is a novel adaptation. Truffaut's skillful story-telling meets with the magnificent performance of Léaud. The story seems to be melodramatic. Truffaut's biggest success in that film is the narrative clearness and "economy". Truffaut uses very subjective plots, but he never leaves the spirit of the story. The contrast of two sisters and the different point of views of English Ladies and the French gentleman creates the brilliant dramatic effect.Truffaut is also very successful about underlining the Freudian relationship of Anne and Muriel and their attitudes towards their mother.