Reviews (71)

Among the greatest performances in the history of cinema
Movie critics, both professional and otherwise, use the term "greatness" far too often. The term is so extreme that it should be reserved for movies that make us forget that we are in a theatre, or in our living room. This movie, if nothing else, makes us forget that we are movie-goers and makes us believe we are witnesses to human emotions.
"Last Tango in Paris" shows not only the talent of Bertolucci as a director, but also it allows Brando to fully express his emotional range, as perhaps the greatest screen actor of all time.
The movie exists almost as a set of inter-related scenes; each one stands on its own merit and style. The scenes do not, however, ever fall beneath the status of genius. They merely do not settle under one blanket description; the scenes occupy so many titles: love story, sucicidal, remorse, nostalgic, existential.
The story of the movie is well known by nearly everyone acquaitned with cinema: two people, a recently widowed American and a young, engaged French girl, meet by chance in an apartment and begin a purely carnal relationship. However, the actual movie delivers on so many more levels.
Brando's scenes which deal with his wofe and/or past are the best performances I have ever seen. The true emotion of an actor is visible, perhaps in their purest form ever on screen. Brando is not acting; he is living the role of one who is left and confused by love. His acting in the movie seems a bit unsure, which relates the contrasting emotions of Paul, his character.
Above all other scenes in this movie, Brando's encounter with the body of his dead wife is a testament to his ability to transcend his role as an actor. The screen seems to almost dissappear, and we are left with Brando and his dead wife, not an actor and an actress. This scene makes me feel, it causes emotions to rise from my heart. This is the ability of a truly great film.

For Brando Fans, It Doesn't Get Better Than This!
Marlon Brando's recent death effected me deeply. He has always been one of my favorite actors and I truly admire him for his extraordinary talent. During the last few weeks I have rented many of Brando's films and am still amazed, after all these years, at the force of his acting in "Last Tango In Paris." I believe that some of his best work was done in this film.

Paul, (Brando), an aging American expatriate in Paris, comes home to discover that his marriage has ended. His French wife, Rosa, had slit her veins, leaving bloody bath water and spattered walls behind. She didn't leave much else - no good-bye note or explanation for her husband, parents or lover, a guest in the fleabag hotel she owned and managed. She did bequeath the hotel, and it's seedy occupants, to Paul. Overwhelmed with grief, Paul walks the streets and finds himself looking at an apartment for rent. He finds Jeanne, (Maria Schneider), a girl-woman, barely out of her teens, looking at the same apartment. She is to be married in a few weeks to her bourgeois, filmmaker fiancee. Paul and Jeanne circle each other warily in the empty flat, each contemplating the rental, (and each other), and wondering who will take it. Suddenly, they grab each other and have hard, fast sex against the apartment wall. Thus begins a most bizarre relationship.

Paul makes the rules. Jeanne must follow them or she will not see him again. Their purely carnal relationship must remain anonymous, emotionless, and exist only within the walls of the apartment, which Paul rents for this purpose. There are to be no sexual taboos between them. He does not want to know her name or anything about her and refuses to give her any information about himself. They are not to see each other outside the apartment confines, nor even leave together. It seems as if Paul wants to bury his pain, his sense of betrayal and hurt in the mindless, sometimes brutal, act of sex. Director Bernardo Bertolucci's camera perfectly captures the impersonal nature of their coupling. The shots are blunt, without sensuality or eroticism, but an enormous sexual energy is captured. I think Jeanne is fascinated by the mystery that is Paul. She is bored, perhaps, and looking for something, maybe excitement. She is certainly intrigued by Paul's dominant role, and seems to enjoy playing the passive partner most of the time. She is clearly not happy with her boyfriend, who relates to her as the object of his latest film. He talks at her, not to her. And he does not listen. However, I do not see Jeanne as merely an object here, as do some others. The film focuses on Paul, not Jeanne.

It is unfortunate that Ms. Schneider's career fizzled after this movie. She is excellent as Jeanne and perfectly captures her character's capriciousness, playfulness, bewilderment, vulnerability, anger, frustration, seductiveness and curiosity. Brando is simply superb. There are times, when he and Jeanne are together, that it appears as if he is extemporizing. He acts as if there is no camera filming him - as if he is not acting at all. There is one scene, where he is alone with his wife's body - she is layed-out in a coffin. Brando begins to speak to her and just loses it. His remarkable outpouring of guilt and grief is probably the best acting I have ever seen.

Towards the end of the film there is a surreal ballroom scene where couples are dancing the tango. It is both haunting and memorable. The end is a bit of a letdown, but in a Brandoesque moment the actor comes to the rescue.

Bertolucci was very effected by the work of painter Frances Bacon, considered to be one of the best artists of the 20th century. He chose Brando after seeing a Bacon painting "of a man in great despair who had the air of total disillusionment." The "Last Tango In Paris," defined as "the most controversial film of an era," brought Bertolucci to international attention. It was nominated for two Academy Awards. Vittorio Storaro's cinematography adds to the cold, remote ambiance. His camera pans the colorless apartment and makes the viewing experience as impersonal as the couple's relationship.

This is obviously not a film for everyone. It has been called obscene, and worse. However, there are many, like myself, who think it is a great film. For fans of Marlon Brando, it doesn't get better than this. Bravo!
JANA

Strangely Beautiful as is eccentric and erotic
I like this movie for many things but mainly because of its frankness and eccentricity. One of the highlights that makes this movie great is without a doubt Maria Schneider's revealing nude scenes (...). She is also very pretty, however getting serious for a moment this film was in 1973 when it was release and still today a milestone in filmmaking largely due to Marlon Brando's outstanding performance. He really was one of the greatest actors of all times and his performance in Last Tango in Paris more than proves it. I really like the chemistry that both Brando and Scheneider had together through out the movie but especially in their key scenes together. Marlon Brando sadly enough passed away on July 1, in Los Angeles due to lung failure he was 80. Lucky for all of the people (myself included) who admired and appreciated his great talent as an actor, he left us a thrilling and fantastic collection of wonderful performances that are forever capture on film for all of us to enjoy time and time again. Anyone who is not aware of the contribution that this legendary actor left on American Cinema can begin by either renting or buying some of his most dynamic movies (All of them are available on DVD or VHS). These are my personal favorites and in which feature some of his greatest performances.

THE MEN (film debut)
A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE
ON THE WATERFRONT (Best Actor Oscar)
THE WILD ONE
VIVA ZAPATA
JULIUS CAESAR
ONE EYED JACKS (The only movie he ever directed)
THE APPALOOSA
BURN!
THE GODFATHER (Best Actor Oscar in which refused to accept)
LAST TANGO IN PARIS

A Bravura Performance by Brando
Since I don't have a copy of A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE, I watched again for the fifth or sixth time this fine film to remember Marlon Brando on the day of his death. Every time I see this movie I'm amazed all over again at how good it is. Brando, nominated for an academy award for best actor for his performance here, is simply stunning. As always he takes over and commands any scene he is in. When the film was first released, most of the media attention was about the extremely naturalistic sex scenes between Brando, who plays a 45-year-old whose wife has just committed suicide, and Maria Schneider, a beautiful 20-year-old beauty about to be married. Then there was all the hoopla about the episode with the stick of butter, the fingernail trimming scene, etc. What many reviewers and critics overlooked-- as I recall it now-- was at its core this movie is not just another movie bordering on soft porn but makes extremely serious and profound statements about life: who of us can really know anyone else, love can be found in very unlikely places, the undercurrent of violence often connected with sex, all the ramifications of sex with a stranger, and what happens when lust turns into love, for instance.

While Maria Schneider is certainly no slouch-- and a beauty both naked and clothed-- this film ultimately is Brando's. Kaleidoscopically he goes from the comic to rage to uncontrollable anguish and back again. The story is that he improvised many of his lines, giving his performance a very fresh, natural feel.

The film is beautifully filmed and very visual. There are many images repeated-- the overground Metro shots for instance-- and scenes between Brando and Schneider lead into similar frames between Schneider and her young fiancee.

This film is directed by another genius, Bernado Bertolucci and is like nothing else Brando did. He certainly gives one of his finest performances here.

A Great Performance, A Flawed Film
It's been said, by a reviewer whose name escapes me at the moment, that this is the last film where Marlon Brando looked good. Truth is, it's also probably the last film where Brando demonstrated why he was considered one of America's best actors. It's most definitely a flawed film. The scenes where Brando does not appear are pretentious and fairly boring. I tend to agree with the assessment of Ingmar Bergman, who opined that the storyline of this film actually would have made more sense if the 2 main characters had been played as gay men. Perhaps. Maria Schneider is very sexy, but she's just not a really good actress. And yet, when Brando is on screen, he's absolutely dynamic, enthralling, electric. Never before, and probably never again, will you witness a performance so raw, so unadorned, so revealing. Forget the sexual scenes that earned the film its notoriety. Check out Brando's soliloquy beside his suicidal wife's coffin. Or his ironic blend of tenderness and misogyny in his scenes with Schneider. Or when he weeps for...what? the impossibility of his romance with Schneider? His lost, blighted past? Or his silent, agonized finale when he sees for the final time the magnificent skyline of Paris. It's easy to become jaded by the films of today, watching as modern Hollywood's so-called stars perfunctorily perform their bland roles by rote, gearing their performances to the lowest common denominator possible. Watching Brando in his blistering and towering performance here reminds one of why acting can be considered an awe-inspring art form and why it was that I used to love going to the movies. ... Read more

Reviews (1)

Very Entertaining! Comparable to "Rashomon"
Bernardo Bertolucci is sadly not known for this film. When most people think of him they usually think of "Last Tango In Paris" or his Academy Award Winning film, "The Last Emperor". But I think it's pretty fair to say, no one thinks of this one. I mean, c'mon, I'm the ONLY person who's writing a review for this movie! But this movie is comparable to Kurosawa's "Rashomon". It too also deals with many different people offering their perspective on what happened the night of a murder. Only in this case it's a prostitute who was killed in a park. Bertolucci's directing is amazing in his first film. It displays what kind of filmmaking genius he is! I don't think it's his best film, but it's definitely a movie I wish more people would watch. A wonderful film, that deserves to be better known. Great acting, intriguing storyline, good cimematography, and outstanding directing by Bertolucci. A must for every Bertolucci fan! ... Read more

Reviews (47)

Love & Tumult in 1968 Paris
Once past the excessive, graphic nudity, or perhaps because of it, Bertolucci fashions a jarring glimpse of three fascinating young people against the backdrop of the 1968 French General Strike, which nearly toppled the government. For the three principals, hedonism, narcissism, and intoxication seem to dominate against what appear as lightly held political beliefs - socialism, love, compassion, tolerance. For example, siblings Theo and Isabelle sleep together naked, their sculpted bodies entwined. The All-American Matthew (well played by Michael Pitt) comes upon them sleeping nude (and slowly grows to love them), gathering some deeper yet perplexing knowledge. This learning process for Matthew weaves its way throughout the film: a likable youth from San Diego doing his best to slip into the idiosyncratic lives of these very French '60s eccentrics and their almost invisible, '60s uptight parents.

Bertolucci abruptly intercuts continuously with memorable past film scenes: for example, Garbo's soulful eyes laughing at Gilbert's insipid love from "Queen Christina." There are many of these lovely, thoughtful old film scenes that weld the humanity of these three characters to that of past lovers and haters. I found myself virtually loathing the insouciance of Theo and Isabelle, their adolescent adoration of things kitsch, such as Delacroix's 'Liberty Leading the People" with Liberty's face that of Marilyn Monroe. All this while exchanging drunk, violent words over politics, cinema and ragout when true fighters faced the formidable barricades in the streets of Paris.

But this is a film, I think, that one must settle into. Much of the first half appears about nothing much, perhaps a light titillating comedy. Slowly, we understand it is not that at all. The nudity, arguments, sex, politics, brilliant film cuts, and memorable period scoring give satisfaction to those of us 'lucky' enough to have lived through that tumultuous time. Perhaps younger, less authoritarian generations will view it with more intuition than we boomers. One of the director's realized intentions was to impart with his typical lyricism an inner realization of why love, even silly vacuous sex, is so much preferable to war (the General Strike and Vietnam, here). The ending is doubly startling. But by then, the parts have become the whole, the trivial vital. The significant beauty of this film lies in the director's wise, consummate vision. Well worth seeing. (For an amazingly contrasting view of the same period, see "Fog of War").

An Incisive Criticism of the '60s and Hypocrisy
The Dreamers is a new, primarily English-language film from the Italian king of cinematic controversy, Bernardo Bertolucci. If you've seen his past works, including 1900 and Last Tango in Paris, they provide a fairly clear idea of what to expect in this NC-17 foray into 1960's youth culture in France. The film is an extended analysis, really, of radicalism and some of the hypocrisies seemingly inherent in it. It forces us to confront the question of what truly is revolutionary, or conservative for that matter. The film answers that question in a way many of us will find unexpected.

Matthew (Michael Pitt) is an American student spending time abroad in France. He takes in the student protests with wide eyes, gazing in awe at the pure passion igniting these young people. Though the period is the '60s, Matthew still reflects the tucked-in conservatism of a decade past, wearing a jacket and tie almost as a shield from the craziness surrounding him. He soon meets two French siblings, Isabelle and Theo (Eva Green and Louis Garrel), both of whom are full of the revolutionary spirit. They are new and therefore attractive to Matthew, who shares a mutual love of movies with both. Not long after, he moves into the home of his two new friends, whose parents have gone away on an extended trip.

Now is the time audience members may begin to squirm. In between quoting movies to one another and acting out favorite scenes, Matthew begins to notice an unnaturally clingy relationship exists between Isa and Theo--they sleep and bathe together, and play sexually-laced games that often leave one in some state of undress. But this quasi-incest has a strange effect on Matthew, as slowly, the jacket and tie disappear, he begins to walk around barely dressed, and he starts to take part in the sex games, at first begrudgingly and then yearningly.

But as intoxicated as Matthew becomes with the lifestyle, he also is disturbed when Isa confides in him that she's never been on a date before. Harboring some genuine feelings for the young beauty, Matthew tries to lead her away from a life entirely dependent upon Theo and toward one of independence. In this way, the film draws a very interesting parallel. It really is conservatism--a resistance to change--that is keeping so-called radicals Isa and Theo in their exclusive relationship. The young innocent, Matthew, has become the revolutionary in trying to shatter what has become the comfortable tradition.

The film boasts three good, but not great performances. With stronger leading work, a good film could possibly have reached the next level. Gilbert Adair's screenplay, based on his own novel, is wonderfully subtle in weaving its critique of the radical movement, but is in fact so subtle that in some ways the film feels "small." Nevertheless, the film raises probing questions, particularly in the last scene, as a throng of protesters march down a street, all chanting in unison, not a single one distinguishable from the next. It begs the old question, "If a group of anarchists organize an anarchists' meeting, are they really anarchists anymore?"

Finally, credit must be heaped upon Fox Searchlight for not yielding to any suggestion that Bertolucci's vision be compromised by editing the film to achieve an R rating. Even without such censorship, it is disturbing enough that film footage of bare genitals and some sex is considered more damaging by the MPAA than, for example, the wholesale slaughter of recent horror offerings. In any case, when going to see The Dreamers, leave any prudish tendencies (or family members) at home.

Final Grade: B

Bold, brave and inquisitive
Bertolucci displays with this unnecessarily controversial movie more bravery than many other directors half his age. Anyone who is young should see it to observe the contradictions that youth's idealism brings upon the three protagonists. Anyone who is older should watch it to remember the bravery of times gone by, to remember a time when many of us still believed protests could change the world and to acknowledge the validity of both youth's panache and experience's fountain of knowledge.

Not all said up front
There are alot of things that are underneath the serface of this film. You might have to watch the film more than once to get it all. Things that have to obtained from the time and the charecters themselves.(I will not ruin them for you finding them is half the fun) The film is not one that you watch when you are bored with your buddys it is a film that takes all your attention to actually get it.The film ends with no changes in the people only an experience that changed their lives but could not change who they were nomatter how much they tried. I hate movies that charecters change because of an experience this movie seems real in that aspect because the people dont change. It is a little overthe top in certain aspects but it makes you think and is an enjoyable experience.

dreamy
Beautiful, disturbing, erotic, political, comic, thrilling, and thoroughly immersing. One of the most satisfying cinematic experiences I've had in a long time. Not to be missed! Much thanks to Bertolucci, who continues to make exquisite and exciting films! ... Read more

Reviews (73)

A Beautiful Vacation
In this 1996 film, Liv Tyler makes her stunning debut. Set to a soundtrack that is a good mix of quintessentially '90's music (a la Portishead and Liz Phair) and retro classics (like "My Baby Just Cares For Me" and "I'll Be Seeing You,"), this film takes both Liv's character, Lucy, as well as the viewer, on a journey into mystery and enchantment. Lucy embarks on her journey to Italy after the death of her mother, a famous poet and artist. She travels there in search of greater knowledge about her mother, who spent a brief few weeks there one summer. But what Lucy really uncovers in Tuscany are the answers to secrets in her past. And, as the film goes on, she discovers more and more about herself, and the woman she is to become. This film is a great, slowly paced meditation on sex, love, art and self-awareness. When Lucy finds out that she was "conceived" in the olive groves of the artists' villa there, her curiosity deepens and the search for her birth father becomes one of the main goals in her journey. Faced with the loss of a future with her mother, Lucy is looking towards the past for information about those she loves, for knowledge about herself and where she came from, and for hints about where this might lead her as she takes on the life of an adult.

The film begins with shots of Lucy sleeping on the train on her way to Tuscany. There is even one devilish strategic close-up shot of her jeans which is perhaps explained later in the film when it is revealed in a comical exchange between Lucy and Jeremy Irons' character that the beautiful 19 year old Lucy is a virgin. Unbeknownst to Lucy, she was being taped on her journey by a fellow passenger on the train. But he gives her "beauty" back to her in the form of the videotape. Her fate is still in her hands. From there, the film follows several slow, melodic plot lines, one of which is the attempt to find the perfect first sexual partner for the young and much-loved Lucy.

Liv plays a perfect beauty here. She is innocent, touching, bright, curious, and passionate, and as the film goes on, she takes a cue from the artists at the villa and becomes and more free in her expression, more comfortable in her own skin. But she is also careful. She wants her passion to be shared with someone worthy of it, someone who gives as well as takes. It takes a while for her to find out who that perfect catch is, but as in life, the story is what happens while she is waiting for the "pay-off."

Her curious habit of striking a match to each finished poem and burning it up seems to say that she is not yet confident in her artistic abilities, that she wants to keep some things sacred, private. She is cautiously awaiting sharing herself on a deeper level with those whom she grows to love.

Jeremy Irons' character, a man struck by illness in the most beautiful of places, is a nice offset to the virginal beauty of Tyler. Together, they bring the film full circle from youth and glowing health to the natural course of death and dying. The attention they pay to one another is mutual. Lucy in this way is wise as well as youthful.

The countryside in this film is magical. The vineyards of Tuscany, with the glowing sun above, are lovingly captured by Bertolucci. The film is as much an ode to youth and innocence, and the inevitable loss of it (which I think Bertolucci is saying can also be beautiful) as it is to the Italian countryside.

Others in the film who have gone on to receive wide acclaim and appear in such movies as Shakespeare in Love, Elizabeth, Swept From the Sea, and The Mummy are the two British actors Joseph Fiennes and Rachael Weisz.

gorgeous at every turn
If you watch this film for nothing else, soak in the beauty of the setting.
While I enjoy this film for both its plot and its artistic/aesthetic qualities, I have to admit that it is at its most stunning best when it comes to its cinematography. what a gorgeous backdrop for a virgin coming-of-age story! the plot may be a bit tired, and the characters too well known, but the twists that are supplied are enough to make it engaging. Liv Tyler is, of course, gorgeous and mesmorizing. The Italian and British actors that flank her almost eclipse her, but as her debut film, she does truly shine.
There are several scenes that are physically intriguing, but I most enjoyed the entire "party" sequence.... some odd, yet stunning filming.
Let's face it, everyone in this film is beautiful to look at (even Jeremy Irons as a dying man). You begin to lose interest in Lucy's (Tyler) quest at some point, but once the answer is revealed it is still somewhat satisfying.
I can highly reccommend this film to anyone that is into gorgeous scenery, lovely and easy story lines, and has and eye for the pleasing aesthetic so many films lack these days. Nothing earth-moving... but a VERY pleasant movie experience!

it's my favorite, but not for everyone
you may not, but i love this movie. the characters are solidly interesting and well-played, the storyline is simple but itriguing, and it has simply beautiful scenery.

Good movie but needs subtitles in parts
I really like this movie. The scenery is beautiful and the movie's focus on the interactions between a variety of characters in the Italian countryside is interesting. I would rate it higher except for one thing- quite a bit of the movie is in Italian and there are no subtitles for this dialogue. This really doesn't make sense, especially considering the vhs copy that I use to own did have them. The parts in Italian aren't just snippets of dialogue either- some are entire conversations. If you've seen this many times with subtitles (and know what they're saying in Italian) I would definitely buy it. If not, it's still a good purchase but be aware that you're missing quite a bit of the movie.

What about "no stars"?
As an Italian (who teaches Italian in HS and college in the U.S.) I really looked forward to a good film after one of my students recommended this one to me.

As a professor, I can sit through a lot of boring stuff, but this movie was so awful I couldn't even finish it. The scenery is nice but after watching this film for over an hour I found it to be pointless. ... Read more

Reviews (47)

Love & Tumult in 1968 Paris
Once past the excessive, graphic nudity, or perhaps because of it, Bertolucci fashions a jarring glimpse of three fascinating young people against the backdrop of the 1968 French General Strike, which nearly toppled the government. For the three principals, hedonism, narcissism, and intoxication seem to dominate against what appear as lightly held political beliefs - socialism, love, compassion, tolerance. For example, siblings Theo and Isabelle sleep together naked, their sculpted bodies entwined. The All-American Matthew (well played by Michael Pitt) comes upon them sleeping nude (and slowly grows to love them), gathering some deeper yet perplexing knowledge. This learning process for Matthew weaves its way throughout the film: a likable youth from San Diego doing his best to slip into the idiosyncratic lives of these very French '60s eccentrics and their almost invisible, '60s uptight parents.

Bertolucci abruptly intercuts continuously with memorable past film scenes: for example, Garbo's soulful eyes laughing at Gilbert's insipid love from "Queen Christina." There are many of these lovely, thoughtful old film scenes that weld the humanity of these three characters to that of past lovers and haters. I found myself virtually loathing the insouciance of Theo and Isabelle, their adolescent adoration of things kitsch, such as Delacroix's 'Liberty Leading the People" with Liberty's face that of Marilyn Monroe. All this while exchanging drunk, violent words over politics, cinema and ragout when true fighters faced the formidable barricades in the streets of Paris.

But this is a film, I think, that one must settle into. Much of the first half appears about nothing much, perhaps a light titillating comedy. Slowly, we understand it is not that at all. The nudity, arguments, sex, politics, brilliant film cuts, and memorable period scoring give satisfaction to those of us 'lucky' enough to have lived through that tumultuous time. Perhaps younger, less authoritarian generations will view it with more intuition than we boomers. One of the director's realized intentions was to impart with his typical lyricism an inner realization of why love, even silly vacuous sex, is so much preferable to war (the General Strike and Vietnam, here). The ending is doubly startling. But by then, the parts have become the whole, the trivial vital. The significant beauty of this film lies in the director's wise, consummate vision. Well worth seeing. (For an amazingly contrasting view of the same period, see "Fog of War").

An Incisive Criticism of the '60s and Hypocrisy
The Dreamers is a new, primarily English-language film from the Italian king of cinematic controversy, Bernardo Bertolucci. If you've seen his past works, including 1900 and Last Tango in Paris, they provide a fairly clear idea of what to expect in this NC-17 foray into 1960's youth culture in France. The film is an extended analysis, really, of radicalism and some of the hypocrisies seemingly inherent in it. It forces us to confront the question of what truly is revolutionary, or conservative for that matter. The film answers that question in a way many of us will find unexpected.

Matthew (Michael Pitt) is an American student spending time abroad in France. He takes in the student protests with wide eyes, gazing in awe at the pure passion igniting these young people. Though the period is the '60s, Matthew still reflects the tucked-in conservatism of a decade past, wearing a jacket and tie almost as a shield from the craziness surrounding him. He soon meets two French siblings, Isabelle and Theo (Eva Green and Louis Garrel), both of whom are full of the revolutionary spirit. They are new and therefore attractive to Matthew, who shares a mutual love of movies with both. Not long after, he moves into the home of his two new friends, whose parents have gone away on an extended trip.

Now is the time audience members may begin to squirm. In between quoting movies to one another and acting out favorite scenes, Matthew begins to notice an unnaturally clingy relationship exists between Isa and Theo--they sleep and bathe together, and play sexually-laced games that often leave one in some state of undress. But this quasi-incest has a strange effect on Matthew, as slowly, the jacket and tie disappear, he begins to walk around barely dressed, and he starts to take part in the sex games, at first begrudgingly and then yearningly.

But as intoxicated as Matthew becomes with the lifestyle, he also is disturbed when Isa confides in him that she's never been on a date before. Harboring some genuine feelings for the young beauty, Matthew tries to lead her away from a life entirely dependent upon Theo and toward one of independence. In this way, the film draws a very interesting parallel. It really is conservatism--a resistance to change--that is keeping so-called radicals Isa and Theo in their exclusive relationship. The young innocent, Matthew, has become the revolutionary in trying to shatter what has become the comfortable tradition.

The film boasts three good, but not great performances. With stronger leading work, a good film could possibly have reached the next level. Gilbert Adair's screenplay, based on his own novel, is wonderfully subtle in weaving its critique of the radical movement, but is in fact so subtle that in some ways the film feels "small." Nevertheless, the film raises probing questions, particularly in the last scene, as a throng of protesters march down a street, all chanting in unison, not a single one distinguishable from the next. It begs the old question, "If a group of anarchists organize an anarchists' meeting, are they really anarchists anymore?"

Finally, credit must be heaped upon Fox Searchlight for not yielding to any suggestion that Bertolucci's vision be compromised by editing the film to achieve an R rating. Even without such censorship, it is disturbing enough that film footage of bare genitals and some sex is considered more damaging by the MPAA than, for example, the wholesale slaughter of recent horror offerings. In any case, when going to see The Dreamers, leave any prudish tendencies (or family members) at home.

Final Grade: B

Bold, brave and inquisitive
Bertolucci displays with this unnecessarily controversial movie more bravery than many other directors half his age. Anyone who is young should see it to observe the contradictions that youth's idealism brings upon the three protagonists. Anyone who is older should watch it to remember the bravery of times gone by, to remember a time when many of us still believed protests could change the world and to acknowledge the validity of both youth's panache and experience's fountain of knowledge.

Not all said up front
There are alot of things that are underneath the serface of this film. You might have to watch the film more than once to get it all. Things that have to obtained from the time and the charecters themselves.(I will not ruin them for you finding them is half the fun) The film is not one that you watch when you are bored with your buddys it is a film that takes all your attention to actually get it.The film ends with no changes in the people only an experience that changed their lives but could not change who they were nomatter how much they tried. I hate movies that charecters change because of an experience this movie seems real in that aspect because the people dont change. It is a little overthe top in certain aspects but it makes you think and is an enjoyable experience.

dreamy
Beautiful, disturbing, erotic, political, comic, thrilling, and thoroughly immersing. One of the most satisfying cinematic experiences I've had in a long time. Not to be missed! Much thanks to Bertolucci, who continues to make exquisite and exciting films! ... Read more

Reviews (41)

Hypnotic, visually superb film
The Sheltering Sky is based on Paul Bowles novel, relating how an American couple attempted to rekindle their marriage by journeying into the heart of the Sahara desert. As if afraid of confronting the tensions between them, Port (John Malkovich) agrees to take along with them the wealthy playboy Tunner, at least for the first part of their journey. And so creating a "menage-a-trois" situation, with Port later realising his true feelings for his wife Kit (Debra Winger)But fate deals them a savage hand, as the harsh, unforgiving terrain of the Sahara makes it's own impact on their destiny.

The film owes much to the superb music score, a haunting passionate love theme, played in an austere way, like two people in love, yet both afraid to commit, hinting not only at their concealed passion, but also inner loneliness. With many attractive Arabic themes also.

If you prefer action films, don't think about buying this one. Some may find it long, introspective, and at times, ambiguous, with the narrative often giving way to somethig akin to a national geographic documentary. The remaining leading character spoke only a handful of words for the last three quarters of an hour..But a beautiful, lush, masterful journey which lovers of Africa will not want to miss.

Read the Book Instead
I recently read Paul Bowles "The Sheltering Sky" and found it to be a haunting, captivating, and philosophical masterpiece. It is a book that will stay with me forever. I was excited to see that it had been made into a movie. However, I found the movie disappointing. I think the book does not lend itself well to being translated to film since much of the "story" is the underlying thoughts, feelings and changes within the characters. The film starts with a "narrator" observer (Mr Bowles himself!) but after that scene the narration does not continue. Then there is the last part of the book where Kit joins the nomad caravan. In the book I found this to be "believeable" but on screen it was silly especially without knowing what was really motivating her since the dialog of her thoughts was left in the book. I couldn't help wondering what someone who had not read the book would think was going on and WHY. I also found the dialog a little "stilted" - more like dialog in a play than a movie. The scenery and desert shots were beautiful. Ah well. This just proves once again that the "movie" in your own mind is the best there is! Read the book!

Poor novel poorly adapted
I'm not certain what it is that characterizes a book as 'Literary'. Perhaps Literariness requires that the work cohere with a previously established order of literature, something like Eliot's 'Tradition'; or perhaps it is a universal value which some texts possess and others simply do not, and of which it is the responsibility of the critic to uncover - I really don't know. However, I am fairly certain that, if we are speaking in terms of canonization, Paul Bowls novel constitutes apocrypha. In terms of characterization (isn't any), structure (dissolved half way through) and intellectual depth (think Matrix style existentialism - I mean, it's hardly Beckett is it), three criteria by which, I think, we may judge the Literary aspirations of a novel, the Sheltering Sky is clearly forcefully un-literary, perhaps even self-consciously so. I was thus shocked to read the comments of a previous reviewer, according to whom the film's problems were a direct result of the novels Literariness. Clearly he hasn't read the book.

There are within the novel sections pleasantly evocative of contemporary Africa. However, these sections are not enough to redeem it from the angsty, inarticulate existentialist mess that it descends into. In short the novel collapses under the weight of its own pretension. Wisely, Bertolucci seems to play down the existentialist side of things, and to concentrate instead on the cinematic rendering of post-war Africa. Of course, as a medium film enjoys huge advantages over literature in this respect: film works through the senses, we 'feel' them; the novel, on the other hand, is experienced intellectually, and is thus subject inevitably to the abstractions and distortions which mar the process of evocation. We really see these advantages in effect here: visually Bertolucci's film is nothing short of stunning.

Yet this is not enough somehow - having mostly removed the quasi-philosophical core of the novel, the film feels empty (witness the pointless stilted, expositional dialogue of the first 30 minutes, for example). This emptiness is not to be filled by pchycological character study or exiting plot shifts - both characters and plot are handles in the film as amatuerishly as they were in the book. Bertolucci undertakes to fill this emptiness, it seems, by reinventing the story as an 'erotic-drama', to attempt to charge it with a fervidness that was (perhaps deliberately) only latent within the novel. The practical results of this are a couple of rather gratuitous shots of Debra Winger's bottom, and the scene featuring the Bedouin prostitute with gratuitously large breasts. Consequently the film is about as erotic as your average soft-core porno movie.

Good dramatisation of a terrible book
It seems churlish not to rate more highly a film which achieves pretty much all it set out to achieve, but I think you have to judge a film by its overall impression, and while this is beautiful and probably elegiac, it is still an intensely annoying film about a couple of very dislikeable people. That isn't Bernado Bertolucci's fault, of course: Paul Bowles' novel of the same name is an intensely annoying, pretentious book. Bertolucci has, if anything, improved on the raw material in the parts he has left out, but fundamentally he can still be brought to book for filming it the first place.

I have only recently finished reading The Sheltering Sky. I hated it. When I read the glowing, passionate reviews of pretty much every reviewer on Amazon, I thought I must have missed something, or completely misunderstood the book. Just to check, I got hold of the movie. To my tremendous relief, I now see I didn't (or, if I did, then so did Bertolucci): the film is pretty much exactly how I imagined it would be.

Malkovich nails the Port Moresby character (how odd, incidentally, to name your lead character after a place in Papua New Guinea). Port is what the Brits would describe in their inimitable way as a "complete wanker".

Debra Winger captures Kit Moresby's high-tensile stupidity perfectly. In her opening scene, she wigs out after roughly fifteen seconds of an innocuous conversation because she doesn't want Port to talk about a dream he has had, lest Tunner should repeat it back in New York. But then within twenty minutes, she's having sexual intercourse with Tunner behind Port's back, apparently without a second thought to the stir this might create back home should Tunner happen to mention it.

Port is no cuckold, though: Even before Kit's infidelity, he has, during the course of an evening stroll, wound up having it off with a Bedouin prostitute at the edge of town.

Thereafter, disaffection for the protagonists is total. It is impossible to care a fig whether either lives or dies, and the only value the film offers is the satisfaction of seeing that one of them does eventually die, together with a star comedy turn by Timothy Spall, Bertolucci's luscious cinematography, and a number of gratuitous shots of Debra Winger's nether regions.

None of which is reason enough to rent this for an evening, sad to say.

Olly Buxton

No cookie cutter drama here...
I viewed the movie first, was so intriqued with it that I had to read the book. This movie, I believe was designed to most affect you after you have viewed it. It is after you have viewed the movie and sit back to reflect on the movie that you realize how powerful the movie is and how it seems to sum up what happens in long term human love relationships (these affects are all around us as witnessed by our friends and nieghbors separations and divorces) as if somehow humans can't seem to stay monogamus past 5 to 10 years - though the pain delivered to both parties through infedelity is immense it seems to happen in long term relationship again and again. I am single and am surrounded my failing marriages and relationships which seems to be a case in point. There seems to be a force pushing people to others after the chemistry of two people have settled though companionship is a most vital quality of long term relationships. This movie outlines this and the photo journalism of these characters lives in the desert is breathtaking. You will leave this movie with more of an emotional response than an analytical response, it is winding and vast and does not come together like a cookie cutter - paint by numbers movie. If you can sit through this drama, you will come away with a nod to the human condition agreeing with what we see in the movie and all around us. ... Read more