Benutzerrezensionen

Beatrice (Juliette Binoche) is a free-spirited Parisian woman with plenty of male admirers. The trouble is, she hasn't really returned anyone's affections. When she feels pressured, she decides to swap apartments with a New Yorker for awhile. Henry (William Hurt) is a shrink who also is a bit tired of putting people's lives in order and he believes a trip to Paris will do him good. However, Beatrice is mistaken for a doctor temporarily replacing Henry and is beset with several patients. She listens, she has fun! And, patients hand her the green stuff. Meanwhile, Henry is less than thrilled with Beatrice's noisy apartment and decides to come back to the NY area early. Ah ha! He finds out in short order that Beatrice has been seeing his patients and he decides to pose as one. Let the games begin.

This very French film, told mostly in English, has a sweet charm and a wonderful premise. Binoche graces the film with her loveliness and talent and Hurt gives a likable performance as well. Yes, it is understated and the dialogue seems truncated at times, but the movie has a European flavor that will please those who like it quirky. All other elements, costumes, scenery, and cinematography, are nice, too. If you belong to the group of film enthusiasts which needs a dose of laughs and love every week, find this film in the near future. It is a great movie to watch from a comfortable couch, with or without, a partner.

"Juliette Binoche cannot act", according to 'anonnymous' below. That is

a ridiculous assertion. As is to link this film with Kieslowski's

'Blue'. The problem with this movie is that neither Binoche nor Hurt are

given the material in the form of a good screenplay nor the direction to

make the film work. It seems to me that Akerman, who is an excellent

director, see La Captive, does not have a good enough command of English

to write a screenplay in the language.

The film, which starts out nicely quickly gets bogged down in the

psychoanalyitical. Endless "yes" and "mmmmm"s loose their amusement

value quickly. The romance angle is badly developed, just why has

Beatrice fallen for John Wire aka Henry? It doesnt work.

But Juliette Binoche can act. In fact in Europe she is regarded with

Isabelle Huppert to be the finest actress working today. But she can

only produce the goods when she is given the material and the careful

direction necessary. Go rent "Rendez-Vous", "The Unbearable Lightness of

Being", "Les Amants du Pont-Neuf", "Three Colours Blue", "Alice &

Martin", "The Widow of Saint-Pierre" and especially "Code Innconnu" and

try arguing otherwise.

(1996) A Couch in New York ROMANTIC DRAMA

Co-written and directed by Chantal Akerman, with Henry (William Hurt) placing an ad to a Paris newspaper for a three week for a person to live in his New York apartment in exchange for an apartment in Paris- Beatrice (Juliette Binoche) answers. Viewers soon find out is that Henry also happens to be a professional psychiatrist and while Beatrice has a few admirers- both experiencing them from the other. We also find out Henry not only uses his apartment complex to live in but he also uses it to see his patients. And Beatrice exploits this at the same time with her friend, Anne (Stephanie Buttle) posing as her secretary. Richard Jenkins also stars as one of Henry's patients. Spoil Because William hardly had any proper sleep while staying at Beatrice's apartment, besides being punched in the face and leaks from an admirer motivates him to go back to NYC earlier than plan. It is during then he begins to see how much better some of his patients are as well as his own, posing as another person.

I don't understand why this movie isn't more popular. William Hurt plays wonderfully sensitive and sincere. Juliette Binoche is charming and natural. The story is like a book. And the filmmakers and photographers have caught the moments just right. The lines and words are not pathetic: they are intelligent and honest.

I love this film. I have seen it several times and Cole Porters "Night and day" suits the film and actors really well.

I give this film top score for seeing the special art and beauty of living. Few movies catches the small deatils like this one: In colours, quite comfortable moments, moods, real life-pictures and honest life-image.

Thank you very much, filmmakers, actors, storytellers, composers and photographers for reminding us how beautiful life can be.

A romantic screwball farce with some intelligence. A perfect role for William's style of vague acting that works up against the energetic and childish Juliette. Flimsy at times but fun to watch those awkward human moments caught in the love vacuum.

I think the first minutes and the end are great moments of comedy. Nevertheless if I were the director I would have explored more the situation of the characters, he in Paris, she in New York, with a lot of gags, to put them together only in the end. His sudden return to New York slows the funny rythm of the beginning in my opinion and puts us into a series of pseudo romantic very weak scenes like those sessions with Hurt on the couch and Binoche uttering monosyllabes all the time. And one "intelligent" question: how could she got the dog into the plane right in the hour in spite of all those very strict rules about animals travelling abroad?

A deeply metaphorical novel.

There's a man who lives in New York, he's sad, sick, and stuck to an engagement with a woman that he's no longer in love, wearing only fancy suits and shirts of elegant collar. There's a dog that lives in New York, he moans with sadness, he's sick, and tied to a woman by the collar, he walks on a leash three times a day.

There's a woman, she messes up his house (his life) but at the same time she fills it with life (the plants seem more alive). The man loses his clothes, his house, his clients, his profession, like a dog he have only his best friend. With the passion the anesthesia of life, the moans, the sadness, the illness are over. Both from the dog and from the man. What's left for them is to run after the woman to Paris. Revealing the feeling of freedom and happiness you feel when tou get rid of that collar.

I often wonder if directors sometimes tire of the boxes they find themselves put in. Chantal Akerman, who at the tender age of 25 delivered up the masterpiece Jeanne Dielman which not only changed the face of cinema but forever assured her place among other cinematic auteurs, once referred to herself as being funny like Charlie Chaplin. I guess she tired of simply saying it and decided to actually try it out. Unfortunately the result is not that great.

The premise of the film is actually quite promising and suits the genre perfectly. A cold clinical psychoanalyst is overwhelmed by the neediness of his patients and decides to house swap. The person who answers his ad is a young dancer. She is all youth, exuberance and mess. He is cold, clean, calculated. While he can't get comfortable in her apartment she gets all too comfortable in his; when a patient mistakenly assumes she is the analyst's replacement she ends up rolling with it.

The movie isn't the greatest, there is some awkward editing that seems to be the result of scenes missing. There's also the fact that for a romantic comedy the comedy of the film never really soars. Binoche and Hurt do well enough with their characters, but they don't have the sort of magic chemistry that could have made this film really work. Also, perhaps the strangest bit of all, for being the work of such an acclaimed director it seems curiously stripped of nearly all the traits that made Akerman, Akerman. It feels like the kind of forgettable movie you would find flipping through the channels late at night. If it wasn't for the fact that this was an Akerman film and that the stars are very notable as well this would be a completely forgotten film, one of dozens of rom coms that got pumped out by studios in the 90s.

Pleasant enough to watch but very forgettable.

A Couch in New York is a French/American/Belgium co-production with the innocence and humour of the romantic comedies of the 50's. Juliet Binoche shows the charm of a modern day Audrey Hepburn (with the same beautiful vulnerability portrayed by Hepburn in Funny Face and Breakfast at Tiffany's) while William Hurt plays the strong man role that used to be reserved for the likes of Humphrey Bogart, Fred Astaire or Gregory Peck. Using old tricks of mistaken identity and falling in love with a stranger, the dialogue is somehow saved from sounding corny and instead pays homage to the classic romantic comedies. A two tissue movie.

I'd never seen Binoche really act before. In "Blue" and "English Patient", all she needed was to do her photogenic pose. The camera and director took care of the rest. They created the illusion of depth of emotion from one static expression she knew very well to display. I admit that that "Binoche look" is enchanting. Hers is a very attractive face. But calling what she does in these movies acting seems to me an insult to the actresses who know their trade really well, like Emma Thompson. In "Couch" she is required to more than looking pretty. She actually talks and show emotions. And the effect is so amateurish, the personality she plays is so phony, it disrupts the pace and the harmony of the movie. With the basic material, which is right for a light comedy, and with another actress, e.g. Julia Roberts, this movie could have been charming. With Emma Thompson, it could have been memorable. With Binoche, the movie did not live up to its potential.

Dr. Henry Harriston, a psychoanalyst, is so sick of his patients he puts an ad in the Herald-Tribune asking to swap his New York apartment for one in Paris. Beatrice, who answers the ad because her friend Anne lives in New York, seems to get the better part of the deal. Dr. Harriston has a fabulous apartment and Beatrice's building is noisy and falling apart. Then Dr. Harriston's patients start showing up at his place. Also, Dr. Harriston's dog Edgard is lethargic and has intestinal problems. Meanwhile, Beatrice has a number of men after her, mostly borderline insane.

Juliette Binoche is pretty and so charming, and she really shows genuine concern for Dr. Harriston's patients--one in particular. Richard Jenkins does something unique and unexpected as one of the patients. And William Hurt eventually does show his talent as well. Most of the leading actors gave good performances.

The first half was quite funny, but the second half leaned more toward drama. Though there were funny moments, such as when Dr. Harriston tried to carry on a conversation with his friend Dennis while Dennis was taking an order at a restaurant.

The ending was very sweet. Overall, this film was worth seeing.

This film seems to be a litmus test of some kind. The majority of viewers, both prof. critics and laypeople, don't like. But a sizable minority, like me, are ga-ga over it. I find it funnier and more intelligent each time I watch it. I liked it the first, but it has gotten better each of the four times I have watched it since.

Juliette Binoche is an absolute revelation as an actress. Watch her facial expressions change instantly as she responds to other people. She is marvelous. There is an incredibly funny dialogue between her and her French friend who lives in US, played by an actress, also very good, whose last name, i believe, is Buttle. Many of the commentators seem to believe that this dialogue shows the two women to be stupid, but I disagree. What the whole film slyly hints at is the stupidity of conventional, sectarian, ideologically driven psychoanalysis. These women, in their innocence of ideology, see thru the veil.

As does Beatrice in her role as makeshift therapist. What makes her a wonderful therapist is her RESPONSIVENESS, as indicated above, to what is happening in the moment with each patient as an individual. Unhampered by rigid doctrine, she gives each what they need, not a load of ideology. I would love to see the actual script, but haven't been able to find it.

In Couch in New York, the first American film by acclaimed Belgian director Chantal Akerman, Dr. Henry Harriston (William Hurt) is a dour New York psychoanalyst who is close to exhaustion. He decides to place an ad in the Paris Herald Tribune offering to swap his New York apartment for a month. Henry ends up in the digs of a free-spirited dancer from Paris, Beatrice Saulnier (Juliet Binoche) and she takes over his swank New York penthouse. Obviously well to do, Henry's apartment is spacious, impeccably furnished, and meticulously cared for, while hers is messy, bohemian, and funky.

In what Ms. Akerman describes as "what Hollywood calls a double fish out of water film", this film is something of a curiosity yet it's one of the best screwball romantic comedies I've seen. The premise is totally ludicrous of course and off the wall but that's what makes it so special. Of course, I'm particularly open to films that pop the bubble of the psychiatric establishment.

Apparently Henry forgets to tell his patients he is going away and they come knocking on Ms. Saulnier's door and calling for appointments, hardly even noticing the change in doctors. Being a sweet and sympathetic soul and not wanting to turn people away, she listens to their stories for an hour and they pay her money for her advice (illegally of course). She learns quickly that all analysts have to say is "yeees" or "hmmmm" or "what comes to mind now?" and get paid big bucks. Of course, patients have the right to remain silent and sometimes nothing comes to mind (they can sometimes spend an hour in total silence and must still pay for the privilege). Ms. Saulnier is an understanding person and a good listener and, in quite a slap at the "professionals", achieves more success with Henry's patients (not to mention his dog Edgar) in one week than he apparently has in years.

Beatrice decides to continue to pretend to be Dr. Harriston's assistant and studies up on her Freud. Meanwhile in Paris, Henry must contend with Beatrice's aggressive boy friends, messy rooms, leaky plumbing and the hammering of a roof being repaired. Fed up with the problems in Paris, he returns to New York to stay with an old friend in a down home part of Brooklyn. Conveniently for the plot, the good doctor stops off at his office and finds Beatrice playing psychoanalyst and his patients miraculously improved. Finding Ms. Saulnier intriguing and attractive, he goes along with her game, pretending to be her patient. This sets off a process of mutual discovery and self-awareness that is quite predictable but nonetheless amusing and enlightening.

This was my first Akerman film and while I realize it is totally unlike her others, I really loved it and found both leads to be superb. Binoche never looked more alluring and Hurt is terrific in his role as the deadpan doctor. I don't know who's crazy, the majority of critics who trashed it or me, but I know for sure one of us is ready for the couch. I won't say any more about Couch in New York except that while it does unfold its magic at a very leisurely pace, the rewards are there for the patient (no pun intended). Since the ending left me with such a warm, fuzzy feeling, I'm thinking of calling Ms. Binoche and.well.on second thought.

In spite of its thin premise about the unexpected effects of an apartment exchange this is a movie of gentle and charming fantasy as the two characters find themselves becoming entangled in each other's lives. Although the plot is predictable from that point on, the execution of it is funny and some of the observations about people are pointedly accurate. Add to that a good use of the New York cityscape and this is a great movie to spend a rainy afternoon (or evening) with.

I'm totally biased. Not objective or dispassionate. Juliette Binoche is my favorite actress of all time and every time I see her do anything on screen it's captivating. And William Hurt is one of my favorite actors. And the idea for the film was a very good one, however I think the french writer must have been resposible for most of the dialogue because a lot of it is nonsensical/out of place.

That said, nice little stories like these (not cheesy, just "light") are one of the resons why I love film. I think of Chacun Cherche son Chat for the epitome of what I'm talking about...I saw this with my gf (now wife) at the Kabuki in SF and we both had a great time.

This is the rare sort of romantic comedy that takes a simple premise (psychiatrists are probably full of s**t) and proves it when Juliette Binoche and William Hurt (the hapless psychiatrist) enjoin one another to use the other's flat while on vacation in the other's country. Hurt takes up residence in her Paris flat and gradually finds himself drawn to the mysterious person who lives there when he goes through some of her personal things. (Neither have met, they merely answered each other's advertisements from the newspaper.) The story continues to grow more complicated when a quirk of circumstance would have Juliette act as psychotherapist with one of William Hurt's patients in his absence.

Upon his return to the States, Hurt meets the mysterious femme with whom he exchanged flats. Then, he is confronted with what has happened, not only with this one patient but in fact with ALL of his patients and the romantic comedy is thrust into the full swing.

A very good movie, and a very fun and insightful script treated with a rare blend of intelligence and wit. This movie was made for Juliette Binoche, and Hurt carries off the role of her love interest with charm and elegance.

This mess needed a Lubitsch touch if it was ever going to succeed, and Akerman is no Lubitsch. Bad script, poor acting (although it is amusing to hear Hurt's French--what is behind this trend for American actors in French roles?; cf Malkovich in Temps Retrouve). When the best scene is a dog swimming in Central Park lake, you've got trouble.

I suppose there are two kinds of people, or two kinds of attitude. There are times when I want the world to go away and leave me in my daydream, and there are times when I want the world to come ask me to come out to play. This movie is asking the viewer to come out to play.

I think the movie makers, cast and crew, would accept my premise about the two attitudes, and they all agree it's better to come out and play than to daydream. They want to know why sometimes a person chooses to daydream--to be alone--to cling to shreds of experience--to wallow in the mud: and I think they have a good argument. Watch the movie. And, contrary to what the previous review might have led you to expect, I'd advise you to expect to be delighted.

The basic tension of opposites attract is carried out in an exquisitely delicate manner. A New York psychiatrist exchanges apartments with a woman in Paris. He is orderly tidy controlled. She is - well opposite. He moves into her disheveled apartment complete with bad plumbing, a roof in disrepair and the importunities of her crazed lover. She moves into his and is beset by his patients demanding to be treated. She obliges and with the help of her friend (who has had analysis) learns to say "uh huh" and repeat the last word of the patient's sentences. They get better. His dog is happier. A nice point is he is shown as competent as her lover starts to feel better when talking to him. This is the last straw that drives him back to New York.

He can't go back to his apartment, but stops by, sees his patients coming out looking better. Fascinated, he makes an appointment. The relationship unfolds.

The cool thing about this movie is it is not forced like so many modern comedies.You realize how strident such recent comedies such as "One Fine Day" and "Fools Rush In" are in comparison.

So wonderfully delicate.

I really tried hard to like it... but the film simply is boring. In spite of a charming Binoche and a promising story, Akerman fails to create any true atmosphere. She manages to create some funny scenes, but a couple of funny scenes do not make a comedy. Neither does the viewer care about Hurt and his psychoanalyst nor do we feel any warmth and human feelings in his beginning relationship with Binoche. No romantic sparks flying, at least I didn't see any. The dialogue is also not funny. This is the second film by Akerman I viewed, the other being The Captive, which also fails for the same reasons. Akerman may have delivered nuanced portraits of persons, especially women, in earlier films, but Un divan in New York lacks everything a comedy needs.

I loved this movie, too - though I understand most of what those, who criticized it, said. But what the heck: when I found it in our local video store, a safe 10 years after its first release, I felt lonely, morose and sorry for myself. After the movie, I longed to travel to Paris again, and to the Big Apple, to meet people, cry and shout and make love. Worked for me! Love this movie to bits! I am going to see it again and again - much like "Groundhog Day", also not the most glamorous or most refined of movies, but a feast for the heart of the lonely hunter. Go and treat yourself to some French Fries. Freedom Fries? Not in this movie: it's a result of bilateral, transatlantic love. Actually, just love is enough.

The premise is a little unrealistic, that a uber-psychiatrist would temporarily abandon his Manhattan practice to switch apartments for a month in Paris-a switch with an unknown woman made through the newspaper. Incroyable!!!

But when you have a chance to make a film with two Academy Award winners, Juliette Binoche and William Hurt, set both in New York and Paris, who would pass the chance? Chantal Ackerman could not, the opportunity to make her first English speaking film a bonus.

The film is a reminder of how difficult it is to cross the pond movie-wise. Nuance and sub-text is awkward or incomprehensible here-the threads on which the movie is woven are frassled.

This artsy little film survives entirely on Binoche's vitality, her French innocence and enthusiasm dominates every negative New York influence her character encounters.

It fails most everywhere else, sadly.

Despite me being a fan of Akermen, I approached the film with apprehension after hearing mostly negative things about it. Surprise surprise that I am very enchanted by this very under-rated film. Probably because most people see it as a strait-laced romantic comedy.Its subtle quirkiness (yes those 2 words can appear together) is what I think make the film stands out. Besides, any films in which I don't find William Hurt nor Juliette Binoche irritating is a miracle in itself.