Opiniones de usuarios

I only heard about this when the Blue Underground DVD first came out; of course, I was aware of controversial author Henry Miller, on whose novel the film was based - whose work, incidentally, was contemporaneously being transposed to celluloid for the first time via the late Joseph Strick's TROPIC OF CANCER (1970).

Anyway, it was merely a coincidence that I ended up acquiring the two film versions of the book (the other being the 1990 adaptation by Claude Chabrol) virtually simultaneously! Since I was going through a retrospective of that director's work anyway, I decided to check this one beforehand; well, I am glad that my generally negative reaction to it did not give me second thoughts about passing on the remake (as the latter was a more rewarding, and altogether different, experience – but more on that in its own review)! Anyway, I have never been fond of Erotica per se and this is pretty much what one got here: some critics praised the kaleidoscopic style adopted here (actually borrowed from Richard Lester) but this particular approach dates the film more than anything else. Besides, it is further bogged down by the lack of a proper plot (a fault which is much better disguised in the later version), revolting detail (the graphic sexuality on display got it banned in the U.S. on original release – atypically, this is a Danish picture shot in the English language and black-and-white) and characters who seem to have crawled from under rocks (especially the two leads)!

In essence, we follow the dreary and over-sexed exploits of two penniless bohemians (the more studious-looking of whom is supposed to be an alter-ego for the author himself); they become involved with several women, of various ages and nationalities, and not even that good-looking in many cases. Eventually, they both become attached to someone in particular but, with respect to the protagonist's companion, the girl in question is a 14-year old half-wit!; in the end, the film just ends abruptly as if its makers had suddenly run out of money themselves…or film stock or, quite simply, ideas! However, the eclectic score is a big plus – some of it typically French and the rest comprised of numerous conceptual songs by Country Joe (McDonald) of the psychedelic and radical "Country Joe & The Fish" band fame.

Joey, a writer, and Carl, a Frenchman, are two bohemians living in Paris spending all their time looking for more poon. All the women are slut and/ or mentally unstable and stupid only good for what's between their legs in their world view and the film itself seems to suggest that the idea is true. Based loosely on the Henry Miller book which was in turn based loosely on his actual life. Made and seems to be only for the pretentious and unbearable Art-house crowd. (hey even THEY have base interests..I think) For the rest of you people (Ie. Normal) just go rent some real porn instead, you'd get more out it. And likely more of a plot to boot. I usually like the movies that Blue Underground choose to release, but this one is a vast disappointment. It is however the most anti-feminist movie you'll likely ever see. I guess that deserve something.

My Grade: C-

DVD Extras: "Dirty Movies, Dirty books" featurette; an 11 minute piece on the music, Poster and stills gallery; Bios of Henrey Miller and Jens Thorsen

DVD-ROM: Court Documents

2 Easter Eggs: highlight the word EXTRA in the extras menu, and the word CLICHY in the talent bios menu for 2 more clips of Barney Rosset interviewed

Eye Candy: Ulla Koppel. Suzanne Krage, Lisbet Lundquist, and Louise White all so much flesh

I am a fan of Henry Miller and have read many of his books. When I saw a DVD of "Quiet Days in Clichy" on my local video store's "Staff Pick's" shelf, I excitedly plucked it off and read the back.

It sounded great, an artistic rendition of one of Miller's works. I took it home practically rubbing my hands.

As the previous reviewer commented, the acting is abysmal. Painful to watch. What a disappointment.

The photography is good. There are some (filming) tricks employed, but do nothing to salvage this failure.

This is a poetic movie describing recollection of aging Henry Miller of his stay in Paris before the WWII. It follow the adventures decribed in the book of the same title. The movie has both good humor and great bodies. I would love to have a copy of this movie in any format.

I'm reviewing this from the perspective of myself as a fan of Miller .. Though this is a poorly-done piece of amateur cinema, there is at least enough curiosity in seeing the presentation of the characters and other elements of the book, though you will likely be horribly disappointed with everything. "Quiet Days" is certainly one of Miller's crudest books, in terms of him coming off like a real jerk, albeit a smart and charming one (which the actor playing Miller totally lacks). In that sense, the film captures the baseness in the fact that it's as if the novel has been interpreted by tittering frat boys who pick out the most basic "shock" elements and run with them with anti-authoritarian glee. The previous review of this film mentions plot points which make no sense. This is because the director showed his obvious carelessness and sloppiness by not attaching logic to actions which are clear in the book. A curiosity of the late 60's (including footage of Paris in 69/70; also notable for the use of text within image which I actually quite liked), but a real disappointment for Miller fans, and a pretty bad movie overall.

If you were there at the time the film makes sense. All of the taboos were there to be broken and this one tried to break them all at once just to prove it could get away with it. So there's naked women everywhere (in poses 'pushing out the envelope' of the day), bad language and lavatorial humour in abundance. My guess is that the producers were so fixated on pushing back the boundaries of the then conventional taste, that even the most the most rudimentary craftsmanship was contemptuously discarded.

So it's a pity that the acting is terrible, wit is noticeable by its absence and the nudes aren't really all that exciting. Some gross outs can be amusing. These ones were not.

With very little effort this could have been so much more fun and put one over on the wicked establishment at the same time.

Watch 'I Am Curious' instead. It's (they're) no great shakes but much better than this.

My girlfriend said she'd never seen a porno film, so she dragged me into the cinema to see "Stille Dage i Clichy" in Copenhagen, when the film was new. To say it's a bad film is to overvalue Warhol's "Flesh." It was worse. The only good bit was right at the beginning, with the play on "Gray Day." After that, it was downhill all the way.

The acting was abysmal. The plot... well, what plot? The "Germs won't attack a starving man" scene was memorably sickening. The bonking was overdone and hugely "in your face."

For a poetic film, See "Last Year in Marienbad." Spot the difference.

IMHO, Miller wasn't a particularly good writer. His books did, however, mark a turning-point in censorship. This film, though, has about the same artistic qualities as "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and "The Toolbox Murders."

When the film ended, though, it was interesting to note that, while the women in the audience stood and put on their cardis and coats, the blokes sat quite still for a minute or so :-) .

this is just one of those pro-tend-be "art-house" junk Euro made in 70s,i do not know why blue-underground release this junk. A very boring movie, 80% of time are silly fake love-making scenes with out any meaning.

poor plot, poor acting. silly slut and bastard(the main male roles)There are really no likable people in the movie. If you like this kind of movie, you should rent a real porn, just like last poster said

give 1 vote just because no zero. I suggest no one should watch this piece of trash. the only good thing in this movie is the music. Just forget about this movie and try your best to avoid it.

I first learned of Henry Miller when he appeared as a witness in Warren Beatty's "Reds", but his name really caught my attention in "Kill Your Darlings", about Allen Ginsberg's college years. In the movie, Ginsberg (Daniel Radcliffe) is interested in Miller's works, but the school bans the students from reading them.

Anyway, I've never read any of Miller's works, but Jens Jørgen Thorsen's "Stille dage i Clichy" ("Quiet Days in Clichy" in English) is a third-degree WTF. While I can't compare it to Miller's novel, I can say that this movie succeeds in being shocking, if lacking a coherent plot. Probably the only movie that I've seen that features any scenes taking place in Luxembourg. But overall, not anything that I would truly recommend, unless you want to hear unusual songs by Country Joe and the Fish.

Pretty funny and trashy take on Miller's vision. The sex in this movie makes The Room love scenes to look like high art. For example the almost total absence of doggystyle position, I don't know if it was a censorship issue but it seems stupid to watch this Italian Stalion softcore sex over and over. The guy playing Miller does a rather awful job anyway. He might be an interesting person himself but he is no Henry Miller that is for sure! Anyway, the movie is oversexed in a silly way like if someone saw American Psycho as only being about physical violence for example. Thus in a way it is a weird take on Miller to make it about sex. Miller had a number of other interests such as philosophy.

Quiet Day's in Clichy is a drama movie directed by Late Jens Jorgen Thorsen and stars Late Paul Valjean, Late Wayne Rodda, Lisbet Lundquist, Ulla Koppel and Late Elsebeth Reingaard.

The movie is based on the novel by Henry Miller.

I haven't read the Novel but I can say that the movie is quite disappointing and the main reason is the uneven screenplay and bad acting.

The length of the movie is quite long and some of the viewers might gets irritated by the length. The movie could've been trimmed by at least 20-25 minutes.

Please avoid this awful movie.

I am almost at a loss for words...

I find Henry Miller fascinating, and while I didn't read "Quiet Days in Clichy," I was intrigued to see this "slice of his real life" story. But wow. Just terrible. And not because it's vulgar and misogynistic (which it is) or even because the acting is atrocious and the camerawork is trash (they are). Mostly because it's far-fetched, pointless, and demeaning... to essentially everyone, sleazy men included. (Except for Nys... she was oddly charming). And statutory rape of a mentally challenged 15 year old shouldn't be in any movie...

I don't believe that if you TRIED intentionally to make an awful movie, you could succeed as spectacularly in being bad as this film does. Plenty of graphic sex and nudity, so if that's all you need, there's something there for you... but if you want a plot, a story, or characters who are believably human played by capable actors, then this film is not for you. Mindnumbingly bad. Avoid at all costs.