Les rendez-vous de Paris

This little film (actually 3 separate films) looks as if it was shot as a college film school thesis. The characters all seem to be students, academics, and artists, exactly the kind of people who populate such films! The characters don't seem to be experiencing any romantic epiphanies, either, but rather the filmmaker seems to be exploring the kind of questions of how-do-you-fall-in-love-and-who-with that are so ... collegiate.

I found it mildly diverting; my wife found it a good cure for her insomnia.

As a travelogue, it provides a great tour of the parks of Paris, and glimpses of the Metro and city streets.

I first saw this in a cinema and was immediately disappointed with its low-budget production values. The sound and lensing is very poor, so much so that the blurred effect of the projected image eventually gave me a headache. However, the three individual stories of love save the film from its shoddy technical features. The first has a clever climax; while the second deals with complex issues in a sombre way, leaving the third to close this dynamic in its own unique fashion. The real star of the film is Paris itself, used as a constant backdrop to the trials and tribulations of the film. This is really a film for lovers of Paris rather than Rohmer's directorial style and is probably one of his most accessible film to date.

A nice Rohmer film. Fans of his work will like it a lot, and it's not likely to win over any non-lovers or even newbies. I'm a big fan myself, so it won me over effortlessly. I'd rank it lower than most of the Rohmer films that I've seen, but, then again, I've never disliked one of his films and most of them I absolutely adore. Rendezvous in Paris is made up of three short stories about near-affairs in Paris. The first, "Rendezvous at 7 O'clock," is about a young woman who finds out that her boyfriend sees other women. Through a set of amazing circumstances, she meets his other girlfriend. The second, "The Benches of Paris," is the best. It is about a teacher who is trying to seduce a young woman whose relationship with her longtime boyfriend seems to be on the rocks. We watch them as they walk around the parks and other scenic areas of the French capital. The third, "Mother and Son 1907," is about a pretentious painter who comes up with elaborate philosophies about his love life. He is set to spend the weekend with a Swedish girl, a cousin of a friend, but, when he runs into a beautiful, young, and married girl outside of the Picasso Museum, he has to run after her. The acting is great, especially Aurore Rauscher, the woman in the second section of the film. Rohmer paints these relationships so perfectly; they seem so simple, but they are rife with complexities. Contemplating them makes my head swirl. 8/10.

All three tales here reference romance, if in very different ways, and Paris is generously used, including some little known spots. The dynamic between young men and women is credibly yet delicately drawn, with more than a touch of understated humor along the way. The whole film has a slight sense of an exercise in style such as the Coen brothers sometimes undertake. It is very French in its verbal examination of ideas and relationships: "I never date painters, I like paintings too much"; "Picasso is never Picasso, that is what makes him Picasso". A gentle social satire runs through much of it along with an indulgent view of youth - one very much feels that all these people will view life very differently a decade later. But for now they're young, and thinking a little too profoundly, and flirting far too easily, and yes playing a few games. Those who are like them, or remember when they were, will smile and happily follow them as they form light memories to look back on from a weightier future.

Not one of Rohmer's best works, Rendezvous in Paris lacks the passion, the seduction as well as the lust that is found in most of his films. Set in 3 Acts, the story has a mixture of pre-Seinfeld coincidences that interlock the three stories together. Since the connections are not profound or at least comical, the audience is doomed to lose interest in not only the story line but also the characters involved. Most of the characters on screen are only present for around twenty minutes, this does not give the audience enough time to connect or care about the circumstances that they are involved in. The only saving grace the movie has is its moral (or lack of one) involving glimpses of relationships and the need, or want or fear of adultery. In Act 1, we witness when adultery goes wrong. Act 2, the fear of getting caught, and finally we see the need and interest in committing adultery. Other than that, the story lacks much of what is needed for a successful movie. Which includes, filming permits. A great drinking game while watching this movie is to drink every time you see someone in the background look at the camera. This was not only obvious throughout the story, it reminded you that you were watching a movie.