Lunes de fiel

I found this film extremely well done for several reasons I will nominate.

It debates some moral issues, how far is it acceptable for a society still full of consevative people, such as the one performed by Hugh Grant, to acept a relationship such as that of the main characters? It is totally at the border of normality (meaning normality not necessarily what's good but what's common). The film also touches strongly the theme of hipocrisie (probably wrong spelled, this word.) once more in the character of Hugh Grant who, despite showing all the time disgut and repugnace for the story he is being told, is always secretly desiring and wanting something equivalent to happen to him (this hipocratic attitude may be the result of growing up in a world and a society where this kind of sexual liberties and practices are repressed and in here once more we are taken to atrong moral issues which take us to rethink the whole thing...).

Apart from this questions this film makes me also think about the relationships between men and women... Is there an everlasting love? or at least an everlasting relationship?... Suddendly I recalled Schopenhauer who claimed that no man could be happy with only one woman... maybe this film is showing that he was right... the pace of the relationship between Mimi and the writer was so high that they just emptied all there possibilities very soon, but if we put that at the scale of a normal marriage, aren't all the possibilities also tried at the end of 10 20 or 30 years? Can a marriage last happy for both till "death tears them apart" ?...

Besides this few topics of discussion (to which I could add some more if I just remembered them right now) I found this film very well directed with some beautiful scenes... also some strongs scenes that stay with us... Excelent performances for the three leading roles... Kristin Scott Thomas is also good in here but not so as in other films also because her somewhat small part in this one didn't allow her to show more than she did. This film proves once more Roman Polansky as one of the greatest directors of our times, since he shows he is totally in control of every detail of direction (I enjoyed the increase of the speed together with the increase of intensity of the relationship among the couple). Good dialogues but specially excelent speeches of the writer whenever he becomes the narrator which is often... Also an excelent note for the soundtrack by Vangelis and other well known songs which appear along. A must see.

Every man should watch this film, it is a Polanski masterpiece. The parts are wonderfully played and the script is menacingly accurate. Why it didn't get greater exposure at the time or since baffles me, particularly as two of the principle characters have since become "famous" , Hugh Grant and Kristan Scott Thomas.

Most men will empathise with the morality or lack of in this confused relationship between an older man obsessed with his sexual object in the form of the stunning French actress, and her adoration for him. The haunting reality is that for so many the lack of depth in a relationship is frightening once the sexual desire diminishes. An awesome film 10 out of 10.

when i first saw this movie in 1992 i found it shocking by its erotic scenes and burn-out love story. i noticed it was a good movie, but that was the end of the story.

now i bought it in dvd and saw it for the 2nd time. it's a masterpiece.

everything blends perfectly in this film: 1990's paris, the colours of the film (etalonage), the excellent vangelis's music score, the evolution of a love story, the roles played by the 2 couples...

emmanuelle seigner is great playing the role of a nymph and a sorcerer, peter coyote is magnificent playing the part of a regular guy who gets insane, hugh grant becomes a perfect boring middle-class british bourgeois and kristin scott thomas her discreet wife looking for action.

one of the best amour-fou stories, along with louis malle's "damage". as rui wrote before, a must see.

Few critics took this film seriously when it was released, but it's now steadily beginning to garner attention. Today it ranks as one of Polanski's best.

"Bitter Moon" is a powerful film about love, and to view it as a sort of a soft-core titillation exercise by Polanski is to miss the point. The up-front sexuality of the film is there, not to merely provoke a cheap arousal from the viewer, but to point out how empty and hollow the couple's relationship really is. Most men will empathise with the morality (or lack of) in this confused relationship between an older man obsessed with his sexual object, and her adoration for him. The haunting reality is that for so many, the lack of depth in a relationship is frightening once the sexual desire diminishes.

9/10 - Filed with lush cinematography and romantic Parisian architecture, the film's only flaw is its Hugh Grant subplot. Everything else is electric, with a dark playfulness that only Polanski can deliver. Worth several viewings.

Note: Peter Coyote's room number, 5A, is the same as Tom Cruise's apartment from "Eyes Wide Shut". Both films have similar themes. When "Eyes Wide Shut" was released, Polanski made "The Ninth Gate", a film which features an "Eyes Wide Shut" styled ritual. Both films are similar in tone.

This film is utterly compelling - it will have you glued to the screen. It's about 2 hours and 15 minutes long, yet it never loses its grip. Although there are a few "funny" moments, you can never be sure whether they were intentional or not. The pacing is slow but wonderfully methodical. But what really makes this picture delightful is the level of the acting of the male stars. While the female leads are also wonderful, the cynical Coyote and, especially, the charmingly shy Grant (his performance here is underrated) provide two different ways for the viewer to enter the story and their interplay is offbeat and endlessly entertaining. This is methodical, first-rate filmmaking by Polanski.