Curiosa

Now this is based on actual photography and pictures that were taken as the movie tells us at the end. But it also is a story about forbidden things. Forbidden love, forbidden pleasures, forbidden photos and positions. Who is being hurt in all this? Who needs saving though? This is something that the movie is not really making much of a point.

For better or worse, there is quite the focus on the nudity (no pun intended) and the passion our main character seeks to get pleasure. You can interpret things and read some stuff I reckon, on the other hand maybe the one scene where a not erect penis is shown might be all the answer you (and she) need. Just saying

Curiosa is an interesting erotic film about a woman's love and her sexuality, feminism crashing with machismo, a strange relationship about a free soul married woman who sometimes is a submissive object for love to a casanova photographer. The music score is amazing and the performances are correct, great filming locations, costumes and cinematography. The erotic scenes are perfectly filmed. Negative points are that sometimes the script is very slow and repetitive.

A good erotic art film based on true events, but it could be much better, something is missing.

It is set in France during the time women had little choice in their lives. Often sheltered, knowing little about their bodies, and marriages were more for convenience and security than for love. Pierre takes pictures. First, with a camera that uses glass plates, and then being more happy to get a Kodak box camera. He has an Algerian woman, Zohra that he is partial towards, and she performs erotic dances before small groups of friends, as well as posing for him. Marie, who is in a rather loveless marriage, starts an affair with him. And her husband, Henri seems to accept that. And at first Marie accepts that Pierre sleeps around, but soon decides that she really loves him, and tells him she doesn't love Henri. This is not what Pierre has in mind, however. So as expected, things start to quickly get complicated. The cinematography is excellent, and crisp for those who may watch the movie for only one thing, and they will not be disappointed. But it can get boring. Part of that is the movie is paced to how things would unfold back then, not as would be current.

I only watched curiosa because Noémie Merlant from 'portrait of a lady on fire' is the lead actress. I thought she was brilliant in Céline Sciamma's film, but she is not good here. All of the acting was actually pretty laughable, everyone was trying way too hard and the performances ended up unintentionally funny. Especially Niels Schneider, he gives one of the worst performances I've seen in a while.

There is a lot fundamentally wrong with this film, but there were some things I did like about it. The cinematography was interesting and the shot composition isn't bad either. The use of reflections were pretty good, I love reflections being used to create interesting shots, not sure why but I do. Now onto the abundance of bad stuff.

The single worst element of curiosa is the screenplay. The dialogue is cringeworthy and everything that drives the plot forward just happens because the script says that it has to. There are so many conveniences as a result of extremely lazy writing.

So I love music, it's a huge part of my life, and I'd say I know quite a lot about it. The music in this film is some of the worst, ever. It doesn't fit the time period, and it doesn't fit any of the scenes that it's used in. It's also not composed well at all, it sounds awful.

Another issue I have with the writing is how the characters are written. None of the characters are relatable or likeable, again none of them were performed well, and they were so boring to watch. This whole film was one of the most boring experiences I've had in a long, long time.

Curiosa is not as interesting or deep as it thinks it is. It comes off so pretentious and as far as themes go, there's practically nothing. The only thing I can think of is that it tries to make a statement on male privilege. But the message is presented so poorly that it comes off as if the filmmakers believe that men are superior to women. I find this really interesting because Lou Jeunet, the co-writer and director of this film is a female. The presentation of this film let it down so much, not like the story was compelling anyway. I watched this a day ago and I'm ready forgetting what the story is, it's so boring and stupid.

The basic feeling is about a form of improvisation. Few erotic photographs and a story who use every cliche about French fin de siecle. Two friends and their love for the same woman. The option of her father for marriage and her option for a long, hot , sensual adventure. The new detail complicated all and a drop of exotism. Nice photography and a lot of nudes. And a conventional end. Sure, obvious good intentions. But, after its end, the story seems more than thin, the characters - just sketches and the purpoise - to create an erotic film, using different pretextes. And, after all, the sin remains the less courage of director to give a coherent and fair story and not a sort of cinematographic experiment. So, in large lines, a decent try.