Journal d'une femme de chambre

It makes me wonder how one can spoil a splendid story like this. Earlier adaptations have been able to show the misery, disgust, dreary situation and yet taken the audience with them, through to the end. Here a less than convincing Lea Seydoux is seemingly dragged through the plot. And the rest of the actors likewise act like having been left behind on the scene without much of an idea what they were actually supposed to do. The miserable, unloving, sordid state in that house is shown. Though, on top of this it is also boring. Bunuel - should we say: in a modern way? - gave the chamber maid the upper hand, resolve, determination, wit. A character and her development. In this movie nothing develops, the hero - so we learn in the beginning - already has a history of being rejected by her employers. While towards the end, she's still diddling with rejection of her behaviour.

Who the heck could have had the idea of doing this remake?

Lea Seydoux stars as the titular servant who has to put up w/obnoxious & lascivious overseers as she tries to maintain her sanity in the most menial of careers. Consisting of furtive looks & moody zooms, Diary hearkens back to the films of the 70's that Bunuel or Truffaut may've made but the modernity of Seydoux's casting keeps things interesting when the plot & scenery start to falter towards the mundane. The plot does becomes problematic when the story ends abruptly leaving the viewer to guess what happens next but other than this narrative hiccup, a tale well told.

The newest and to my mind the best of the three talkie versions of this perennial: vibrant and private, both. A parisienne maidservant moves to the country to work and live in a village estate. Everyone likes her except the woman she works for and the estate caretaker. Through her time there her memories of past appointments play out for us to share. This is the only "diary" in the movie. Eventually the caretaker comes around and the two of them lay plans. This is also the earthiest of the three versions: prostitution, rape, murder, abortions all figure into the story in this our frank age.

Adapted from the book, it is a movie that keeps the spirit of the era alive. Impeccably good acting. Every movie of Léa Seydoux, where everyone falls in love with her beauty, should be watched.

The third version of Octave Mirbeau's novel and by far the weakest.Marion Cotillard was to play Célestine but she was eventually replaced by Léa Seydoux, whose inexpressive looks and listless acting do not help;and anyway she is no match for Jeanne Moreau ,the best Celestine ever,even though Luis Bunuel's story underwent some changes - when the master tackles a novel ,he integrates his obsessions ,and he makes it his own.

The movie suffers ,not only from Seydoux's monotonous portrayal,but also from a terribly desultory script (both Renoir's and Bunuel's efforts had firm screenplays.)

Let's put it straight:I did not expect much from a third version but I did watch it because Vincent Lindon is in it;unfortunately his part is reduced to a sex machine and he is not given a single chance to show his skills ;in Bunuel's version,Georges Géret made all his scenes count .

The cinematography is fine and the last pictures rather tasteful,but the movie will be quickly forgotten.