Full Moon in Paris

Let me explain. Pascale Ogier plays a recent industrial arts graduate, working as an intern in a design firm in Paris, and living with her boyfriend in suburbia. While redecorating her Paris apartment, supposedly to sub-let it, she decides that she wants to keep the apartment and spend some nights in the city. Her boyfriend is a stick-in-the-mud, and is pushing for marriage. She is still party age, and wants to experience more of life. Her best friend in Paris is a married man who would love to seduce her, and tries in vain throughout the film. After three months of this double life, she brings home a young musician to her apartment. She wakes up next to him, and feels trapped in her own apartment.

NUDITY REPORT

Besides Bush_Buns_Boobs, Ogier's costumes reveal more as the film goes on, producing some lovely pokies and see-throughs.

She gets up, flashes the three Bs for the camera, and leaves to go to the other home. While waiting for the first train, she stops in a cafe and ends up confessing to a stranger. He explains that some people are affected by a full moon, and that tonight is "The Night of the Full Moon," which explains why she was wilder than normal and couldn't sleep. He is also affected by the full moon. Note that the term lunacy derives from a similar theory.

When Ogier gets back to her apartment in the burbs, she is in for some surprises. But then, if the ending wasn't somewhat tragic, it wouldn't be a French romantic comedy, would it?

Maltin loves this Eric Rohmer film, citing snappy dialogue and a charming performance from Ogier. Indeed, she won best actress at the Venice film festival. The first time I saw this, I was captivated by Ogier. This time, Maltin's "snappy dialogue" really got in the way of my enjoyment. The film is way too talky. That being said, it is well made and well acted. I will give it a C+

DVD info from Amazon.

no widescreen available
The DVD is reasonable quality, but the nude scene is very dark.

Scoopy's comments:

Tuna nailed my exact problem with all of Rohmer's movies. I have always struggled with his movies. They bore the hell out of me. While the dialogue is intelligent and subtle, there is simply too much of it, like those old English drawing-room plays where the characters just sit in one room and talk about matters sacred and profane.

I guess I'm simply too dumb to understand why Rohmer is regarded as a great film auteur, because I just don't "get" his movies. He must be too subtle for my blunt mind to grasp.

The Critics Vote

General consensus: Maltin 3/4.

The People Vote ...

With their votes ... IMDB summary: IMDb voters score it 6.8, high for a subtitled French film

IMDb guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of excellence, about like three and a half stars from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm watchability, about like two and a half stars from the critics. The fives are generally not worthwhile unless they are really your kind of material, about like two stars from the critics. Films under five are generally awful even if you like that kind of film, equivalent to about one and a half stars from the critics or less, depending on just how far below five the rating is.

My own guideline: A means the movie is so good it will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not good enough to win you over if you hate the genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an open mind about this type of film. C means it will only appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover appeal. D means you'll hate it even if you like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if you love the genre. F means that the film is not only unappealing across-the-board, but technically inept as well.

Based on this description, this film is a C+.