peter-longworth I now fully understand why Roman Polanski has visa issues with certain countries !

Roger Thornhill This is a very subjective review. The movies I like best are the ones that provoke a deep and prolonged emotional response, however flawed from an objective point of view. Therefore I have no problems in giving it a 10/10, because that's how it made me feel. I was completely and utterly engulfed by the characters and their tragic story. It is extremely moving, and although the explicitness of the film seems to have put a lot of people off, I actually found its candidness to be what made it such a strong and compelling expression of human nature.1990s Paris is beautifully photographed in this film, which also moved me as I grew up there in that very period. Every little detail of 90s urban life that no longer exists is there, and took me straight back: the characteristic brown upholstery of Parisian buses, people's clothes, car models and now long gone rolling stock of the Métro. Even 90s telecommunications technology features in a very meaningful way (Minitel, for those in the 'know' - a precursor to the Internet which the French more or less invented).Maybe it's not the film for you, and Polanski can't resist the odd Hitchcockian joke and surreal scenes, which for some reason puts people off, personally I like them very much. The final irony of the movie is of course that its main protagonist, a failed writer who complains he has not published a single word, ends up being his own beautiful, revolting and tragic story of his own life.

LemonLadyR A flawed but classic adaptation of the novel, "Lunes de Fiel", by Pascal Bruckner. Screenplay by Polanski and several others. The flaws are Peter Coyote's acting, which almost sinks the movie (sorry for the pun, as it takes place on an ocean voyage). He is just so wrong, as the star of this movie. He barely has any normal speaking inflection, and is not present, as an actor, as he is not acting here; not sure what he is doing, actually. I am surprised Polanski put up with him. No doubt there is more to that story. His performance is all the more obvious and sad, esp when playing against the very capable and professional Hugh Grant and Kristen Scott Thomas. I am sorry to say that Mrs. Polanski (Emmanuelle Seigner) does not come off well, either, at least in her very emotional scenes, although the lack of depth there does fit her young character. I have seen much better performances from her, to be fair. Great set dressing, makeup, and fashion (Scott Thomas' gown in the last act is brilliant; I want!), well suited for the period (late 70s). The music, composed and directed by Vangelis, is subtle but fitting, and the popular songs are well chosen for the period. This is a meaty psychological story about infatuation, love, sex, and obsession. And being careful what you pray for. Some quite nice dialogue and a return to the creative and gritty screen writing of earlier cinema (with very modern dialog, so watch before your kids). It is also a captivating film, spare, nothing wasted, wonderfully edited. It will grab you from start to finish (if you can stand Coyote), and the finish has a clever twist. Although the final scenes will be anticipated by some viewers. If you are a Polanski fan or just into film or film history, this is a must see and a fine example of film-making.

chazz46-2 Much has been well described ad nauseum about the plot, music, background, character flaws, etc. of Bitter Moon. Besides all of these truths, there is something else that exists, namely the powerful feminine impact that Mimi portrayed to the extent that it seemed far too real to be left encased in the fantasy realm of movie art. Her character part as well as her actual beauty, dancing talent, and sexuality is the exponent of femininity, grace, and desirability. Men remain tortured by their obsession with everything that Mimi portrayed in the film. Not unlike Jean Seberg in Lilith, whose character mesmerized, beguiled, and commandeered most of those who ran across her path, Mimi had that quality which likewise reaches out beyond the movie itself to ensnare the hearts of all men. Not everyone gets it, but it is plain to see from galleries of fan mail to Emmanuelle Seigner, this one movie part seems to have entrenched her immortality into many men's souls. This gut-wrenching obsession with the magical combination of a certain actress coupled to a script and director brings forth restless insomnia for appreciative men as Seigner has done here. If Jean Seberg did not bring such an obsession, then consider Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman. Or try Kim Novack in Bell Book and Candle. These are a few of the magical concoctions of film art where the whole is much greater than the sum of its parts. Oscar's character even tries to elevate the beauty and desirability of the less stunning Fiona's character when he says, "But I find your own brand of beauty more subtle.....as that inimitably British quality......a kind of reticence that hints of untapped potentiality." Even Shakespeare, much less Oscar, cannot compensate with words for those who appear limited in physical beauty and sensuousness, while Seigner's beauty portrays endless potential for being tapped, you might say. And Polanski's product leads to a powerful representation of man's instinct and obsession for beauty, sensuousness, and the ideal everyman's woman. We see that Oscar, when given this rare opportunity in the eyes of the average man, totally blows it and ruins a most ideal relationship. Unfortunately, knowing Polanski's historical tragedies, I would think that he is telling us that we are probably no better than Oscar when it comes to successfully nurturing the ideal relationship. ChazzN