Customer Reviews

Swimming Pool

5 star:		(39)
4 star:		(33)
3 star:		(16)
2 star:		(35)
1 star:		(30)

 

 

well, when you saw from the balcony that old gardener studied the suspicious newly digged ground, and in order to distract him, you showed your breasts to him and lie down naked in the 2nd floor bed, awaiting him to come up to do the consenting adult stuff? you'd be assured that he would never go back to the garden to investigate again? well, it's a plainly stupid logic by a supposed to be sophisticated MYSTERY writer. give me a break! well, if you finally decided to slap your old lover/agent/publisher, and sent the manuscript to other publisher and published it, and then walked out on him, you'd thought that you were still entitled to go back to his house in france? give me a break! at the very beginning, this is a such nicely shot movie, but then, well, i have to sigh a long long sigh, it gradually coming apart with ridiculous plot. this is typically what most of the so-called female mystery writers' poor logic that almost made 99% of their creations simple-mindedly naive and unreadable. if murders or man slaughters are so easy to write off just by showing your naked body, then most of the police detectives would not have to use labs and guns, just make sure their fly zippers won't get jammed during zip-downs. give me a break.

This film gets your attention from A to Z . Charlotte Rampling's
play is excellent and sustains perfectly an interesting scenario.
Ludivine Sagnier is not masterful but plays well her part.
Although this film has it's nude and erotic moments
you should buy another film if this is only what you are looking for.
The film is not a 'nail biter ' but, always intelligent and
sensitive, it will not let you down. The conclusion of the
film is not perfect, but certainly interesting.

This movie was good but what just happened? Why is Julie two different people? One in braces and the one we saw all through the movie. Are they one in the same? Why is she waving at both of them ?

it's true: you can watch this film x number of times and still not know what happened. i don't think the director or writer knows, either, because there really isn't one logically consistent explanation. but who cares. it's about a fiction writer and the creative process, so we shouldn't be surprised if the film blurs the line between fact and fiction. besides, sagnier is drop-dead gorgeous to watch. so no complaints here.

For all their posturing, liberals are often sexually crippled, unphysical, unhealthy intellectual type slobs who simply hate to call things by their right names. In a typically unsanguine way they kind-of sort-of wanna see a porno and take a liberalized date to see it in the hopes of getting sort-of lucky afterwards. But to actually just get a porno and watch it... no. That is too lowbrow precisely because it is too obviously interesting. What liberal intellectual types must do is go to the local art house theater whenever something vaguely foreign is playing. They'll cue up with some other professorial types for any movie that seems to have come out of any country but the USA and seems to feature some nymphette getting up to some naughtiness... but not too much naughtiness, mind you. Just a little T and A and this spaced out by plenty of stuff that is good and boring, just so you know you're watching Art. This is the basis of interest in any foreign film. Look at the marketing of ANY foreign film. Either it is billed as a comedy - even if its not - or its billed as a stag reel - even if its not. Take any foreign film, the boys in the front office know that nobody is gonna see it if there isn't some kind of sex angle, or failing that a humorous-type routine. You know, for people who still haven't stopped horse-laughing about Jaques Tati. You get what I'm saying? "Hey, Joe, here's a new one outta the Ukraine about famine and freezing to death post communism. Should we pass?" "Are you kidding, Fred? Just put some bim on the poster with a good set of jugs and bill it as a magical blend of sex and comedy. You know, a real sexy sex laugh." "But Joe, there aren't any nubiles in the flick." "Like that matters. How long you been innis business?"

Hmmm, I really don't think this movie qualifies so much as a thriller but rather as some type of psychological mystery piece. And I must admit I feel a bit deceived as I anticipated more overt sexuality in the movie. But, then again, there is Ludivine Sagnier, who is truly one of God's greater successes in terms of physiology. Even though the movie drifted, and I still am not sure what exactly occurred -- if you see the movie I'll bet you have similar feelings -- it is still worth the price of admission, or purchase price, just to have Sagnier in your library.

A pretentious film that's lovely to look at for the most part.

Charlotte Rampling, blocked British mystery writer, borrows the country home of her publisher in order to unblock herself. Rampling, upon arrival, does her smirky smile thing. She carefully assembles her laptop and goes to work. She eats something that resembles yogurt. She discovers the swimming pool, covered, and leaves it that way.

Eventually the publisher's daughter Julie turns up. She's French hottie Ludovine Sagnier. A young blonde with a narrow triangular face and classic nose (when shot in profile you'll maybe think she has features that really belong on the front of a coin), she lives a messy life and upsets the orderly Rampling more than somewhat. She uncovers the swimming pool and skinnydips about among the leaves that have collected. At this point the movie comes to life for a while. Probably you'll enjoy the scenes in which Ms. Sagnier romps around in various states of undress.

Eventually, there is (perhaps) a murder. Eventually Rampling loosens up and unlooses the inner writer in her. Or maybe the inner plagiarist.

By then, you probably won't care very much.

Notes and asides: There is no director commentary. There are 11 minutes of deleted scenes. Ms. Sagnier does not appear in them. Since there was no reason to have included them in the first place, this is a complete waste of time.

It is difficult to discuss the movie without giving out spoilers. This is an interesting story that moves deftly between fact and fancy. It is about a successful writer who is in a personal bad moment, tries to go to rest and get her inspiration for a new book. It has its flaws, for example the excessively direct metaphor of the writer's eager eating, hinting to repressed sexuality. The writer of course is the incomparable and beautiful slim Charlotte Rampling, a treat to any cinema fan. She looks ravishing. So does the director's favorite actress, Ludivine Seignier. I think that she gives a perfect performance as the brash and ultimately troubled person who sparks in Rampling's character a number of reactions, professional and otherwise. I don't give it five stars because at some place the story becomes a bit sloppy and unnecessarily gruesome. In the assets of the film I'd put the candid depiction of the girl making love with a boy -her on top- she picks up -within the writer's longing sight-. It is excellent that actors don't shirk from showing on the screen fundamental facts of life, and this must be assumed with naturalness. The score also is very exciting, of the "mysterious" king. The director -who is also the author of the script- achieves an excellent local atmosphere, perfectly convincing, and on the whole, a development from realism to eeriness quite pleasant and unsettling at places. I watched the film at the theater, where it is most effective, and liked it so much that I bought later the DVD. Very enjoyable.

An erotic mystery featuring...a frigid, rather withdrawn writer? Yes, and what a sensual feast of a movie it is! Chalotte Rampling is back (and in fine form) as Sarah Morton, an uptight writer with a rather severe and forbidding personality. She's off to her editor's vacation home on holiday, ostensibly to work on her next book.
Thats when hints of Alfred Hitchcock suspense and danger start to loam - and that is also when the movie begins to weave its inescapable spell, especially when a young woman arrives at the house.
Don't want to give this one away, but do suggest you think about the act of writing and inspiration while viewing this one. Do that and you might not encounter the confusion that sidetracked some viewers from the fun of this one. Loved it, plan to watch it several more times to catch what I missed first time around.

While I certainly like nudity and erotica, I found this tale to be only mildly interesting and kind of contrived and found none of the suspense or excitement discussed by others.
Nudity - B-
Plot - C+
Acting - D
Believability quotient was nil to me and I wanted, really, to like it. Nice scenery (excluding the anotomy)