So much average

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

From the first scene onwards where we see Juliette (Bardot) sunbathing naked it is clear that the only reason Vadim made this movie is to make his wife an international superstar. I'll have to admit that some scenes are really iconic. I already mentioned the sunbathing, but also the scene where Juliette walks out of the sea with her dress open from her belly and of course the dance scene at the end of the movie.Despite these memorable scenes (especially from male view) the cinematography is very average. We hardly see any interesting shots. The script is very poor with dialog and scenes not worked out very well. The most interesting aspect of the story is the band of brothers, or more specific the demolition of this band by the force of nature that is Juliette. She loves Michel but longs for Antoine who just sees her as a one-night-stand. Then there is youngest brother Christian who's character is somewhere between his older brothers but he's to young to really participate in the game. Where there's a real loyalty between the brothers at the start of the movie at the end they all stand against each other. Antoine will leave for good and Christian who adored his eldest brother is disillusioned by the behavior of Antoine. Michel is probably most damaged. His mother and brother despise him for hanging on to his marriage with Juliette and he faces a future with her that will only include more drama. Apart from the sunbathing the movie is not very interesting until Juliette has her affair with Antoine and the brothers fall apart. The scene where Juliette starts dancing in the café and Michel caught while living the life she wants to live is by far the best of the movie. Bardot is so sensual in this scene and the acting by Trintignant very intense. Nowadays the movie is quiet tame but I can imagine that it caused a stir in the mid fifties. So really enjoyable for the above mentioned scenes but no milestone in the history of cinema.

Oh boy, every now and then I grab a film that I've heard so much about hoping that I'm in for a real treat. Something I can really sink my teeth into. Well, this isn't that type of film. We all get suckered in now & then. This film would not be given the time if Bridget Bardot had not played the lead female. No one would give a damn. The film is boring and tedious and so hard to sit through. I had to fight to stay awake. The title is the most dramatic thing about the film. The film itself never raises it's pulse with exception of one scene. The rest is tepid and nothing ever really happens. Joe Bob Briggs includes this in his book Profoundly Disturbing and I can't figure out what had such an impact on him. I guess there are one or two scenes here that really grab you but they are very brief and not worth the effort in my opinion.No, I doubt anyone will want to sit through this twice.

This Vadim film is an extremely poorly crafted piece of work, interesting today only because of the social impact its star, Brigitte Bardot made. Her first major starring role, it presents her as a liberated, care-free woman and she presents a striking contrast to prior representations of women on the French screen.Her character's youthfulness, petulance, irrepressible energy and, on a negative note, selfishness, stand in contrast to previous women who were by and large either highly virtuous and prim and proper or gangsters' molls of dubious reputations.The appearance of this youthful character appears at the same time as ideas about teenagers and their importance as a consumer market were emerging in the English-speaking world, most notably the United States, particularly as the rock 'n' roll craze began. Indeed, Bardot's character perfectly captures the flightiness, impulsiveness and selfishness of so many female teenagers and the wild dance at the end makes the connection between music, consumerism and this new attitude.Other than that, though, this is a crudely-made film. The bright, sunlit scenes and bold colour may convey a hope and optimism but the cinematography is static, the pace slow and the narrative uninteresting. Bardot may capture youthfulness but that does not make her character any more likable, particularly with regard to her flighty behaviour and unfaithfulness toward her husband.Indeed, none of the characters are likable, meaning the audience quickly loses interest in their dull squabbles and selfish attitudes.Perhaps this film is best viewed as a period piece then. It may have captured the zeitgeist for youth in 1956 and caused a minor shock in the prudish United States but it does not stand the test of time. Bardot still looks modern and reflects the attitude of many teenage girls even today but the rest of the film is tired and stale.

AND GOD CREATED WOMAN made quite a stir when it was released in America in the 1950s. For its time, it was very sexy and shocking. Unfortunately, the film does not age well--and today is rather tedious and forgettable. My how times have changed.This film became famous for two reasons--and they're right above Bardot's bellybutton. She plays a bit of a bimbo and this movie is extremely sensual--for that it earns some points. But the script?! Yech!! The plot is rather silly and contrived at times, but completely gives way to silliness at the end. The end is so dumb and ridiculous that it strains my brain to think how they could have created such a stupid ending. My recommendation is to watch this more for curiosity sake than because it is a good film or because you are such a French film buff you MUST see it. FYI--the sequel (made with Rebecca DeMornay) is even stupider. While the plots have SOME similarities, they are quite different.