There is something in this movie that you rarely see on the screen: real people. These were not heroes who moved to the violin of a talented screenwriter, director. They were people who lived and felt.
He loved philosophy and doubted everything, even his ability to doubt. She loved him and knew for sure. It was as if he were nowhere: restless neither in Paris nor in Arras. She knew how to taste her work, the city, local entertainment and brunch in the morning. He was a professor of philosophy, and he did illogical things. She, the hairdresser in the salon, was true to herself, no matter how scary.
This movie is for those who know the eternal conflict of mind and heart. For those who are curious to know: what is it like to be a person who feels; or, conversely, a person who thinks too much.
But their relationship, their connection will be between. Somewhere in the middle.
This movie was definitely not what I expected to see. The trailer promised a slightly sad French melodrama about an unequal relationship (probably with a bad ending) - but the reality is very different.
To begin with, the film has a lot more funny moments than expected - if at first it seems that this is just a hype so funny, and then begins to sadness, then gradually it becomes clear that the film is basically rich in such episodes. Throughout it, I smiled at every cute moment (of which there are plenty) and laughed through facepalms whenever the main character did another unforgivable stupidity (and there are plenty of them to commit). Provincial themes (the main character is a Parisian, sent by the authorities to Arras, as if in exile), which generally seems to be an eternal theme for French cinema, suggestive of what a Russian remake of this film would look like with some Pskov as the setting. It would have been a great movie too.
As for the plot as a whole, it turned out to be extremely natural and not protracted, without unnecessary sucking on trifles and whipping up cheap drama. The story of a man and a woman whose unexpected encounter changed their lives (apparently forever). The idea, which adheres to the main character, remains a little unsolved - but it does not need to be disclosed, because it is not at all new and easily guessed from certain phrases and behavior of Clement: love does not exist, there is only the attraction and dance of the human flesh. At this point, you might think it's all going to be banal ' and then he fell in love so much that he realized how wrong he was, and then...' - but no. Although I went to the movie with the attitude ' the end is a bit predictable' what happened in the last minutes of the film (unexpectedly for the viewer - checked on everyone in the cinema hall) broke all the patterns that were already lining up in my head.
The acting in the film is good - but it is worth noting first of all three actors: the main actors, Loika Corbury (he had a very expressive face, even when the plot did not express anything) and Emily Dekenn (she just looked natural in the image of a provincial hairdresser who does not lose hope to meet the love of life), as well as Sandra Nkake - she turned out a very colorful friend of the main character.
Not the last role in the film is played by music. Heroes regularly visit the local karaoke bar, and what they sing there is directly related to the plot. Sing, by the way, quite decent and with enthusiasm - perhaps better than many fans of singing in karaoke. The scene with the dance of Clément and Jennifer, albeit short, seems to me one of the best in the film - and in general, the moments in karaoke turned out to be very vivid and memorable.
In general, if you don't know what to see, check out 'Not my type'. It is possible that it will be in your taste as it was in mine.
8 out of 10
Traditional French romantic dramas and melodramas love for fabulous stories of love relationships against the background of landscapes and panoramas of sensual and magical Paris. Belgian director Luca Belvaux succumbs to the charm of France with its main theme of love, but makes a deep philosophical drama out of a typical film "Not in My Type". And thus turns the fabulous traditions from the feet that run after the beloved in any hole, on a rational head that perceives reality correctly from the point of view of the psychology of relationships.
Philosopher “by mistake”, a connoisseur of Kant’s teachings, a fan of Dostoevsky and pathetic evening buffets Clément not without a fight goes to teach his subject in the provincial town of Arras hated by him for a year. There he meets a pretty Jennifer, a “hairdresser by calling”, a fan of love novels by choice, a karaoke star for leisure, an admirer of the namesake Aniston for humor and a “Kantian” for life. Without common interests, but with curiosity for each other, they arrange meetings over and over again and eventually give in to passion. Until the question arises about what will happen next: after the ecstasy of the novelty of the relationship has passed, all habits and hobbies will be learned, and Cléman’s business trip will come to an end?
After a good half of the film, it is difficult to overcome the desire to turn off such a simple typical film with flat images and do a more useful thing. After all, what could be more boring today than spitting the story of such different, but such matching characters who have only one way out of this film: the wedding arch, the white dress and love to the coffin. Meanwhile, in the first minute after the agonizing half, you realize that Clément’s former love, who broke up with him at the beginning of the film, does not suddenly appear and fan the fire of past feelings. And the husband of Jennifer does not oppose the happiness of his ex-wife, the mother of their common child: he did not even spend an actor, he is only a few words. The child is also not an idea-fix and not the whole world of the heroine. Jennifer doesn't give it to Cléman on the first date, saying I have a baby and either you take me with him or I don't take you. Something is wrong here, something went wrong. In the frame there is something more primitive-obvious from the audience, but so complex and correct in life.
What can be mistaken for the European science of love, alien to the native viewer, is in fact nothing less than the most ordinary psychology of relations. The nominee of Cannes and Cesar for his past philosophical arguments about the indifference of others (38 witnesses, 2012), hopelessness (The Argument of the Weakest, 2006) and selfishness (The Abduction, 2009) replenishes his filmography with reflections on the love of the soul, which should not exclude the pleasure of the carnal. And not vice versa, as the main character Clément tries to prove the whole film. Director Luke Belvo elevates feelings above sensations, but puts them below ordinary human self-esteem. Such as the heroine, which, unlike the “full idiots”, was not proud that her “cat philosopher” from Paris was also a writer, but clearly outlined personal boundaries that she is not going to change into someone else’s life with alien rules.
The plot arrangement in accents: low-emotionality against impressionability, Dostoevsky against comedies with Aniston, reading aloud against songs with colloquial vocabulary, is clearly traced in the game of the main actors. Loic Corbury from the acclaimed “Only Lovers Will Survive” is annoyed by the stingyness of some manifestations of feelings even in a fit of passion, but this is demanded of him by his hero-snob. Silver medalist of Cannes in 1999 for the best female role in the film "Rosetta" Emily Dekenn, on the contrary, is sensual and impetuous as possible. However, even her female whims or tantrums do not go beyond the directing line of self-esteem and adulthood. “Yes, it hurts, yes, it hurts,” you read in her eyes, “but I’ll move on.” And not for the sake of his son - this is not and is not imposed here - but for the sake of a happy free life with his son.
Cruel for the viewer, the final frame does not give a single chance to draw a small ponytail to this fat point in the philosophy of two different hearts and make even a hint of a comma. But it is the monotony of a single doorbell that increases the significance of the picture and irrevocably removes that negative particle of “not” from the original opinion about the film. Not for the lucky men and lovers, but for everyone who wants to learn the philosophy of eternal happiness in relationships and watched the tape to the end, this film, albeit for once, will definitely leave the impression: “In my taste!”
8 out of 10
Hehei, lovers of melodramas, you have never seen such a film.
The French film “Not in my taste” breaks all Hollywood templates.
This film is not a tale of love. This is a story about the harsh reality of the relationship between a man and a woman.
And to give the story more heat and tragedy, the main characters here are: a professor of philosophy from Paris and an extrovert hairdresser from the province. Very different, but somewhat similar people. And I want to warn you in advance, you will not remain indifferent to them. Heroes Clement and Jennifer played by stunning French actors. Most likely, you will see them for the first time, but you will be pleasantly surprised by their live play, thanks to which you believe in what is happening.
The plot of the film develops slowly. Heroes experience the most ordinary life situations. But these ordinary situations become unusual thanks to the director, who shows that a person can survive real suffering only because the person close to him did not mention any fact about himself. Also, a particularly attentive viewer will find in many scenes a hidden, philosophical meaning. It's there, believe me.
It just so happens that all critics are supposed to evaluate. And since I am a critic today, my personal opinion is mine. I can’t give this movie a high rating because it didn’t really hook me. It's purely emotional. Maybe the ability to catch the viewer is a privilege of Hollywood monotonous films, but it is better than not. That's why the film gets a rating from me.
6 out of 10
Well, in the end, I want to say that the film “Not in my taste” should definitely be seen by a lover of melodramas to replenish his collection with a very unusual film. Also, this film is recommended for those who are tired of Hollywood templates, lovers of philosophy, and avant-garde cinema, of course.
This is a film for those who are tired of typical Hollywood endings. Don’t get me wrong, a well-formed cliché can also be enjoyable and interesting, but this film takes a new story and presents it in terms of the psychology of the relationship between two people with a completely different worldview. You ask: ' What's new here?' It's not about the plot, it's about the depth of its presentation. The characters are revealed completely, and yet you are not completely sure how they will develop further and the ending of the film is confirmation of that.
Is it worth watching? Well, if you love psychology, and you are not alien to the interest in human nature, then yes.
9 out of 10
Why are you so sad?
Because you talk to me with words, and I perceive you with feelings. x/f "Mad Pierot"
Before us is a pathological couple: absolute man and absolute woman. Living embodiments of Otto Weininger’s idealistic abstractions. He is a philosophy teacher from Paris; insensitive, straightforward and rational. In his life, the inexorable logic of the bourgeois reigns supreme, and in his relations he is as distant and indifferent as possible. His world is all about books and trips to the opera with his parents. In a word: snob. She is a hairdresser-scout from a provincial town; naive, cheerful and romantic. In her life between work and her young son, the only outlet is singing with her friends at a local club. Typical philistine. They have absolutely nothing in common. What made them come together? Well, with her, think an inexperienced viewer, everything is clear: the desire to see the prince in the first meeting and turn a blind eye to his shortcomings is a common behavior for failed princesses. What about him? While you vainly guess about the man’s plan (trying to understand what he wants), the woman in the finale will commit an unpredictable act, and unexpectedly for you will assert herself as an incomprehensible absolute.
This is not a “love movie”, but a modeled theory of the impossibility of harmonious relations between the sexes at the level of psychology. Each of the two sexes acts as an internal obstacle, because of which the other sex cannot be completely himself, because he is forced to constantly give up a part of himself to maintain the union. In the rejection of antagonism manifests an excess of gender identity and fear of its loss. But to be a man and a woman in a social space, we have to accept that loss.
A snob-Parisian comes to a provincial French town, where by chance he meets a distinctive hairdresser Jennifer. In order to diversify the dull evenings, he invites her on a date and soon they start an affair.
Completely opposite people: she is a cheerful provincial hairdresser with down-to-earth values and hobbies, having a child with an ex-husband who showed his love for her through eternal jealousy and scandals. He is a brooding, melancholy Parisian from an intelligent family of snobs, a philosopher and writer, concurrently hovering in his own sublime world. There's a passion between them. He looks into her world, she studies it.
They both realize that their worlds are too opposite and far apart. Jennifer feels that Clement does not feel love for her, she lacks manifestations of his love. He loves her in his own way. Although, does he love at all, if he is not sure of the concept 'Love'?
The storyline of their relationship runs through the film quite clearly. Jennifer's experiences perfectly convey how she feels. Regarding Clement, the hero turned out too dry, although in the film he is a writer and philosopher - allegedly creative nature. Even if he has some experiences and reflections, but they remain all inside the character and it is quite difficult to understand what he is. Because of this, the ending for the viewer is incomprehensible, and the film is unfinished.
6 out of 10
A hardened Parisian, at the calling of his philosopher, moves to a provincial town to teach at a local school. Here, by the will of fate, he meets Jennifer - a hairdresser, a mother and just a woman-holiday. So begins the novel, once again trying to prove that opposites attract.
The French romcom by Luca Belvaux is not as hollow as a French bun, but it can not be called a full picture. Before us again the sore topic of love relationships: he and she liked each other, they seem to be having fun and they begin to date. She cuts hair, sings pop at a local diner and loves Jennifer Aniston. He teaches philosophy, talks pathetically about Kant and loves Dostoevsky. Everything is very grotesque, and, of course, this grotesque is not accidental - this is their polarity that builds charm - a prerequisite for falling in love. But can there be love between a lover of gold sequins for the body and an author of philosophical works? This is as likely as the love between a fly and a hummingbird, that is, incredible at all.
For Clement, Jennifer is a wonderful mystery: she is different, beyond his control, and it fascinates him. For Jennifer Clement, the object of admiration, which is also different, not at all like her, and she understands it. Her fascination with Clément is not due to the mystery of his persona, but precisely that of his personality. And this circumstance explains the final picture.
For all the grace and Bonton scenes, there are significant script flaws. The love line is the central and only complete in the narrative of the film, the rest of the feelings and thoughts of the songs were left without the author. As, for example, the final act of the heroine - it can only be explained from the point of view of her relationship with Clément, otherwise it is completely unclear why she did this without telling anyone. This approach deprives the picture of integrity, which, for example, is absolutely inherent in another French picture ' My King' where each frame has its purpose, and any question of the viewer receives an answer.
Selected for the lead role Emily Dequienne, winner of the Silver Award for Best Actress in 'Rosetta' at the Cannes Film Festival in 1999, her heroine did not even say that she played - survived. In Dequienne’s eyes, tears of regret are interspersed with an unquenchable spark of faith and can say much more than all her lines and actions combined. And we can only guess what would remain in the film valuable, if not for the skill of Dequienne.
Perhaps some of you, sitting in front of the screen, will see the truth more than others, somewhere will laugh louder, and somewhere and even let a bitter tear look at something painfully familiar and lost. However, the sentiments are sentimental, and the next story of a dolphin and a mermaid gets its
6 out of 10
People in the same circle form stronger alliances. Usually. But those created in the image and likeness have free will. And the sacred right does not care about social trends. Did you know what a “creative person” is? Luke Belvo's exhilarating melodrama will remind you.
In the film, a metropolitan philosopher from a family that goes to Poulenc concerts, muddles with a hairdresser from the province. She sings pop and loves J. Anniston. Both realize that their intimacy looks weird. No, no miracle happened and no one changed their mentality. But they are no longer strangers. The film gives you a sense of that invisible barrier of expectations, tastes and preferences, which no “chemistry” helps to force. And it seems the young ones are the hardest. They still appreciate words! Especially the number.
A touching story shot with great sympathy for those who boldly and trustingly say “Yes” to life and “No” to complacency. The film has all the attributes of good taste, refined eroticism and live dialogue. Looks like the whole story was focused on Emily Dequienne. To imagine anyone else in the main female role is difficult, and very do not want.
The soulful theme of “dolphin and mermaid” is loved by the mass cult and often flashes in soap dramas. In the “happy end” variant, she is often transformed into “cinderella” (for example, the same “Pretty women”). Here, the incompatibility of cultural installations appears too clearly and becomes fatal. Characteristically, according to the scenario, the responsibility for the dissonance of cognition is shifted towards the seemingly more cunning “philosopher”. That's just his claims look mostly unconvincing (and to give a nice girl a volume of Kant is completely from the field of BDSM) and can be justified only by major snobbery and the same age. The ending of the film also clearly hints that the "philosopher" is not so hopeless.
It should be admitted that this is quite an artistic research on the always hot topic of psychological compatibility.
