A Very Private Affair
A gorgeous teen, Jill, resides in Switzerland with her mother and harbors feelings for the handsome Fabio, an older man who is married to one of her friends. Growing restless, Jill moves to Paris to pursue ballet, but instead finds success and fame as a model and actress. When Jill, now a celebrity, seeks to retreat from the limelight and returns home to Switzerland, she begins a romance with the newly divorced Fabio, leading to an unwelcome media circus.
- Stars:Brigitte Bardot, Marcello Mastroianni, Nicolas Bataille, Dirk Sanders, Jacqueline Doyen, Paul Sorèze, Eléonore Hirt, Gloria France, Ursula Kubler, Isarco Ravaioli, Gregor von Rezzori, Antoine Roblot, Simonetta Simeoni,
- Director:Louis Malle,
- Writer:Jean-Paul Rappeneau (screenplay), Louis Malle (screenplay), Jean Ferry (screenplay)
When Jill becomes a movie star, she soon discovers that her private life is destroyed by persistent fans that won't leave her alone. Her mother's ex-lover, Fabio, tries to protect her. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
A Very Private Affair torrent reviews
(it) wrote: The movie tells the story of this girl, with a very overactive imagination, who believes that when her baby brother is born. This movie did absolutely nothing for me, because it's the worst thing a movie can be. No, not bad...although you could make the argument. No, this movie is completely and utterly a chore to watch. I had to watch the movie in two separate days and, to be honest, if I hadn't finished watching it at all, it would not have bothered me because I don't think I would've missed much. And I KNOW I didn't miss anything because I did finish it. Another issue is the pacing of the film. If I hadn't watched this film in two separate nights, I think I would've given this film a much lower rating. Getting through the first hour requires massive levels of concentration. The pacing makes the first hour seem more like three. The second hour of the film is easier to get through, but I imagine that it was mostly because I, again, watched the film in two different nights. If there was a major problem with the film was the story. I simply don't think there was enough interesting material to justify the film being as long as it is. I would say that as far as story progression, the film is fine. The problem is the execution itself leaves a lot to be desired. The most interesting stuff in the movie is the stuff that's implicit, like the terrorist attacks by a communist group. They don't make a big deal out of it, as it's supposed to be metaphorical, but this might've been the best part of the film itself, how they incorporate these attacks into the stories without it feeling forced. There's also these dream sequences with people from Peru's history that could be considered heroes and how Cayetana wishes to be a hero like them and how they way their lives turned out end up affecting her and how she reacts to her new baby brother. The problem is that Cayetana is really, as a character, completely unlikable and, realistically, kind of a bitch. Not to mention the girl that played her, her performances leaves a lot to be desired. Her delivery is awful. She simply doesn't have the skills to play, what should've been, a complex character. Never at any point do you see this girl as anything but a bitch. And that's unfortunate, because I think the character could've been good with a better actress. I did like that this girl had a cold and detached demeanor about her, but that's about it. Her delivery is terrible and she completely drags this movie down. The story is aimless and rarely goes anywhere, so you add that on top of the terrible acting from the main actress and the awful pacing, I'm probably being very considerate in giving it 2 stars. I will admit that the film get better as it reached its climax, but by that point it's really too late. The movie has its funny lines and everything, but you could miss about 80% of this film and you'd still get the gist of the story from the other 20%. So that makes it hard to justify, in my mind, the length of the film. I really don't recommend watching this movie in one sitting because you will die of boredom, at least I almost did. Good idea, terrible execution.
(kr) wrote: Biografias sao interessantes.
(au) wrote: A film which does not explore deeply enough the characters nor the background of the story to make the picture truly involving.
(ru) wrote: Ron Howard directed, with outstanding support from his cast including Michael Sheen. I saw this yesterday and found that it works thrillingly as drama (and also as a lesson in political history). I'd never heard of Frank Langella but felt he brought a moving performance to the screen and emobodied Richard Nixon well. Recommended!
(br) wrote: Another surprising great one from Sly! He realizes he's getting old and it's harder to compete with younger/stronger competitors. But old men can still be bad asses who don't give up on life.
(br) wrote: if his last name wasn't entertainer i don't think people would know they should laugh
(it) wrote: I'm not sure why dying disfigured fish were chosen to narrate, but I like it. Nice cinematography to boot.
(ru) wrote: A fun premise for baseball fans, but somewhere in this 2 and a half hour mess there's a movie. Although it's kind of fitting that Kevin Costner made us love baseball movies in the 80s and then killed that love in the late 90s.
(br) wrote: This film, despite its subject, happily escapes cliche. While it does involve a Westerner in an Eastern nation 'finding himself' as a result of his connection to a down-home Turkish family and traditional Turkish bath, the film treats this not as something that all Westerners can do, but rather something that happens to this particular man. Ozpetek lovingly photographs his native Turkey and the city of Istanbul, tracing its old world beauty while dismissing modernized aspects. While I feel that Istanbul must be a bit more modern and a little less nostalgic than this, the film chooses to present one side of it in order to tell the story. Most problematic for me was the central character Francesco, who goes from being stalwart granite to...well, stalwart granite. While we're told that he's changed, he's seemed merely to adopt one type of self-centred ideology for another--a egotist in Italy is still an egotist in Turkey, even if he has 'gone native'. Somehow I have a feeling that the real story here is Marta, whose shift in perspective is more drastic and more believable.
(it) wrote: Great story of how crazy high school football can really be. This is the movie that Varsity Blues and every other teen coming of age football movie wants to be. RIP Chris Penn!
(ca) wrote: Old Yeller is a story about a family in the 1800s whose father leaves to go on a cattle drive. The oldest boy Travis is left to take care of his mother and younger brother. They find a dog and decide to keep him to help with things around the house and farm. While there's an outbreak of rabies in the area Old Yeller protects the family from a rabid wolf and contracts rabies and needs to be put down. The plot of the book and movie were set in the 1800s after the civil war. The movie had to get everything correct from that time period, the way people talked and were treated which wasn't an easy take since the movie was released in 1957. Which wasn't a problem with turning the book into a film while just looking a bit more modern than if it were 1957. A noticeable difference i noticed was Old Yeller was different from what they described in the book. It's not a noticeable unless you read the book and remember the description of Old Yeller that was given. He was a big dog with slick hair, a snub tail or short tail, and a chewed ear. While in the movie Old yeller has a long tail and his ear doesn't look chewed. Old Yeller also looks clean for being a dog that just wanders around killing all kinds of animals in the wilderness. A scene that was left out of the movie was a bull fight that happened outside of the house. The fight was focused on for a chapter in the book and i believe it should had been added in the movie. The family hears the bulls in the distance making noises while Travis says what he thinks they could be saying to each other. As bulls make their way to each other the family finds a place outside of the house to sit and relax while watching the bulls fight it out. Things go wrong as the bulls head towards the house and the family creating a very dramatic feeling of what's going to happen. Also bringing in comedy at the end of the pull fight with one of the bulls falling into a cart and rolling down the hill, having no idea what is going on. It would had been a good addition to the movie, making people who haven't read the book on the edge of their seats to see what the result is while also getting a good laugh at the bull. The movie and book come to a similar ending, with a noticeable difference Old Yeller is put down immediately after the fight with the wolf contracting rabies. The family knew he would have rabies and decided to not wait and risk him hurting anyone. While in the movie they waited until he showed effects of rabies then put him down. The ending is the most talked about part of the book and movie. It's talked about so much because no one wanted Old Yeller to die, while being hinted at in the beginning of the book with the setup of having to shoot him. Along with not wanting or even expecting to see such an important character in the book/movie die. Since many of the main characters seem to survive anything they face. Old Yeller makes have to think about life and how it can end at any point, so you should enjoy it every day that you can. Don't take things for granted no matter how small they are. You'll miss whatever that thing is when it is no longer with you even if you didn't like it so much in the beginning. I believe that the film was a very similar to the book, only missing a few details here and there. If you watch the movie with children who don't know about death then you'll should have that conversation or not watch the movie with them. Other than the death of Old Yeller the movie is an enjoyable experience just like reading the book even though a few things are missing. The ending of the book and movie are both tear jerking events, the movie more than the book because you are able to see the emotion in the family instead of just reading and imagining how everyone is feeling. They did a great job turning Old Yeller into a film and getting good actors to play the parts.
(au) wrote: Richard Burton is in fine form as the lecherous, self-absorbed Henry VIII and Genevieve Bujold is a compelling (and beautiful) Anne Boleyn. The production is a little stiff, and has a very studio feel, but wonderful performances all around, including the great Anthony Quayle as Wosley. As a fan of Robert Bolt's 'A Man For All Seasons' I found it interesting to watch the story of Thomas More treated as a mere sub-plot here, though as with all historical dramas, great liberties are taken with recorded facts.
(fr) wrote: Meh. Weird for weirds' sake!
(it) wrote: Deliver doesn't preach, nor does it deliberately attempt to manipulate your emotions. It is the result of outrage and perverse actions and does nothing more than present you with the cold, vicious reality we must confront.
(mx) wrote: Well acted and choreographed action picture. Weak story and campy feel bring the film down.
(ag) wrote: What a horribly depressing movie. I love all the actors in this movie, but now I just feel like drinking myself into a stupor.