Young and beautiful Delon and Schneider are Marianne and Jean-Paul, a wealthy couple spending a torrid summer in a borrowed villa.They are lovers and cannot keep their hands off each other. However, apart from the sex, they do not seem to have much to do or say to each other. Their common friend Harry happens to be in the neigborhoud and they invite him over, with his pubescent daughter Penelope (played by Birkin, who was well over twenty at the time, but definitely looking younger). The arrival of the second couple adds considerable sexual tension. Harry and Marianne were lovers and Jean-Paul is jealous. Marianne acts ambiguously, flirting with Hurry. Jean-Paul toys with Penelope, creating a stifling, sexually-charged atmosphere. In the lazy summer days, nothing much happens, apart from the couples enjoying the pool of the title and inviting friends for a party. However, the tension reaches melting point. Besides having a sadistic streak Jean-Paul turns out as a cold-blooded murderer, drowning Harry for reasons difficult to understand. The murder passes off as an accident, but Marianne is suspicious, She finds out the truth and considers leaving Jean-Paul, but the final frame shows them together. We can assume that sexual attraction is stronger than any moral instinct and that they will continue their frolic - at least until the passion lasts. Very voyeuristic movie, with a Schneider at the top of her game, seductive yet fragile and very beautiful. Delon, wooden as usual still manages decent interpretation. Barkin is terrible, could not act. The 2015 remake "A bigger splash" is vastly inferior, from the choice of cast to the plot development. Swinton is a far cry from luminous Schneider, having only a fraction of her allure. Johnson is a bad as Birkin and less believable as a teenager. Only Fiennes makes a more engaging Harry, fleshing out a part than in this movie is more ambiguous.

I may be in the minority here, but after having tried to endure the full 2 hours and 20 minutes of this as an adult, I fully understood why I never liked it much as a child. It is not focussed on children but mostly on the grown-ups around them. Mary Poppins appears out of nowhere and leaves just as fast, dumping the children who got attached to her. Some of the songs seem completely unrelated to the story (the woman feeding the birds, etc...) and are quite sad, Mrs. Banks has almost no part of the story, Mr. Banks has way too much, but he seems a deranged character. There are too many song and dance numbers, some very loud, most overlong. Some scenes are irrelevant to the plot development (if there is any) and there is a lot of banking and old men, none in the least entertaining. The only part I liked was the one with the animation, which I just discovered, was the one the author (PL Travers) hated most. Actually, she hated the whole movie, but for reasons different from mine. Some may object that this movie got Oscars, to which I can just add that Oscars do seem to be distributed randomly, or for politically correct reasons, now and in the past.

Luke (Gosling) and Romina (Mendez) had a fling that produced a baby. However, for over a year Romina omitted to inform Luke about this. One evening Romina pops up for a surprise visit to the carnival where Luke works as a stunt rider. The reasons for Romina's visit are baffling. She does not seem madly in love with one night stand Luke, she has a new boyfriend named Kofi and they live in his house. She does not even inform Luke about the baby, but just asks for a ride home. Smelling a rat, Luke goes back to her home the next day to find grandmother holding the baby. Luke is the standard Gosling's character: inarticulate, dumb, asocial. He has no money, but insists to support the baby, even if nobody asked for it. So Luke starts robbing banks to be able to throw cash at Romina and their baby. One day Luke invades Kofi's house, allegedly to assemble a crib for the baby and during the proceedings he manages to anger Romina, scare the baby and smash Kofi's face. Bailed from jail, where he rightly ended, and advised to keep a low profile, Luke decides the time is ripe for another bank robbery. End of part one and enough to put me off. We are supposed to sympathize with the selfish and idiotic character of Luke, just because he is a father. It seemed more like he wanted to impose his presence where nobody wanted or needed him. Except that Romina dragged Luke in again, after the two of them ignored each other for a year, so maybe she wanted him, but not really.... whatever. Part two is shorter and about Avery, the cop (also a father) who stops Luke and part three takes place 15 years later, when Luke and Avery's sons meet and collide. Neither Avery's or Luke's sons are particularly sympathetic, but they should be excused for being brats because they have daddy issues. Anyway, by the time the appear on the scene I had enough of the whole story. The moral of the movie could be that fathers should be excused for robbing banks because they must provide for their children or that robbing banks is OK because the police is corrupted or that kids have the right to be obnoxious drug addicts because their fathers neglected them.

Conor is 15, his parents have a rocky relationship and money problems, his older brother Brendan is a college drop-out, his sister has no reason to be in the movie. Conor is sent to a Catholic school to save money and there he sees and falls in love with Raphina, an older girl. Raphina is supposed to be 16, but the actress playing her is 22, while the actor playing Conor is actually 15 and 7 years is a wide age gap. Skipping over the age problem, to win over Raphina, Conor starts a school band with a motley crew just to ask her to appear in his band's videos. This is Dublin in 1985, Duran Duran are at the height of their power and the video for the their song Rio is Conor first - but not last - inspiration. It is hilarious to see Conor during his creative process and how his clothes and music are influenced by several bands (The Smiths, Spandau Ballet, etc...) It is easy to relate to that period in life when we are not sure about ourselves and try out different images. Connor writes some good songs in different styles and experiences the pains of growing up when his parents separate, but at least he can count on Brendan to give advice about music and women. The core of the plot is the love story, narrated via the original songs and developed in a sweet way. Peppered with humor, excellent costumes and engaging characters, the movie will make most of those who grew up in the 80s feel nostalgic. Just a couple of minor problems for me: even if U2 were an Irish band exploding in mid 80s, they are not even acknowledged (maybe for copyright reasons?). Finally, unless one is an hopeless romantic or still a teenager, it is difficult not to imagine much disappointment in Conor and Raphina's future.

This movie is a fictional reconstruction of a short period in the life of Baker, during the 60s. Starting with Chet in an Italian jail in 1966, the story quickly moves to New York, where Chet is invited to play himself in a documentary about his life. Then follows one of the most amazing scenes I ever saw. Opening as a black & white flashback, we see a young Chet in 1954, playing very cool in Birdland, with Miles Davis and Dizzie Gillespie in the audience. In the backstage we see what should be Baker's initiation to heroin, but we discover that the scene is actually part of the documentary. Brilliant film-making is made by such scenes conveying all the magic of cinema. The story continues with Chet trying to rebuild his "career" with a help of a female artist, unfortunate enough to be attracted by his relatively good looks and melancholic charm. The pair moves from New York to California, where Chet swear to be clean and ready to play some serious jazz. Unfortunately, Chet was the master of all junkies, unreliable, selfish and self-destructive. His girlfriend wisely dumps him and off he goes to enjoy the company of heroin until the day he died. I am not a jazz fan and never heard any of the music Baker played, so I cannot comment about the remarks about the music not being good enough or even detrimental to the movie. For me it was a very well written and executed film, with a solid plot and good performances. PS: as far as "blackening the reputation" of Baker... I never understood why junkie musicians should be idolized. The history of contemporary music is paved with unpleasant, self-destructive characters who had exceptional musical skills. Egotism does not make them any less talented, but certainly does not add to their charm. If you want to see what years of heroin addiction do to the body, just check the photos of Chet from his early 20s until the end of his life. The crevasses on his face mirrors the destruction of his internal organs....