Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

Amazing worth wacthing. So good. Biased but well made with many good points.

One of the best movies of the year! Incredible from the beginning to the end.

Great movie. Not sure what people expected but I found it highly entertaining.

After watching this movie I got the feeling that the strongest point of it is the participation of Eva Green, in her first movie by coincidence. The whole story is about three young students who are in Paris: two are French and are brothers, the third is an American and is doing an exchange to learn the country's language. Chemistry between them is intensified by their interest by cinema. From then on, the film beggins a series of debates (a little insipid to normal public but curious to the experts and movie-goers) about cinema, with cameos and tributes to several films and actors. Here, sometimes, its necessary to know cinema and to have some cinematic culture in order to follow everything. Then, as the events of May '68 take place, the three are getting more and more intimately involved. Sex is a structural part of the story from the beginning, its introduced very well by the sensuality and eroticism of Eva Green and isn't ugly or sinful, as in many films usually ends up becoming. However, full nudity scenes are many, can hurt sensibilities of more modest audiences and advise discretion before watch the movie.This film is about revolutions, hopes, yearnings, dreams, sex and cinema. Everything is mixed, everything is a vehicle for dreaming, for the estrangement of reality. But if it weren't for the absolutely fantastic performance of Eva Green, seductive, strong and mysterious, the film would not have half the interest or quality it has.

Oh, boy, I wish I was a student at that time ( or any time) in Paris and I find someone with such a great apartment and that they happen to be beautiful! Only I would change the film thing with paintings or sculptures as The Venus of Milo was shown by Isabelle. And, that scene - when she enters/stands at the door was great! Very memorable.In fact, this film is full of very memorable scenes. And when I say that, I do not even think about incest scenes. One of them is when they find a photo under his penis! Oh my god ... that was ...something! I read FAQ here where they say that the role of Mathew was intended for Leonardo Di Caprio. I don't think that I would be ready to see Leo's penis up close and personal like this ! Hahaha.Must say that 'the French touch' to this film was great. All three main roles were really convincing. Props for them being naked on several occasions and that was so natural ...I am not really familiar with the background story or riots and protests. I am sure they have a meaning, but to me it was completely unnecessary for the film.Seven from me.

I had watched The Dreamers a very long time ago, but it was just nude clips on DailyMotion; I never realized that a movie with NC-17 could have any aesthetic potential, so I thought, "Why bother going through the whole piece?" Now that I was ahead of the "hetro erectus" phase, I watched The Dreamers again, this time whole of it, and I swear, I didn't have any interest in watching those scenes while I was just in the initial stages. This implies that the movie was made for a whole lot of reasons, but nudity was not one of them. Audacity and explicitness might be. The Dreamers dreams high. It talks about world at a small-scale and minuscule level, it talks about the every-day interaction patterns, and what these patterns symbolize. It talks about the cognitive confusions, dilemmas, predicaments, and everything baffling about this world. It talks about how not every individual agrees with the norm, in fact, doesn't even agree to them being norm. Such individuals consider their lives resembling superficiality, and consider themselves agents of it. They associate every move and variation of their life with the one elsewhere. The Dreamers bring such people to reality. I'm an authority because I'm too, on so many levels, exhibiting the same views of myself. The script isn't something that only true movie and media lovers will understand and like. For others, it's just three beautiful people in France talking and doing crap for ninety-something minutes. The Dreamers talks about incest, because for the people it talks about, it is one of the sexual relationships that have gone awry from the main course of socialization; it's not considered a norm, while it should be. Incest is just like any other physical bond. You see, the movie uses sexuality, and nudity as agents of vision, not pleasure, which fags of modern-day drama do. The Dreamers uses ordinary people in ordinary circumstances with extraordinary personalities. These personalities are not the tycoon, magnate ones; they're only commonly uncommon, if that makes any sense. The Dreamers elucidates what's the figment of my imagination (reality while I'm fully submerged into that phase) when I'm listening to Marriage of Figaro or Mozart in general. I'm stuck by the same gust of dreaming and Lego-making when I listen to him, or watch a sentimental movie (not just romance, I mean even Interstellar hit me pretty badly.) The Dreamers provides several links, connections, references, causations and correlations to movies, behave in certain ways reminiscent to those performed in the movies (that's when I started loving Eva Green. Still do.) Eva Green was out of all three, much better in reflecting the theme of the movie. The others just played their part I'd say. Verdict: Don't watch it if you're even a mild-philistine. You'll know if you're because all philistines don't know what philistine means. I know that was patronizing; I'm like that sometimes.

One of the sexiest films that pays tribute to films and film buffs.Aficionados is a rather nice term of a buff as I learnt through movie many years ago. Firstly, thanks to my friend Raghuveer who let me know of this film and since that happened nearly 5 years ago, I watched it multiple times. When I revisited this film yesterday, I loved the whole of it again. A film buff (Mathew) in Paris meets friends, a brother (Theo) and a sister (Isabelle) and they talk films, make out and face reality.It's a movie that makes a comment on how different is life from movies, we just can't be dreaming for a better world, dreaming about movies, living movies. Reality is a choice while in movies, the actors have choice. The last scene is all about that is what I believe.Set in 1968 and mostly shot indoors, the art direction is good nevertheless and the cinematography sets the mood perfectly. Camera takes it's time for making us settle to the characters which are idiosyncratic and Matthew seems to be trying in touch with reality while Isabelle (Eva Green) claims herself to be purist and thus, does not even watch TV. Theo is another film buff and he is an introvert as it seems, he rarely gets out and is stuck with his sister most of the time. The music plays it's part in bringing the sound of 1968 alive, and though this si set in Paris, we hear to English songs more than the French. Now, on the whole this movie seems to be actually more about the sexual tension between the three characters than about their passion for films, as I figured out. It can also be termed as incestuous as brother and sister have fun too. There are lot many scenes, not one that point out their tension and what they desire from each other, yes there are scenes about their favourite movies, like who is good, Keaton or Chaplin and glimpses of few very old good movies, even French movies and about Truffaut too, but all are just leads to what happens between the three. Surprisingly, when their parents find out that the three have 'made out' they stick to silence and that surprised me each time I saw this and has now made me realise that it's the best thing they can do.All in all, it's a great film by Bernardo Bertolucci and a 4/5 would be apt for the sexiest tribute to films, just wish it was more about films than sex.