Armand and nothing more. because the expectations are far to be high.result of Bardot - Vadim collaboration , it has the basic gift to remember the flavor of a period. so, it is nice, sensual, naive, like the adventures of a teenager. axis of a film about woman and men relationship, Brigitte Bardot is innocent, smart, sinful, lovely, sexual icon and author of a pretty nice performance. but not more. because, like a summer morning, the film is only a nice event , not profound, not remarkable, but useful support for remember/discover an age of French cinema. a film about youth and freedom, joy and temptation, sexual freedom and comedy in right dose.

amb0613 I would have done the same, as a woman, and I did. And now I see I have to add lines to total 10. Well, Curt Jurgens comes to mind. He is magnificent. I don't remember even Brigitte in that film, Curt was such a marvelous actor. Have I completed my 10 lines, IMDb? NO? Brigitee B. became an animal activist after her au Francaise looks faded. I will give her that - at least she found animals were worth saving. Still no 10 lines, IMDb? Brigitte was quite lovely but I'm not sure she ever had the capacity to act. Just to photograph well. Still not enough, IMDb? Now I ramble. But that movie with Brigitte was classic and some of the men in it were sensational. As for Brigitte? Well she did the best she could with what she had to work with. BOYD

wvisser-leusden 'Et Dieu ... crea la femme' (= French for 'And God created woman') is the film that catapulted Brigitte Bardot to world fame.Originally issued in France, 'Dieu' didn't do much. Thereafter it was sold to the USA, where - to everyone's surprise - it hit like an atomic bomb. Attracting packed houses all over the place, getting businessmen to marvel at BB's most seductive performance ever.Now, more than fifty years later, 'Et Dieu ... crea la femme' may be qualified as a mediocre but entertaining French fifties-film. With nice coloring and a consistent story.Its immortality, however, is guaranteed by Brigitte Bardot as the orphan-girl Juliette. Her message is simple: Paradise is just around the corner. Transferred to you in a truly devastating way, never equaled before or since.

RResende "the problem with the future is that it always ruins the present", says Bardot at the beginning. my intuition relates this sentence with some of the role this picture would perform in cinema context in years to come.This is a really important film. From a sociological and cinematic point of view. Nevertheless, it is NOT a good film. It hasn't got a strong plot, a strong idea nor strong performers. But it has BB and a boiling revolution in cinema that was to come in just 4 years and that shows its claws here.Social phenomenaBrigitte Bardot popped out here. The first scene grants her a place in collective imagination of the western society. The rest of the film defines a new personality for sex symbol. The one which is not so much different than the ordinary person, only more beautiful. This is her film, and she's the only one you will remember after a very short time after watching it (her, not the character).Cinematic issues(1) I can't tell exactly how far Vadim was self-aware about what he was doing here, or if he predicted that he was, probably, beginning something which would bring consequences to our days. Anyway, what he wanted to tell with this picture, was his own story, in which Bardot was, at this moment, the main character. Carradine (Jürgens) was, i suspect, Vadim himself. Bardot is liberal, does whatever she wants, out of innocence and joy. Carradine is experienced, sees everything, or at least knows about it, allows everything, but always controlling in the distance, always caring for what happens and always planning over it.(2) The composition is not old fashioned anymore, even though the plot line and themes depicted could report to some classical light comedy, used to exhaustion until then. The camera movements are bold, though useless most of the times, Vadim is trying to change, even though he wasn't competent enough to make it worthwhile (that job would go to Godard, mainly, and Truffaut). Also the development-climax-conclusion form doesn't apply so clearly here.So, this film is (1) self-referential to its author and (2) searching a personal innovative way to expose a story (film about cinema). That makes it maybe the first nouvelle vague constructed film, 3 years before "4 cents..." and 4 before "a bout de soufflé". Here, as with Barbarella, Vadim introduces elements of innovation, that would change pop thinking and pop culture, without producing really good watchable films, almost on the contrary.My evaluation: 3/5 This an important worthwhile seeing NOT good film.