zygimantas I am prompted to review not based on any passionate feelings for this movie. I tend to agree with those reviewers who did not "feel" Deneuve's portrayal of Lucile in the movie and thus, I think this movie failed. I think in fact all of Sagan's adaptations to film have failed. But that is why I am adding my review, to disagree with the reviewer who called the original novel "silly." In fact, there is nothing more beautiful and poignant, simultaneously light and heavy, light and dark, as a Francoise Sagan novel. I don't say she is one of the greatest or most profound of French writers even in the 20th century, but she is so far from being silly it offends the senses to hear it; she has a perfect grip of the human heart and its dance with the human mind, and a magnificent grasp of phrasing, enough to convey profundity and round the most incidental of characters that most writers would allow to lay flat.As this is not a place to review the novel, I will only say in contrast to the film that Lucile's struggle between Antoine and Charles is not passionless nor can it be summed up simply as a "heart vs. head" conflict, although I appreciate this is the easiest way to summarize and is not inaccurate. In short, it gets a 5 from me and not a zero because it is so faithful to the book, and yet, it gets a 5 and not a 10 because (I suspect) the direction and performances were inadequate to the task of explaining the relationships, the everyday, everyman experiences of love &/or heartbreak that Sagan originally put down so masterfully.

filmalamosa Lucille (Catherine De Neuve age 28) is the mistress of Charles (Picolli age 46) she lives the beautiful carefree life of luxury. She meets Antoine a young artist (real age 30) and starts an affair with him. Charles is willing to allow it but Antoine is jealous.De Neuve lives awhile with Antoine and predictably it doesn't work. She epitomizes that carefree 60s spirit that another reviewer analyzed correctly as women not really knowing what they wanted (and they never found it).In any case you watch this movie for 60s nostalgia (all the Citroen DSs) not intellectual content and for that purpose if is first class even if it is an airport novel adapted to movie.The actors were perfect for the roles they play...Antoine a little too Anthony Perkins looking to be totally handsome...and Charles the perfect rich sugar Daddy. De Neuve of course the prize.

jotix100 Poor Francoise Sagan, her novels sold million copies all over the world, yet her work never translated successfully to the screen. With only one, or two exceptions, her novels were almost always about young women involved with older, and richer men. There are diversions in the form of younger men that serve as a distraction, but ultimately, all the books ended badly. Unhappy conclusions were a must for any of Ms. Sagan's novels."La chamade", or "Heartbeat", a 1968 adaptation of her novel of the same title, in the hands of director Alain Cavalier is only a film which showcased the beauty of Catherine Deneuve in all her cinematic glory. It is a film that has little content. It does not involve us the way it should have because the characters that are not real.We are asked to believe that the stunning Lucille who is Charles' mistress decides to leave him for Antoine, a struggling writer, that cannot give her the luxury which she is accustomed. Charles, on the other hand, while understanding the attraction, would have probably let her enjoy herself on the side, as long as she came back to him. Lucille makes the mistake of leaving one lover for another to horrible results.Catherine Deneuve is an icy kind of actress. She is one of the most beautiful faces of the French cinema, but as far as projecting any emotions, she always came up short in that department. It must have been hard for directors to cast anyone opposite her because of the coolness she always brought to her roles. Michel Picoli, a great actor has the unfortunate task of playing her older lover, Charles, something that does not happen because there was no chemistry between him and his co-star. Irene Tunk, who was Mrs. Alain Cavalier, a former Miss France, is also a sight for sore eyes, but alas, she has nothing to do in the film. Roger Van Hool, the Belgian actor appears as Antoine.The copy we saw recently had an amazing quality and it looks as pristine today, as when it was first released. The cinematography of Pierre Lhomme is one of the best things in the film.

Kara Dahl Russell Catherine Deneuve is one of film's all time great beauties who has also become a very fine actress. At this point in her career, she was still blank but beautiful. Her Director put this to good use, casting her as a woman who is pampered, spoiled, a woman for whom life has given her so much she is completely lost and has no idea what she really wants, but drifts from vague whim to whim. Of course, she is such a beauty that she is perfect casting for this kind of woman who has men falling over themselves just to light her cigarette, and the kind of jealousy and possessive controlling impulses beauty brings out in men.Lightly handled, this film is a visual discussion of the true nature of love, and the tradeoffs we make in finding the right relationship. Money and stability, passion and poverty are contrasted, with some surprising revelations about what makes a love meaningful and lasting. Yves St. Laurent supplies the really amazing wardrobe for the sequences of wealth ( I counted at least 5 really flawlessly coutured coats), which seems at first to make this film very glossy and superficial and "what will she wear next" – but this supplies our framework of seeing how unimportant these things are to her, and also builds a great contrast for the sections of everyday financial struggles.This film is greater than the sum of it's parts. Great costumes, some postcard style cinematography, and a fine performance by Roger Van Hool as the obsessed Antoine, and an exceptional, nuanced performance by Michel Piccoli as Charles. (He and Deneuve had made several films together by this point, which augments the familiar feeling between them.) Because DeNeuve is still young here, and the essential capricious coldness of her character, this film does not supply as much emotional connection or depth as it could. We have only Piccoli as a window for that, so this film becomes a man's view of the beautiful woman they adore, and a fine representation of their incomprehension of women. Historically, falling in step with "free love" and early feminism, it is a great representation of that special time when men really could not figure out what women wanted… because women were still trying to figure it out themselves.