tony_le_stephanois La lune dans le caniveau is definitely different in comparison to director Beineix's much more straightforward crime film Diva (1981). It is more like an introverted, dramatic family member. We observe a man who tries to deal with his mistress and his alcoholic brother, and wants revenge for the death of his sister. Is this story very interesting? I wouldn't say so. Most scenes are long and tedious (the film has a two hour runtime). Only real fans of either Beineix or the actors will keep their concentration until the very end.The pleasure for the viewer lies elsewhere: the stylistic, colorful cinematography. The film has playful use of lights EVERYWHERE. It is visually incredibly detailed for a film from begin 80's, which were usually bleak on purpose. Both films from Beineix, Diva and this one, weren't praised for its renewal. On the contrary: they were equally bashed by the critics. Style over substance, they said. Which, as an argument about film, seems always ridiculous to me. Isn't cinema BY DEFINITION about style? It is not a book on screen, after all. How is a film as 8 1/2 not style over substance?While I'll think Beineix was quite adventurous with his colorful style, perhaps even ahead of its time, as films have become more style over substance ever since (take for example V for vendetta, Spring Breakers, Ixjana, City of lost children, The strange color of your body's tears). Also quite modern are these out of the ordinary female characters, played wonderfully by Victoria Abril and Natassja Kinski. Depardieu's acting perhaps seems a bit shallow but he is in fact right in tone with the introverted style of the film. This was a period (begin 80's) in which he excelled in playing lead characters (Danton, Le chevre, Le dernier métro, Buffet froid). I rate this film 7/10. Despite the visual feast, I'm just too impatient to enjoy a film at such a slow pace. An one-hour cut would do magic for this film.

Michael Neumann The second feature from the director of 'Diva' was met with enough ridicule to suggest a settling of old scores, but unfortunately the film deserved every insult it inspired. No one can say Jean-Jacques Beineix wasn't asking for trouble, and the end result of his efforts to create a heavily stylized, romantic mood piece is an unforgivably empty and pretentious melodrama so laughably bad it might almost be a parody of modern European art-schlock cinema. The ubiquitous Gerard Depardieu plays a burly stevedore who wanders the docks of a nameless city, brooding over the unknown assailant who killed his sister; soon he begins brooding over sultry Nastassia Kinski instead, and they elope. Or do they? Every tantalizing hint of a plot disappears (usually within a scene or two) behind a welter of self-indulgent gestures, none of which could possibly make any sense to anyone except the writer-director. At best the film might be dismissed as a failed experiment; more accurately, it's a near masterpiece of unintended awfulness.

PhoenixCinder I saw this what ten years ago. It's timeless. A tale of intrigue. Not for those with limited attention spans! Nastassia's first appearance left me gasping. Lives interconnected, the rich in the playground of the working class. And that ice eating scene had me on the edge of my seat. So dark and challenging. Very few like this out there on the market. I am Glad it wasn't a hit - why spoil it with yet another US remake!!

haggar Warning: some minor spoilers ahead!This movie is high cinematic art, but it requires a fine sensibility to enjoy. Beineix creates a dreamworld, with the sublime and frightening emotions of dreams, and that characteristic dreamlike fluctuation of the plot, where you can expect anything in the next moment, good or bad. And indeed, it ends up in a nightmare, and you wake up asking yourself why was it a nightmare, why did all of it happen the way it did, and ultimately, what is the purpose of life and the meaning of existence.All the actors, in my opinion, did an excellent job, quite aware, I guess, of the lofty artistic goals Beineix tries to achieve. All the roles are perfectly believable, because they are not reduced to simpletons as Hollywood often does, but are provided with all the contrasting emotions, weaknesses and strenghts, virtues and vice of real human beings.This movie won't be appreciated by everybody, because it wasn't intended for everybody, just as Mahler's symphonies are not appreciated by everybody. Fortunately, there are the pleasant tunes of Strauss to satisfy the public at large.