IMDb RATING
7.4/10
18K
YOUR RATING
A romance between young Parisians, shown through a series of vignettes.A romance between young Parisians, shown through a series of vignettes.A romance between young Parisians, shown through a series of vignettes.
- Awards
- 3 wins & 3 nominations
Evabritt Strandberg
- Elle (la femme dans le film)
- (as Eva-Britt Strandberg)
Yves Afonso
- L'homme qui se suicide
- (uncredited)
Henri Attal
- L'autre lecteur du bouquin porno
- (uncredited)
Mickey Baker
- Record producer
- (uncredited)
Brigitte Bardot
- Brigitte Bardot
- (uncredited)
Chantal Darget
- La femme dans le métro
- (uncredited)
Med Hondo
- L'homme dans le métro
- (uncredited)
Dominique Zardi
- Le lecteur du bouquin porno
- (uncredited)
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaDue to the portrayal of youth and sex, the film was prohibited to persons under 18 in France - "the very audience it was meant for," griped Jean-Luc Godard.
- Crazy creditsContrary to what Paul and his friend decide in the laundry mat sequence, Godard points out just before the credits that the word "féminin" does in fact contain another word: "fin" [end].
- ConnectionsEdited into Bande-annonce de 'Masculin féminin' (1966)
- SoundtracksLaisse-Moi
Music by Jean-Jacques Debout
Lyrics by Jean-Jacques Debout
Performed by Chantal Goya
Editions de RCA
Featured review
This film was a chore to watch. I've never had to pause a movie so many times, taking me three days and a significant amount of perseverance to get through it. The primary issue lies in the fact that the film offers little more than dialogues between boys and girls, which, for the most part, came across as uninteresting and irrelevant.
In dialogue-driven films, it is crucial to have an engaging story in the background to maintain the audience's interest. This film, however, fails in that regard. The background story is not only incoherent but also ambiguous, making it hard to follow and even harder to care about. The discussions among characters fail to strike a chord, often feeling out of touch and unrelatable.
The dialogues in this film lack the ability to transcend their era, feeling stuck in the sixties without offering any timeless insights or universal themes. As a result, the conversations feel dated and fail to engage a contemporary audience. This detachment from current relevance makes it difficult for viewers to connect with the film on a deeper level.
A successful dialogue-driven film needs more than just conversations; it requires a compelling narrative that gives context to those dialogues, characters that are well-developed and relatable, and themes that resonate across different times and cultures. Unfortunately, this film falls short on all these fronts. The dialogues are flat and fail to develop the characters or advance the plot in a meaningful way. The characters remain one-dimensional, and their interactions do little to reveal any depth or complexity.
In essence, this film exemplifies how a dialogue-driven movie can go wrong. Without engaging dialogue, a coherent background story, well-developed characters, and relevant themes, it becomes a tedious experience. The film's failure to connect with the audience on any significant level results in a viewing experience that is more frustrating than enjoyable.
To summarize, this film is an example of missed opportunities and poor execution. Its dialogues are neither engaging nor relevant, the story is muddled and unclear, and the characters lack depth. The themes do not resonate with modern viewers, and the pacing makes the film feel interminable. Watching it felt more like a test of endurance than a form of entertainment. For a dialogue-driven film to succeed, it must excel in areas where this film has unfortunately fallen flat.
In dialogue-driven films, it is crucial to have an engaging story in the background to maintain the audience's interest. This film, however, fails in that regard. The background story is not only incoherent but also ambiguous, making it hard to follow and even harder to care about. The discussions among characters fail to strike a chord, often feeling out of touch and unrelatable.
The dialogues in this film lack the ability to transcend their era, feeling stuck in the sixties without offering any timeless insights or universal themes. As a result, the conversations feel dated and fail to engage a contemporary audience. This detachment from current relevance makes it difficult for viewers to connect with the film on a deeper level.
A successful dialogue-driven film needs more than just conversations; it requires a compelling narrative that gives context to those dialogues, characters that are well-developed and relatable, and themes that resonate across different times and cultures. Unfortunately, this film falls short on all these fronts. The dialogues are flat and fail to develop the characters or advance the plot in a meaningful way. The characters remain one-dimensional, and their interactions do little to reveal any depth or complexity.
In essence, this film exemplifies how a dialogue-driven movie can go wrong. Without engaging dialogue, a coherent background story, well-developed characters, and relevant themes, it becomes a tedious experience. The film's failure to connect with the audience on any significant level results in a viewing experience that is more frustrating than enjoyable.
To summarize, this film is an example of missed opportunities and poor execution. Its dialogues are neither engaging nor relevant, the story is muddled and unclear, and the characters lack depth. The themes do not resonate with modern viewers, and the pacing makes the film feel interminable. Watching it felt more like a test of endurance than a form of entertainment. For a dialogue-driven film to succeed, it must excel in areas where this film has unfortunately fallen flat.
- ahmadniazrahman
- Jun 7, 2024
- Permalink
- How long is Masculine Feminine?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Official site
- Languages
- Also known as
- Muski rod zenski rod
- Filming locations
- Scandic Hotel Continental, Norrmalm, Stockholm, Stockholms län, Sweden(sequence of film seen at the cinema)
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Gross US & Canada
- $200,380
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $26,855
- Feb 13, 2005
- Gross worldwide
- $205,543
- Runtime1 hour 43 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.37 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content