Friday Night

2003 "This could be any evening in any place."
6.7| 1h30m| R| en| More Info
Released: 23 May 2003 Released
Producted By: France Télévision Images
Country: France
Budget: 0
Revenue: 0
Official Website:
Synopsis

Paris, 1995. Laure is about to meet friends for dinner. But on her way out, she discovers that the entire city is stalled by a massive transit strike. When she offers a handsome stranger a ride, Laure takes a highly charged, impossibly erotic detour.

... View More
Stream Online

The movie is currently not available onine

Director

Producted By

France Télévision Images

AD
AD

Watch Free for 30 Days

All Prime Video Movies and TV Shows. Cancel anytime. Watch Now

Trailers & Images

Reviews

Titreenp SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?
Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!
TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.
Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.
ametaphysicalshark Claire Denis uses close-ups better than anybody since Sergio Leone. Agnes Godard is amazing. A Denis film almost always has a human warmth few other filmmakers achieve with their films, even if it's their intention to do so. All these qualities are present in "Vendredi soir", yet I felt it was significantly weaker than the three Denis films I had already seen: "Chocolat", "Nenette et Boni", and "Trouble Every Day". It's not that the film is 'slight' or that it doesn't have much narrative drive that bothered me, either, but that it never took on the sort of gravity I thought it should have. Moreover, the film falls apart toward the end, when it should have come together. The opening stages of the film, with Godard's camera taking us through Paris were absolutely gorgeous, the first few scenes after the two main characters meet were great, especially the brilliant impressionistic montage after Jean unexpectedly takes over driving Laure's car (accompanied by a Hitchcockian musical score), but when they actually get together and have sex the film just falls apart. Here's a film which is technically brilliant (direction, cinematography, acting, Dickon Hinchliffe's great debut score), formally interesting, but which just doesn't have enough in it to justify even its short length.
eroticnights This was a damn good movie. Very different, the closest movie that comes to the feel and over all effect is The Loss of Sexual Innocence. Movies such as this catch many off guard because they don't follow the de facto movie format. Meaning, an event happens, people react to said event, drama, conclusion, resolution.This movie takes a totally different approach, and that's what makes it shine. This movie defies being labeled as a movie altogether. People say this movie is boring, that nothing happens, there are almost no words. They'd be right, there is no real drama, conclusion, resolution. I don't believe that's what this movie is even about.From the opening moments of the Paris rooftops I knew I was in for something special. The long shots, the turning off of lights, the gazes at the Paris skyline. This was a visual feast with poetic credentials, and I expected as much.Folks, this movie was not about Jean and Laure. I believe thats where all the critical flack stems from. This movie isn't about a brief encounter that is over by sunrise. The plot that you all speak of, that's secondary.The movie tends to focus on their surroundings more so then them. A cluttered car, a heater, traffic, boxes. A best example of this is their skin, during the sex scenes there are close ups of their skin rather then showing them making love. As if the plot, in this case, making love, is secondary to the poetic element of the story.In any given event, the surroundings are just as important as the story itself. This movie displays that perfectly. That is the purpose of this movie, that is it's beauty, that is what it is about.If this movie is about the surroundings rather then a plot or story, then what would be the purpose of showing rooftops, skin, lamps, boxes? Because is it life, and it is poetic and beautiful. What is the purpose of a rose? Why take a picture of it, or give it to someone? A rose simply is, this movie simply is. The nuances of life deserve appreciation and this movie pays homage to that fact. That is what this movie is about.It is life, it is the beauty of everything around you.
relwes What a truly dismal film this is. It's a disastrous nightmare of a film, I completely hated it. I admit some of the cinematography is quite beautiful (though less than breathtaking). But, to get to the point (which this film never does), it's boring. It's really boring. Quite frankly it's more boring than watching a blank screen for 90 minutes - is that all? It seemed three times as long. Nothing happens at all: there's no plot, no dialogue, there's nothing to the characters. It's just a string of very very long scenes in which nothing happens: the heroes are stuck in traffic for ages, they go out and have a totally boring dinner, and so on. Even the sex is profoundly boring. There are literally about 20 words spoken during the whole film, and those are all of such a studied banality as to almost (but not) make them funny.Why would anyone make a film like this? Well I suppose that the idea was to make a film illustrating the boring and unfulfilling lives that many lonely people live in big cities. If that is the aim of the film, then there's no question that it succeeds, but surely there must be a more imaginative way of doing it than by making such a boring and unfulfilling film. It seems as if the director believed that the inclusion of anything which wasn't bowel-achingly tedious (an interesting character for instance, maybe the odd thought-provoking bit of dialogue, the occasional bit of action, or even (God forbid) some plot worth speaking of) would constitute a breach of principle. So such conventional contrivances are rejected, and we're left with a blow by blow account of two deeply uninteresting silent people being stuck in traffic. Well thank you for the insight into the human condition, but I've learned more about life, and had a far more entertaining time, clipping my toenails.
arturobandini I'm stunned that there aren't better user reviews for this gorgeous, erotic film. Boring? Hardly. Ever see Hitchcock's "Rear Window" or Godard's "Weekend"? Great drama can exist in a traffic jam, behind sealed windows...if you're willing to watch others instead of diddling with your makeup or cel phone. Seriously, I wouldn't expect this movie to appeal to the "Joe Millionaire" crowd, but whatever happened to respect for the non-mainstream? For movies that refuse to follow formula? And why are so many amateur reviewers incapable of recognizing a diamond in the rough? The fact that so much in this movie is communicated without dialogue - the true test of cinema - puts in heads-and-tails above just about every American movie I've seen lately. Besides, this is one hot date movie!