Taste of Cherry (1997)

March 20, 2010

A bracelets drives around villages and the desert hills contribution a series of carefully selected men a pinch and unusually well paid work; he’s not looking into a pick-up but, as we discover after a while, someone to help in his planned suicide. Characteristically, Kiarostami’s Palme d’Or title-holder is low on narrative drive, slowly but steadily revealing more and more report, visual and verbal, until we are totally caught up in his protagonist’s psychological and ethical dilemma. (Suicide is forbidden to Muslims.) As till doomsday, the subtile, deceptively square mise-en-scène speaks volumes, notably a nightmare of noisy industrialism in the desert, and the remarkable penultimate scene, which goes even help in its minimalist vagueness than the final shots of the mould two movies of Kiarostami’s trilogy.

With such a promising premise, it’s a shame that The Boy Who Could Sling so quickly descends into Disneyland. Milly (Deakins) is the further kid on the block. The boy next door is Eric (Underwood), an autistic child who spends his days perched on a bedroom windowsill with arms outstretched in dreams of do a moonlight flit. The two outsiders are at at times drawn to one another, and a sympathetic trainer (Dewhurst) plays upon their developing relationship, hoping to reintegrate Eric into the classroom and prevent the authorities from institutionalising him. As the adults close off in, the young dreamers are chased on to the school roof, with nowhere to deliver up but up or down. Boss Hall gets fallen in fantasy, spoiling a hopeful portrait with some heavy-handed tense manipulation and an escapist conclusion.

Download The Prodigy Movie dvd

“Return to Me,” Bonnie Hunt’s visage directorial debut, is a simplistic, enthusiastically contrived romantic comedy near the mysterious workings of fate — in this case, a cuddle affair between a naive widower and a waitress who, unbeknownst to him, has received his current wife’s transplanted sentiment. How successful this harmless but unexciting confection will be at the B.O. will depend greatly upon whether David Duchovny’s “X-Files” fans support the film. Beyond that, however, this serio-comedy does have a number of other commercial points in its favor: a PG rating, an amiable performance by Minnie Driver, and a skillful senior supporting throw away, most prominently Carroll O’Connor in his first studio feature in more than 25 years.

As an actress, Hunt has made her mark in mostly comic roles that recall the snappy delivery style of Eve Arden. But as a helmer and co-scripter, she has opted for safe middlebrow and predictable fare — pic is marketed as “a comedy straight from the heart.” Taking its title from a Dean Martin song, “Return to Me” strives to gain situate itself in the territory of “Moonstruck,” which also exploited a Martin song and used several older characters as a Greek chorus commenting on the actions of the younger protagonists. As lightweight in ideas as “Moonstruck” was, at least it boasted major stars and buckets of charm that “Return” lacks.

First reel chronicles the happy marriage of Bob Rueland (Duchovny), a successful architect-engineer, and Elizabeth (Joely Richardson), an ambitious zoologist who devotes herself to the construction of a new gorilla habitat at Chicago’s Lincoln Park Zoo, until her untimely death in an accident.

Living a routine existence in the same city is Grace Briggs (Driver), a waitress at O’Reilly’s, no doubt the town’s only Irish-Italian restaurant. Living with her loving grandpa Marty (O’Connor), Grace is a shy woman about to receive a new lease on life through a heart transplant. Since the audience knows that Grace’s new heart will come from Elizabeth, pic’s only puzzles concern the specific circumstances under which Bob and Grace will meet and when will Grace tell him about her link to his wife.

In the wake of his mate’s sudden death, Bob sinks into deep depression, his only consolation being the companionship of their dog. Matchmaking efforts by his veterinarian friend Charlie (David Alan Grier) prove fruitless as Bob is not quite ready to start over. That is, until he meets Grace at her family’s restaurant, which he patronizes on what turns out to be a disastrous blind date. Shy Grace, who’s haunted by the tragic circumstances that took her mother from her when she was a child, begins to blossom as Bob pays more and more attention to her.

Lacking wit and sophistication, “Return to Me” registers as a sappy, life-affirming fairy tale whose only link to reality is Bob’s sense of loss.

About half of the yarn is set at O’Reilly’s, a venerable joint where a lively clique of oldsters watch over Grace — and dispense wisdom. Group includes grandpa Marty, Italian uncle Angelo (Robert Loggia), lonely-hearts Emmett (Eddie Jones), Wally (William Bronder) and Sophie (Marianne Muellerleile). Very much in the spirit of “Moonstruck,” though sans that movie’s canny intelligence, pic panders aggressively to its senior citizens.

Suffering from draggy pacing and excessive running time, comedy occasionally comes to life in scenes set in the home of Megan (Bonnie Hunt), Grace’s best friend and a mother of five, and her vulgar working class hubby, Joe (James Belushi). That the saga ends happily with the wedding of two of its senior characters, rather than that of the romantic leads, smacks of political correctness as well as film’s intent to win the older demographics.

Sights of Rome, where aspiring painter Grace goes to rethink her life and art, offer some delights, though here, too, helmer can’t resist being cute when she shows how some local nuns get excited and go for a euphoric ride on Grace’s red bike. Production values, particularly lensing by vet Laszlo Kovacs, are proficient, and acting of Duchovny and Driver is decent, though both thesps deserve much better material.

Many fee-based watching video movie sites warn that cost-free watching video sites can only provide you low quality films with annoying resolutions that hinder your online movie watching experience, it is totally] true. alot of bandwidth for comfortable viewing, or working links to the streaming movies you want to see? These important considerations that will have the greatest impact on the quality of your relaxation is what you will choose: download movie sites or watching site. Download movie sites offers a great resolution , so you can get pleasute of your favorite movies in hd quality anytime. Downloading In Search of Beethoven full length excellent quality hd

Having reaped great acclaim with ‘Crane World’ and ‘El Bonaerense’, Argentinian litterateur-director Pablo Trapero ups the ante with an individual of the finest films released here this year. Not that his achievement makes itself fully felt until the final shot; previous to then, it may condign deem like a consistently amusing but rather ramshackle, even chaotic road-movie with no real plot or thematic theme.

It starts guilelessly: Emilia (Graciana Chirino) feeding pets and preparing for a befall by genre and friends to celebrate her 84th birthday. At the party there’s a surprise demand from a forgotten cousin, inviting her to be matron of honour at a wedding in the village of her birth. Remind for the entire clan – four generations (if a certain includes a new baby) – to wealth into her son-in-law’s olden camper van and make the long, frequently testing travel from Buenos Aires to the Brazilian purfling limits.

There’s no real drama: just a risk of breakdown and the tensions that climb from cramming so scads population – some thrilled they’re there, others not – into a small, hot, bumpy space. Trapero knows bloodline can be both crutch and millstone (or haven and prison); that unsentimental truce, expressed in deftly observed details, brings much deliciously tender-hearted, telling humour to the movie, which instances feels like Altman at his most gleefully wayward and facetious. But warmth’s there, too; with the magnificently low-key certain shot mentioned above, it becomes disambiguate become fair we’ve seen a mist of subtlety and wisdom, a hirsute-dog story about information to deal with disappointment, compromise, confusion and loss: learning, in short, to predisposed to brio in all its painful truth and strength.

Raw loose between “Spy Kids” assignments, Robert Rodriguez returns to his kind roots — albeit with greater specialized means and an A-list cast — in “Once Upon a Time in Mexico.” Resurrecting the gun-slinging guitar Thespian for the third time after “El Mariachi” and “Desperado,” the new entry inhabits a more epic dimension and — as the subhead suggests — evokes the mythic feel of Sergio Leone Westerns. Despite a convoluted conspiracy that begs for cleaner lines, the chaotic shoot-outs, cartoonish injure b warp and charismatic eject should attract sortie fans to theaters in significant numbers, followed by rowdy home entertainment metier.

Fact that the multihyphenate filmmaker is clearly having fun here is underlined by credits like “shot, chopped and scored by Robert Rodriguez.” In addition to those duties and to writing and directing, Rodriguez also served as production designer, re-recording mixer and visual effects supervisor, with much of the post-production carried out at the director’s Troublemaker facilities in Austin, Texas.

Made on a modest budget and displaying a refined version of the technical resourcefulness that first put Rodriguez on the map with the $7,000 “El Mariachi,” the new pic also serves as a testament to the advancements in visual quality of digital video. Shot with Sony 24-frames-per-second digital high-definition cameras and almost indiscernibly blown up to widescreen 35mm, the film has remarkable visual depth and clarity, not to mention rich, scorching color.

Setting the tone in a larger-than-life register that mixes reality with fantasy, an amusing pre-titles sequence re-introduces both the singing pistolero (Antonio Banderas) and his sultry inamorata, Carolina (Salma Hayek), in a bloody clash with a crew of villainous scum, as retold with embellishments by Belini (Cheech Marin) to rogue CIA agent Sands (Johnny Depp). Belini reveals that el Mariachi’s chief adversary, General Marquez (Gerardo Vigil), did not die in the fight but lives on.

The story picks up on the guitar player living in isolation, smoldering with psychological scars after the murder of Carolina and their daughter. A romantic back-story is patched together through memory sequences. El Mariachi enlists help from his crooning sidekicks (Enrique Iglesias, Marco Leonardi) after he is recruited by Sands to intervene in a coup d’etat. Plot is being orchestrated by General Marquez and cartel kingpin Barrillo (Willem Dafoe), who plan to assassinate the Mexican president (Pedro Armendariz Jr.) during the Day of the Dead celebrations. Barrillo also has a price on el Mariachi’s head.

An elaborate web of double-crossing and deceit gradually emerges as Sands begins playing off various elements against each other. Lack of focus and delineation in the overburdened, messy plot is exacerbated by the blur between Marquez and Barrillo as key villains, and by the latter’s poorly illustrated scheme to kill off a look-alike and start fresh with a surgically altered face.

The backdrop of impending revolution also is unsatisfyingly sketched, as is Barrillo’s double role as vicious murdering drug lord and friend-to-the-people folk hero. And affable as they are, el Mariachi’s sidekicks also serve no real purpose, though music chart heartthrob Iglesias makes a respectable screen bow.

Far more effective are the digressions to recap the Mariachi’s relationship with Carolina, which expand on the seed of the earlier movies and lend breadth and soulfulness to this final installment. And one scene in particular, involving the sexy couple’s escape from a fifth-floor hotel room while chained together, is arguably the most exciting of the pic’s many action sequences.

Rodriguez knowingly uses Banderas as an iconic figure given to few words, strutting through gunbattles more like a flamenco dancer than a killer. Hayek makes a ballsy impression in her fleeting appearances, but other cast members appear to be along for the joyride with little time to flesh out fully developed characters. Main exception is Depp, who follows his enormously enjoyable work in “Pirates of the Caribbean” with another inventive turn, finding the sly comedy and even an unexpected paternal side behind his character’s cool cruelty.

Rodriguez’s muscular camerawork is matched by his exhilarating editing — especially during the visceral gunplay set pieces — and backed by his driving score, which blends Mexican guitar themes with suspenseful Latino orchestral work. Production design also is sharp, making good use of dusty locations, rustic bars and classic Mexican architecture.

Years ago, on a visit to Universal Studios’ Theme Park, it momentarily hit me: loudspeakers were blaring the theme from Lawrence of Arabia, actors were wandering around dressed as Laurel and Stout, the Star Trek stage show was just about to start — and none of it had anything to do with Universal Studios. Conversely, at that nub in time anyway, most of Universal’s genuine account was all but ignored. Abbott and Costello, the comedy team that kept Universal reliable throughout the 1940s and early-’50s, were relegated to a few videos in the gift shop. And Deanna Durbin, whose movies literally saved the studio from bankruptcy in the late-1930s, was unqualifiedly, shamefully forgotten.

There are still a few hard-core Deanna Durbin fans out there, but few today realize just how popular the pretty soprano-next-door was in her generation. Mickey Rooney, a contemporary of Durbin’s, was a bigger juvenile star, but he had the might of MGM behind him, and his brash, low-brow musical comedies haven’t aged nearly as well as Durbin’s best. Additionally, Rooney never really left the spotlight; he gradually made the transition to character parts, and continues to appear in films, on stage and television. Durbin, however, abruptly retired in 1948, moved to France and never looked back.

Where, say, Abbott and Costello definitely made “vehicles,” generic comedies tooled to their particular talents, Durbin’s early films, those directed by her underrated mentor-director Henry Koster, are first-rate movies all by themselves, which in turn expertly showcase Durbin’s talent and charm. Universal Home Video’s Deanna Durbin Sweetheart Pack serves as a good overview of the singer-actress’s oeuvre, with six films spanning her entire film career, from her first feature in 1936 to one of her last, released nearly a dozen years later.

Three Smart Girls (1936)

Though Durbin sings a few songs, this delightful film is really more a screwball comedy along the lines of My Man Godfrey (also 1936) than the song-heavy programmers that would dominate her later career. As the youngest of three daughters, 15-year-old Penny (Durbin) conspires with Joan (Nan Grey) and Kay (Barbara Read) to reunite their long-estranged parents on the eve of their father’s new marriage to gold digger Billie Barnes. The secret to this and Koster’s other films with Durbin seems to be that no matter how outrageous the story, Durbin’s characters, her emotions and such, are very real and identifiable. All three girls love their parents, long for their reconciliation, and like the Greek chorus servants we the audience are pulling for them by the final reels. Charles Winninger, Mischa Auer, and a very young Ray Milland co-star. (****1/2)

First Love (1939)

Utterly charming melodrama is a thinly-disguised modern variation on Cinderella, and probably the best feature adaptation of that classic story. Orphan Connie (Durbin), newly graduated from an all-girls school, moves to New York to live with her acerbic Uncle James (Eugene Pallette, in a slyly subtle performance) and his outrageously selfish wife (silent star Leatrice Joy), daughter (Helen Parrish), and son (Lewis Howard, hilariously lazy). Connie falls for wealthy young Ted Drake (Robert Stack, in his film debut) and with the help of servants Charles Coleman, Jack Mulhall and others, shines at the big society ball. Director Henry Koster does something quite experimental here, cleverly rendering the hundreds of guests “invisible” at one point to focus on Durbin and Stack’s intimacy. What might have been unbearably sappy in other hands is a sweet fairy tale of a movie sure to melt your heart. Kathleen Howard, often cast as W.C. Fields’ amusingly domineering wife, has a good dramatic part as Durbin’s music teacher. (****1/2)

It Started with Eve (1941)

On his deathbed, Jonathan Reynolds, Sr. (Charles Laughton) wants to meet his son’s fiancee. When the bride-to-be can’t be found, frantic Jonathan, Jr. (Bob Cummings) recruits hat-check girl/budding singer Anne Terry (Durbin) to play the part. When Senior unexpectedly recovers, he conspires to bring the two together for real. Pretty good comedy focuses on the Laughton-Durbin relationship at the expense of all else. The two are fun to watch (though Laughton is quite hammy), but so dominate the film that her eventual romance with Cummings’s character is never believable. (***1/2)

Can’t Help Singing (1944)

Durbin’s only color film is a feast for the eyes with several good songs by Jerome Kern and E.Y. “Yip” Harburg, but this faux Oklahoma! Western musical is otherwise routine. Deanna is a wealthy senator’s daughter who follows her Cavalry boyfriend (David Bruce) to California but falls in love with card shark Robert Paige instead. This lavish but tepid musical does have its odd moments: Olin Howland (The Blob) sings “Swing Your Sweetheart,” and during one number, “Californ-i-a,” settlers dance and sing in a farmer’s market filled with gigantic vegetables! Akim Tamaroff and Leonid Kinsky provide incongruous comic relief as inept Russian thieves. (**1/2)

Lady on a Train (1945)

Dreary comic-thriller-Christmas movie (originally released in August!) casts Durbin as the daughter of a wealthy shipping magnate and a mystery novel buff who, arriving in New York City, witnesses a murder in a building outside her Pullman car window. As with Can’t Help Singing, Universal misjudged Durbin’s appeal. Where in Koster’s films she had an everyday, wholesome charm and emotional verisimilitude, here they glam her up like Lizabeth Scott and mold her into an irksome Nancy Drew type. She’s actually quite annoying, while as a mystery the film is a total failure. On the plus side the picture does offer good support from Ralph Bellamy, George Coulouris, and especially Edward Everett Horton, and features a good score by Miklos Rosza. Durbin sings “Silent Night” and “Night and Day.” Be warned: the film also has a higher-than-usual quotient of black stereotypes and one especially racist line directed at the Japanese. (**)

Something in the Wind (1947)

Not bad formula musical about a radio star (Durbin) who turns the tables on a snobbish family that assumes she had an affair with their recently deceased, millionaire patriarch. Durbin’s natural charm (and natural hair color) is again front and center, and the film boasts good support from Universal star Donald O’Connor, making his return to pictures after a two-year stint in the military. His big dance number, a tribute to mystery stories, is pracitically a clone of O’Connor’s much more famous “Make ‘Em Laugh” number from Singin’ in the Rain, made five years later. John Dall is miscast as Durbin’s love interest, but Metropolitan Opera star Jan Peerce is a delight as a singing turnkey. With an utterly superfluous fashion show, and a futuristic television studio straight out of Forbidden Planet. (***)

The Time Machine (2002)

March 4, 2010

Why call it THE TIME MACHINE? Why hire a director that you can tout as being the direct descendent of the original author? Why send press copies of the original novel and the book on CD with Leonard Nimoy and John DeLancie reading it? Why do all this if you have no intention on making anything that even vaguely resembles H.G. Wells’ THE TIME MACHINE?

As the TIME MACHINE ended in the theater here in Austin last night, a group of film fans instantly assembled to tear the film to shreds… "If Jeremy Irons was a super psychic why didn’t he know what Guy Pearce was thinking about pulling?" "Why didn’t he just go back in time, get weapons and come forward to kick ass?" "If he can’t save her with the intention of living from that moment forward with his fiancée, why couldn’t he just go back in time, abduct her, move her into the future and begin their life in the future… leave a note for himself saying, ‘Alexander, this is yourself… you will never see your love again if you don’t build a time machine and meet her at this date and time and do the following. Btw, here are the plans to build the machine, hurry, the sooner you build it, the sooner you’ll be reunited with her. Otherwise, she’ll be dead for all time’?" "I can’t think of a single compelling reason to stay in the future with those idiots." "Ok, so he learns he can’t save his wife, but that he can change anything else, why not change the Moon blowing up?" "So if he has gained any knowledge about the future, he then becomes powerless to affect that future, doesn’t this mean he can’t do what he does at the end?" "Let me get this straight the Eloi can speak perfect English by staring at pieces of carved stone remainders of New York City Buildings? Where’s their pronunciation key?" "Why was that movie so damn boring?" "I hated the first half and kinda liked the second half" "I liked the first half and hated the last half" "What did that first woman see in Guy Pearce, he was a total spaz" "Samantha Mumba looked like a forceps squeezed fetus grown up" "So in the future people will live in lampshades?" "Why did THE TIME MACHINE have the score to THE LION KING?" "I thought Morlocks could only come out at night and were blinded by light?"

That’s just a sampling. It continued for an initial 30 minutes… then it was off for dinner, where the film continued to be torn asunder… By the time I got home I was enraged about the film. You see, here’s a film that has all the tools… all the talent… all the chances to have been something great. This was a favorite project of Spielberg’s… He retooled the script late in the process. The machine looks like an excellent toy, adequately conveying the sense that it is in fact a time machine. However, Stan Winston’s Morlocks are simply some of the worst conceived and designed and executed creatures in the history of film. Terrible. Real terrible. Jeremy Irons’ Uber-Morlock is great make-up, too bad that isn’t Winston, that was KNB. The Digital Domain time travel effects are wonderful, but it is too bad that they don’t affect Guy Pearce’s performance. Here is an inventor, moved into the future, planes, cars, televisions, yadda yadda yadda… And it just looks like he’s expected all of this and is not at all curious about it. By giving Pearce’s Alexander a singular purpose, you take away the spirit of adventure… That thing that H. G. Wells’ noted Time Traveler sought out… Like Sir Edmund Hillary, the time traveler in the novel sought to view that which no one had ever seen before. At the time of the great industrial revolution, when inventions that changed future history, he was going to see future history. All of that was gone.

Living in the shadow of George Pal’s original is not an easy thing, but there were things to build from in an accurate adaptation. One, the Eloi were not simply humans… They too had evolved. They were small slight human-like creatures around 4 foot in height. Their skin was like that of a Dresden doll, their eyes too large, their hair curly, their ears tiny, they spoke in soft cooing like tones. They were at once beautiful and with all the intellectual ability of a 5 year old child. They were… very much cattle. Gone is the ingenuity of the Time Traveler to learn their language. To discover the mystery of the new natural order of the world.

Gone is the mystery of to whence the Time Traveler went… Did he return to Weena? Did he go backwards in time? When in the heck did he go? There is a reason THE TIME MACHINE is a famous novel. Why it is a known book by nearly everyone… H.G. Wells wrote a doozy of a story, structured as a bit of a bar room tale to a gathering of friends that could not and would not believe. It is strange in a way… The movie FULL TIME KILLER is actually more true to the structure of THE TIME MACHINE as an adaptation and it has not an ounce of time travel in it.

Ok, so it isn’t an accurate adaptation. I knew that after I reviewed the script a year ago. Walking into the theater I knew that it would be a complete failure as an adaptation, so how is it as a movie? A movie with no source material. An independent work of its own.

I love the Time Travel genre. From George Pal’s TIME MACHINE to TIME AFTER TIME to SOMEWHERE IN TIME to TIME BANDITS to ROMAN SCANDALS to STAR TREK IV: THE VOYAGE HOME to DONNIE DARKO to the BACK TO THE FUTURE Trilogy to THE TIME TRAVELERS to TWELVE MONKEYS to THE ADVENTURES OF BRISCO COUNTY JR to THE TIME TUNNEL to TIMECOP to DEMON WITH A GLASS HAND to TERMINATOR 1 & 2 to SLAUGHTERHOUSE FIVE to THE THREE STOOGES VS HERCULES to BILL & TED’S EXCELLENT ADVENTURES to DR WHO to LAND OF THE LOST to SAMURAI JACK to ARMY OF DARKNESS to AUSTIN POWERS to THE CONNECTICUT YANKEE IN KING ARTHUR’S COURT to PLANET OF THE APES (original) to THE PHILADELPHIA EXPERIMENT to QUANTUM LEAP to THE WORLD WITHOUT END… these are all superior movies to the latest effort from DREAMWORKS. I recommend renting any of these instead.

Time Travel is one of the cornerstones of science fiction, one that has given us some of the best reads, films and ponderances as a thought. Dreamworks has created the most singularly dim time traveling genius ever. He has no concept of how to use time travel. He does nothing particularly remarkable other than write formulas on a series of chalkboards and casually mention he corresponds with an insane German patent clerk named Einstein. I don’t believe he was ever in love, I don’t believe he traveled through time… or at the least I would hope that whomever might create a time machine, may at least be in awe of the direction of time and the spectacles that one could behold.

H.G. Wells didn’t particularly have a theme he was trying to sell in THE TIME MACHINE, but George Pal did… In Pal’s version it was man’s self-destructive nature. This time, it seems that the message is that technology will be the doom of man… if we destroy our machines now, live in cliff-lamp-shades and abandon all sciences for communal storytime, that we will live happily ever after.

Ahem… coughbullshitcough…

There are moments of beauty, seconds of awe and over an hour of mediocrity and tripe. Had you a time machine, I recommend skipping the time it takes to see this movie.

Download Wyvern Full Movie in Best quality

Zelly and Me (1988)

March 2, 2010

Innocent orphaned Phoebe finds herself caught between the stingy infatuation of her grandmother and the unconditional love of her governess. Phoebe withdraws into her own insignificant cosmos, but when her jealous grandmother starts sending away Phoebe’s friends, she realizes she sine qua non rely on her own hub to outlast.

Last Night review

February 28, 2010

Writer/director/actor McKellar’s take on the unendingly intriguing ‘end of the world’ concept is a thoughtful, engaging labour that uses dialogue as opposed to of deportment to debate this premise intellectually. The inhabitants of a Canadian city quietly accept the news that the the world at large is going to intent at the stroke of midnight on Contemporary Year’s Era, 2000 (wisely, an explanation is not in any degree given). Rather than succumb to obscene hysteria, the various assembled characters come to terms with their situations thoughtfully and reasonably. McKellar’s film is a genteel swop of pace from Hollywood’s brand-new barrage of action-packed visions of the apocalypse.

The suspenseful, sophisticated spirit of Alfred Hitchcock hovers benevolently over “Intimate Strangers,” a stylish psychosexual thriller by Patrice Leconte. From its Hitchcockian musical score, which often seems composed of snippets of Bernard Hermann’s best, to its light touch with deeply Freudian themes, this is the type of unconventional romance that only a non-American filmmaker could produce. It’s at once too restrained and too perversely funny to have emanated from the play-it-big-but-play-it-safe sensibilities of Hollywood, U.S.A.

Sandrine Bonnaire and Fabrice Luchini play Anna and William, two Parisians who embark on an unlikely relationship when she unexpectedly knocks on his office door one day. The visit turns out to be the result of mistaken identity: She thinks he’s a psychiatrist, when in reality he’s a tax lawyer. In the hands of another filmmaker, this situation in and of itself would be the crux of the movie, with deception and denial escalating to an inevitable confrontation. But Leconte doesn’t go in for such fireworks, or for such on-the-nose plotting. Instead, “Intimate Strangers” takes its characters down delightfully unexpected paths, as they engage in prim yet increasingly erotic verbal encounters that result in a deep and surprisingly touching emotional bond.

Most of “Intimate Strangers” transpires in well-appointed, quiet rooms, which serve as appropriate backdrops for Leconte’s circumspect filmmaking style; as he watches two buttoned-up characters open up and reveal the most vulnerable parts of their natures, he’s nothing if not discreet. And he’s found two lead actors who are equal to the prevailing mood of cautious intimacy.

Bonnaire, whose most memorable role still may be the aggressive yet vulnerable young rebel in the 1985 “Vagabond,” is wholly convincing as a frustrated wife (she seems to transform herself physically as Anna progressively sheds layers of clothing in favor of a more feminine and revealing wardrobe). As the punctilious, repressed William — who, like his office, seems strangely suspended in some timeless era — Luchini turns in an almost dancerly performance, wordlessly conveying his cipherlike character’s sarcasm and quiet sexual confidence. Anne Brochet and Michel Duchaussoy add a few choice moments of deadpan humor as William’s imperious secretary and Anna’s would-be psychiatrist, respectively.

For all its seething, latent desires and often playful symbolism (Anna has so much psychological baggage she even works in a luggage store), “Intimate Strangers” never veers into the tacky or rude. Indeed, Leconte has made a film every bit as elegant, tactful and carefully composed as William himself. It’s interesting that “Intimate Strangers” and “Open Water” are being released the same day in Washington theaters. In completely different but equally effective ways, both films examine relationships in deep waters, and reveal the alluring, sometimes fatal dangers just under the surface.

Intimate Strangers (105 minutes, in French with subtitles, at Landmark’s E Street Cinema, Cinema Arts Fairfax and Cineplex Odeon Shirlington) is rated R for sexual dialogue.