Not at all what I expected. Come to think of it, I’m not sure what I expected. I thought this would be a political film about May ’68, not a personal film about 3 young people so wrapped up in their own weird incest shit they ignore May ’68. Anyway, it is a unique film — I’m not sure I understand it 100%, but it is pretty hard not to daydream afterwards and wish you were part of this group. Young sexy things living in a labyrinthine apartment in Paris talking about movies and music and Maoism all day. I coulda done without the hymenal and menstrual blood, though . . .but that’s just me. I’m also proud of myself as I was able to name all but two of the movie clips as they flashed on the screen. I was a little annoyed by the ending. I actually did a “that’s it?!” in my apartment. I’m sure that in the original book this ending makes more sense, as themes that are only hinted at here are given further exploration and, therefore, the bit at the end has more gravity. Still. . .I think the image of Eva Green in black elbow length gloves and a towel (and nothing else) doing a reverse-cowgirl on Michael Pitt’s face is what I’ll remember long after the whimsy of the cineaste scenes have faded. Also — people get worked up when there are penises on screen. And this usually relegates a film to NC-17. There’s plenty of penis in this film. But there is something which is more rare: vagina! It is almost axiomatic that full frontal for a woman means she will be standing up and we’ll see a glimpse of her pubic hair. But in “The Dreamers.” septeganarian sleazeball Bertolucci lovingly pans his camera up a fully naked *reclining* Eva Green, such that a clear and studied vision of her actual sex organ is on display. I’m just sayin’ is all.