User Reviews

A dozen young prostitutes in a luxury brothel held by a madam, at the twilight of the nineteenth century. We may see women scarcely dressed, men from the Parisian bourgeoisie, champagne in abundance, a black panther, ... within felted lounges. Objects of fascination, fantasies or sometimes the tenderness of their customers, these young prostitutes circulate in a universe that will soon be a memory. One of them will be disfigured by a consumer as perverse as sadistic.

Filmed with a breathtaking mastery of the frame. Moreover, the costumes and sets are top. It's an aesthetic shock. The actresses and actors are excellent, Céline Sallette especially.

No matter the titillating title, writer/director Bertrand Bonello's 'House of Pleasures' doesn't hope to pleasure its audience by pandering to their baser instincts through a flesh parade of its predominantly female cast. Instead, Bonello mounts a sombre look at the daily lives and routines of the prostitutes within the walls of the Appolonide, an upmarket Paris brothel for middle-class men at the turn of the 19th century. The pace is slow and languid- consider this fair warning for less patient viewers- but if you allow it, the movie will reel you in with its hypnotic charm and leave you wondering about the people behind the world's oldest profession.

Filmed with a deliberate dispassion throughout, Bonello flits from one character to another, never making one the central figure in the movie. Among those we get to recognise are Clotilde (Celine Sallette), a twelve-year veteran of the trade at just 28 years old who has recently grown increasingly disillusioned and dependent on opium; Pauline (Iliana Zabeth), the youngest at just 16 who enters the trade in a misguided attempt at asserting her own independence; and the middle-aged Madam (Noémie Lvovsky) who runs the house faced with foreclosure due to rising rent prices.

Yes, Appolonide is far from a cocoon for the girls, and Bonello places two stark characters as a sobering reminder of that- the first in the form of a cheerful girl Julie (Jasmine Trinca) who discovers one day during a routine medical examination that she has syphilis; and the second in Madeleine (Alice Barnole), who is permanently disfigured when a client (Laurent Lacotte) she dreams of having a future with ties her to the bed and slashes her from both corners of the mouth. Madeleine is the most blatant Bonello gets at eliciting his audience's empathy for these women- and certainly, it's hard not to be moved when she is nicknamed 'The Woman Who Laughs' and becomes no more than an object of fascination for others to gawk at.

Notwithstanding Madeleine's misfortune, there is little to cheer about for any of the other girls trapped with little hope of escaping their circumstance. Though visited by regulars with sweet words and buoyant promises, there is little illusion that none of these men are serious about their affections for the ladies they frequent, using them as mere vessels to act out their fantasies- one girl is made to act like a mechanical doll; while another is dressed in a kimono and asked to speak Japanese even though she knows not the language. We know better than to believe their lies and empty promises, but who can blame some of the ladies for being optimistic- what else after all do they have to live for?

Setting most of the film within the four walls of the Appolonide and emphasising the day in and day our rituals of the women within adds to the claustrophobic feel of the movie, which of course reinforces the cheerless nature of their situation- there is also a reference to the conventional wisdom of the day, which equates their status to that of criminals by virtue of the size of their heads. The rare scene where the girls have the most fun is a daytime excursion they take to the countryside, which unsurprisingly shows them at their most lively and vivacious.

And indeed, there is very little to cheer or find pleasure in- despite the movie's title- once one has observed the lives of these women in the Appolonide. The film is also purposefully set at the twilight of the industry in that form, and from time to time, Bonello hints at the imminent passing of a Parisian cultural icon. His parting shot is that of modern-day Paris, where prostitutes are standing by the street waiting for some random guy in a car to pick them up. Has society progressed in the past century? As long as there remain women who are stuck in the circumstance as those in the Appolonide, the answer quite honestly is a sobering no.

• www.moviexclusive.com

I loved this film, I am surprised to see more than one review damning the film for a lack of plot. There is most definitely a plot it's subtle and thoughtful but the characters all have an arc and, for some, very definite resolutions.

The cast are superb, even those with the smallest roles present fully rounded individuals of whom it's possible to infer their lives outside the bounded world presented to us. The relationships between the women of the house both amongst themselves and with their clients are rich and true.

Although full of sex and sexuality nothing is gratuitous or titillating but real and honest. Sometimes good, sometimes dreadful, sometimes funny, sometimes a violation.

This was a film that I would have been happy to watch for another two hours , I didn't want to leave these women behind.

This movie is a graphically shocking film about prostitution in France in a mansion of tolerance. It's French ("L'Apollonide") with English sub-titles.

Having researched heavily on this subject for one of my own works, I found it to be an eye-opening film. It's an intimate look behind the closed doors of a house of pleasure focusing on the lives of its mistress, prostitutes, and patrons.

It covers such aspects as registering as prostitutes with the Bureau of Morales, being indebted to mistresses and unable to leave their employ because of it, champagne baths with customers, selection parlors, global fashions worn by prostitutes, opulent client bedrooms, and the regulated visits by the physician examining the workers every 15 days for sign of sexually transmitted disease.

The movie contains naked women, sexually explicit scenes, and is not for the prudish or faint of heart. There are scenes of abuse of one of the girls, which may be disturbing to viewers. It delves honestly into the reality of life as a French prostitute, focusing on the sad and hopeless plight of women in brothels. The particular establishment depicted in this movie catered to aristocrats and rich businessmen, much like the Chabanais, which was one of the well-known brothels of its day.

The movie is two hours, slow moving, and not the best flick you'll ever see. Most of the sexual scenes show the men enjoying their paid visits, while the women merely go through the motions void of emotion. As troubling as the scenes were, I found myself transported into the world I researched and came away shocked at seeing the reality portrayed on screen.

Let's face it, being a prostitute wasn't glamorous. It was a profession that many poor and unskilled women chose in order to survive. It was a dangerous job where women died of syphilis, lived lives with no hope, and sold their bodies in order to eat and have housing. It portrayed a society that found pleasure in sex, living a way of life where brothels were an acceptable form of male entertainment until they were abolished in the early 20th century.

If historical films interest you on all levels, I can attest that this one hits the mark in every way. Being a French film, it adequately portrays the heyday of legalized prostitution.

This is far from the only film to ever operate as it does, more as a broad portraiture of a time, place, or idea than as a medium for storytelling. In this moment, though, I'm hard-pressed to think of another title that so distinctly declined significant plot as a through-line; what story threads this boasts, like lengths of string laid out on a canvas in a vaguely linear arrangement, are mostly just the characterizations. The personalities, histories, and possible futures of the women take precedence over discrete goings-on in the narrative, and so especially as the women are spotlighted far more than clients, the picture largely becomes an even-keeled examination of a bordello at the turn of the twentieth century. Not condoning, not condemning, instead just trying to be as objective as it can in showcasing the highs, the lows, the types of people who might be involved in one capacity or another, and the general struggles that arise therefrom. It's a challenging prospect to make a movie of such a nature, but to Bertrand Bonello's credit, I think he did a fine job here. 'L'apollonide' isn't without its imperfections, but it's duly engrossing and well made, and worth watching more than not.

A slight, gentle sense of story does come into play as difficulties mount in the "house of tolerance"; the latter half of the feature is more actively engaging and heartfelt for the fact of it, and the performances arguably richer - the benefit of a stronger narrative. Even if that weren't the case, however, I think Bonello's screenplay would still otherwise be full and compelling on its own merits. Scenes and characters are flush with detail as written, vivid and complete as the picture weaves its tapestry. From this firm foundation, and bolstered by Bonello's practiced direction, the cast are given soft but bountiful material, and all make deft use of it. A couple actors on hand on more familiar to me than others (especially Adèle Haenel), but beyond that I can't say I'd name a favorite as everyone performs admirably with delicate, nuanced range, and depth of emotion. In light of the overall tack of 'L'apollonide,' interesting as it may be, I therefore don't think it's unfair to argue that the ensemble might be the best specific reason to check this out.

That's not to say that it isn't well done in many other ways. The production design and art direction are simply beautiful, cementing the setting for viewers - and from what I understand, somewhat opening up the set so that Josée Deshaies's smooth, crisp cinematography could stand out all the more. The costume design is rather magnificent in and of itself, surely a top highlight (reinforced by a César award for exactly that), and the hair and makeup, too. Sparing as they are, any effects that are employed look great, and I should say too that editor Fabrice Rouaud did a fine job of assembling the piece that we see. Still, there are critiques to note, too, and while the success of Bonello's approach to the movie deemphasizing story) is up for debate, I don't think that's inherently a matter of quality. On the other hand, the title mostly carries a decidedly flat tone that does make it a tad more difficult to get invested in the proceedings.

More troubling still, and in my mind perhaps the most substantial issue, is the music. I like Bonello's score in and of itself, atmospheric and flavorful, but it seems to me as though the themes are ill-fitting for what the man is otherwise doing here, especially those that come off as more dark and somber. Likewise, injecting modern album rock into the soundtrack (e.g. Moody Blues) is an anachronistic move that does not aid suspension of disbelief, least of all as the editing sometimes juxtaposes a quiet scene of little or no sound with a concurrent one in which a song crescendos; the effect is jolting. This may have been better served with no music at all. And while I feel the last few moments are a nice touch to round out the tale, before that we get one pointedly artistic shot (calling back to earlier dialogue) that frankly feels empty and unnecessary, and a brief cutaway (literal seconds) to one last line before that satisfying denouement. However one might judge the film's strength, the ending feels a little curt, a little rushed, and a little uneven.

All the same, while it may never be wholly grabbing, or achieve a crucial peak of storytelling, and while it may have flaws, I quite like this more than not. The cast and crew put in fantastic work, Bonello's direction is solid, and I admire not just the filmmaker's screenplay but the very low-key, detached fashion with which he has tackled this subject matter. There's a point on the spectrum of descriptors of quality past which I would not tread in this instance, yet even if 'L'apollonide' isn't entirely essential or flawless, it's much better than not and deserving of recognition just as it is. There's no need to go out of one's way for it, but if you do have the chance to watch and are receptive to the subdued tenor, this is a good movie for a quiet night.

If you don't speak French it's somewhat difficult to follow the subtitles, but once you get the hang of it, of course it becomes easier as It usually does with foreign films.

I think this is a pretty realistic portrayal of what it would be like to work in a somewhat up-scale brothel in Paris at this time.

Of course the prostitutes that work there, work there out of need and not because they enjoy this line of work. In fact they get their emotional needs met from each other. Definitely not from the men who buy them for their pleasure.

Overall I think the film was quite well done and showed the complexities of such an environment at this time in history in Paris France.

It's 1899 Paris. Marie-France Dallaire is the madame of the brothel L'Apollonide. As the months roll by, she is faced with debilitating rent increase from the landlord. Clotilde has been there for 12 years since she was 16. Julie is nicknamed Caca for her specialty. She dreams of going with her married customer Maurice. Léa mails away gifts of her pubic hair. Pauline Deshaies is a 15 year old who writes a letter applying for a job. The movie open with the Jewess Madeleine who has a prophetic dream. She is cut horribly by a customer. These and the other girls deal with the many issues as the brothel threatens to close.

I'm not sure if it's a deliberate idea from filmmaker Bertrand Bonello. There is a matter-of-factness to these women. I like to have more history to these interesting characters. It would be great to follow fewer of them and dig deeper into their lives. The Joker face is compelling visually. The tone is one of empty sadness. There isn't really any tension. The rent issue isn't that dramatic. I do have a big problem with the split screen scenes. There remind me of surveillance video and that takes me out of the movie.

Nicely acted and photographed, this could however easily be very depressing - not only in the unvarnished depiction of life in a Paris brothel 100 years ago but in the clear message that things aren't too different today.

Debt, disease and the possibility of shocking violence are ever-present, although conversations among the women about jobs that they have done beforehand (e.g. The "industrial injury" side of being a launderess) suggest that being a prostitute wasn't necessarily the *worst* option available.

Sobering stuff, but the camaraderie looks real and softens the tone somewhat. Recommended.

The setting was interesting, both location- and time-wise. However the story is incredibly disappointing. The plot drifts throughout and ultimately goes nowhere.

A lot of viewers criticize the film as dark, dull, disturbing, etc. In my opinion after watching this, though, I have not yet to watch or read any interviews about this film, I feel like it is the director's intent. It intended you to feel disturbed in the first place. It has the potential to make us feel that something's not right or what was happening to their lives were wrong.

This movie has obviously a deeper meaning behind the hardship of the women, manipulation of the madam, luxury of the men, all in the of the "House of Tolerance". And you, as an audience, needed to watch it for you to know those meanings and see from your own perspective.

There is no plot - only a stream of images following prostitutes in a bordello. The cinematography is OK and there are many realistic depictions of the female body but the overall result was oh-so-dull.

There is no plot, the editing looks like it was done randomly, the continuity is tenuous, the characters are boring.

I suffered through the whole movie. I'm giving it 4 stars because I did chuckle 4 times and I suppose it could have been worse somehow. I now feel a profound resentment for the director and the writer(s). What a bunch of self-indulgent jerks. Even Michael Bay does better movies! Michael Bay! Ugh!

Don't watch this. I stayed in the movie theater in the hopes the ending would somehow redeem it and because I was with friends.

They both strongly disliked it by the way.

It's a superbly directed and beautiful picture, but one that leaves you ultimately indifferent. The theme of decadence of a traditional brothel should've been the main focus, not a blurry afterthought meandering in the background. Instead we get a monotone melodrama about day-to-day in the world's oldest profession. But then again, the director might've known better than to pretend he can say anything that hasn't been said about this soul-sucking and hedonistic racket.

2 hours that I would never get back. 6 stars for the actresses I saw in the movie. The movie was supposed to tell us more about the sad and hopeless lives of the prostitutes. Instead, it was like a soft porn where you would see a lot of sex scenes and nude females. Not much of background sounds you could hear, which made the movie a bit enjoyable. But why they used Asian instruments for the sounds and why there were two modern English songs that didn't really fit the scenes they were in? The ending, why medelaine's tears were white like thick cream? If the movie was more about their lives, I would give a higher rating.

This takes place in a Paris brothel just before and just after the start of the 20th century. While there is a lot of nudity and sex, the film is almost always anti-erotic, as it is so clear that the women are less than enthusiastic participants. Interestingly, I found the only moments with any erotic charge were moments between the women themselves, who support each other in what amounts to indentured servitude. Occasionally we feel the heat of human connection between them in a look, a touch, and that is far more sensual than anything they share with their clients, which is often degrading, and occasionally violent.

The film is a look at the trap poor women found themselves in, when being a prostitute was one of the only ways to make your own money, and other professions had just as many drawbacks (one woman speaks of giving up being a washer-woman because her lungs were becoming damaged from breathing ammonia all day). But the irony is, the 'expenses' of being a well kept prostitute (from room and board to perfume) are more than the women can take in, so they inevitably fall deeper and deeper into debt. Like sharecroppers, they soon 'owe their soul to the company store'.

This isn't a naturalistic film in the usual sense. It jumps around in time – something we sometimes only realize because we'll see a moment we'd watched earlier happen a second time, but in this case from a new perspective or in a new context. It's 'slow' by our usual standards, and is less about plot than about captured moments that build to something larger. It also uses anachronistic, modern music to great effect. But for all it's intentional artifice, there is a feeling of an honest sort of hyper-reality here. In the same way a poem can capture the feeling of a sunny day better than a lot of scientific explanation, so too does this poetic film capture a complex and sad world in a way that lets you feel a sense of understanding and empathy more than straight forward naturalism might.

The film-making itself is of a very high order. The cinematography and acting are both first rate, and there is a sequence near the end that combined acting, images and music to give me chills in the rare way sequences by great film-makers can sometimes do. Not every choice works, but this is a bold, challenging and emotional film. It doesn't tell you what to think, it just creates a world, invites you inside and allows you to draw your own conclusions. I suspect I will get even more from it on a second viewing.

I wouldn't have believed it, but it's true.

Beautiful naked women parade around the screen for just over two hours. And yet it is just plain tedious.

Nothing happens in this film. It's unrelievedly gloomy, the girls are all depressed, none of them like sex, and the men all want to do bizarre things with them.

We don't learn much about many of the girls.

We learn little or nothing about the legal or social system in which the maison close operated, i.e., what was legal and what was not.

I really do not understand what the point of the film was.

Avoid it.

This is a serious and complex film. It takes the audience out of their comfort zone. Not everyone will understand the film. The film is about women that may have no other choice but to sell their bodies, about freaks that buy their bodies, about these women's inability to pay off their so called "debt", about cruelty, about general stigma that surrounds these women. All of the women in the story's brothel are regular girls that have no one to turn to for help, but possibly each other. The reference to the pseudo "study" that one idiot sites in the film, the choice of music, the way the film ends - all help to make the audience think about the film and its story not as something from the past, but as issues that continue on and the reasons (society maybe) behind these issues.

This movie is boring! It's one of those movies that seems like it will get better and turn around at the very next scene, but that never happens. It just drags on with no dialogue, no character development, and really nothing worth waiting for. Everything is suggested, drama included. If ever there was a 'nothing' movie this is it. Writing ten lines to review this film is almost as much a waste of time as it was watching it. The movie has but two redeeming qualities that get a viewer to its end. One is that it looks good. Everything about this film says visually "hey this is a good movie," when in fact it isn't. The only other thing in the film worth noting is that there is a panther. That's it. Panthers are cool.