Very disappointing...

Absolutely brilliant

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

Its hard to see why film critics are so enamoured with this film.I felt no sympathy at all for Marie. Not sure how much that was the actress (Natacha Regnier) or her acting putting me off. Her intention seemed to be to repel men rather than attract them. And yet blokes were attracted to her nevertheless; so that means either the bloke is too soft in the head (like the fat dopey biker bouncer was) or the interest is casual exploitative sex (which was the motive of the oily night club guy) She certainly repelled me; my antipathy antennae had tuned in to her screwy lack of self-worth right from the first scene: a skinny female with a thin sneery mouth and short hair who isn't exuding erotic sexuality, but denying, repressing it; scared of her innate desirability, her womanhood has inverted into something wilfully antagonistic. I think that was what i was picking up – and probably meant to be picking up; but the "unloved" nature of this Marie character seemed over determined, too self-consciously emphatic. It's OK to have characters who are unlovable; but when they're also not very likable – like this Marie/Natacha Regnier wasn't – any empathy i could have felt re her vulnerability wasn't switched on.The other skinny little girl Isa was more sympathetic; warmer and less neurotically self-absorbed than Marie; a spaced out nice natured skank, creating her little cards out of mags, smoking her rollies with stubby painted nails. And whereas desperate Marie is out having self-centred hurty sex and doing her bad love shtick, Isa is showing self-effacing concern for "angels" in coma's.Actually, come to think of it, you could see Isa and Marie as angels too, if your definition of angel is something like "innocent naivety, unfit for earthly life". Isa is the good angel, her innocence is ungrounded yes (few skills, little education), but her naivety is blessed by kindness and compassion. And Marie is the bad angel, the angel who fell to earth with too much of an ugly clunk, and become too buried in the dirty ground, her innocence contaminated, and deluded, by what she can no longer clearly see. An angel with broken (damaged) wings.But she's sat back on a cloud now. Letting the loved people live life instead i suppose.

I really didn't like this movie much at all. Much of it was because I didn't like either main character much at all--particularly Marie, as she's mostly a self-involved and hateful person. So, because of this and the generally gloomy and awful mood of the film, I can't see the average viewer liking this film.However, this is a rare film that is actually well-written but probably doesn't have a large audience. Those who will like it are either those who like depressing and awful films (fans of Bergman's most depressing films, this is probably for you) OR someone who watches it for the psychological studies. I was a therapist before my mid-life crisis and now I teach psychology in high school. If it weren't for all the nudity in the film, it would be a great film to show the kids when we discuss personality disorders. Isa is a pretty good example of an immature person who MIGHT be diagnosed with a Schizotypal Personality Disorder because she is just plain weird, though not apparently mentally ill. The connection she creates with the girl in the coma is just bizarre as are many of her other behaviors. Marie, though, is the more unlikable character and is a more clearly defined demonstration of a personality disorder. She actually shifts from an apparent Avoidant Personality Disorder (a person who acts like they need no one and may be quite surly to prove it) to a Dependent Personality Disorder (she MUST have one particular man, even though he mistreats her and is a bad person).Once again, this is not a fun movie to watch and the ending is depressing as can be, so don't rush out to see this movie unless you are a person looking for this specific type film.

French movies are always different from any other cinema. They don't look like the average Hollywood production, but even though they are European, they can't really be compared to other European movies either, except for the English perhaps. The style of the French and English cinema aren't the same, but the subjects often are. Most of the time you'll get the story of people who have a hard time making the best of their lives, who live in poverty or bad conditions,... You'll not really find that as much in other countries like for instance Denmark, Spain, Italy,... in Asia or the USA."La Vie rêvée des anges" or "The Dreamlife of Angels", as it is called in English, tells the story of two young women, Marie and Isabelle, who meet each other in a sweatshop, where they have to operate sewing machines. Marie is apartment-sitting for a mother and her daughter who are in a hospital and in a coma after they had a terrible accident. Isabelle has been living with her backpack on her back, not knowing where she will end up the next day and sometimes selling handmade cards on street corners to earn a little money. Both have a difficult life and that's perhaps the only thing that really keeps both girls together. They find joy and adventure in one another's company, but sometimes also have incredible fights because their worlds are too far away from each other...If you are looking for a movie that will leave you with a good feeling after you've seen it, than you better start looking for another one. This film has a heavy subject and especially the ending will make you swallow a couple of times. I'm not going to tell you what that ending exactly is, but in my opinion it was the strongest part of the movie and one of the toughest, but also most touching endings I've seen in a movie in recent times. For me personally the rest of the story was certainly worth watching, but not always very original. I've seen it in more movies, but that doesn't mean of course that it can't be any good.The acting certainly is nice. The two leading actresses didn't get a Golden Palm in Cannes for nothing for this movie and I can understand perfectly why the jury decided to give Élodie Bouchez as well as Natacha Régnier a reward. It's impossible to say that the one was so much better than the other, both gave away a strong performance.As a conclusion I want to say that if you are looking for a feel-good movie, this certainly isn't what you are looking for, but if you are looking for a movie with a good subject and some strong acting than you might give it a try. Despite the fact that the story isn't the most original one ever, the movie stands firm on its feet and that's why I give it a 7/10.

In the telling of a story, movie makers have at their disposal a wealth of tools. There is a school which attempts to portray life at it's most real, forgoing any cinematic effects which would hinder the presentation of what we know as "slice of life". Ken Loach is one such director who has consistently adhered to such a style of movie making.It's not only a valid approach, but one that can be used to great effect, providing the lives on screen are ones we become emotionally involved in. The main problem of "Dreamlife of Angels" is that ultimately the two young woman's somewhat pathetic lives are not of much interest. Their problems are ones we are all aware of and little is presented in the way of helping us understand their predicament. Director Erick Zonca has certainly achieved what he set out to do, eliciting truthful, well rounded performances by both Natacha Regnier and Elodie Bouchez, whose blend of childish innocence and adult wisdom is as effective as it always is. Where he falters is in not making the viewer care enough about their bleak lives, which in turn raises the question of just how worthwhile the entire experience has been.