I had to stop viewing Bertrand Biller's Going Places (1974) about half way through it. I just couldn't take any more of this POOR excuse for a film.If you Google "Robert Hare" you can read what this preeminent authority in the field has to say about "psychopathy". I'm certain that before too long you'll agree that Dr Hare's descriptions of the classic "psychopath" almost perfectly match the two main characters in this SAD excuse for a film. That's all this "film" is, just a blatant display of psychopathic, criminal behavior. "Psychopaths On Parade" would be a better title for this "film", because the thrust of this "film" seems to actually applaud and even admire the narcissistic, remorseless behavior of these two low lifes. I myself find no value, either as a film fanatic, or as just a human being, in a cinematic celebration of psychopathy.Hey!!! I make no pretenses about being "the smartest guy in the world", OK?, but I'm certainly smart enough to know the difference between "right" and "wrong". This film, on the other hand, seems to be equating, or even deliberately confusing "right" and "wrong", and even asking me to somehow buy into that. In short, this "film" carries a morally, and socially corruptive message that there is no difference between "right" and "wrong", or that perhaps doing "wrong" is acceptable if you're young, and cute, and come across as "charming", and somewhat daring when you're doing "wrong". Sorry, but I just don't buy it.I could go on about how blatantly sexist this film is, but what's the point? It's not like the two criminal low lifes in this film actually treat women worse than men in this film. Hey, these guys are "hip", and "enlightened"!!! They're "equal opportunity psychopathic predators".There was no storyline whatsoever at the point where I turned off this piece of garbage cinema. It was an endless stream of disassociated scenes of two social perverts romping gleefully through their criminal, and exploitive deeds, without a cop in sight. I don't know whose fantasies this so called "film" panders to, but it's certainly not mine. In fact, the only purpose that I can see in viewing this so called "film" is for the viewer to vicariously live out his "secret" sexual, and violent fantasies through the two low life, psychopathic characters in this so called "film". But, sorry, I myself don't indulge in such "walks on the dark side" because, frankly, I see myself as a better human being than that.Gerard Depardieu has had a long, and storied, and brilliant career as an actor, cranking out some pretty incredible performances. It's just so sad for me to think that he was forced to act in a piece of garbage cinema like this as a preliminary stepping stone to that wonderful acting career.

I saw this film when it first played in 1974 and hated it. The lead characters were stupid and violent, and I thought it was mean spirited and not funny at all.Seeing it some 38 years later, I have a much more mixed opinion about it. I can now see many things in the film I didn't understand before.First, it is clear that Blier is heavily influenced by Godard and the Nouvelle Vague. Notice that the violence is generally off-screen and the story generally jumps over these scenes. For example the wounding of Pierrot is not shown, just as the shooting of the cop is not shown in "Breathless." The brutal homosexual rape scene is also off-screen with just a scream to indicate it. Likewise, as in "Breathless," there are long seemingly improvised, almost existentialist, talking scenes where the action comes completely to a stop.Second, the violence and psychotic behavior of the leads is mainly in the first half of the film. In the second half, they are mostly charming and often sweet. For example, Jean-Claude offers all the money he has just stolen to a complete stranger, Jeanne Pirolle (Jeanne Moreau), a 40 year old destitute woman just released from prison after 10 years. Jean Claude does not ask anything in return. He seems to just want to help her. At another point, after Jean-Claude and Pierrot are connected with a murder, they try to get rid of Marie-Ange, so that she will not be connected. It is clear that these hoodlums who have mistreated Marie-Ange very badly have learned to care about her and even want to protect her.While there are still any number of objectionable things that the lead characters do, there are really only two scenes, where they do things that are unforgivably mean-spirited. First, Jean Claude threatens the children of a doctor who is helping Pierrot. This seems entirely unnecessary and vicious. Second, Jean Claude shoots Marie-Ange in the knee when she starts to get angry during a robbery. The previous mistreatment of Marie-Ange, giving her as a present to a friend and forcing her to have sex together do not seem so bad, because she herself doesn't object and seems use to sexual mistreatment. It is at the moment that Marie-Ange has started to think and express herself and her feelings of anger that Jean Claude shoots her and that is why this incident seems so unpardonable.It is put down as a goof in the film that later we see Marie-Ange and the wound from the gunshot has disappeared. I am not sure if it is a goof. Rather, the shooting itself and not the disappearance of the effects seems to be the mistake. Since they didn't bother to show the effects of the gunshot later on, I assume the shooting was a quickly improvised part of the film that was done before the later part of the plot was written. It is almost as if the shooting is from a first draft of the movie and only mistakenly found its way into the finished film. In any case, the shooting is the most repulsive part of the film and weakens it considerably.People have described this as a "road movie." I think it more of a coming of age movie, where the three main characters are learning about sex. They don't come from virginity to sex as in most coming of age movies, but they come from seeing sex as something brutal and frightening to something tender and liberating.The film includes three great performances by three great French film actresses, Miou-Miou, Isabel Huppert and Jeanne Moreau. This is probably the best reason to see the film. It is also a must for Gerald Depardieu and Bertrand Blier fans.

Les Valseuses (aka Going Places) is part road movie, part buddy movie (Depardieu and Dewaere). They play a pair of morally bankrupt petty crooks and car thieves who go from place to place displaying misogyny at every turn with remarkably compliant women. These include Jeanne Moreau who is on screen less than 20 minutes, Brigitte Fossey and a very young Isabelle Huppert. The only recurring female character is played by Miou-Miou who is subjected routinely to physical and sexual abuse. Sex comedies of the 1970s – in any language – seem crass and unfunny now, and this is no exception. Some comfort is offered by soundtrack music featuring the late Stéphane Grappelli, French jazz violinist extraordinaire.

A wonderful, free flowing, often lyrical film that whisks you along, ever smiling, even if there are truly shocking incidents along the way. One gasps at the way the women are treated and yet ultimately they seem to come through very well and it is much credit to all concerned that so many potentially disastrous scenes all work so very well. This is possibly Depardieu's best performance, certainly his most natural. Jeanne Moreau performs outstandingly in what must have been a very difficult role to play and including vigorous sex scenes with a couple of guys at least half her age. Miou-Miou is lovely throughout and again has very difficult scenes to play. Initially this seems a down and dirty misogynist rant/romp but as the tale and characters unfold a much more tender and honest picture emerges. In the end this uncompromising and daring film demands respect.