I read "Quiet Days in Clichy" some fifty years ago. Whatever else can be said for porno--it does have a certain joie-de-vivre to it. And this movie--more or less--captures the mindlessness of Henry Miller chasing after c**t in Paris. And apparently with some success. (The word is splattered all over the film in the opening minutes of the film... So trust it doesn't violate IMDb TOU. And the reality of Henry Miller and the story is reduction of women to a simple anatomical part.)While the 1990 film portrays the 14 year old Collette with a certain charm, innocence, style, and attractiveness--this film prefers to depict Collette as some sort of simpleton waif, mentally unbalanced.While I thought the 1990 version bordered on the silliness--partly because of the sterilization of the sex scenes, which I thought Henry Miller would not have approved, and partly for use of studio sets for exterior shots of Paris--this version actually is filmed outdoors with Paris as a backdrop. The cineme-verite added a dimension of reality that was appreciated.The story, "Quiet Days in Clichy" Henry Miller records his sexual exploits in vivid detail--I thought one of those great moments in story telling. "Wow, who knew mindless humping and drinking could be fun?" And this 1970 version managed to capture that in a small way that sense of fun that mindless humping is--and that Henry Miller wanted to convey in his autobiographical story. While the 1990 version seemed to never quite admit that basic element of effing for fun.A great movie ?--not by a long shot; but interesting to see how Henry Miller's pornographic autobiographical sketch was transposed to film; and this movie was a far more successful adaptation than the sterile 1990 version. (And both worth a look see on a rainy Saturday evening.)

Pretty funny and trashy take on Miller's vision. The sex in this movie makes The Room love scenes to look like high art. For example the almost total absence of doggystyle position, I don't know if it was a censorship issue but it seems stupid to watch this Italian Stalion softcore sex over and over. The guy playing Miller does a rather awful job anyway. He might be an interesting person himself but he is no Henry Miller that is for sure! Anyway, the movie is oversexed in a silly way like if someone saw American Psycho as only being about physical violence for example. Thus in a way it is a weird take on Miller to make it about sex. Miller had a number of other interests such as philosophy.

I don't know about this one. The point, if there was one, seemed to get by me. Multiple references to the film's source, Henry Miller's eponymous novel, don't help much. Much of Miller's appeal comes not just from his go-to-hell attitude towards life and art but from the way he expresses his sentiments on the page. Maybe he just doesn't translate well to the screen, not that Miller himself would care one way or the other.The street words that Miller flung about so carelessly in his prose seem emphasized here, as if designed expressly to shock. Not just the F word either. Well the street words are old and established. Shakespeare worked a terrible pun on the C word into one of his comedies, I forget which. The F word goes back to the Angles and the Saxons or the Mooks and the Gripes or somebody. Wait a minute -- the C word was also worked into a pun in "Hamlet," come to think of it."I feel like going out and getting myself a fatal dose of clap." Well, no kidding. Are we supposed to be shocked? Maybe we were, back in 1970, if we had blue hair and lived in Dogpatch, USA.If Henry Miller doesn't add much cachet, neither do Country Joe and the Fish, whose music whangs away on the sound track with lyrics that are as pointlessly vulgar as the horribly dubbed dialog.Ben Webster is okay, though. And the photography, though irritatingly grainy, is several steps removed from the billowing pastels of soft-core porn. It's honestly black and white, and the naked bodies, of which there are plenty, aren't painted, trimmed, or shaved. If the babe has a pimple anywhere, you see the pimple. And the guys are bald on top and hairy everywhere else. A for sincerity there.The story goes no place. There is no story. People run around half naked on the streets of Paris, flapping their arms and panting, supposedly having a great time. Half a dozen ordinary-looking people slosh around in a tub pouring wine over one another and laughing giddily because the director told them to act as if they were having the grandfather of all good times. (The French do this joi de vivre stuff better.) In the first scene of the film, the bespectacled hero, a pallid imitation of Miller, picks up a girl in a café and, after sex, gives her all his money, can't get any more credit at the restaurants, and is forced to raid his own garbage pail for leftover nuggets. Plenty of sex but not enough food. That's how a viewer feels after watching this.I wish this movie had been better. It was dumped on for obscenity, but the sexual and linguistic candor was at least an innovation in a mainstream movie. It deserves dismissal, true, but only because it lacks any substance. As it is, it stands as an historical curiosity.

this is just one of those pro-tend-be "art-house" junk Euro made in 70s,i do not know why blue-underground release this junk. A very boring movie, 80% of time are silly fake love-making scenes with out any meaning.poor plot, poor acting. silly slut and bastard(the main male roles)There are really no likable people in the movie. If you like this kind of movie, you should rent a real porn, just like last poster saidgive 1 vote just because no zero. I suggest no one should watch this piece of trash. the only good thing in this movie is the music. Just forget about this movie and try your best to avoid it.