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 sometimes find that universal subjects, such as love and friendship are rendered much more honestly when the characters are poor or at least not well off, in terms of money, family,..so forth. They seem to be naked in the face of reality, not able to hide behind an artifice. Because both Isa and Marie are alone and poor, their friendship feels like it is luxury in their lives, not something just to pass the time until something better comes along.I get the sense that this is Isa's story and that Marie's friendship was a stop for her, another chapter to a tumultuous life. That her life will be series of tragedies and joys, and that it is neither good or bad, just reality.I don't understand those who call this a depressing movie. It is a beautiful, life-affirming movie about real people dealing with real situations.

Real life is no sweet dream .. it is a painful struggle to many people.Real life is harder even to women .. this movie realistically shows how rough life can be through two young women point of view .. it is a world of materialism that doesn't care about the human being needs.I don't know what else can I say about it? .. it is too simple to be described in words .. beside I don't want to spoil it for the readers. I think European movies in general care much more than Hollywood about the characters .. especially French movies.Élodie Bouchez & Natacha Régnier.. were truly amazing and they gave a high class performances It is realistic & absolutely one of the best in 1998 .. don't miss, it is a very good movie.

Yes, the acting is superb, both the leads: the footloose, free-spirit Isa and the angry and erratic Marie. Also the supporting cast: the fat-boy bouncer and the rich-boy cad.What's available to young women cast out of the nest? How does one survive the winters as a homeless person in the northern France? Mind-numbing factory work is available. But where to live, and how to find the community that homo sapiens need to be mentally healthy? We learn what it takes to survive. Isa has great resources; she's an extrovert and has a genuine concern for others. She finds community with a most unlikely person. Poor Marie, wanly beautiful, is withdrawn and suspicious; one must intrude forcibly to get beyond her defenses. And yet she's careless. So faced with the same chances, one woman finds psychic sustenance while the other stumbles into despair.