Worse. This sinister OP does not like French films because ... they're French. Indeed, IMdB is an ideal forum for those miserable grouchy xenophobes to croak away their hatred towards anything not apple-pie-American from under the rock (or monster truck) where they're hiding.
And don't mistake me! I like Americans and I once lived in the US as a foreigner. But one of the first things I learnt while working there is that virtually all Americans, even the most literate ones, look at the rest of the world as their own backyard still waiting to be settled and colonized by them, if not done already. It's something so basically imprinted in their DNA that even cold reasoning cannot manage to extirpate it from their mindset.
Proud France is still, at least in part, a very idiosyncratic society where culture and individual liberties are still valued and treasured as what makes us truly human and gives us authentic reasons to believe in the full-blown power of the mind, keeping us alive in body as well as in mind. Such beliefs being so un-American (despite the fact that once again, a subset of better educated US citizens sincerely value culture and liberty in their true sense), Frenchmen/women often inspire a strong hostile reaction from the most pathetic cases of US society. What a good example we have here!
Cinematography (the art, not just the technique) was not only invented in France, but French directors have contributed such big chunks of original ideas to film making that reading moronic opinions such as the OP’s invariably turns me down completely, hence this reply that I know will not change the opinions of a xenophobe.
That being said, I find it also depressing to find the forum on this movie, as on most other Rohmer’s films, almost completely empty. I have endeavored to try changing this state of affairs and will start to sow my own impressions on each film made by this giant of French cinema, and in my opinion, one of the greatest and the most underappreciated film directors not only in French cinema, but definitely in the history of this art. I treasure each and every one of his movies, and even the most minor of his contributions (e.g. Suzanne’s Career, Triple Agent, The Lady and the Duke, etc.) are still at a vantage point next to very good movies made by most other French directors, including Godard, Truffaut or Renoir. In French cinema, only Bresson’s stature can be compared to Rohmer’s in my opinion, which should say a lot about how highly I consider Rohmer. And looking at the rest of the world, I would even dare to say that the ability of Rohmer to cinematographically depict the human soul in its uttermost complexity and subtleties is on par with Ingmar Bergman’s, which again should say much on how incredibly profound yet universally intelligible his opus really is when creative dissection of the human mind is concerned.
Of course, Les Nuits de la Pleine Lune is certainly dated visually and musically, being and sounding so early ‘80s it hurts: Louise’s (Pascale Ogier’s) hairdo and clothes, the new-wavish dance music from hell and the staccato and groin rubbing dances shown with the party, and generally, the atmosphere of eternal human solitude (and AIDS, still hidden in the background) lingering behind the wall of totally free love which was living its last few heartbeats at the time of the movie (1984). Rohmer’s genius managed to understand the despair and yearn for true love in young adults living through those years (and I was one) -which is still a mystery to me considering the man’s personal set of values – in such an acutely realistic and true-to-life manner that one can’t help but find Louise’s personal story infinitely sad and awe-inspiring.
How many people managed to assemble a plastically beautiful movie with such realistic characters with realistic emotions, language and ideas, and render their personal feelings so vividly through the eyes of the camera as they would be felt through our own eyes and other senses? If this is watching paint drying on the wall, I want to keep re-painting my apartment forever and have the same pleasure I have while watching any Rohmer’s movie. Any one of them. And if an opinion angers me more than the “watching paint drying” remark, it’s that each new movie that Rohmer made was the same one as the last except for the location and central characters. Because I did watch and re-watch each movie ever made by this incredible artist, and if there’s one constant that strikes me, it’s that each movie is unique and completely different from all the other ones: the central, leading theme of each movie, its characteristic take on existence, its particular tone, the ways that the characters interact: each of Rohmer’s films is very unique and essential, and deserves to be seen on its very own merits and character. Even all movies six of the Contes Moraux cycle, with their common twist showing how a man is torn apart between two opposed female attracting forces, but, through his unfortunate experience with the “second” woman, manages to understand that he already had what he was looking for with the one with whom he was already: each of these six films manages to tell the same basic generic story in a language so completely unique and different on six consecutive occasions, that any theory that Rohmer kept repeating the same basic film so many times is beyond falsehood!