Critics’ reviews

Belle de Jour (1967)

11 reviews from 11 publications. Critics’ score 84: 10 positive, 1 mixed, 0 negative.

Back to our review of Belle de Jour

84
Positive
10
Mixed
1
Negative
0

Most critics respond warmly to Belle de Jour, with praise centred on Catherine Deneuve’s controlled performance and Buñuel’s dry, subversive handling of sexual desire and social hypocrisy. The reviews repeatedly admire the movement between fantasy and reality, finding its ambiguity compelling rather than confusing. Deneuve’s cool elegance is a recurring point of agreement, while the photography, colour, production design and editing also draw praise for giving the heroine’s double life such a precise visual form.

The spread runs from strong enthusiasm to qualified admiration, with only one mixed assessment and no negative reviews. The clearest reservation comes from the Los Angeles Times, which finds the film interesting and provocative but considers its detached, cerebral approach a limitation. Even that review praises the acting and use of colour; the disagreement is chiefly over how much Buñuel’s coolness limits the film’s impact.

Radio Times
★★★★★ · David Parkinson
100

The critic regards the film as a complex, acclaimed masterpiece. They single out Catherine Deneuve’s beguiling performance and the film’s deft shifts between dream and reality.

Read the full review →
Slant Magazine
9 September 2003 · ★★★★/4 · Ed Gonzalez
100

The critic calls the film radical and compelling despite some flaws. They praise how Buñuel shows patriarchal power spilling into Séverine’s fantasies.

Read the full review →
The Guardian
6 September 2017 · ★★★★★ · Peter Bradshaw
100

Bradshaw finds the film strange and captivating, with a shrewd, scabrous critique of social hypocrisy and sexual politics. He especially praises Catherine Deneuve’s extraordinary, ghostlike performance.

Read the full review →
Sight and Sound
7 September 2017 · Jan Dawson
90*

Dawson praises the film’s seamless blending of fantasy, memory and reality. She singles out Catherine Deneuve’s controlled performance and Sacha Vierny’s camerawork.

Read the full review →
The New Yorker
9 April 2006 · Anthony Lane
90*

Lane welcomes the film’s return and regards its subversion as enduringly fresh. He singles out the deadpan precision of Buñuel and Catherine Deneuve as the reason it has not dated.

Read the full review →
Empire
1 January 2000 · Ian Nathan
85*

Nathan highly recommends the film as witty, erotic and elegant. He praises its effortless style and the contrast between Deneuve’s delicate beauty and her character’s carnal desires.

Read the full review →
IndieWire
23 January 2012 · Beth Hanna
80*

The critic treats the film as a masterpiece and finds Criterion’s Blu-ray an impressive presentation. She especially praises the restored transfer’s colors and sound, along with the disc’s supplemental interviews and documentary.

Read the full review →
Time Out
19 December 2006 · Wally Hammond
75*

The review presents the film as one of Buñuel’s greatest popular successes. It singles out the film’s sly, provocative character for praise.

Read the full review →
Variety
31 December 1966 · Variety Staff
75*

The critic calls the film crackling and praises its clear-eyed portrayal of the heroine’s double life. Catherine Deneuve’s performance and the film’s color photography, production design, and editing stand out.

Read the full review →
Los Angeles Times
19 December 1968 · Charles Champlin
55*

Champlin finds the film interesting and provocative but less than a masterpiece, criticizing its detached, cerebral approach. He praises Buñuel’s gorgeous use of color and the impeccable acting, especially Catherine Deneuve’s cool elegance.

Read the full review →
Eye for Film
30 December 2006 · Chris
75*

The critic finds the film still shocking and an ambitious, forceful artistic statement. They praise its luxurious couture and photography, alongside its emotional complexity and ambiguous storytelling.

Read the full review →

Ordered by the weight we give each publication, then by score. Scores are normalised to 100; * means inferred from an unrated review. Summaries are ours, not quotations; follow the links for the reviews themselves. How we rate