The only gripe I have with this film is the ending? Does it really necessary to make the rich kid with the 'good life' to envy the less fortunate one's for his 'freedom'? To get the protagonist killed to prove a point? Maybe the writing here is more of self expression than depicting human condition in general? Loud volume doesn't make the music more significant. Perhaps something could have left unsaid to the audience's imagination...<br /><br />I always liked the French movies for there seemingly understated fashion over the dog barks of moral debate and preaching of the Anglo-American types - assuming the viewer is deaf and dumb. Well, the movie's ending is a bit surprise to me. Instead of letting the actors barking at each other, it chose to create a big bang with its twisted story line in the end. I certainly saw it coming after the middle point of the film. But still, I'd have no problem giving it 10 had it not been for the forced ending. I thought the biggest tragedy for people like Toto is that they never got anything right and nobody cares what they do or do not do. Therefore, to force Alfred to 'envy' Toto in the end and let Toto leave with a bang instead of a wimp is certainly gratifying to the audience, Hollywood style. But it feels very concocted and unnatural. Trying to force a tragedy into a comedy really is pointless. Because life really do sucks for folks like Toto.