Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Borserie it is finally so absorbing because it plays like a lyrical road odyssey that’s also a detective story.

Adeel Hail Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

Kinley This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

gridoon2018 Director Régis Wargnier gained international fame (and a somewhat controversial Best Foreign Film Oscar) in 1992 for "Indochine", but 15 years later he made what can best be described as a b-movie that in most countries went (and deservedly so) straight to DVD. It's not unwatchable, but it is mediocre. The story lacks propulsion for so long (the film runs nearly two full hours) that when the plot finally starts twisting and turning, it's hard to summon much interest. I must admit that it took me two different sittings to complete the viewing. The cast is good (this was Michel Serrault's last film), although "Indochine"'s star Linh Dan Pham has only a decorative role here. ** out of 4.

notify-christina The film was okay, not brilliant but good enough to watch if you want an easy time with not much tension. It felt more like a soap opera episode. From the trailers I knew they would kill the original story but I thought it would still be a good movie, because of the actors. It's not horrible, the acting is fine and I like this way of filming, but the plot is quite shallow at parts and the characters do inexplicable things. There are serious plot holes, because the film makers spent lots of screen time showing us naked behinds of dead bodies and there was no time left for giving the characters some depth and consistency. The writers go straight to the point before the first ten minutes and then try to build tension on things that couldn't support it. All the plot holes are explained in the book.*spoiler*The scare wasn't in the possibility of a plague outburst but in not understanding how the trails were connected and why.If you've read the book or intend to do so, don't watch the film. Don't even think about it. It has changed EVERYTHING and reveals vital parts of the book in the first four minutes. Different characters, different plot, different ending. Only the basic story is the same, but that's like saying 'it's about a serial killer'. EVERYTHING is changed, this movie is definitely not based on F. Vargas book. In fact, it's the opposite for 75% of it.

michaelj108 The story is taken from a novel in a series by Fred Vargas. Inspector Adamsberg figures in most, but not all of those novels, each of which has an odd plot. I felt that I knew Adamsberg from the several novels, six in all. José Garcia is perfect. Adamsberg is vague, lonely, uncommunicative, and – at times – brilliant. He would be an irritating fellow to work with or for. Only his lieutenant Adrien Danglard has the patience and persistence to put up with his eccentricities, one of which is an inability to remember people's names, including his subordinates and colleagues. Perhaps the author intends this feature to indicate his unwillingness to commit to others. Adamsberg is at least as remote and annoying as Sherlock Holmes, but in different ways.The film makes the local community a character in the story. The Bar Viking, the plaza, the boarding house, the regulars all add to the texture of the story, and to some degree determine events. There are chases for those who must see movement and color on the screen to stay tuned, one over rooftops and another on roller skates. There is a shoot out for those who must have noise, though it seemed to add nothing to either plot or character.But the center of the film is Adamsberg, brooding and intense without saying a word very often. It is an unusual approach these days to rely on acting, rather than shouting, guns, or special effects, but it works. Garcia is compassionate and dedicated, but he is also guarded and vulnerable. He makes mistakes, but presses on. He does not defy authority, but occasionally asserts it slowly and steadily.When Adamsberg's famed intuition does occur, he is as confused by it, as the viewer is, but he works through it, as do we along with him.I hope the film leads to more the Vargas books being filmed and that José Garcia plays Adamsberg again, and again. This film was the last credit for the great Michel Serrault. He gave us much to think about over the years and a great deal of pleasure, too.

writers_reign Yet another entertaining policier from France and one of the last films made by the late and very much lamented Michel Serrault, which would be reason enough to see it but as it turns out that reason is superfluous because the film stands on its own two feet as an excellent thriller with an unusual storyline which begins with mysterious signs painted on doorways and embraces the introduction into Paris of bubonic plague to which no one is immune least of all cop Lucas Belvaux, taking a break from directing to play second lead here. Olivier Gourmet is a modern version of the old Town Crier - and though I go to Paris several times each year I've yet to see one, although that doesn't mean they don't exist - who collects letters daily and then reads them out publicly, unaware that they are being 'treated' with the plague virus. The mystery, of course, is Who and Why and we get there in the end but not before a well-balanced mixture of the cerebral and physical such as the sequence where a suspect escapes on roller blades and is pursued on foot and by car or the linking of the cerebral in the shape of Michel Serrault and the physical represented by Marie Gillain - in her third film in the salles this week - who almost chokes him to death before herself being pursued underneath the supports of a bridge from which she eventually plunges into the Seine. All in all a very satisfactory thriller.