ReaderKenka Let's be realistic.

Stoutor It's not great by any means, but it's a pretty good movie that didn't leave me filled with regret for investing time in it.

PiraBit if their story seems completely bonkers, almost like a feverish work of fiction, you ain't heard nothing yet.

Michelle Ridley The movie is wonderful and true, an act of love in all its contradictions and complexity

gridoon2018 "Blood Relatives" begins as a police procedural, with interrogations, red herrings, police line-ups, etc., but gradually transforms into a psychological family drama, with long flashbacks that take up nearly the entire second half; the ultimate solution of the murder is guessable for fans of the genre, but it remains chilling to see unfold on the screen. Aude Landry (why did she have to quit acting so early? She shows huge potential here) and Lisa Langlois give very accomplished performances for their age, and Donald Sutherland is effectively introspective as the inspector who, much like Hercule Poirot, tries to understand the psychology of the crime in order to get to the truth. There are two strangely "off" turns by the usually dependable Donald Pleasence and Stephane Audran, but thankfully their parts are minor and don't really affect the quality of the film, which I consider one of Claude Chabrol's best and most underrated. *** out of 4.

writers_reign I've just been reading the previous comments and what emerges is 1) these people are easily pleased and 2) not only have they not read the novel which was the jumping-off point but they are clearly unfamiliar with Ed McBain's 87th Precinct series of 'police procedurals' in which the 87th itself is the hero rather than any one individual cop. There is a regular team of well-drawn detectives, uniformed cops, medical examiners etc and the novels are clearly set in New York albeit a New York city with five fictitious boroughs clearly corresponding to Brooklyn, Queens, Richmond, Manhattan and The Bronx. Here Chabrol has taken perhaps the best known detective, Steve Carella and teamed him with a Bert Klinger, who is dark haired and in his thirties whereas McBain wrote a character named Bert KLING who was a blonde blue-eyed WASP (the precinct comprised all the ethnic mixes that would be found in a Manhattan precinct house). This is bizarre to say the least; if Chabrol was, as seems very possible, interested in the incest factor - which in the novel was merely the solution to a killing - all he had to do was develop his own plot around that theme but by crediting McBain, keeping McBain's title and ONE of McBain's regular cops he winds up with a hybrid that pleases no one. This is one of those movies when the audience gets the feeling that Donald Sutherland, Donald Pleasance and David Hemmings are acting in three different films and none of them is all that good. See it as a curio.

Coventry There are several great reasons to see "Blood Relatives"! First of all because Donald Sutherland is a magnificent actor and his project choices in the 70's practically all resulted in brilliant movies ("Klute", "Don't Look Now", "Day of the Locust", Invasion of the Body Snatchers"…), the supportive cast is also terrific, with Donald Pleasence and David Hemmings, and – most of all – controversial murder mysteries are always worth checking out, especially if they're directed by an acclaimed French filmmaker. "Blood Relatives" opens truly powerful and remains fascinating for almost a full hour. On a rainy Saturday night, a violent aggressor attacks two minor girls and one of them – the oldest one – doesn't survive. The girls turn out to be cousins and police inspector Carella (Sutherland) is charged with looking for the killer, starting with the usual line-up of notorious sex offenders and pedophiles. It's only with the discovery of the dead victim Muriel's personal diary that Carella realizes the culprit is very close to the family, as she hid a relationship with her first-degree cousin Andrew and an affair with her employer. The first half of "Blood Relatives" is great with a close follow-up of the police investigation and a specifically well-scripted red herring involving the respectable Donald Pleasence playing a repulsive monster. The story has you guessing along with Sutherland's character and you try to focus on every possible sub theme and/or underlying message. Regretfully, and nearly impossible to comprehend, the film pretty much turns into a campy teen-horror story with the arrival of Muriel's diary. The remaining playtime is filled with flashbacks and narrated scenes from the diary, padded with an incredible amount of uninteresting info about typical teenage girl stuff and overly detailed footage of Muriel's private love-life. The identity of Muriel's killer suddenly seems secondary to her puppy loves and Sutherland only occasionally comes on screen when he turns over the pages in the diary. Bummer! How can a film that starts so promising end up so tacky, dull and immature?

SarahConnor I just watched this movie and was pleasantly surprised by the twist ending. I can normally sense those sort of surprises in film but this one I really did not foresee. It really was a good story, it was interesting but the beginning was a bit slow. I loved how Muriel was able to tell us her story through the use of the diary. Patricia was definitely screwed up, if she had been in love with her brother the whole time I am sure she would have been paying more attention to what he was doing and where he was going all the time. There would have been major jealousy issues for a while, but I think the two were only seeing each other for a month or so actually. Good movie, I thought about changing the station once or twice but I'm glad I waited it out.