MamaGravity good back-story, and good acting

Executscan Expected more

CommentsXp Best movie ever!

MoPoshy Absolutely brilliant

moorek I started to watch the film after midnight and it was slow. I was sure I'd be asleep soon but the slow pace was matched with constant small pieces of the puzzle being put into place. The acting is good but also fairly monotone but since half the film deals with incidents in police custody and after some terrible deaths - you can see why the people would not be especially expressive.SPOILERS AHEAD. I like that I could not be sure who the murderer was. Some have said they are sure it is one person or the other but I would argue that you can't tell from the film.Julien is often seen as the patsy in the film and I suspect he is. But I also would not put it past him to be the murderer esp seeing his anger when his wife was on the latter. But I think he loved his daughter too much to murder her mother.Delphine, Julien's wife, is a victim but there is something else going on. Much of her behaviour seems typical distant couple but we wonder if she knows of the affair, she seems esp distant in some scenes esp her reasons for not smiling while on the ladder and esp when she reacts so strongly hearing of the death. Makes you wonder if there was not another affair going on.Ester appears to be the person behind the murders as she clearly infatuated with Julien (although the dynamics are not there to explain why). Yet her correspondence with Julien is very casual. Four letters in five months? Cool to him in the drugstore. If nothing else when Julien bangs her head in the magistrate's office - you think that would stop any casual sense of love.Nicholas' mother at one point could easily be the murderer. She had motive and opportunity. We see that at the end of the story very well. Some are sure she is. It wouldn't explain Delphine but Nicholas could have known of the affair, and knowing he didn't have long to live, took his own life so that his wife and her lover would be blamed.Not understanding the French legal system then it is difficult to understand how they were convicted.There was mixed testimony on if Nicholas was even poisoned or not. So if you can't say for sure he was poisoned then was it murder?The discussion of the letters was common yet they didn't exist. At one point his lawyer says "letters that she shays she wrote". There seemed to be much discussion on the interpretation of those yet they didn't exist anymore.After the husband's death and it might or might not be murder then the murder of Delphine is just so obvious. It's clearly murder. It's going to be investigated. Since both of them seemed to feel that others knew of the affair esp the chamber maid then there was no way it wouldn't lead to an re-examination of the husband's death.For Julien the only evidence was that he picked up some homemade jam for his wife, that she normally orders, and dropped it off at the house and returned to work. The fact he was behind the building and was there for "minutes" is silly. We all sometimes get into our car and don't leave. We daydream, listen to a song on the radio, plan our next steps in the day. And if I were going to open and poison a bottle of jam then why would I do that anywhere near people. Also if it was a conspiracy then it is more likely Ester would have poisoned it at work at the drugstore.We often say who has the most motive with any death. In this case the death of the husband and the wife link to a couple having an affair. An affair that seems to be over for months and could be easily proved with testimony of the hotel clerk etc. Yet it seems clear that two people benefited from the death of Nicolas - his wife and his sister. His sister who said in court that she thought her sister-in-law married only for the money. If "everyone" knew of the affair then so did the sister. In fact she would likely be the person told first. So her brother is dying and she will have to share the business with her sister-in-law who was cheating on her brother. So what better way to get back, and working in a drugstore would have the means, then to poison the brother (maybe with his agreement) and then since the jam was with her at the drugstore - the jam. It would be easy to know that only the wife ate that jam so you don't risk poisoning the husband or daughter.In the end it is the sister who benefits all around.

writers_reign Laden with awards and nominations (well deserved) Mathieu Amlaric is always a good bet, whether acting, directing, writing, or, as here, all three, he seldom lets you down and on the whole opts for interesting and/or unusual projects. Writing and acting with his real life partner (he was, at one time, married to another fine if somewhat neglected actress Jeanne Balibar) Stephanie Cleau, not exactly chopped liver if anyone asks you, he has elected as source material a non-linear novel by Georges Simenon, arguably the most adapted novelist of all time, and the partners have done an excellent job in both departments. The film's strength is in keeping you guessing whether you are watching an account of an intense affair - a la liaison pornographique with Nathalie Baye - a crime passionel, a courtroom drama or, as it turns out, all three. This is top of the line whichever way you look at it and the DVD is already on my list.

The_late_Buddy_Ryan Mathieu Amalric isn't one to shy away from a risky project—has anybody seen the film where he plays a shrink and Benicio Del Toro's a Blackfoot WWII vet with PTSD? Here he and his real-life partner, Stéphanie Cléau, co-star in a stripped-down 75' adaptation of a Simenon story of erotic obsession and justice gone awry. The fine performances and the film's time-shuffling structure help maintain a high level of suspense at least past the halfway mark, though it seems to me that Amalric and Cléau, who also wrote the script, might have thrown a little too much of Simenon's backstory out with the bathwater. The plodding inquiry that begins even before we know a crime has been committed certainly explains Julien's (MA's character's) air of glum fatalism through the second half of the film, but the script's intense focus on the two lovers doesn't prepare us for the final courtroom scene, in which a character we've barely seen before steps into the spotlight. (I'm planning to watch again to test the hypothesis, suggested by some online reviewers, that the crime the protags are charged with was committed by someone else…)The courtroom scene has a nightmarish quality, like one of Hitchcock's "wrong man" films; the trial itself seems like an open-mic session where gossipy townsfolk step up to air their gripes about the defendants—one witness dismisses Julien's stylish modernist house as a "crappy little shack." There's certainly a disconnect between Simenon's view of blind, blundering justice and our own no doubt idealized police procedurals and courtroom dramas; I agree with other reviewers that Julien would have excellent grounds for appeal on the basis of blatant judicial bias and ineffective counsel.

Jack Dean What if there was a crime drama and no one cared who did it? You'd have The Blue Room. I went to see this film because I'm a fan of foreign films. They generally paint very different pictures of people, places and daily life than we get from Hollywood. Even poor foreign films give me glimpses of interesting people and places or a story that makes me think. This film had absolutely none of those qualities. The characters are depressed, bleak and boring. The nudity wasn't the least bit erotic. There is no sense that anyone cares for each other in any meaningful way, not even a father for his daughter or vice versa. The two main characters are having an affair but their spouses don't seem to notice or care who does what all day. I was hoping I'd feel sorry for his wife, but I didn't because she was nearly as boring and lifeless as he was. Even the police detectives seem to be bored with the whole affair. There is one good thing about this movie however: it's short... only about one and a half hours until it is mercifully over.