Scanialara You won't be disappointed!

Supelice Dreadfully Boring

Taraparain Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

Usamah Harvey The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

writers_reign This is one for Sylists. The Podalydes brother put on, to quote the pop song, the style. In spades. Essentially they - Bruno as writer/director possibly a tad more than Denis as actor - have taken Gaston Leroux' celebrated 'locked-door' mystery, which was responsible seemingly for Agatha Christie's career, given it a lick of paint, thrown in some loving 'period' detail and added some of the finest actors in French cinema to the mix. There are those who will be disappointed that the 'mysterious' element fails to rivet attention; equally there will be others who relish the stylistic touches, the brilliantly whimsical opening credits featuring one of those carefully 'weighted' devices which delivers a ball to successively lower levels until it is deposited onto a train which then runs on its own miniature rails through open countryside and segues into a real train carrying four of the principals to the scene of the 'mystery'. Eccentricism is the order of the day which means that English viewers will have no problem relating to half the principals (ironically it has yet to be shown in England) and Podalydes is scrupulous in his attention to period detail, costumes, etc. Even setting the mystery itself to one side there is much to savor in the playing of such luminaries as Fanny Ardant, Sabine Azema, Michael Lonsdale, Denis Podalydes, Isabelle Candalier and Pierre Arditi. In total a very pleasant romp.

tedg What to do when you encounter something like this? Its so remarkably perfect in one dimension and so busted in another, so horribly mangled.What's screwed is the actual mystery, how it is spun and "explained." There's a reason why the standard form concentrates the solution in a blast at the end, perhaps with some visual recall and recreation of what we have seen and puzzled over.Here, fully a third of the movie is "explanation," and oh lord is it tedious. Early in the explanation we simply stop caring. After this ended, I couldn't help recalling the recent "The Illusionist," which handled a puzzle of a similar type with immensely more grace and engagement. So that kills it. There's a last minute revelation, but by that time we have already left the story.But on the good side, there is such fun in how this is cinematically elaborated. The world that is created is so gently comic, so mechanically articulated that I will recommend this anyway. There are completely surreal qualities: the detective we follow apparently leaves France and goes to America to do research and returns, all within an evening. Some of the decisions of the filmmakers build on the hooks in the book: the accompanying photographer, the dueling detectives, the father of the attacked as an inventor of machines whose elaborate and indirect mechanisms mirror the way the filmmakers see the plot.The famed title sequence is of such a machine: a ball rolls through troughs and drops and different devices, eventually falling into a toy train that segues into a real train with our four observers on their way to the crime scene.Then once at the crime scene we meet the father who invents and builds just these sorts of machines. In the train, we are given a clue in how the newspapers are read in perfect sync by the four readers that some symmetry principals will be at work: if we see a father who makes elaborate machines maybe we should be looking for the same or similar elsewhere. But the signal isn't strong enough; even I missed it and I am obsessed with such cues.So its really odd that the thing is so perfectly structured, with such symmetries that you should be able to just look at the missing reflections to parse out the answer. And at the same time it is so asymmetrical in its excellence: the form of the story so deft in one way and so incompetent in another. Its like visiting a Guarini-designed baroque church. Some elements are garish and repulsive while others are transcendently lifealtering.Other things to recommend this. The French, let's face it, are generally ugly. The faces chosen for this production leverage that and give us faces that don't try to be engaging by prettiness. That frees the actors to give us characters that are deeper than usual, creating types that have reality.Also. The woman who is the target for the murder attempts and who is supposed to be about 40 I guess, is played by an oddly appealing redhead. She's the long time companion of Alain Resnais, one of the French new wavers actually worth spending time with. She's almost a prop, as is the only other woman in the cast. The plot depends on the affections of these women being mechanically predicable.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

dbdumonteil Gaston Leroux's famous novel has been turned several times into a movie. There's a version made in 1930 by Marcel L'Herbier which hasn't worn very well due to an obsolete performance in spite of Roland Toutain's palatable performance as Joseph Rouletabille. A made-for-TV version was broadcast on French TV in the sixties and was a quality one. I visited the castle which was tapped as the main scenery a few years ago! It is located in Touraine.In the dawn of the twenty first century, about a hundred years ago after the publication of the most famous whodunit in French literature, the Podalydès brothers (Bruno at the directing, writing, Denis in the main role) set about adapting it. They must have set their hearts on this project for they're buffs of Leroux's book. What is the amount of their venture? A classic of the whodunit turned into a quirky and novel version.The introduction of the film presents a steel ball which by advancing releases various mechanisms before ending on a tiny train which makes its way in the country. This zany device paves the way for the aura which pervades the whole film. It is interspersed with fanciful chains, queer linkings and gags which would make some installments worth of memorable classics (the car which can only work with solar energy; so when a clouds hides the sun, the car is brought to a halt or the trick of the clock in which Jean Noël Brouté lurks himself to watch out for the culprit). The Podalydès brothers' venture was motivated by the rousing desire to incorporate their influences and their passions in Leroux's novel. One of their credentials include a deep admiration for the universe of Tintin and here, it's evident that they tried to recreate Hergé's world without trying to accurately copy it. Thus, Rouletabille's spirit of deduction and astuteness has a strong analogy with Tintin's. Beside him, Sinclair, his photograph, following him wherever he goes resembles Milou. By his offbeat inventions, his scatterbrained and absent-minded part, professor Stangerson is professor Calculus. Robert Darzac, the timid fiancé could be a distant cousin of Nestor, Moulinsart's butler. The mansion of the Glandier also evokes Moulinsart. With all these analogies, Bruno Podalydès' piece of work has the look of a vivacious comic book.Gaston Leroux penned his book in the early twentieth century but the Podalydès duo relocated the main thread of the story at the time of the Roaring Twenties and it appears that everything in the flick is tapped to try to capture the mentality, the manners of this era, either it is in the actors' probably deliberate quaint acting, the customs, the lavish scenery. It is enhanced by a hint of surrealism (a fashionable artistic movement at the time). It's an eloquent depiction of the Roaring Twenties, a genteel homage to silent cinema and there's no whiff of betrayal of Leroux's novel which has kept its intriguing mystery and its pedantic investigation for our greatest pleasure.The adjective "genteel" could suit to qualify the cast which encompasses actors from the Podalydès' house: of course Denis Podalydès who works wonders in a tailor-made part for him. In his brother's movies, he had developed the image of an awkward but endearing persona, he stays true to himself. The Podalydès' house also comprises Jean Noël Brouté who acts as a good comic relief (not meant pejoratively) and Isabelle Candelier. Here, earnest thespians made their apparition. Pierre Arditi was a discerning choice for Frédéric Larsan because this actor could convey mystery in a part that required some. Claude Rich also stands out. As for Sabine Azéma, she isn't one of my favorite French actresses. She often has over-the-top performances, but here this drawback has been shelved. Her role is very subdued.The Podalydès brothers made a killing with this personal adaptation of "Le Mystère De La Chambre Jaune". That said, maybe it won't cater for all tastes. The aficionados of the novel and the detractors of the film will think that the murky side of the novel has taken a back seat. But if you enjoy seriousness and slightness in the same bag, one of the Podalydès' trademark, this one is for you.

mstorm514 I saw this movie at a film festival. I had read the book, too. This movie has several qualities: the actors are very good, the setting is typical, and the script is very well done. The storyline is quite good, it's about a journalist trying to outsmart a detective by solving a seemly solutionless crime. The movie added a nice comic touch that the book just didn't have. The clumsy photographer is a good comic relief from the crime/drama part of the movie, and blends well into making the movie so well-balanced. Also, all characters are so unique, so different from each other, that this movie distinguishes itself from many movies where character development is not as important.All movies have faults though. The plot of this movie is a little far-fetched, and that gets frustrating, because I like to try to guess the outcome of movies when I watch them. Also, some doubts remain at the end about some elements. This could be good, could be bad, depends on what you like to see. So the only person who truly understands everything is Rouletabille, the journalist, and until he tells us, it's virtually impossible to know. It's both suspenseful and irritating.Overall, pretty good, yet no social involvement or hidden message. Just good old entertainment, for those of you who like crime movies. 8/10