Viewed as part of the lineup as a part of 2016 myFrenchfilmfestival.com on a very small (open air) screen with very bad seating, a noisy environment, and some unnecessary/unrelated curating.
Having said that, this is a period drama (more drama than thriller) that has 2 tales being narrated across time-lines, that pertain to the core plot, which is about the attempt to nail down (in more ways than one) a suspect in serial abusive homicides.
The content does not make this a viewing suitable to all audiences, especially for those among us who're squeamish, and especially not for mainstream audiences.
This kind of tale has been narrated before (and is being narrated now), like in David Fincher's 'Zodiac', the 3 'Red Riding' movies, the (fantastic) TV series 'Broadchurch' (the 2nd season almost seemingly rips off this true tale, when one compares various plot- points) and maybe even Denis Villeneuve's exemplary 'Prisoners'.
All the tropes are there - brooding characters, the layer-by-layer unraveling of clues, impediments to various investigations, doubt vs certainty, frustrations, foot chases, events leading up to a boiling point, hand-held camera-work for first-person perspectives etc.
So, is there something that sets it apart from the crowd of cop procedurals?
I did not see what could, until perhaps the last 15 minutes of this drama. 2-3 sequences, between a couple of main characters, highlight the USP of this tale, which is, professionalism in the fact of events for which the first stimulus, given the makers can take cinematic license, is abject unprofessional-ism, something that is hinted at in one of the parallelly unfolding tales at the beginning, but something about which we, the audience, have no clue about until we watch those sequences unfold. I will not mention what it is, since it is the payoff for having watched both tales unfold in parallel from beginning to end.
For a tale that has this narrative style, or culmination of 2 distinctive narrative styles, the editing needs to be top notch. But, I humbly submit that it is more in service of the narrative if various departments do not call attention to themselves, with us continually not knowing if it was the way the movie was filmed, or put together, that makes for an engrossing viewing experience, and this one has that in spaces, a la, most of the movies in the same genre (see above for a partial listing of the other movies that do the same job). Though I am a fan of the Tony Scott style of filmmaking, I very much prefer the European model, where people do their job without screaming attention to themselves, like this one does.
The performances are all top notch, as is the score. The screenplay could've perhaps tried a little harder, but its not like I can think of how that could be achieved.
All in all, a good time at the movies, for those disposed to find value in this genre, in spite of the sub-par screening attributes.
Having said that, this is a period drama (more drama than thriller) that has 2 tales being narrated across time-lines, that pertain to the core plot, which is about the attempt to nail down (in more ways than one) a suspect in serial abusive homicides.
The content does not make this a viewing suitable to all audiences, especially for those among us who're squeamish, and especially not for mainstream audiences.
This kind of tale has been narrated before (and is being narrated now), like in David Fincher's 'Zodiac', the 3 'Red Riding' movies, the (fantastic) TV series 'Broadchurch' (the 2nd season almost seemingly rips off this true tale, when one compares various plot- points) and maybe even Denis Villeneuve's exemplary 'Prisoners'.
All the tropes are there - brooding characters, the layer-by-layer unraveling of clues, impediments to various investigations, doubt vs certainty, frustrations, foot chases, events leading up to a boiling point, hand-held camera-work for first-person perspectives etc.
So, is there something that sets it apart from the crowd of cop procedurals?
I did not see what could, until perhaps the last 15 minutes of this drama. 2-3 sequences, between a couple of main characters, highlight the USP of this tale, which is, professionalism in the fact of events for which the first stimulus, given the makers can take cinematic license, is abject unprofessional-ism, something that is hinted at in one of the parallelly unfolding tales at the beginning, but something about which we, the audience, have no clue about until we watch those sequences unfold. I will not mention what it is, since it is the payoff for having watched both tales unfold in parallel from beginning to end.
For a tale that has this narrative style, or culmination of 2 distinctive narrative styles, the editing needs to be top notch. But, I humbly submit that it is more in service of the narrative if various departments do not call attention to themselves, with us continually not knowing if it was the way the movie was filmed, or put together, that makes for an engrossing viewing experience, and this one has that in spaces, a la, most of the movies in the same genre (see above for a partial listing of the other movies that do the same job). Though I am a fan of the Tony Scott style of filmmaking, I very much prefer the European model, where people do their job without screaming attention to themselves, like this one does.
The performances are all top notch, as is the score. The screenplay could've perhaps tried a little harder, but its not like I can think of how that could be achieved.
All in all, a good time at the movies, for those disposed to find value in this genre, in spite of the sub-par screening attributes.