Li'l Quinquin (TV Mini Series 2014) Poster

(2014)

User Reviews

Review this title
12 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
LI'L QUINQUIN is such an eccentric anomaly, defies a uniform cinematic narrative but also a wayward manipulator
lasttimeisaw1 July 2015
Hailed by CAHIERS DU CINÉMA as the No.1 film of the year innately has a double-edged effect on any film, since this prestige not only auspiciously attracts attention from art-house frequenters, but spontaneously elicits higher expectation as well, so that fewer can break the jinx, either is Dumont's 200-minute rural tale, distributed as a four-episode mini-series originally, now arrives the theatrical version for a binge-watch.

Actually it is only my second Dumont entry after FLANDERS (2006, 5/10), years before I grow the habit of writing reviews, so I cannot recall why that film had failed to encourage me to watch more of his works. Through these years, my first response towards each Dumont's film perpetually includes some resistance, maybe it is the grimness of the nature of his subject matters, and hopefully the situation can ameliorate after this one.

LI'L QUINQUIN is the pet name of a schoolboy (Delhaye), who starts his vacation in a small seaside town, where his family runs a farm. Back to conduct an entire non-professional cast (after his collaboration with Juliette Binoche in CAMILLE CLAUDEL 1915, 2013), one unique characteristic of the film is its cast, everyone possesses their singularity in their miens or gestures, sometimes even idiosyncratic (for example, the two priests who operate the funeral ceremony, amateurishly laugh up their sleeves during the procession as if it is a reel for outtake), sometimes it feels tedious (one must endure the God-awful singing of CAUSE I KNEW not once but twice, to the extent it has successfully stuck in one's mind) but there is truly self-revealing honesty one finds charming, each character very core to its region, his identity and never try to overact apart from what they are asked to do.

Delhaye is a harelipped blond, mischievous, feisty, and boredom propels him to perambulate on his bicycle cross the picturesque terrain with his gang, and his petit amie Eve (Caron). Then a string of murders occur in some rather weird executions - dismembered bodies found inside dead cows, to the theory that a mad cow turns into carnivore and eats human bodies. While victims' number is growing, the two detectives, Captain Van der Weyden (Pruvost) and his partner Lieut. Carpentier (Jore), barely register any wisdom in solving the mystery or saving the potential suspects from being slaughtered apart from their passive routine investigation, and if you expect a thrilling whodunit, forget it, the ending can be overwhelming frustrating.

Characteristic antics again hog the main stage, Captain's uncontrollable face-tic and eyes-blinking has the ever protruding presence to achieve the curve from being bizarre, to annoying, to benumbing and finally becoming habitual thanks to the length. Carpentier erratically shows off his 2-wheels driving stunt apart from his usual bull-in-a-china-shop skill.

Dumont slyly tricks audience into the police procedural, and first-time viewers will naively think a last-minute revelation will culminate the film in a big bang! Time is ticking, after numerous detours, an overlong parade ceremony, an interlude dedicated to a tragedy of a black immigrant cannot be more topic now and among others. When the fifth victim surfaces, one's patience is running out of steam. After hinting the potential culprit, the film ends abruptly and leaves audience mumbling WTF!

The film fully embraces its idiotic characters without any tongue-in-cheek references, and in fact it more excels in as an ethnographic comedy with some sublime cinematography. But its length is the main drawback for a one-time activity, Dumont's dedication towards the rural territory earns him indulgence to make LI'L QUINQUIN such an eccentric anomaly, defies a uniform cinematic narrative but also a wayward manipulator, one should respect his effort albeit it never reach the maturity which can be sweepingly cherished by an international range of spectators.
14 out of 21 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A Cinematic Acheivemtnt for the director and glorious cast but...
info-121907 September 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Rating this movie is almost impossible for me. As a cinematic achievement it deserves an 11 but, maybe I have watched too many detective pieces and I have watched A LOT of them, the ending was quite unsatisfactory in my opinion. The director is a certified award winning "autuer" and so the elites who review can't love his "quirkiness" and "darkness" enough. I am a regular person and I was amazed at how he got the regular people who are his actors to give these amazing performances, that's the cinematic achievement, as is the glorious countryside. I watched it on HULU and it's in HD cinematic format no commercials and it was so beautiful that my wife and I, who love where we live and hate to travel, both said we could live there and maybe should check it out! It was that gorgeous. I wish I could give this a 10 but the ending was not worthy of the rest of the film nor was it worthy of the director.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Strange and not "PC"
happybonzo200228 November 2015
Some lovely scenery but it takes a long time to get into this film There are some very weird characters on display and I rather doubt that any British film company or Television broadcaster would have the courage to have made it. I'm not sure if I'm supposed to laugh at the characters or with them. It's now regarded as not being "PC" to laugh at the afflicted but it seems that's what is being asked to do. Some of the remarks regarding ethnic minorities are a trifle suspect; from a British point of view, that is. I can imagine Guardianistas getting in a flap about some remarks I'm still not sure what it was about but I still quite enjoyed it
4 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A movie lover's movie
jimparrett7 June 2015
Well, it's actually a TV series but I watched the whole thing in one sitting. My jaw dropped. This is not a film for the casual viewer. It is bewildering, full of unattractive people, many of of them with facial ticks, mental problems or just a plain ugliness. The themes are rich and deep, exploring so many aspects of human nature one loses count. The acting by seemingly first timers is first rate. It's reviewed mostly as a comedy but it's not laugh out loud kind of funny. Instead it's a satire on human nature, making one gulp with the truth of the telling. Take heed, don't watch this is you don't like squirming a little bit when faced with the naked truth. But if you're willing to invest yourself in this film, your time will not be for naught. It's not life changing but does make you think and most of all, feel.
57 out of 64 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
The laughter and tears of human existence
kboote29 June 2015
Warning: Spoilers
What a wonderful experience this was. I confess that I never thought that Mr.Dumont would be able to overlay his unique cinematic vision with humour but he has succeeded and I laughed out loud on many occasions. Yet even amongst what at times is a "slapstick" level of humour Dumont's humanity still forms the foundations of this film. To those familiar with Mr Dumont's earlier films the themes in Quinquin are consistent with his previous films – racial and economic tension that results in violence, good and evil and moral responsibility, Christianity, Islam and Pantheism, right wing politics, the media etc and a setting in the Northern France coastal and rural communities that will also be familiar from his earlier films.

At times "Quinquin" almost feels self referential from Mr Dumont's earlier work. Thus we have the tracking shots in country lanes from "La Vie De Jesus", the unconventional ( to say the least!) detective from "L'Humanite", the farming community from "Flanders", the religious conflicts from "Hadewijch" the pervasive presence of a possible evil force/the Devil from "Hors Satan" and quietly disturbing and unsettling moments of orifices, death and nakedness when we all lie exposed and ready to return to the soil.

The bizarre but oddly lovable Commandant der Weyden is incompetent but highly proactive compared with Pharaon de Winter's impassivity in "L'Humanite". Both detectives appear to be overwhelmed by the sadness of the horror of what they have witnessed. Both need the warmth of physical contact. In L'Humanite Pharaon hugs the killer as if to take away his guilt and in "Quinquin" der Weyden allows himself to hug his Lieutenant. Both need to feel the warm flesh of animals, Pharaon with the sow at litter and der Weyden with the horses. Both love/desire an unobtainable woman.

Again Mr Dumont makes use of disabled people in his cast but he refuses to be a hypocrite and treat these people with sickly sentimentality instead allowing them to appear as distinct individuals. With a large cast of unusual characters it feels to me as if Mr Dumont is asking society "what is normal?" We see the character Dany Lebleu spinning around until he falls to the ground ( an idea generated by the actor himself Jason Cirot – so much for exploitation!) but there are many scenes where this movement is mirrored by the supposedly more able- bodied. Mr Dumont questions our prejudices. Is the tantrum of the disabled child at the seaside café any more disruptive than the firecrackers that Quinquin and his gang regularly throw? Many people in a Dumont film have odd physical or character traits but these are accepted not exploited. Thus Quinquin has a hearing aid but this is never remarked upon and forms no part of the narrative. To Mr Dumont different is normal and normal is different.

The role that animals play in Mr Dumont's films are significant. We are all beasts, all part of nature despite our arrogance, despite our attempts to create a religious basis for our existence outside of nature but we are all "La bet'humaine". Surely it is not coincidence that most of the victims end up inside an animal? Ultimately there is no "killer" in this murder mystery. Mr Dumont refuses to blame the individual for the deaths in the film. There are motives such as infidelity, depriving someone of their inheritance, racism and so on but Mr Dumont seems to put the real cause of the acts within the context of an evil that overtakes people and causes their actions. The final beautiful scene of Dany looking skywards suggests to me that the possession has left him and the camera tracks away as the evil moves whispering across the fields in search of another victim to overwhelm.

Quinquin himself is our eyes. He shows the way that the violence of the past, the bunkers, grenades and bullets from the second world war, will overtake the young. Could Quinquin and Eve be the precursors of the tragic Freddy and Marie from "La Vie de Jesus"? There is an inevitability about the way that social corruption that will ensnare them and destroy the optimism of their love. The common flash-point for violence in both films is the jealousy towards people of African origin who are, as Quinquin says, "trying to steal our women". The humour comes in part from the very familiar Police detective duo tropes of speeding cars and helicopters, guns ( in this film fired aimlessly apart from a self inflicted death) and excited running across the beach/field to doggedly continue the pursuit but to what specific end we never know. Somehow Mr Dumont manages to strike a perfect balance between poignancy and the ridiculous, thus we have a scene where the overwhelmed der Weyden leaves a church only to be greeted by Lte Charpentier in full stunt mode screeching around the corner towards him with his car on two wheels.

Wonderful, surprising moments occur. Does "Spiderman" actually stick to the wall and climb it in the same way that Pharaon appears to levitate in "L'Humanite"? Or when Quinquin and his group turn up at the siege with faces inexplicably painted like Imps in a painting by Bosch. Somehow managing to be beautiful, funny, ridiculous and serious all at once, the film contains just about all of the major themes from love, death, relationships, politics, religion and good and evil. Mr Dumont is a unique genius who, like the handful of other true masters, has created his own cinema.
33 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Take the humor of Christopher Guest and bizarre mundanity of Korine
allenmullen9 July 2019
...overlaid with a bumbling murder investigation, and the result is a gem of comedic filmmaking and social satire embedded in a humanistic portrayal of contemporary French peasantry. Dumont dares to portray prejudices, pettiness, and brutality of rural life without malice or ridicule. Gendarmes, Van der Weyden and Carpentier, are as funny as their counterparts, Manchin and Malfoy, were in Slack Bay, yet less the buffoons of that film than simply odd and ignorant. I grealy appreciate such honest, often tender. portrayals of common people amidst a sea of films focused on elites, bourgeouisie, and artificial characters.
5 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Seemingly endless
JBLOSS11 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I watched this series back to back as part of the London Film Festival. Whilst it had some nice touches it most definitely could have done with some serious editing. The story covers a number of gruesome and seemingly interconnected murders in a small town in Northern France. These are investigated by a pair of ineffectual policemen who adopt a number of quirky, but not necessarily humorous,mannerisms. The series also gives a great deal of attention to the lives of some of the local children. The series captures the geography very well but one feels there are too many shots that are not necessary or over long. Some of the more farcical moments are similarly overplayed and they tend to peter out. The plot is such that the murders are incidental.Life generally carries on with little or no impact or histrionics.The series struggles to know what it is and veers between light comedy,social drama and murder mystery without ever coming off the fence. The introduction of a storyline concerning immigration,racial and religious intolerance almost halfway through is also not given the attention it deserves. The death of Mohammed also illustrates the general indifference to life that one wonders if there was much point including it as it's never revisited. The depiction of France and French society is also pretty stark with casual overt racism demonstrated a number of times. The climax,if it could be called such a thing,is also unsatisfying with most plot lines left hanging. It felt at the end that this destination could have been reached far quicker and with more effect.
29 out of 68 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Not my kind of movie
labbe-3531931 July 2018
This clearly wasn't my kind of movie and I only stuck with it based on a trusted reviewer's recommendation whom I would no longer completely trust if only I remembered just who that reviewer was.

This movie isn't completely unredeemable. There were moments of genuine laugh out loud comedy, but the reason you stick with the story is to see its conclusion, which either wasn't given or I was so done with the movie by the time it ended that I just didn't notice, but I have a feeling it's the former; and with how painfully slow and seemingly pointless the movie is, I wouldn't be surprised if the writer thought it was brilliant to have the story end without a conclusion because 'that's life, it's slow and there aren't always answers' but, assuming that was the intent, that's not why people see movies. Even the most out-there artistic movies still have an ending as to not lose an audience completely. Again, nothing against the people who made this movie. I clearly should've stopped 30 minutes in, but even though this movie's clearly not for me, not for most people (at one point I screamed, not in reaction to an offensive moment but successive, offensively boring ones, "this was on tv?! Who would watch this?! Well, tv is very different in other countries."), I find disturbing the seemingly unanimous critical praise. I don't trust Roger Ebert's website. Every time his site's review comes up in a movie's search, the review always seems backwards, praising terrible movies and being too critical of not-that-bad ones. He's dead, obviously. I'm saying whoever's writing in his name seems to have a very backwards view of culture, so his 4/4 rating was not at all surprising to me and his postmortem reviews carry no weight in my eyes. That being said, every other review seems to give this movie similar high praise. Were they watching the same movie? Did they really love every meandering, dialogue-free, action-free, progress-free moment? I find it very hard to believe that these reviewers would praise an equally abhorrently slow and pointless superhero movie.

And I wholeheartedly agree with another reviewer (here on imdb) who said this movie feels like it needs serious editing. It's not uncommon to hear of movies who's first cut was approaching 4 hours but was whittled down to 2.5, but I know the torturous pacing was deliberate, which makes me dislike it all the more. This movie feels like it was made to turn away people who wouldn't like or get it. Movies should be accessible. That's not to say cookie-cutter or inoffensive. I neither got nor liked Killing of a Sacred Deer and yet in a strange way that I struggle to put into words, I consider it a good movie in spite of (or perhaps because of) its going against everything I believe about filmmaking because it stuck with me. I didn't agree with how the story was told and I didn't get the larger point - the little of it I did I disagreed with - but it all felt purposeful. Maybe that's why Killing's offensiveness was magnetic whereas Quinquin's was repellent. Accessibility, at least for me, means a sense of purpose within and around the story. There was definitely (although with how slow everything else played out this seemed rushed) a smaller message or at least exploration of racism in France, but other than that I couldn't even sense a purpose out of my reach as with Killing. The only purpose I felt was, as I said above, the writer really liking to document the slowness, purposelessness, and imperfection of real life (that last one actually being a good thing, what gave the movie both uniqueness and life, but heavily weighed down by the first two). Beyond that I saw no purpose and that's what made this movie repellently different as opposed to magnetic.
6 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Just not my cup of laughing gas
ThurstonHunger21 May 2021
Maybe the slap-shtick brings more of les chuckles overseas. Some cultures are more able to look at misfortune or even misanthropy.

I appreciate not taking a treacly path, but there seems to be a mean-spirited undercurrent here; one that all the awkward hugs in the world may not dispel.

If everyone is an idiot, then who are we the viewers? That's a bit too harsh, but Dumont's world-view may be harsher. Ultimately the payoff of this long film (or short TV series) just did not deliver, of course the same may be said of "Twin Peaks" which I see referenced in other reviews.

I do feel like David Lynch would be happy to sit among his characters, and have a fine cup of coffee. As he does! I'd be a little hesitant to sit down with this directory and share a cup of whatever he's hoping to serve here.

I might watch more films from (or read some interviews with) the director, maybe he fancies himself a "bad boy of cinema." More likely the punchlines did not land with me, while some of the punches did. A friend had recommended this as a comedy, but the flavor for me at least was far more funny strange, than funny ha-ha.
3 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Depressing
satxfan23 June 2015
This film is overly long and meandering, which is frustrating because too many scenes should be edited more carefully. Several scenes, like the funeral of Mme Lebleu, went on far too long. Also, there are too many unnecessary inserts into scenes. For example, in a restaurant in fourth episode, where the commandant is talking to a public official, there's a family with a disruptive son who is mentally handicapped. There is no reason for this family to be featured in this particular scene. This kind of fragmentation detracts from the already thin storyline. I don't recommend this film unless you have watched everything else and have plenty of time to waste.
14 out of 59 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Drying paint would be more entertaining.
mytrbilbo10 July 2015
With an interesting premise... outstanding scenery....a great unknown ensemble cast.... a quirky almost perverse lead, this had soooo much potential to be entertaining. But NO... simply a waste of 3 1/2 hours as time after time a thread begins... a thought line is shared with premise and it is all for naught. Watched every minute. Gave it every chance to entertain and yet.... it fails on soooo many levels I was too stunned to even be angry that I hadn't quit in the first hour and a half. The esoteric hokum reviews written by supposed elitists who think there are messages here simply missed the joke. NOT trying to be mean....it was just THAT bad.
13 out of 79 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Dull and pointless
lombano13 August 2016
The film is about a spoiled, racist brat surrounded by feckless, over-the-top incompetent adults. The adults are so beyond caricature in their incompetence that it utterly fails to be funny. It is ostensibly a black comedy, but the humour, for me at any rate, consistently fell flat. While it at least avoids the vulgarity of the very worst Hollywood comedies, they at least have the decency to be brief. This meanders pointlessly, with uninteresting subplots added seemingly for no reason other than padding. Also, jokes that weren't funny the first time are repeated again and again. Finally, none of the characters are particularly interesting nor sympathetic. For me, this quickly fell into "I don't care what happens to any of these people" and once that happens even murder utterly fails to be interesting.
9 out of 55 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed