Odelecol Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

Borserie it is finally so absorbing because it plays like a lyrical road odyssey that’s also a detective story.

Adeel Hail Unshakable, witty and deeply felt, the film will be paying emotional dividends for a long, long time.

Kinley This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

writers_reign This is Daniele Thompson's fourth film as director and co-writer (she writes with son, Christopher) and she has yet to disappoint me unlike the other posters here who all had reservations. The only reservations I have are for her next movie and I want a ringside seat. She has, of course, been writing screenplays for years and so has nothing to learn about the Human Condition; she also has a flair for assembling great casts and then getting them to deliver the finest ensemble acting around as La Buche, Fauteuils d'orchestre and now this movie prove so well. She's also able to do much smaller films too as her second stint and writer-director, Decolage Horaire, illustrated but she seems to revel in large ensemble pieces and that's jake with me. I was particularly delighted to find the two Marinas of current French cinema, Fois and Hands, together in one movie, I have enjoyed them individually for years and it's especially gratifying to see Ms Fois, who has been specializing in more dramatic roles of late, returning to the lighter stuff she does so well (Je m'en sens pas belle) and equally great to see some wonderful scenes between Pierre Arditti and Patrick Chesnais. Over and above the film itself is the moment in the 'Making Of' extra with the DVD when Thompson leads Michele Morgan, then in her 90th year, onto the set. Morgan lived with Thompson's father, Gerard Oury for the last 46 years of his life but she is as much a part of French Cinema as Raimu, Arletty, and all the other icons and her visit certainly brought a tear to my eye. Chalk up another delicious bauble to Ms Thompson.

toast-15 The story follows several couples from the 21st of June of one year to the next. They are all gathered, bravely disguising their unhappiness, around a dinner table trying to make small talk. Text messages are surreptitiously viewed or sent under the table like naughty children in class while other messages from the more desperate are lobbed verbally across the table for all to hear. Some find it amusing but one person sees it as a call for help and answers it with a kiss when they find themselves alone later in the evening. A romance ensues even though both are married. A very successful divorce lawyer is wooed into joining another lawyer's firm. Affairs meant to be hidden are exposed. A prayer is answered with an accident. One couple ends up divorced while another stays together. What one person understands as marital bliss another may take as entrapment. Most end happily, but not all. This film could have been improved had the focus been on one or two characters with the rest of the cast in supporting roles. Instead, with no focus, it did not develop beyond a superficial tone. The characters of Piotr (Dany Boon) and Sarah (Emmanuelle Seigner) were compelling in that they were two creative types with spouses married to their work, but with so little screen time, not enough was made of the potential.

Daveotra The delight in this film is watching the beautiful people chatting, pouting, threatening, flirting, and otherwise socializing, although the two "older man" figures luckily transcend being "beautiful" with a more rugged attractiveness and some discernible values. There are some fine character actors here, including Roman Polanski's wife. And, luckily, Paris is one of the featured actors, and that never hurts. Yet, the reviewer from Frankfurt is correct, something or somethings are missing. One such thing being perspective. Contrast with Le charme discret de la bourgeoisie; Le code a changé is the nightmare alternative ending in which they actually sit down and dine. Had Buñuel allowed that to occur, the bourgeoisie would have been shown up as, at best, ridiculous. In Le code a changé, they are still absurd, but they are deeply beloved by the filmmaker, who yet allows the absurdity to show, then returns to love, then scorn, then something in between; it's wishywashy and chaotic. The Director brings everyone but herself to the realization that the younger characters are hopelessly shallow, thereby weakening the film's impact.Also missing is achievement of a significant goal. (Mini-spoiler) two or maybe four of the characters resolve an issue between them, but it's only nice, not important as displayed (compare to, say, slaying the dragon, or systematically portraying the faults of a social class). That's my stab at what's missing, although the point about a lack of goal must have been deliberate. What saves the film is the believable and skillful portrayal of the characters (however shallow some of them may be), including the nuances one would expect to see among smart people who know how to converse, and do so, and wittily, at times. The music and editing definitely deserve some credit.

missmarmite Ten people meet on June 21st to have a dinner together, two of them inviting the other ones. No one really wants to go or meet the others although they are friends, they all have enough to do with their problems and would like to spend the evening in a different way. But they go, they smile at each other, they have nice chats and everybody is laughing and having fun. Then they go home, knowing they will meet up all again next year and everything will be the same.Not quite. Things have changed. Their relationships, their health, their self conscience. The code to open the door.Like in many French films, people talk a lot. That's what the French love to do and they love to do it openly, in real life as in films. But although there's lots of talk about, none of the ten main characters (plus the eleventh one which is the father of two protagonists, who are sisters) will probably stay with the viewer a longer time. With so many characters around, it's difficult to create deeper insights. Sometimes you wish for more background information, but the story is set at two evenings and you can only put so much into the film if you don't want to make it three hours long. The end is left somewhat open, which is okay, leaves you with your own imagination of what will happen next.Still, something is missing. I can't quite put my finger on it. I liked the actors, the dialogue is good and sometimes really funny, other scenes where a bit moody or more serious. That's life for you. But still... some ingredient was missing. It's a film you see and once it's digested, you probably will soon forget about it. And that is a pity. But I don't know what should have been different either. Any idea, anyone?PS: The recipe in the credits was a nice touch, though. Have to check whether I can find it somewhere again...