AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

Sexyloutak Absolutely the worst movie.

Matrixiole Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

serts34 I rented this movie, hoping that this would lead to something interesting. It started out a bit dubious already with swapped children, which would have been fine with Shakespeare but in more modern-day technology is not very plausible. And then it leads out to the various plots of possible fathers, suspicious deaths and incidents, and a woman who poisons people through her hot chocolate (Huppert). It sounds rather ludicrous, like it should make for a very good comedic story or something of the sort. It bored me to tears. I sat there and sat there, while the film moved at a glacial pace through those plots, and while inconsistencies popped up. And there were even some implausible cases--how very convenient that the girl who suspected Mika (Huppert) put drugs into the hot chocolate had a boyfriend working in the lab in her mother's place! That was the one big thing that irritated me; the rest I was too bored to notice, and I haven't seen this movie for a few months since. Huppert was about the only redeeming value, as the rest of the actors are conventional, have no chemistry, boring, and quite frankly did the whole movie in for me. Huppert played Mika quite well though--a seemingly normal woman, but underneath that facade you just know that something's wrong, even though what she does is hardly suspicious at first. And as usual, Huppert uses micro-gestures to convey the creepiness and twistedness of Mika well, although I feel like Huppert was delivering for something, only that thing never arrived. If you like implausible plots, a glacial pace (but I've seen and liked "Four Months, Three Weeks, and Two Days", which moves rather slowly; don't mistake me for hyperactive or with ADD), and just sheer boringness, this is the movie for you. I am sorry if my opinion seems blatantly wrong, but this movie was just not up to my taste or standards. 5/10.

merlin-105 The plot may not be particularly clever, but watching Huppert's brilliant, tense, technically outstanding acting in the role of a woman in search of a nervous breakdown against Dutronc's nonchalant, understated, simmering portrayal of a seedy pillhead, seemingly oblivious to what's going on around him, is worth the price of admission and then some! Supporting characters are all excellent, though the young girl is a bit too wide-eyed for her own good. The movie is also fun to watch just for its use of color, clothing, and art as symbols, including allusions to earlier Huppert classics like "La Dentelliere". While this might not be Chabrol's masterpiece, it would be a good example for any young director to study how a veteran uses the elements of his craft most economically to greatest effect. As for actors: watch Isabelle Huppert's face in the close-up during the long, final shot -- there's a whole acting lesson right there. Not a perfect movie, but enjoyable to watch if you have a mind for such details.

Lars Ericson Anna Mouglalis is HOT. And she's the main character. So why doesn't her name appear on the DVD box along with Jacques Dutronc and Isabelle Huppert? Don't they have enough already?I've seen other pictures of her on the Net and she doesn't look exactly like Liv Tyler, but in this movie, the way her hair is done and her lipstick applied, they could be twins separated at birth.Oh, and what about the movie?Well, I saw it with four other people. In keeping with the theme of the movie, which has a lot to do with hot chocolate and getting a good night's sleep, two of the four fell asleep after the first twenty minutes or so. The other person and I (both Francophiles, and I now a convinced Mouglalis-o-phile), managed to watch the whole thing, which wasn't easy, because, well....the acting kind of sucked, the people were all boring and unlikable, and the plot was salvaged from the reject bins behind the office where they write Murder, She Wrote, episodes of Columbo, and those Masterpiece Theater episodes set in the 1920's. Boring boring boring. And contrived. And unbelievable. Too many coincidences, and once you see the movie, you'll find it hard to believe that main character A married main character B, and you'll find it hard to believe that main character A, a driven over-achiever who surely must be exhausted with all the work he does, would have troubles sleeping and would have such little sex drive that he would want to get into a permanent hookup with main character B, whom he's been with before and didn't like the first time. That is, there is not enough shown about his character to make these choices even remotely plausible.But to know who A and B are, you'll have to go see the movie. So go see it, and have a good time!

petteri-kalliomaki Like all thrillers made by Claude Chabrol during the last decade, this is quite well-made and intensive film. It is nearly perfect except for one thing: it is not fresh. Unlike new films made by Chabrol's Cahiers du Cinema -colleague Jean-Luc Godard, this takes no risks, nor does it surprise. Unlike Godard, Chabrol has became a tame artists since the days of the New Wave.Still, this is a very entertaining and professional film, worth watching once or even twice. And surely at its best on the big screen, on television the intensity of the film will never come through.