Ghoulumbe Better than most people think

Bumpy Chip It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Deanna There are moments in this movie where the great movie it could've been peek out... They're fleeting, here, but they're worth savoring, and they happen often enough to make it worth your while.

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

tmpsvita It is difficult to be able to speak/write about films like this that cover events to say the least dramatic and, given the indelible mark they leave in global history but especially the place where they occurred, important. Because if misunderstood you risk appearing disrespectful to those who have passed through their skin those certain tragic events; and the same is true for those who make them. However, after this premise, I will try to review this "Polytechnique", a film that had all the potential to be an unforgettable masterpiece but that is content to undoubtedly be a good film without excelling and exploiting all its potential. Definitely Villeneuve as a director does an excellent job that confirms once again his great skills that will then find their maximum splendor in his subsequent films, such as "Arrival", "Blade Runner 2049" and "Sicario"; with excellent shots and beautiful long shots, his direction proves to be mature, conscious and very clear, the black and white, here really beautiful, is then a touch of class. Needless to say, the film hits and excites, especially in the scenes in which the massacre takes place, with images, implicit and explicit, strong and difficult to absorb. We must admit, however, with the maximum respect possible, that a film with a true story of this type and this importance to the shoulders, can easily moves. It seems that this was also understood by Villeneuve himself and the writers that for the rest of the film, so all that comes before and after the massacre and not during, treat every aspect superficially, also because of an excessively short duration. A film that then leaves too little space and time to the true emotions of the characters, before and after the fact, and that then analyzes and explores the psychological aspect of the event in a too hastily way. The same figure of the murderer is not analyzed and characterized satisfactorily; his motivations, his person / figure, what made him get up to that point and that turned him into a killer, all this is addressed in a way that does not convince enough or while some of these aspects is not really considered . The same applies to the other protagonists of the film, they are very poorly characterized and this makes it impossible to identify with them the psychological impact suffered both during the massacre and afterwards too superficially. Very good, however, the melancholic soundtrack that seeks, together with the images, to create an intense and suggestive atmosphere, in this we say that it manages however remains an atmosphere too thin, easy to break, in fact we are easily distracted, and not manages to remain constant or incisive enough to remain even after the end of the film. Also for this reason the film, although objectively of excellent quality, at least technical, is too superficial and short, which makes it weak and easy to forget. Too bad because it could be a true masterpiece.

Brakathor I'm finding it hard to write an in-depth review about this movie, but of all the mass murder films I have seen, the imperfections of this film seem to make it a very good case in point to comment upon. The thing I most take issue with is how the film makers decided to relate the film to any real life incidents it was based on, by telling the viewer upfront at the opening of the film that it was based on the Montreal massacre, but saying all characters in the film are fictional. The purpose for this is clearly for nothing other than the capitalization upon real life human suffering, otherwise really why would it need to be blatantly stated if the film is a fictional account? When film makers do that, they knowingly attract the interest of people in such events, and moreover they place their film on a pedestal above fiction which tends to endear people towards the film, however this IS fiction and it is difficult to tell where the fiction and biogrqaphy begins and ends.Adding to this tasteless fact, the film makers decided to make their film in black and white (for whatever official reason). The likely and common reason, is that it bestows a certain respectability and legitimacy to the film, a technique used many times before in action dramas which may otherwise come across as exploitative, for if it were in color like most films, it might have been regarded as "just another made for t.v. movie" which to be honest wouldn't be that unfitting.As to the content, is the film in itself horrible? Not necessarily, though because the scenes depicted are very matter of fact, and mainly action driven with very little dialogue, not to mention that of all the films involving mass murder I've seen, this film shows probably the greatest amount of actual violence, it may not be intended to shock, but there is very little depth outside of what we instantly know the film pertains to."Polytechnique" can very easily be compared to "Elephant" in terms of the feel of the film, though Elephant really did seem to have a purpose and real depth and artistry, whereas this film seemed to be merely showing us events. While Gus Van Sant in "Elephant" badly messed up on chronological timing, there isn't much in "polytechnique" to scrutinize other than the fact that in the 30 or so minute range of time that the shooting takes place, it remains questionable that there would be so many people still simply milling about the institution unaware of what was happening for such a long time, though all things said and done, it is very hard to say exactly how such events would play out in reality.There was very little buildup, very little contemplation on the event, and since I came away from the film feeling empty, and really asking what the point of the film was, ultimately the film just doesn't have very much to say. What it does, is it merely coldly shows us a horrific event without giving it much of a face other than (The shooter hated feminists... so he killed them.) Again, not a horrible movie, but it doesn't possibly in any way do justice to the actual event that took place, which is really a bit shameful.

sddavis63 One of the darkest and most tragic events in Canadian history was surely the 1989 "Montreal Massacre" in which a number of female engineering students in a Montreal college were shot and killed by a misogynistic, feminist-hating gunman. This movie is based on those events, although changing the identities of everyone in the movie to the extent that none of the characters were even named as far as I recall. The movie begins with a long recital of a letter by the gunman expressing his hatred of women, and it closes with a long recital of a letter by one of the victims (who survived) expressing how the shooting had impacted her. Between those closing narrations, the story might best be described as "minimal." There's very little dialogue of any kind between any of the characters. The movie focuses more on the reactions of the students as the gunman wanders through the building, shooting any women he encounters. It's shot in black and white, which gives a somewhat "eerie" feeling to this, and it is very suspenseful; the viewer certainly feels the sense of helplessness and chaos that must have been felt by the students. This movie is quite reminiscent of the American movie "Elephant," which was based on the Columbine shooting. I preferred "Elephant" - I thought it made better use of the school setting than this one did. I can't say that I was really keeping track, but I thought this movie also exaggerated the event a bit. The Montreal Massacre was bad enough as it was; in this far more women seemed to be shot than actually were shot in the event itself - although, as I said, I wasn't really keeping track. The best part of this movie is the suspense that's involved. One doesn't really learn anything about the Montreal Massacre. Marc Lepine (the name of the real shooter) was a misogynistic feminist- hater. We already knew that. So, perhaps one wonders what the purpose of this movie was. The opening captions say it was to honour the women killed, and their names did appear in a scroll at the movie's end, but I confess that I honestly didn't think it succeeded in that goal. It was a dramatic enough portrayal of a school-shooting, but it adds nothing to our understanding of the event. 7/10

kosmasp The movie starts off with a bang and if you don't know what this is about (like me when I watched this, I hadn't read anything about it), then you will be awed by this very strong beginning. While it's almost like a documentary, it is very strong and has very good natural performances! It's not for the faint hearted and it will be a very intense and strange watching experience. You can't say that it will entertain you in the normal sense of that word, but it will be gripping and it will be a movie that you won't forget that easily. Whether you like it or not, it is grim and it is down and dirty.