Patrick Nackaert French humor is like coffee: you either like it or dislike it. As the film starts, one can quickly make up its mind about whether it's enjoyable to watch or not. But it isn't what it seems.A corrupt cop in Western Africa with little respect or authority turns to vengeance. It describes the film perfectly. However, just like the description of French comedy, it isn't what it seems.The dark humor, film-noir in a town filled with light, the little rhymes in the dialogues: it's been thought over, earning good ratings from critics. It's understandable, when it's mixed with symbolism, philosophical discussions and a very realistic scenery. Add the blatant racism and the actors' excellent performances, and we're mixing too many things. For some reasons, it felt like watching a play at the theater, as well due to the intense dialogues.However, it fails to capture the attention. The film misses direction. The actors seem distant. Despite so many good ingredients, the end result isn't convincing. But it is surely to those who like a mix of genres.

Aristides-2 As happens on occasion with subtitled foreign films I become confused and perplexed at what appears to be the discrepancy between what the characters are doing and/or involved with and what the subtitles have them saying. Such was the case in spades with Coup de Torchon. In this instance the result was to make the characters, particularly the main one, even less accessible as far as trying to understand why they/he did what they were shown doing. I gave this movie 2 stars because of this disembodiment. *I was told some time ago that if a foreign film (or an English speaking one) is not wildly popular when first released, but has something appealing that a distributor thinks might make a few bucks then, in some cases, the bottom line rule gets applied and the subtitling job goes out for bids to companies that don't apply standards that are usually applied to movies with more popular pedigree. Such might be the case with 'Coup de Torchon'.

Michael Neumann Bertrand Tavernier once again shows why he's one of his country's most challenging directors with this disturbing dark comedy, loosely adapted from a Jim Thompson novel ('POP 1280') but relocated to French Equatorial Africa just before World War II. The story follows a lazy, ineffective police chief in a dusty colonial city, who begins to manipulate his tormentors in much the same way they earlier abused him, discovering along the way the omnipotence of his position and the immunity provided by his reputation as an incompetent buffoon. After suffering the indignities of a natural born doormat all his life, he strikes back with a vengeance, slowly descending into a rational madness that commands sympathy while simultaneously provoking moral outrage (at one point he callously murders the innocent native servant who mistakenly witnessed on of his killings). Tavernier builds the tension from his characters rather than from the plot, using touches of unsettling black humor to further blur the line dividing comedy and tragedy.

MartinHafer I adored the first half hour or so of this film. Then, sadly, the film seemed to lose its way--mostly because the main character was practically impossible to understand or appreciate. To put it bluntly, his motivation and actions stopped making sense. BUT, as there are so many interesting elements to the film, it's still worth seeing...though it clearly misses the mark.The film follows the actions of an ineffectual policeman in French West Africa just before the Second World War. Lucien (Philippe Noiret) does nothing as sheriff but collect a paycheck and ignore crime. He is clearly a cuckold in regard to his job and his relationships. Crooks break laws and mock him and his wife openly carries on an affair with her 'brother' right in front of him. You really feel bad for the guy, so when out of the blue he begins paying these people back, you are thrilled--even when he begins, in some cases, killing people. The murder victims really do 'have it coming' and you want to see Lucien to get away with it.Later, however, the film gets pretty muddled. First, he ends up killing an innocent guy simply because he knew too much--and it was hard to feel sympathy for Lucien--particularly because before this you did like him a lot because he DID stand up for the black natives--though not obviously so. So, he went from a secret savior of the Africans to just another white !@@#$ and nothing more. Second, there were some allegorical religious elements that seemed incongruous. He began to see himself as like Jesus meting out retribution to evil-doers--but ended up looking more like Satan or the Angel of Death--or just a real jerk! This religious angle really just clouds the film--not enhances it. Third, I was a psychotherapist and psychology teacher and I STILL had a hard time understanding Lucien--his character, though interesting, made little sense and just confused me. With a bit of a rewrite, this could have gone from a good and thought-provoking film to a classic. Too bad--it did sure excite my interest.