gridoon2018 Director Régis Wargnier gained international fame (and a somewhat controversial Best Foreign Film Oscar) in 1992 for "Indochine", but 15 years later he made what can best be described as a b-movie that in most countries went (and deservedly so) straight to DVD. It's not unwatchable, but it is mediocre. The story lacks propulsion for so long (the film runs nearly two full hours) that when the plot finally starts twisting and turning, it's hard to summon much interest. I must admit that it took me two different sittings to complete the viewing. The cast is good (this was Michel Serrault's last film), although "Indochine"'s star Linh Dan Pham has only a decorative role here. ** out of 4.

notify-christina The film was okay, not brilliant but good enough to watch if you want an easy time with not much tension. It felt more like a soap opera episode. From the trailers I knew they would kill the original story but I thought it would still be a good movie, because of the actors. It's not horrible, the acting is fine and I like this way of filming, but the plot is quite shallow at parts and the characters do inexplicable things. There are serious plot holes, because the film makers spent lots of screen time showing us naked behinds of dead bodies and there was no time left for giving the characters some depth and consistency. The writers go straight to the point before the first ten minutes and then try to build tension on things that couldn't support it. All the plot holes are explained in the book.*spoiler*The scare wasn't in the possibility of a plague outburst but in not understanding how the trails were connected and why.If you've read the book or intend to do so, don't watch the film. Don't even think about it. It has changed EVERYTHING and reveals vital parts of the book in the first four minutes. Different characters, different plot, different ending. Only the basic story is the same, but that's like saying 'it's about a serial killer'. EVERYTHING is changed, this movie is definitely not based on F. Vargas book. In fact, it's the opposite for 75% of it.

Ronny Ferrat I just read the book, a refreshing thriller, unfortunately i didn't get hold of the DVD yet, but, give the film a chance before you judge. Remember: Quite often, good books are turned into bad films and vice versa......... Fred Vargas has given proof of her ability to write unconventional, but nevertheless interesting books, alas, she is definitely not responsible for what happens to her writing, once she has sold the rights, I mean Adamsberg is not Harry Potter........ But still she is doing fine, her books are very entertaining,and what even counts more is that they add new life to an otherwise rather mature genre.

jerome_a_paris Maybe I should balance my opinion but frankly, I don't find anything to like in this movie, although maybe a few good images of Paris but still... I didn't read the book, I hope it's only the adaptation that's bad... So, I found that: - the dialogs aren't great (not to say they suck), I sometimes felt like I was watching La Cité de la Peur (which is a very good comedy)... - bad acting. Garcia's tone is very weird, tough, neutral, emotionless, which could be fine but here it sounds like he's monotonously reading a script. And the sad thing is, Garcia's acting is among the best in the movie... - a really not so good mise en scène, with ridiculous situations - a bad scenario, at least not very credible. The ending is stupid (or, again, badly adapted)