b-gaist I'd like to begin by saying that while this film undoubtedly shows the talents of its actual director, for the sake of this commentary I will assume it is a movie by Krysztof Kieslowski. I suppose this movie needs to be viewed together with Tom Tykwer's "Heaven" (2002) in order to be understood from a broader perspective (I don't think anyone has directed "Purgatory" yet, the third part of the trilogy suggested by Kieslowski). Another important source for understanding the film is perhaps Dante's "La Divina Commedia", since this is what inspired Kieslowski in the first place.What the film does, I think, is to offer the viewer a set of disturbing stories, from the very first opening sequence of the bird hatching and pushing the other eggs out of the nest; All these stories, right to the end of the film, never reach any satisfactory resolution. Character's lives are simply damaged or destroyed by events based on misunderstanding or ignorance, as well as human fallibility. Perhaps this is what makes for the film's theme of "Hell". If this is so, and here I can only guess at what Kieslowski's original intentions might have been, then "L'Enfer" is a very modern film in it's representation of hell as the presence of unresolved, arbitrary trauma in human life - hence perhaps the professor's speech about destiny and coincidence is of central significance in understanding the movie. This may in fact be the question the movie is supposed to put to its audience: is life a matter of destiny, or is it just coincidence? This film therefore shares with all other works directed or inspired by Kieslowski that director's strengths, as well as his weaknesses. Kieslowski had a genius for translating transcendent concepts into immanent imagery, and showing the viewer the place where eternity and time coincide; "La Double Vie de Veronique" may be the best example of this. However, that same Polish genius tended to skim lightly over the harsher, more troubling aspects of human tragedy - I would have liked to have seen him attempt a movie about the holocaust, or the life of Job, because I think shadow, while not entirely missing, is nevertheless a little too stylised in his films. Evil is unfortunately real, and while there may be light at the end of every tunnel, the way there gets very dark indeed. A great filmmaker has a responsibility to show this, especially when dealing with universal themes. Hell is not a place that has the good looks of Emanuelle Beart (funnily enough, this actress also starred in a 1994 movie with the same title)! Overall, a movie worth watching.

rowmorg All the French look as if they have parts in a French movie. They're just made that way, and it's a tribute to the French film industry that it has so reflected them. Here's a quintessential French movie, all the more quintessential in that it was written by Poles and directed by a Yugoslav. Paris has never looked better, and the three stars featuring as wronged women all play magnificently. Of course the three (even four) strands of storyline would be a lot to handle for most American youthful moviegoers, and many of the visual prompts require a degree of attention to detail and a knowledge of western culture (Medea, the Acropolis, the Age of Reason) that would be beyond them, too. That said, it's worth pointing out that L'Enfer follows the Hollywood trend of portraying men entirely negatively. Even the father, who is ostensibly vindicated in the end, behaves so brutally that he, too, is a villain. With the exception of a couple of cameo parts, every man in this picture is a villain, every woman a tortured saint. I'm sick of it, and I wish heartily that someone would pass a law against it. Another niggle: the painstakingly photographed title scenes showing the nesting habits of the common cuckoo --- what symbolism does this have with regard to the rest of the film? Or did it simply appeal to the director? These concerns aside, there is an irresistible allure to any film capturing the ambiance of Paris flats, squares, cafes, streetscapes and glimpses of the chateaux beyond, including the beloved TGV which is the only place where one of the women ever manages to get any sleep...and of course, it must all revolve around l'amour, l'amour, toujours l'amour.

Harry T. Yung Apologies for the summary line, which I simply cannot resist. The first two of the late, legendary director Kieslowski's legacy of the trilogy which, he presumably was going to make himself, were acquired by two highly respected directors. Tom Tykwer (Lola Rennt) made "Heaven" a few years ago and Danis Tanovic (No Man's Land) made "Hell" (L'Enfer) last year.One thing immediately noticeable about L'Enfer is style. Director Tanovic seems very fond of using vertical shots (reminding me strangely the stabbing scene in "Psycho" – not the shower scene, of course). It was a while ago when I watched "No Man's Land" but I don't recall similar shots. This may be viewed as director Tanovic's versatility in employing the camera, as in the 360 degree shot that accentuate the protagonist's emotion. Also used quite extensively is silhouette, to various degrees, showing a dark object against light in the background. Coincidence or not, director Tykwer also used silhouette in "Heaven", but the impact of that scene is so dumbfounding that by comparison, silhouette scenes in L'Enfer are only pale shadows.While Heaven has flashes of controversial and provocative ideas as well as rich symbolism throughout, Hell stays on traditional, sometime even melodramatic ground, leading us through a web of tragic human traits – doubt, infidelity, selfishness, to mention just a few. The use of Medea, the tragedy of tragedies in Greek mythology, as the subject of a college project is not incidental. The elements of misunderstanding, deceit, vengeance and unforgiving stubbornness underpin the tragedy surrounding the three sisters haunted by a nightmarish childhood experience.Sophie, tormented by her gnawing resentment of an unfaithful husband, is played by Emmanuelle Beart who will be remembered by those who have seen Ozon's "8 women" as the subtly sexy maid Louise. Attractive and unsophisticated Anne (Marie Gillian) is hopelessly attached to her professor who has a daughter about her own age. Subdued Celine (Karin Viard) is left with the task of providing occasional company to their partially incapacitated mother, wheel-chair bound and unable to talk (but can write). Appearance of what appears to be an unlikely, handsome suitor turns up dark hidden secrets that was the common root of the tragic heritage of the sisters. More I'll not reveal.Hell is well crafted, beautifully shot, capably acted and provides keen insights that will be reflected on. And yet, it just lacks that innovative spirit that puts Heaven one notch above it.

yannigk I find it hard to comment on an art film, simply because art films provide more than just statements. They pose questions, questions unanswered, questions rhetorical, questionable statements.Hell opens with a beautifully made sequence of a bird and her 3 eggs in a nest, through a kaleidoscope vision. One of the eggs was exchanged by another bird, and its chick "killed" the other two eggs. Personally, I think it's probably the best opening sequence I've ever seen. It's both beautiful, and yet very disturbing.Like the opening, the movie is also beautiful and disturbing. The stories between the three sisters plays powerfully, pushing you towards the revelation given by the 'boy' who shamed their father. From then onwards it's straight forward. But before that, the characters seem to be so unrelated to each other and each story seems to play just because. Well, they're not what you expected them to be.I didn't find it to be very emotional. It is gut-wrenching, but at the same time very rational. On the other hand, its rationality does not (logically?) lead into cliché or any expected outcome. There is a great number of subtlety that you might miss, so better keep your mind alerted while watching it.