Les Rivières pourpres

I really liked LES RIVIÈRES POURPRES.

When I first heard of this movie, I thought: "What an unusual, interesting and poetic title! I wonder what this movie might be all about! It could interest me." Then I saw this absolutely fantastic movie poster, which I still like a lot: a beautiful red - I had to think of the title again! - with the two protagonists in the background and some red blurs (the blood cells, of course, but I didn't know that then).

Then I learned something about the movie's content and thought: "Usually, I don't like serial killer movies at all, because often they're too violent, but that mostly concerns Hollywood movies. So, let's see, what the French made out of it!" Which I did shortly thereafter.

And what shall I say? I really liked the movie, because it was full of suspense. It had two great lead actors: Jean Reno at his best (Watch his face, as he looks at the first corpse!), and a great Vincent Cassel, whom I didn't know before. The two stories in Guernon and Sarzac were well intertwined (save for the end, on which I will comment later on).

The cinematography was overwhelming (for example the shots in the mountains, when Niémans drives to the crime scene in the very beginning, and those, when he and Fanny climb through the snowy mountains before finding the second corpse). And finally the soundtrack by Bruno Coulais was brilliantly adjusted to each scene.

Moreover, I liked the movie for not being too violent. Although the victims were drastically tortured, before they were killed, neither the torture nor the killing is shown. And the violence is not "celebrated", which means it's not shown, as if it were any kind of fun or something the viewer also should do.

Once again: Watch Niémans' face, while he looks at the first corpse; this scene shows clearly what he thinks of the torture and the killing and that it's absolutely barbaric and immoral to do a thing like that. Hollywood movies often don't show that as clearly (e. g.: Is John Doe in David Fincher's absolutely disgusting and way overrated SE7EN not in a way shown as being "sympathetic"?).

Are there any weaknesses in this movie? Yes, of course there are. Firstly, there are the first scenes of the movie, while the credits start: The camera shows a rotting human corpse, which was a) quite disgusting, b) totally unnecessary, and c) in no connection to the movie. Because, of the corpses in LES RIVIÈRES POURPRES not one had the time to rot! (Think about it for thirty seconds - you will see that I'm right!)

And then there's the end of the movie; let's say the last fifteen minutes. I must admit that I didn't really understand it completely, which in other words means that I don't think it's absolutely logical. In my opinion, it's quite stupid and very disappointing compared to everything in the movie that happened before (though I can't and won't tell you about the end in detail here; go see the movie for yourself!).

Shakespeare wrote: "All's well that ends well." Does that mean everything's bad that has a bad end? (And let's face it: The end of LES RIVIÈRES POURPRES can in my opinion only be described as really bad!) The answer is no! Because for 90 of 105 minutes the movie is absolutely great and worth a watch.

Behind BILLY ELLIOT and CHOCOLAT it's my third favourite movie of 2001 so far. And if not for the end, it could have easily taken the first place of this list.

I'd like to rate it an 8, but because of the end I can't. So I rate it a 7. But it's a strong one.

I'm a big fan of the genre (and "Seven" is still one of my 10 favorite films of all time), but "The Crimson Rivers" just didn't cut it. It is undeniably directed with enough skill and confidence to rival any Hollywood blockbuster, it is filmed on wonderful locations and it has great performances by both leading stars. But the pace is slow and the plot is muddled. Supposedly the DVD "making-of" documentary clarifies matters somewhat (and I plan to watch it right now)....but still, that should never be the only way you could interpret a movie. (**)

The isolated University of Guernon specializes in the study of eugenics through which the researchers hope to produce academics of the highest calibre. Chief Inspector Niemans (Jean Reno) is called from Paris to investigate an horrific murder involving torture of the University's research librarian(close your eyes if mutilated bodies offend you)...At the same time a local police officer is looking into the desecration of a grave in the local cemetery. Some intriguing clues ( a bit far-fetched though)bring the two investigations together.

The two policeman have a strange relationship. The Chief from Paris is rather a loner who has his own ideas while the energetic local officer is kept at arm's length until he producers a clue of his own. The dialogue between these two keeps the film alive. The rest of the characters behave in suspicious ways of course but on the whole play minor roles.

Dissection of bodies and opening of grave sites are always gruesome and not every one's idea of entertainment. In this film they are important parts of the plot and certainly add to the atmosphere. It's strange when you come to think of it that police have to do so much of their work by torch light. But then the shadows are greatly enhanced and who knows what may jump out at them!

The police get very little help from the suspicious-looking University staff, a fact which surprises me considering their lives are possibly in danger.

For me the final scene when all is revealed is quite a let-down after a reasonably interesting investigation. The solving of the crime in this way seems just a little too convenient. The final avalanche was more exciting than the solving of the crime.

In Guernon, an isolated mountain area where the local University rules the town, the Chief Inspector Pierre Niemans (Jean Reno) arrives from Paris to investigate a hideous crime, when the victim was tortured and mutilated before dying. Meanwhile, Detective Max Kerkerian (Vincent Cassel) comes to the same place, following the investigation of a profaned tomb of a young girl. They join forces and find a plot of eugenics in the University, with abductions, murders and revenge.

Yesterday I saw this great movie again, trying to find some answers to questions I raised the first time I saw it four years ago. Unfortunately, they have no explanations along the story. "Les Rivières Pourpres" has magnificent locations, maybe the most beautiful landscapes I have seen in a crime movie. The cast is outstanding, highlighting the charismatic Jean Reno and Vincent Cassel. However, the screenplay has flaws and presents a deceptive conclusion. My questions are: (1) If Judith was kidnapped in the nursery of the hospital, exchanged by the daughter of another person, what happened to the other child? (2) Who raised Judith, if her mother got crazy and went to a dark cell in a convent? (3) If her mother knew where her other daughter was, why didn't she go to the French justice and fight to retrieve the child? (4) How Judith found and approached Fanny? Anyway, usually worths watching serial killer stories and this one is very above the average. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Rio Vermelhos" ("Red Rivers")

Although french, this movie is better than most hollywood churned wannabes. A gripping thriller with a slightly outlandish plot revolving around genetics and nazism. But dont let that turn u off. The film is absolute edge-of-the-seat fare. Jean reno is good as usual but vincent cassel dishes out excellent acting nuances which add to his character. Great acting! The scenes set in winter among the French Rhone Alpes are breath taking to say the least. The thrills keep on coming without having to take resort to loud background music, which make these moments even more rivetting. The english dubbing is good without too many quirks. RECOMMENDED! [Writing "Highly Recommended" would make you biased! ;-)]