User reviews

French novelist Fred Vargas (female) is adapted for film here.

In this case, the flaws of the film are a reflection of the film maker rather than the source material.

The lead playing Adamsberg is a fine actor, but miscast here. Not enough ragged edges to do justice to the character in the novel. Camille is slighted in the script, and cast as an Asian woman -- not at all how I pictured her.

The cast of potential villains works well, as do most the supporting characters. The action direction is merely competent, not masterful.

Vargas's books are great. Look them up if you can.

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)

There are tons of movies based on books. Some are good, some are fine, and some are bad. As someone who read most of Fred Vargas's novels, I was quite disappointed by this movie adaptation of "Pars vite et reviens tard". There are too many plot and character changes, but, most importantly, the movie fails to seize the spirit of the novel - which effectively turns it in a bland and unoriginal police thriller.

At its core, "Pars vite et reviens tard" (translated as "Have mercy on us all" in English) is a not-so-traditional police thriller in which we follow Commissaire Jean-Baptiste Adamsberg as he tries to catch a mysterious murderer who makes it seem as if the plague kills his victims. The general storyline is followed in the movie, but most of the finer points have been modified; arguably to make the story more accessible to people who haven't read the book. Indeed, there are lots of details in the book and it would be impossible to include everything. Still, they made some very odd changes that somewhat disturbs the flow and character development.

In the same line of thought, the casting came in as a surprise. The much missed Michel Serrault delivers erudite Decambrais pretty well, but others are blatantly different (both in physical appearance and personality) than their book counterparts (Danglard, Adamsberg's sidekick, was particularly botched in my opinion: even calling him a foil is giving him too much credit). For the most part, I found the acting to be generally bland and uninspiring.

Of course, it's impossible for a movie to be made as a carbon copy of a book (and then, such a thing could turn out bad). Minor edits to the plot line and the look of the actors are things that can be forgiven, at least up to a certain point. What really kills the movie in my opinion is how it turns the unique style of Vargas's writing in a run-of-the-mill thriller. Before being about a police officer who runs after a bad guy, Vargas's novels are about the psychological depth of her characters, particularly Adamsberg. In the movie, Adamsberg is a bland cop whose distinguishing feature is his need of a woman at night to be able to make progress in the case.

Overall, "Pars vite et reviens tard" is a disappointing movie for those who read the book. For others, it could pass as a decent police thriller, although the average acting and flow issues make it less interesting. I would warn those people though not to judge Vargas's novels on this adaptation, as it would be a big mistake.

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.

Ok I get it. Taking inspiration from medieval and religion is fascinating. A mystery with signs and symbols is probably answering some of our primal fears, superstition or reminds us of childhood fairytales. But it should be done in an innovative way, should be suspenseful and thrilling. ideally aesthetically convincing or with some emotional connection which invites you to follow and care about the Protagonist ... but no, not here, not for me.