marton_fekete-feher
Joined Jan 2024
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews7
marton_fekete-feher's rating
This is not a masterpiece, but not at all bad either. I bought this on Blu-ray because it is shot in ''Schwiizertüütsch'' (spiced with some French) and a genre piece at that. The Blu-ray contains English subtitles.
To avoid unnecessary confusion for the viewer it is good to know that the beginning and the end of the film are set in ''the present day'' while the rest in between is set in 1975. Events in 1975 are not told in strict chronological order. To clarify things toward the ending (which is considerably faster paced than the beginning of the movie) two recap sequences are inserted.
The screenplay is perhaps overcomplicated, containing several crossing storylines. In hindsight quite a lot in the course of events depends on coincidences plus the fact that several characters are unable or unwilling to speak. Still, everything comes together neatly.
The present-day sequences, especially the one at the beginning, unnecessarily add to the confusion. They could have been left out without harming the story. I suspect they are there only to provide a final twist, but this could have been done just as well by moving the entire present-day part to the end, as a kind of epilogue.
In conclusion, this is an interesting picture. A bit confusing at times, but to that there is a perfect solution: watch it all over again.
The Blu-ray contains a making-of, information on the shooting locations and a German-dubbed soundtrack as well. Oh, and nice music overall. I liked the Serge Gainsbourg song that at some point breaks the action.
To avoid unnecessary confusion for the viewer it is good to know that the beginning and the end of the film are set in ''the present day'' while the rest in between is set in 1975. Events in 1975 are not told in strict chronological order. To clarify things toward the ending (which is considerably faster paced than the beginning of the movie) two recap sequences are inserted.
The screenplay is perhaps overcomplicated, containing several crossing storylines. In hindsight quite a lot in the course of events depends on coincidences plus the fact that several characters are unable or unwilling to speak. Still, everything comes together neatly.
The present-day sequences, especially the one at the beginning, unnecessarily add to the confusion. They could have been left out without harming the story. I suspect they are there only to provide a final twist, but this could have been done just as well by moving the entire present-day part to the end, as a kind of epilogue.
In conclusion, this is an interesting picture. A bit confusing at times, but to that there is a perfect solution: watch it all over again.
The Blu-ray contains a making-of, information on the shooting locations and a German-dubbed soundtrack as well. Oh, and nice music overall. I liked the Serge Gainsbourg song that at some point breaks the action.
The dvd box of my copy bills this film as an ''absurd comedy''. In my view it is neither absurd nor a comedy. In the first act we get to know Winfried (played by Peter Simonischek), an elderly piano teacher who likes to play pranks on people. After the death of his dog we move to the second act, which is set in Romania. The B-story here is about Winfried's daughter Ines and her troubles at work. In the finale the focus moves definitely from Winfried to Ines (played by Sandra Hüller), who meanwhile has learned some valuable lessons from her father.
If this were a Hollywood picture we would expect really funny scenes where the father shakes up the life of his uptight daughter. Something in the line of ''Mrs Doubtfire'', perhaps. Judging from the reviews this is what quite a lot of viewers expected. Instead the father is not that funny at all. The jokes he plays out are nothing special: they are of the kind we all could have made.
The good thing about this film is that everything that happens (yes, including the ''team building activity'' at the end of act 2) could have happened like this in real life. It all feels very authentic. Relatable. Which I suppose is on purpose.
It is best (as I did) to watch this film not expecting anything. Peter Simonischek and Sandra Hüller (great as well in The zone of interest) play their parts without theatrical mannerisms. Nice.
If this were a Hollywood picture we would expect really funny scenes where the father shakes up the life of his uptight daughter. Something in the line of ''Mrs Doubtfire'', perhaps. Judging from the reviews this is what quite a lot of viewers expected. Instead the father is not that funny at all. The jokes he plays out are nothing special: they are of the kind we all could have made.
The good thing about this film is that everything that happens (yes, including the ''team building activity'' at the end of act 2) could have happened like this in real life. It all feels very authentic. Relatable. Which I suppose is on purpose.
It is best (as I did) to watch this film not expecting anything. Peter Simonischek and Sandra Hüller (great as well in The zone of interest) play their parts without theatrical mannerisms. Nice.
At the time of my writing this there are still only two reviews of this series, both very critical, both giving very low ratings. While I can understand the criticisms, I think their ratings are quite harsh. This is a fairly entertaining French police procedural that I really enjoyed watching -- even to the extent that after finishing it I decided to buy and read the novel the series is based upon (Delphine de Vigan, ''Les enfants sont rois'', Folio).
One major change is in the protagonist: not only does she have a different name (Sarah Roussel instead of Claire Roussel), but a different background as well. Whereas in the novel Claire Roussel is an orphan, daughter of two leftist activists that are very anti-police, in the series Sarah Roussel is more your stereotypical television sleuth, herself the daughter of a former policeman who serves as her mentor throughout the series. Claire in the novel does everything by the book, while Sarah in the series gets herself suspended, hands over her gun, continues working on the case anyway, thereby acting in such a way that any evidence gathered would have been inadmissable in court. In short: here the usual clichés abound and quite unnecessarily so. On the other hand, Sarah has some quirks that Claire has not: dream visions of the victim for example (that play no role in the course of the story). Plus she lets herself get seduced by the victim's mother (in the novel Claire is straight and is not involved in any romantic B-story).
Why these changes? My guess is that with ''Sarah Roussel'' the producers of the series aimed to create a new character they could use in future projects without having to pay royalties to the creator of the original ''Claire Roussel''.
Another change is in the nature of the story. The series is basically a whodunnit, with lots of red herrings and suspects. In the novel the detective element is more a device to introduce us to the world of child influencers and YouTube marketing. The real question there is: is turning your child into a YouTube star something done for their benefit, a means to give them a better future, or is it actually child abuse? The novel blames the system -- the series blames the mother.
I thought both Doria Tillier (as Mélanie, the mother of the abducted Kimmie Diore) and Géraldine Nakache (as Sarah Roussel) did a great job. Let's hope there will be a second season.
One major change is in the protagonist: not only does she have a different name (Sarah Roussel instead of Claire Roussel), but a different background as well. Whereas in the novel Claire Roussel is an orphan, daughter of two leftist activists that are very anti-police, in the series Sarah Roussel is more your stereotypical television sleuth, herself the daughter of a former policeman who serves as her mentor throughout the series. Claire in the novel does everything by the book, while Sarah in the series gets herself suspended, hands over her gun, continues working on the case anyway, thereby acting in such a way that any evidence gathered would have been inadmissable in court. In short: here the usual clichés abound and quite unnecessarily so. On the other hand, Sarah has some quirks that Claire has not: dream visions of the victim for example (that play no role in the course of the story). Plus she lets herself get seduced by the victim's mother (in the novel Claire is straight and is not involved in any romantic B-story).
Why these changes? My guess is that with ''Sarah Roussel'' the producers of the series aimed to create a new character they could use in future projects without having to pay royalties to the creator of the original ''Claire Roussel''.
Another change is in the nature of the story. The series is basically a whodunnit, with lots of red herrings and suspects. In the novel the detective element is more a device to introduce us to the world of child influencers and YouTube marketing. The real question there is: is turning your child into a YouTube star something done for their benefit, a means to give them a better future, or is it actually child abuse? The novel blames the system -- the series blames the mother.
I thought both Doria Tillier (as Mélanie, the mother of the abducted Kimmie Diore) and Géraldine Nakache (as Sarah Roussel) did a great job. Let's hope there will be a second season.