Inspector Lavardin

Sex; lies and video tape. Yes. It's that kind of gritty noir with a witty and charismatic yet charming yet brash inspector as the lead protagonist.

Inspector Lavardin has to unravel the film's clues and plot to ascertain how a murder happened. The murder itself was filmed but it takes time to unravel the clues. Hidden lenses are discovered and dirty paths unearthed.

There is some great old school cinematography and screenplay and humour. The policing is sometimes unethical but it's from a time so long ago now. Changes to standards and behaviour have happened since then.

It's genuine thriller but very slow. There is some somptous shots and the scriptwriting is good. The problem is there is just far too many genre films like this so it's not that fresh.

Watch and find out what happens. I don't want to give the game away but it's a fun film and it has aged well. 7/10.

This is actually rather a good, but not particularly noteworthy, detective movie. Chabrol re-uses a character of an earlier film, Inspecteur Lavardin from Poulet au Vinaigre, which was probably the most successful ingredient of that film. This later film is more entertaining and accessible than Poulet, primarily because it benefits from having a much better script, with more than a smattering of humour. In addition, the main characters are better drawn and acted than in Poulet. Of particular note are Jean-Claude Brialy playing Lavardin's outrageously camp and eccentric host, and Jean Poiret, now comfortably installed in the role of the unconventional, if not to say dangerous, detective Lavardin.

The plot is quite sophisticated, with some clever twists and turns. The unmasking of the murderer and the transfer of guilt are quite cleverly engineered, although the conclusion does raise some questions about Lavardin's (and Chabrol's?) own personal morality. That, coupled with Lavardin's somewhat brutal technique from extracting truth from the witnesses and suspects, can only serve to undermine his position as the good guy in any subsequent film.

So funny... Poiret is such a blast. Police story with a lot of social critic. The cast is one of the greatest you can have in France at that time. This is so cynical.

Jean Poiret is Inspector Lavardine who finds the love of his life after 20 years the widow of the man found nude on the beach in Brittany. She has a lovely 13 year old daughter. There is a relative who paints glass eyes. The murder scene has the clothes of the victim. Lavardine is tricky in the way he gets information. At one point he smashes all the glass eyes off the shelves. He can get very severe if needed. He's nice up to the point where he is frustrated, and then he turns. I enjoyed the creative manner of Levardine. The action and characters were relatable. A very easy film to watch.

This sequel to COP AU VIN (1985), in which Jean Poiret's eccentric title character is given more screen-time, proves to be almost as good; if anything, he is less detached towards his current case – since the victim's wife (Bernadette Lafont) is an old flame of the Inspector's! Besides, the sleazy vicissitudes of the murder mystery here are somewhat more compelling than in the first film – involving as it does bigamy, drug-trafficking, incest, infidelity, patricide, paedophilia, prostitution, etc.!

Once again, Lavardin locks horns with one of the suspects in particular, a discotheque-owner who unwisely flaunts his political connections at him. As I said, the protagonist is allowed plenty of opportunity to display his idiosyncrasies – such as when he willfully destroys the fragile collection of ornamental eyes owned by Jean-Claude Brialy (playing Lafont's spirited live-in gay brother), or when, at the disco, he first appropriates for himself a drink being poured to a paying customer and, then, interrupts the activities to request identification papers from suspicious-looking patrons!

However, the women are not only scarcer than they were the first time around but also less interesting: Lafont herself is oddly given little of substance to do, while the actress appearing as her daughter (who has more to do with her stepfather's death than her mother could ever imagine) is simply too nondescript for such a pivotal role! Otherwise, the film offers much the same level of entertainment and maintains a more or less comparable standard of quality as the original.