notify-christina The film was okay, not brilliant but good enough to watch if you want an easy time with not much tension. It felt more like a soap opera episode. From the trailers I knew they would kill the original story but I thought it would still be a good movie, because of the actors. It's not horrible, the acting is fine and I like this way of filming, but the plot is quite shallow at parts and the characters do inexplicable things. There are serious plot holes, because the film makers spent lots of screen time showing us naked behinds of dead bodies and there was no time left for giving the characters some depth and consistency. The writers go straight to the point before the first ten minutes and then try to build tension on things that couldn't support it. All the plot holes are explained in the book.*spoiler*The scare wasn't in the possibility of a plague outburst but in not understanding how the trails were connected and why.If you've read the book or intend to do so, don't watch the film. Don't even think about it. It has changed EVERYTHING and reveals vital parts of the book in the first four minutes. Different characters, different plot, different ending. Only the basic story is the same, but that's like saying 'it's about a serial killer'. EVERYTHING is changed, this movie is definitely not based on F. Vargas book. In fact, it's the opposite for 75% of it.

dark_coffee 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.

souchong 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.

jerome_a_paris 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)