antoniocasaca123 An unrecognized film by the great director Claude Chabrol, here in the final phase of his career. I do not understand the reason for the poor recognition of this great work. I found the film to be excellent in all aspects: a very interesting and mysterious story that "grabs" us from beginning to end, excellent movie rhythm, never monotony, extremely interesting dialogues, subtly humorous, ironic and relaxed, but at the same time hovering some tension in them, fantastic interpretations of the whole main cast, with a special highlight, of course, for Isabelle Huppert. As for the end of the film, could it possibly have been better achieved? It is a question that I still can not answer, as I am not yet sure of my opinion on this end. I am not referring to the fact that we never get to know who the son of the pianist really is and this mystery remains open. I even thought it was credible. I am referring to the outcome regarding the character of Isabelle Huppert (Mika). I do not think the ending is bad, far from it, but by the time I am writing these lines and having just seen the film a few minutes ago, I still have doubts about whether there could have been a more convincing conclusion. 8/10.

merlin-105 The plot may not be particularly clever, but watching Huppert's brilliant, tense, technically outstanding acting in the role of a woman in search of a nervous breakdown against Dutronc's nonchalant, understated, simmering portrayal of a seedy pillhead, seemingly oblivious to what's going on around him, is worth the price of admission and then some! Supporting characters are all excellent, though the young girl is a bit too wide-eyed for her own good. The movie is also fun to watch just for its use of color, clothing, and art as symbols, including allusions to earlier Huppert classics like "La Dentelliere". While this might not be Chabrol's masterpiece, it would be a good example for any young director to study how a veteran uses the elements of his craft most economically to greatest effect. As for actors: watch Isabelle Huppert's face in the close-up during the long, final shot -- there's a whole acting lesson right there. Not a perfect movie, but enjoyable to watch if you have a mind for such details.

Dennis Littrell Part of the problem with this very interesting movie is carelessness or deliberate ambiguity on the part of director Claude Chabrol. The celebrated French master of cinema really is a bit like Alfred Hitchcock in the way he put this film together. He doesn't care so much about the consistency of detail or logic, instead what he strives for, as did Hitchcock, is effect. Begin with a tantalizing premise, build tension, and then come up with a striking ending.The premise, that of a psychologically disturbed woman of high social and economic status (Mika Muller, played with her usual haunting skill by Isabelle Huppert), whose bizarre nature forces her to poison those around her, satisfies the formula nicely. The tension is maintained by our need to find out exactly what she is doing and why and how it will affect the husband André (Jacques Dutronc), the son Guillaume (Rodolphe Pauly), and the young pianist, Jeanne Pollet (Anna Mouglalis). The ending which is heavily symbolic and deeply psychological however may disappoint some viewers. Note that as the closing credits run down the screen, Mika cries and then curls up catatonically on the couch next to a black Afghan in the shape of a spider web. She is the spider at the side of the web waiting for something to fall into it. She can't help herself. That is her nature. And that is why she cries for herself. And notice that her husband does not hate her or rage against her. Instead he seems to have pity upon her as he plays a funereal piece on the piano.Personally what disappointed me--although I still think this is an excellent film--is the way the ambiguity about Jeanne's paternity is handled. Obviously we can tell by the photos on the wall of the tragically deceased Lisbeth that Jeanne is indeed her daughter since she looks exactly like her. In fact in the next scene Jeanne unconsciously apes the pose in the photo by putting the palms of her hands to either side of her face as André watches. Another problem with the film is that nobody except the audience seems struck by the exact similarity.Additionally, the truth of her paternity is obscured by Jeanne's mother saying that the mixup at the maternity ward was straightened out to everyone's satisfaction, and besides (almost as an afterthought) she reveals that her husband was not the father, that instead she was inseminated by an unknown donor. This silliness could easily be resolved by DNA testing since the movie, which was released in 2000, is set in contemporary France. Chabrol uses a lab to establish what drug Mika is putting in the chocolate. Why not use a lab to establish paternity? Part of the reason may simply be that the novel upon which the movie is based "The Chocolate Cobweb" was written by the American mystery writer Charlotte Armstrong in the 1950's, before the age of DNA testing.The real answer however is that Chabrol didn't bother, just as he didn't bother cleaning up some other ambiguities, like why the son does not confront Mika after he is told by Jeanne that Mika is drugging him. Or why Mika deliberately spills the drugged chocolate intended for Guillaume onto the floor, allowing her to be surreptitiously observed by Jeanne through a reflection in the glass of one of the photos. The spilling seems purely a plot device to allow Jeanne a reason to get the chocolat analyzed. Furthermore, we presume that Mika, who is very rich, remarries André because she loves him or admires him or wants to be with him. And it can be seen that he would want to remarry her because of her wealth, her beauty, her elegance, etc. However, it is revealed near the end of the film that he had all along suspected her of causing Lisbeth's death since he says something like "You also washed the glasses the night Lisbeth died." He knew.One can even go to the extent of analyzing this by saying that Mika is the black widow and André finds her irresistible. Note the scene in which he suggests they make love to have a daughter and she puts him off by saying that he would be ineffective since he has already taken his Rohypnol. She says, next time before he takes his sleep potion they will do it. Furthermore notice that EVERY night he falls into a drugged sleep since he is addicted to Rohypnol. Perhaps this nightly occurrence is pleasant to Mika, in a sense an acting out of the black widow's mating ritual again and again.Nonetheless, this idea of a woman helpless against her own nature seems a bit unsatisfying. We want something more. And what she does to satisfy her urges leaves us a bit mystified. It seems hardly enough. She drugs the chocolate that she lovingly makes for Guillaume and Jeanne. Why only this? Why this at all? The logic is that she needs to excrete her poison, like a spider. The very act of doing it is what satisfies her need. The fact that somebody could take the drug and then fall asleep at the wheel of a car really is beside the point.This tale of the dark psychology within the human soul is the sort of thing that attracts Isabelle Huppert as an actress. She has played in her distinguished career a number of roles that require evil in the human soul. This is one of the more subtle ones. For one of the more striking, see her in The Piano Teacher (2001).(Note: Over 500 of my movie reviews are now available in my book "Cut to the Chaise Lounge or I Can't Believe I Swallowed the Remote!" Get it at Amazon!)

gridoon Any rating higher than 2-2.5 stars out of 4 for "Merci pour le chocolat" is sheer critical prejudice in favor of French cinema in general. This dull thriller is subtle to the point of lethargy, relentlessly talky and lacks credibility (at the end Mouglalis agrees to drive Huppert's car, at night, on a twisty mountain road, even though she practically knows that she has just been poisoned with sleeping pills!). At least piano-music aficionados will get an earful...