Les choses humaines

No pun(s) intended - there are a few things that can be said. As in they are facts - things that happened. But how and why did they happen and what does it say about the characters involved and about the ones that have to judge whatever occured. Also I don't quite understand the french justice system - hopefully I never have to be in front of one (any jury that is).

The movie does not give us clear answers - at least it does try to stay as vague as possible. You on the other hand may feel strongly - you may feel that it is crystal clear. Depending on your own views, maybe experiences (life and others) ... you will have a proconceived notion.

If that is the case, it probably means you had something bad happen to you. And the movie deals with what it does to a person. But it also is quite adament to be as "neutral" as possible. Giving us two different perspectives ... the eye of the beholder. No means no of course - even when the word is never uttered? You see this delves into something you may feel strongly about - it has to be said or even if not, it should be obvious when it is meant ... a very hard movie to watch, because it does not give you easy answers ... it does not give you any answers to be honest ... whatever that means to you ... human things, feelings and stuff like that ...

Its 2 hours and 30 minutes long and should have been half that. The film ultimately becomes a rorschach test of your own feelings. It takes too long to arrive at a conclusion and misleads you all the way frustratingly.

I found myself angry at the writer/director/producer who takes you on a endless rollercoaster without providing a conclusion or the reasoning behind it. Imagine being part of a lawsuit where the judges never explain their reasoning.

Read subtitles was hard enough. Its in French and it was hard to understand the nuisances they were trying to convey.

On the surface, this very well-made film looks like a detective-slash-court drama about sexual abuse, which is absolutely true: there's no other topic raised directly. But deep down, and that is only felt as a certain "aftertaste", one can understand it's a lot more than that: cultural and personal norms as well as values, new perspectives on lifestyles, ways of making priorities, contrast and similarities between youth and the elders shown so well by the secondary characters.

Towards the end of it, I was eager to pop inside the jury's heads and see what and why convinces them to bring the verdict. But no, the storyteller remains impartial, and I'm remaining the jury for myself. With more questions than answers and a lot of food for thought. Bravo!

Excellent acting from some heavyweights the best and most salient being La Gainsbourg; her summation at the end of the trial should get her awards and prob will

It adds a human dimension to some of the possible perceived excesses of the entire Weinstein-triggered Zeitgeist (Balance ton Porc: "Grass up your Pig") being the French expression of the Metoo worldwide movement

It ultimately explores and questions what is consent and how fluid and tortuous this concept can be to legislate around.

It does not come out in the end with any solid answer as indeed it probably cannot be done; but it is a very balanced and intelligent; also very well-paced reflection on the entire issue

I gave a nine; some might a ten .... oh yes and despite the very heavy subject matter (rape) it is an enjoyable film to view overall.

Overall an interesting movie. I was really invested in it while watching, but the ending is just not it. It's vague and not clear.

Some points of the narrative are not as clear as they should be and some of them are actually irrelevant to the plot, such as the storyline about Alexander's father.

The trial is indeed catchy, especially if you're interested in law, but its ending is absolutely predictable. It was as if the whole testimonies were absolutely meaningless and the jury already knew who to condemn from the start.

2 and a half hour that resulted in nothing but a blurry and unclear image.