Un jeu d'enfants

Even french critics have regarded this movie as an insignificant movie, I think they were wrong.

The atmosphere was terrific, characters very well interpreted by two excellent actors : Charles Berling & Karin Viard. Without heavy special effects, scenario succeeds to really frighten us.

I was shocked for a while after the last image plays.

I really loved this movie.

Don't look to this if you're expecting a child or if you want to have one :)

Dull French horror movie about a frazzled mom who believes that her two small children plan to harm her and her increasingly short-fused husband. Early scenes with children playing a secret game that the mother is to be excluded from, for now, are promising and remind of the chilling Ray Bradbury story Zero Hour. Unfortunately, the movie never goes anywhere interesting from there and the filmmakers leave the audience with many more questions than answers: What exactly are the spirits of the old brother and sister trying to accomplish and why? If they died as children why do they appear as old people? How exactly did they manage to make one of the characters commit suicide? This movie is a complete dud. If you like evil children movies you would be much better off watching The Innocents (which this also recalls in its early scenes) or the Spanish flick Who Could Kill A Child.

"Un jeu d'enfants", translated as "A Child's Game", is a French horror flick which is clearly inspired by Henry James' classic work "The Turn of the Screw", or perhaps more particularly by "The Innocents", the 1961 classic adaptation of that story.

You know the drill: it's a woman pitted against two kids who may or may not be evil. Or is she just crazy? Well, here the psychological aspects of the story are pretty much gone and we know for a fact there's something supernatural going on here.

Perhaps it's the lack of the psychological angle that kind of neutered the story? You see, I saw this movie on TV ages ago back in the 2000s when it was fairly new, and I never forgot some of the images from it, but I couldn't remember much else. Having just rewatched it I have realised that this was because there was nothing much else to remember about the flick, except to file it away in my brain as another adaptation of James's novella.

The movie has occasionally striking imagery that grab the attention, true, but it doesn't have much of an atmosphere and nor does it say a whole lot about these images. Something that I hadn't seen handled in horror a whole lot, interestingly, is dealt with here: the way the mother, suffering from visions that are making her act crazy, instigates sex with a couple of strange men who immediately take her up on her offer, no questions asked.

The fact that so many people will have sex with a married person with a family without a second thought is disturbing and this movie calls that to mind, but doesn't do anything with it, or any of the other lights it shines on human psychology.

The lights go on, get our attention, and then they go off again. The movie is content to get our attention sporadically and let us lose interest the rest of the time.

And the climax, when the real bad guys finally turn up, is striking only for how ridiculous it is, an anti-climax in the only throughline the movie had: shocking imagery.

Remember The Possessed? In 1961, Jack Clayton filmed that oppressive story about a young unexperienced lady nursing two innocent kids and facing some supernatural appearances. Or was it her that filled all the atmosphere with her own fears and neurastenic obsessions? Tuel, french director, do the same excellent thing with his movie: two little kids trapped in a huge maze-like parisian flat, between a father who is on the edge of madness and a mother who lost a son a few yew years ago and never succeeded to overgo the drama. Are the two intruders at the beginning of the thriller real persons, ghosts from a past tragedy, or just a projection of the mother (excellent Karin Viard)? Despite an end which sounds just too much of a final explanation, Laurent Tuel's movie is a little masterpiece of building anguish without easy effects, and suggesting horror that can hide istelf behind each of the dorrs of the flat. Wonderful. NAturalist fantasy at its best.

In this French movie, loosely inspired by Jack Clayton's "The Innocents" (which was based on Henry James' novel "Turn of the Screw"), we have an interesting story, outstanding acting, and very good classy old school film-making, how can that go wrong? why are all the negative reviews? For the most part, the praise and over-hype this film received set the expectations too high, so the disappointment is understandable.

It is a straight forward horror story set in an old apartment in France, where after the mysterious visit of two strangers, the children of a young couple begin to act strange and their mother begins to wonder what is going on with her family. Her health problems and the demons of her past make worse her situation.

Compared to "The Innocents", "The Others" and "The Shining", the film really appears as a weak dull attempt of a horror movie; but if you ignore the over-hype and watch it with low expectations, the film is a pleasant surprise and a promising step forward in director Laurent Tuel's career.

Actress Karin Viard plays Marianne, the young mother who faces the strange behavior of her beloved children; and she gives a very good performance. Her outstanding performance asher character goes to psychological torture is one of the most notable characteristics of this film. The acting of her children is very good too, and it is surprising considering their young age. The rest of the cast go from average to good, which is a shame because Viard and the kids do very good jobs.

The film moves very slow, as old films used to do; this old school style of film-making probably will not be of the taste of those used to modern day fast paced scary movies, but will surely be appreciated by fans of 60s horror movies. The movie has that claustrophobic feeling and eerie atmosphere, so characteristic of films of those years.

The script has some troubles, as it leaves many plot holes and while probably it was the intention of the writers to leave things unexplained, I was left with the sensation that many things went unexplored and that a lot of the story's potential was lost.

The direction is OK, but never reaches the imagery of Kubrick, Amenabar or Clayton. As I wrote above, watch it with low expectations and you'll be greatly rewarded. 6/10