I fiumi di porpora

The novel by Jean-Cristophe Grangè on which this film is based is simply one of the best thrillers ever written,in the same league as The Silence of the Lambs and Misery,and with the help of writer/director Mathieu Kassovitz(who was also supposed to be one of the actors)the author has successfully brought his masterpiece to the screen.

From the very beginning,thanks to the location and Bruno Coulais'unsettling score,we realize French people can make good horror thrillers: Pierre Niemans(Jean Reno) is in Grenoble to solve a couple of weird and brutal murders,while Max Kerkerian(Vincent Cassel)investigates a damaged tomb somewhere else. Soon they discover the two cases are connected,and the two men have to run against the clock in order to uncover the awful truth about what's been going on in the local university for years.

The book has been simplified(the first chapter is entirely missing,as well as some of the details about Cassel's case),but the movie manages to be very interesting,and the chemistry between Reno and Cassel is great.

Special praise for Dominique Sanda,her creepy cameo being the film's best sequence(Sissy Spacek appears in a similar scene in The Ring 2).

Only defect:why did they make the sequel?

In Guernon, an isolated mountain area where the local University rules the town, the Chief Inspector Pierre Niemans (Jean Reno) arrives from Paris to investigate a hideous crime, when the victim was tortured and mutilated before dying. Meanwhile, Detective Max Kerkerian (Vincent Cassel) comes to the same place, following the investigation of a profaned tomb of a young girl. They join forces and find a plot of eugenics in the University, with abductions, murders and revenge.

Yesterday I saw this great movie again, trying to find some answers to questions I raised the first time I saw it four years ago. Unfortunately, they have no explanations along the story. "Les Rivières Pourpres" has magnificent locations, maybe the most beautiful landscapes I have seen in a crime movie. The cast is outstanding, highlighting the charismatic Jean Reno and Vincent Cassel. However, the screenplay has flaws and presents a deceptive conclusion. My questions are: (1) If Judith was kidnapped in the nursery of the hospital, exchanged by the daughter of another person, what happened to the other child? (2) Who raised Judith, if her mother got crazy and went to a dark cell in a convent? (3) If her mother knew where her other daughter was, why didn't she go to the French justice and fight to retrieve the child? (4) How Judith found and approached Fanny? Anyway, usually worths watching serial killer stories and this one is very above the average. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): "Rio Vermelhos" ("Red Rivers")

"The Crimson Rivers" tells of two French detectives on converging investigative paths leading to the "who" in whodunit as they leapfrog from one tense moment to the next in this good but not great macabre and sometimes gruesome serial killer mystery. What this flick lacks in story it more than makes up for in artistry and verve as it carves itself out of hauntingly beautiful vistas, superb cinematography, great sound and score, and, perhaps best of all for English speakers, excellent dubbed translations. Well worth the time for those with an eye for artistry in film and a taste for dark thrillers.

I really liked LES RIVIÈRES POURPRES.

When I first heard of this movie, I thought: "What an unusual, interesting and poetic title! I wonder what this movie might be all about! It could interest me." Then I saw this absolutely fantastic movie poster, which I still like a lot: a beautiful red - I had to think of the title again! - with the two protagonists in the background and some red blurs (the blood cells, of course, but I didn't know that then).

Then I learned something about the movie's content and thought: "Usually, I don't like serial killer movies at all, because often they're too violent, but that mostly concerns Hollywood movies. So, let's see, what the French made out of it!" Which I did shortly thereafter.

And what shall I say? I really liked the movie, because it was full of suspense. It had two great lead actors: Jean Reno at his best (Watch his face, as he looks at the first corpse!), and a great Vincent Cassel, whom I didn't know before. The two stories in Guernon and Sarzac were well intertwined (save for the end, on which I will comment later on).

The cinematography was overwhelming (for example the shots in the mountains, when Niémans drives to the crime scene in the very beginning, and those, when he and Fanny climb through the snowy mountains before finding the second corpse). And finally the soundtrack by Bruno Coulais was brilliantly adjusted to each scene.

Moreover, I liked the movie for not being too violent. Although the victims were drastically tortured, before they were killed, neither the torture nor the killing is shown. And the violence is not "celebrated", which means it's not shown, as if it were any kind of fun or something the viewer also should do.

Once again: Watch Niémans' face, while he looks at the first corpse; this scene shows clearly what he thinks of the torture and the killing and that it's absolutely barbaric and immoral to do a thing like that. Hollywood movies often don't show that as clearly (e. g.: Is John Doe in David Fincher's absolutely disgusting and way overrated SE7EN not in a way shown as being "sympathetic"?).

Are there any weaknesses in this movie? Yes, of course there are. Firstly, there are the first scenes of the movie, while the credits start: The camera shows a rotting human corpse, which was a) quite disgusting, b) totally unnecessary, and c) in no connection to the movie. Because, of the corpses in LES RIVIÈRES POURPRES not one had the time to rot! (Think about it for thirty seconds - you will see that I'm right!)

And then there's the end of the movie; let's say the last fifteen minutes. I must admit that I didn't really understand it completely, which in other words means that I don't think it's absolutely logical. In my opinion, it's quite stupid and very disappointing compared to everything in the movie that happened before (though I can't and won't tell you about the end in detail here; go see the movie for yourself!).

Shakespeare wrote: "All's well that ends well." Does that mean everything's bad that has a bad end? (And let's face it: The end of LES RIVIÈRES POURPRES can in my opinion only be described as really bad!) The answer is no! Because for 90 of 105 minutes the movie is absolutely great and worth a watch.

Behind BILLY ELLIOT and CHOCOLAT it's my third favourite movie of 2001 so far. And if not for the end, it could have easily taken the first place of this list.

I'd like to rate it an 8, but because of the end I can't. So I rate it a 7. But it's a strong one.

Mathieu Kassovitz's film featuring the incomparable Jean Reno (The Professional) and Vincent Cassel (Ocean's Twelve, Ocean's Thirteen) is a thrill ride that never stops.

The French countryside with the spooky houses is a feast for the eyes. Thierry Arbogast's (The Messenger: The Story of Joan of Arc) camera made this entire film a joy to watch. The scenery was complimented by the music of Bruno Coulais (The Chorus).

But, it was Jean Reno that brought me to this film. His Commissioner Niemans was just what I expected from him. He has a way that makes the perfect cop. That is not to dismiss Callel's Lieutenant Kerkerian, who was a perfect partner.

The story was definitely creepy with some graphic scenes of tortured bodies, but it was not off putting. It was essential to the story, which really had some extremely interesting twists and turns.

Niemans and Kerkerian prevail, of course, but it was the journey that was so satisfying.