Malevil

By now you've seen it all before, but in the 80s, several films like this appeared, banking on the fears of the possibility of a very real nuclear war and they felt fresh. Funny how that wheel turns, heh, 2022?

Anyway, some people are in a wine cellar when a nuke blows their village away. They manage to survive and then they meet the "others" which of course are antagonistic. They solve the problem, but then, instead of going full The Walking Dead, the film goes in another direction. I found that ending added a lot to the film, although it was kind of subtle.

While some scenes are very good, some lines really deep and the dark exploration of human nature in times of crisis quite realistic, I couldn't really enjoy the slow pace, the mentally handicapped 30 year old and his almost senile mother or the religious cult controlled by an evil nobody who created the drama. Trintignant was always good, but he couldn't make this shine.

Funny enough there seems to be a 2009 remake, also French, which almost didn't see the light of day. It was released directly to TV in France after4 years from its completion. I don't know if the book is any better, but from what I read, it's better to just watch this 1981 film instead.

Bottom line: a combination of good acting and nice writing, but marred by a slow pace and really unsympathetic characters.

Check the title :it's the best thing the film has to offer:a word made of two words "mal " (French) and "evil" (English) which have the same meaning.

It was intended to be "rural" sci-fi without a Charlton Heston type hero.The problem lies in the fact that the movies with Heston ("planet of the apes" of course" but also "the omega man" and "solyent greeen") are damn better than the pitiful French attempt.The cast is not very exciting (Jacques Villeret is not efficient as a drama actor and Jacques Dutronc is a singer,as the precedent user says ,this does not make him an actor for all that).The post apocalyptic future was already a hackneyed subject at the time and the conclusion is clumsy ,unsatisfying ,it takes no chances ,raises no questions does not appeal or repel.

Word to the wise:2 Christian de Challonges movies are much more interesting :"l'alliance" (1970) and "le bel été 14"(1996) and too bad if their ratings are lower.Wait and see.

I'm a lifelong and ardent fan of Robert Merle, the writer who thought up Malevil, genre close to "Les Hommes Protégés" when he wasn't writing his historical classic saga "Fortune de France". The story I used to read many times over is something I was always curious about how they'd put it on celluloid... khmmm... coulda been far better... I think the main problem is that it lacks any real background to the main characters, their 'previos life' their place in the micro-society of the typical rural France countryside.

A spicy choice of brilliant actors (Trintignant as Fulbert, Serrault the Squire and Villeret as Momo) should've been given MUCH more credit than this. I just don't know why this movie went awry - looooong, boring and leaving holes unanswered in the story - maybe it was only intended to be a cheapo TV-film, poorly budgeted variant. If you see the movie first you'll never want to read the book, if you read the book first you'd be disappointed by the movie.

This is for me not an anticipation film, despite the fact that it takes place after a nuclear attack, a common topic for many movies of the early eighties, I guess after MAD MAX and ESCAPE FROM NEW YORK success. MALEVIL is more a character and social study than anything else. It is a bit complex but the lines, possibilities of readings, are numerous, the audiences have a large choice among all the things they can say about this film. It is of course pretty interesting to watch, analyze, especially for a French film, very daring and the presence of the likes as Michel Serrault, Jean Louis Trintignant emphasizes the quality of this unusual and tremendous movie. I have not yet read the novel which it is inspired from, so I won't speak of the adaptation. Awesome settings from the French mountains, landscape, wilderness.

I really enjoyed the setting and cinematography, it's an interesting take for the classic post-apocalyptic story.

I liked the character selection, these kind of movies are all about it, since there's not much interesting variation you can do about a bomb falling or a zombie outbreak.

The setting is as important as the characters.

The acting is serviceable, nothing specially good but it carries the story.

It's true, as some have said in their reviews, the movie is very slow and the two hours length could be shortened a bit.

My biggest complaint about the film is the las 5/10 (it's also so little in comparison with the long running time of the film, it even seems added in a rush) minutes, where there's a turn of events that doesn't feel solid enough to work well, and it also breaks the feeling I was having just before it happens. Of course it's intencional, but it seemed rushed and inconsistent with how the characters were acting so far.

I haven't read the novel in which this film is based, maybe there the ending has a better pace and it works, but here I don't think it does.

Still, I would recommend the film for fans of the post-apocalyptic genre.