Après la vie

Apres la Vie shows what is happening physically to a drug addict woman and what is the life is for her husband who is a sort of corrupted cop. This is a Al-Anon typical story is the best I ever seen in this type of drama. In the same order movies like Barfly or Leaving Las Vegas are in the same class of movie. I recommend you to watch this movie because it shows a lot in special type of psychologic syndrome. The sole reason to live for the cop is bringing the substance to his wife. The thing is that guy really doesn't know this, she's addicted since ten years all their lives have been ruled by this injection drug.It is an instructive movie and it is totally realistic, it will update your consciousness. Even if it is a dark story the love that the couple is showing is very impressive and sensitive. When the drug dependence goes to the point of a lethal convulsion and if, by luck if you have only a criminal hand to save your life then you will take it. In that state of miserable situation this movie is showing an exceptional way to share a difficult situation in a sort of opportunity. 8/10. A good drama for teachers and students in psychology.

"On the Run (Cavale)" is the first third of an engrossing experiment in story telling that crosses "Rashomon" with a television miniseries to show us an ensemble of intersecting characters over a couple of days to gradually reveal the complicated truth about each.

Writer/director Lucas Belvaux uses a clever technique to communicate just how differently the characters perceive the same situations-- they are literally in different movies and, a la "Rules of the Game," everyone has their reasons.

"On the Run"is a tense, fast-paced escaped con on-the-run Raoul Walsh-feeling film, with the auteur himself playing a Humphrey Bogart-type who can be cruel or kind; "An Amazing Couple (Un couple épatant)" is an Ernest Lubitch-inspired laugh-out-loud comedy of mistaken communication; and "After the Life (Après la vie)" is a Sidney Lumet-feeling gritty, conflicted cop melodrama with seamy and tender moments.

"Time Code" experimented turning the two-dimensions of film into three with multiple digital video screens. This trilogy is more effective in showing us what happens as characters leave the frame. Belvaux goes beyond the techniques used in the cancelled TV series "Boomtown" or the films of Alejandro González Iñárritu in "Amores Perros" and "21 Grams" with their stream-of-consciousness flashbacks character by character.

I don't see how I can deal with each film separately. Theoretically, one can see the three movies alone or independently out of order, but that would be like watching one episode of a series like "The Wire" or "The Sopranos" and wondering what the big deal is. Only a handful of patrons in my theater joined me in a one-day triple-feature; I guess the others have a better memory than I do that they could see each film on separate days, though a marathon does inevitably lead to some mind-wandering that could miss important clues and revelations so this is ideal for a triple-packed DVD.

On DVD we'll be able to replay the excellent acting to see if in fact the actors do shade their performances differently when particular scenes are enacted from different characters' viewpoints -- are these takes from the same staging or not? How is each subtly different that we get a different impression each time? Or are we bringing our increasing knowledge (and constantly changing sympathies) about each character to our impressions of the repeating scenes?

One reason this conceit works is because of the unifying theme of obsession - each character is so completely single-minded in their focus on one issue that they are blind to what else is happening even as they evolve to find catharsis. One is literally a heroin addict, but each has their psychological addiction (revenge, co-dependence, hypochondria, jealousy).

The slow revelation technique also works because of the parallel theme of aging and acceptance of the consequences of their actions, as some can face how they have changed and some can't change. You need to see all three films to learn about each character's past and conclusion, as secondary characters in one film are thrust to the fore in another in explaining a key piece of motivation.

The only place they really interchange is in an ironically, meaningless political debate at the public high school they each have some tie to.

Pascal Manise is a police inspector whose wife, a schoolteacher, is under the influence of morphine. Pascal, who loves too much his wife, buys the drug for her with Jacquillat, a local godfather who formerly has given money to left-winger terrorist organization. Pascal, on other hand, search Bruno le Roux, a terrorist of that organization who escaped recently from prison and who search the man who has denounced him to police. That man is Jacquillat and Jacquillat wants that Pascal gives information about Bruno le Roux and for that, refuses drug for Pascal's wife until Pascal accept this deal. Pascal's refusal has for consequences serious withdrawal symptoms for his wife, Agnes. This movie use the same characters that the two former parts of the trilogy and also some sequences, but the lightning of the movie is centred essentially on the problem of drug dependence and its consequences on the loving husband's comportment. The movie is very well acted especially by Dominique Blanc (Agnes, Pascal's wife) and by Gilbert Melki (Pascal).

I loved these three films - trilogy - as I discovered it back thirteen years ago. I loved the scheme, this symmetry existing between those three features, the scheme where a main character in one movie becomes a supporting one in the following one. This scheme reminds me Nicolas Winding Refn's PUSHER trilogy. The stories are not the same as in this trilogy, but the way of frame, structure of those tales is exactly the same. And so unusual too. I am surprised that no one has pointed it out yet. As far as I know, I have not watched such way of telling in any other trilogies. New ways of screen writing are very hard to make, I guess. They prefer the PULP FICTION one or those many movies where several fates collide between the characters. Lucas Belvaux is not a pretty good actor, his way of acting is not convincing at all, but as a director, he's different. He always gives us very interesting films.

This film (which can be seen as a standalone film) is part of a trilogy. Three films, not consecutive, but parallel. Three stories, simultaneous, with same actors, same characters. Main actors in one film are secondary actors in the two others. There are common scenes between each movie, but always shown in a different way, a different point of vue.

"Un couple epatant" is a comedy, with (Ornella Muti/Francois Morel),"Cavale" is a thriller, with (Lucas Belvaux/Catherine Frot), and "Apres la vie" is a drama, with (Gilbert Melki/Dominique Blanc).

You can see only one or two of these movies, but it is really better to see all of them, as each one enlights some dark moments of the two others. The supposed order is the one i used, but you can see these films in any order.

Individually speaking, the films are average (except "Apres la vie", the best one), but globally the experience is very good and very exciting.