Have Mercy on Us All (2007)

Best movie ever!

I have absolutely never seen anything like this movie before. You have to see this movie.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Director Régis Wargnier gained international fame (and a somewhat controversial Best Foreign Film Oscar) in 1992 for "Indochine", but 15 years later he made what can best be described as a b-movie that in most countries went (and deservedly so) straight to DVD. It's not unwatchable, but it is mediocre. The story lacks propulsion for so long (the film runs nearly two full hours) that when the plot finally starts twisting and turning, it's hard to summon much interest. I must admit that it took me two different sittings to complete the viewing. The cast is good (this was Michel Serrault's last film), although "Indochine"'s star Linh Dan Pham has only a decorative role here. ** out of 4.

The film was okay, not brilliant but good enough to watch if you want an easy time with not much tension. It felt more like a soap opera episode. From the trailers I knew they would kill the original story but I thought it would still be a good movie, because of the actors. It's not horrible, the acting is fine and I like this way of filming, but the plot is quite shallow at parts and the characters do inexplicable things. There are serious plot holes, because the film makers spent lots of screen time showing us naked behinds of dead bodies and there was no time left for giving the characters some depth and consistency. The writers go straight to the point before the first ten minutes and then try to build tension on things that couldn't support it. All the plot holes are explained in the book.*spoiler*The scare wasn't in the possibility of a plague outburst but in not understanding how the trails were connected and why.If you've read the book or intend to do so, don't watch the film. Don't even think about it. It has changed EVERYTHING and reveals vital parts of the book in the first four minutes. Different characters, different plot, different ending. Only the basic story is the same, but that's like saying 'it's about a serial killer'. EVERYTHING is changed, this movie is definitely not based on F. Vargas book. In fact, it's the opposite for 75% of it.

In Paris, many citizens go to the precinct since the doors of their apartments have been sprayed with a 4 and the letters "clt". When a dweller is found mysteriously dead in his apartment, Detective Jean-Baptiste Adamsberg (José Garcia) and his partner Danglard (Lucas Belvaux) investigate the case and discover that plague may have killed the victim. Meanwhile, in the center of Paris, the former actor Joss Le Guern (Olivier Gourmet) survives reading advertisements in a square for the public; when he receives weird messages about an outbreak of plague that is coming to Paris, the former professor Hervé Decambrais (Michel Serrault) requests the warnings and goes to the library to research the meaning of the text, where he meets Adamsberg. Together they find that a maniac is killing people using flees contaminated by rats and spreading the disease in the city; without any clue, the police force do not have how to avoid the panic in Paris."Pars Vite et Reviens Tard" is a solid and classy French thriller with an original and engaging story; excellent directions and screenplay that succeed in developing several characters and situation in only 116 minutes running time; magnificent performances, highlighting the veteran Michel Serrault; and awesome music score. This movie is absolutely underrated in IMDb with only 5.4/10. My vote is eight.Title (Brazil): "Sinais da Morte" ("Signs of the Death")

Maybe I should balance my opinion but frankly, I don't find anything to like in this movie, although maybe a few good images of Paris but still... I didn't read the book, I hope it's only the adaptation that's bad... So, I found that: - the dialogs aren't great (not to say they suck), I sometimes felt like I was watching La Cité de la Peur (which is a very good comedy)... - bad acting. Garcia's tone is very weird, tough, neutral, emotionless, which could be fine but here it sounds like he's monotonously reading a script. And the sad thing is, Garcia's acting is among the best in the movie... - a really not so good mise en scène, with ridiculous situations - a bad scenario, at least not very credible. The ending is stupid (or, again, badly adapted)