Blucher One of the worst movies I've ever seen

Acensbart Excellent but underrated film

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

mykecull Pure and simple, this film is a response to our societal violence against women. I'm surprised by some of the reviewers here particularly from diomavro, trying to belittle the events or claim exaggeration on the film's part. Yes, the film is a fictionalized account, but the actual events are nearly note-for-note the same. All one has to do is read the Wikipedia article, École Polytechnique Massacre. The killer was very clear in his intentions, and he in fact cornered a group of women and told them he hated feminists and hated them for pursuing careers in engineering. Yes, it did cause a "media scandal" precisely because this was a massacre based on misogyny. That is what happened, there is no "grey area" here. Villeneuve has honoured and represented this event faithfully and truthfully. The Polytechnique massacre was a shocking reminder to Canada that men and women are still not equal, and there are those who will fight a perceived loss of privilege to the death. To try and cover this up, and claim that the murders were about anything other than a hatred of women, is to spit on the victim's graves.

sepial The 2nd film by Villeneuve I've so far seen, and he's already one of my favourite film makers. And, judging the reviews, he also divides. Some of the negative reviews complain about the film makers' choice to basing the film on actual events while fictionalizing it on purpose. And I'm a little lost about that, I'm not sure whether it's the choice or in fact this disclaimer that meets this discontent - in other words whether anything would be different had the reviewers in question missed the disclaimer. What is fiction, what reality indeed, to quote one of the other reviewers. As soon as you touch a subject, be it in writing or as a film, you fictionalize it - to a degree it even goes that way with documentaries (and it begins with memories). This makes the choice of the film makers a rather smart one - if you know nothing about the Montreal shooting, actually if you do, but weren't there, the difference is almost incidental. What we're left with is one shooting and its effects for many others. Does this choice make the film unrealistic? Far from it. Unless you consider a, say, McEwan novel as unrealistic and exploiting for being fiction while putting the plot into a context of real events. Whether the choice is made out of respect for the victims is also irrelevant for the viewer. For the viewer contents-format relation is decisive. And what we see is uncommented on matter-of-factly depiction that keeps an unusual balance between the graphic (not in the sense of the usual graphic detail, but rather of graphic impact) and the subtle, the restrained. It says, This is what a shooting is. Full stop. The effect on the survivors is told in equally un-elaborated form. It never fully enters either the victims' nor the perp's total POV beyond this constraint, which is smart again; otherwise it'd be inevitable to cross the border to the sentimental, which I always find insulting towards the victims. Instead we're watching jumps between the significant moments both of the shooting and the later effects on the traumatized, only where necessary, and without distorting embellishment. The film begins with a letter composed by the shooter, which he's about to carry on his person, to be found by the world to read in the aftermath. The film makers do not allow him this fame within the frame of the film. Although the film begins with him, and although he necessarily prominent he is denied the higher significance he seeks on the whole, his end as incidental in comparison; he remains nameless. It ends with another letter, from a survivor to the shooter's parents, beginning with her saying that she knows that this letter will not be read (presumably because it's meant to stay with her). Which is the one that stays with us. This is the closest the writer & director go. And they let it end right there. Perhaps it's not the best way to turn a review into a rebuttal, but these points highlight what I liked about the film. The film makers stood before the same questions as the reviewers, they made a conscious choice, and it was the right one. To me this is one of the most tactful treatments of the subject of shootings, while bringing us right there, and it does so without the burden of artificial sentiment, making the impact an even stronger one.

rgcustomer I was put off by one of the very first things you see in this film, which is a statement in which the filmmakers hope to have their cake and eat it too. They claim it's "based on a true story" but they then disrespect the families by saying all characters have been fictionalized. It's the ultimate disrespect to profit (via cash or fame) on the misfortune of others, while not even telling their story. We all know that far fewer people would have chosen to see this movie if it was titled "Gately College" or something.While I wasn't expecting a documentary, I was expecting something true to the facts. Now I'm left with the problem of figuring out whether anything in the film was true at all. Did we learn anything about the shooter? Did we learn anything about the victims? Did we learn anything about the responders? No.Having said that, it did contain some of the most intense shooting scenes I've seen in a film, and for some reason I was also struck by the images of trees. But I was not impressed by the self-indulgent upside-down camera angles.I think it probably is superior to Gus Van Sant's Elephant (Columbine) film, although it does follow in the same vein of being almost entirely devoid of content. If this is going to be the way that directors and writers depict traumatic mass murders, then they need to stop it.

MrFrankenstein Please disregard the quite bizarre ranting of that earlier reviewer talking about 'whitewashes' and 'feminist hate groups' - good grief! Some people's children...Short potted review: a truly stunning film, beautifully photographed (in glowing black and white) dealing - like Van Sant's Elephant, with a school shooting. I have to say I preferred this to 'Elephant' - as it reached depths that Van Sant just couldn't get to.Put aside the Hollywood-inspired urge to have everything neatly tied up and explained - the film treats the complexity of a school shooting with the subtlety it deserves.If you're into thoughtful elegant cinema - you MUST see this. This is the kind of apparently simple-seeming film-making, that America, by and large, has completely forgotten how to do.There wasn't a single wrong note anywhere in either the casting, direction, or script - I was totally entranced. Given the absurd raving of the previous reviewer, I was expecting some kind of sleazy b-movie - and was pleasantly surprised at the very well made piece of cinematic art that I was watching.This is one of those 'keepers' - a rather special film. Yes its intense, and violent at times - but what do you expect - the central plot is about a rampage through a school by an armed psycho who seemed to have some major issues with the female gender. That said, there's a fascinating little subplot, looking at a larger social picture which, in some ways, reflects the same attitude of the psycho killer...Enough said, I don't want to give anything away - if you like mature, thoughtful cinema - this is some astoundingly well-made film.