SoTrumpBelieve Must See Movie...

ChanBot i must have seen a different film!!

Intcatinfo A Masterpiece!

AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

dbdumonteil It is actually the second version (I would not write "remake" ) of Japrisot' s thriller ;it was already transferred to the screen in 1965(two years after the novel was released).The director was André Cayatte ,an excellent old school artist too often ridiculed by the overrated new wavelet.(see "Piège Pour Cendrillon")By and large ,I'm not a fan of Japrisot whose plots are often complicated instead of complex and I do not put him in the same league as Boileau-Narcejac ("diaboliques","vertigo"),Frédéric Dard (whose "Toi Le Venin" broached the subject of the "double"in early sixties ),let alone Agatha Christie.That said ," Piège Pour Cendrillon " is a different matter;the subject is not new ("Spellbound" , the contemporary " the third day " ( 1965) "shattered" and countless others dealt with amnesia );but the treatment,including four parts ,each one containing the same verb in four different tenses of French conjugation was downright disturbing;and the ending was all the more baffling since the mystery was not solved .(It was the reader who decided )On the plus side,Kerry Fox took on Robinson's role-in the French movie- with consummate skill ;Alexandra Roach as brittle Do is eye candy;but it's not all good news :with such a story,it would have taken a great director and (mainly) a talented script writer (Japrisot wrote himself the screenplay of the French effort).Adding an overt lesbian relationship between Mi and Do does not help ,today it's no longer risqué and even trendy ,à la mode, as we French would say;an intrusive music does not help either.Editing is botched.Whereas the story was essentially psychological thriller,this flashy movie fills its quota of topless women and sex ,neglecting the harrowing frames of mind of the heroine.

robert-temple-1 Iain Softley is one of the most original and talented of all British film directors. He has directed so many astonishing films that one's mind has long been boggled by them. There was K-PAX (2001, see my review), a film which entered another dimension and got the best out of Kevin Spacey. Softley's first film was the excellent BACKBEAT (1994), followed by the innovative and gripping HACKERS (1995), where the young Angelina Jolie pushed the envelope. And then there was the wonderful Henry James adaptation, THE WINGS OF THE DOVE (1997). All of these were first rate films. And now he has made a masterpiece of modern film noir, based on a French novel by Sebastien Japrisot, from which Softley has written the screenplay himself. Japrisot (pen name and anagram of Jean-Baptise Rossi) is a well known writer, one of whose novels gave us A VERY LONG ENGAGEMENT (aka UN LONG DIMANCHE DE FIANCAILLES, 2004) with Audrey Tautou and Jodie Foster, and he also wrote THE CHILDREN OF THE MARSHLAND (aka LES ENFANTS DU MARAIS, 1999), which is very difficult to find with subtitles but is well worth the search and, I fear, the price. This film is based on his novel PIEGE POUR CENDRILLON, which was filmed previously in 1965, though no review of it exists on IMDb. The earlier version was scripted jointly by the author and the famous playwright Jean Anouilh, along with the director, Andre Cayatte. Not having seen the earlier film or read the novel, I cannot speak of their endings. Nor do I intend to reveal the ending of this film, except to point out that it is not to be found within the film itself. That may sound like a contradiction, but let me explain. I have never seen, in all the mystery films I have watched over the years, a film constructed in such a way that the viewer is intentionally left to figure out the ultimate mystery of the film himself or herself, after the film ostensibly ended. All of the evidence is there, and the director throws down the challenge to the viewer as if to say: I have hidden the answer in plain sight, now will you open your eyes please? Really, that is such an exquisitely sophisticated thing to do that I am full of admiration. In a way, you could say that this film is a classic intelligence test. But we are not talking about any old whodunit, this is a psychological thriller par excellence. The main characters are two girls who have known each other since childhood. One is beautiful, rich and a raver, and the other is demure, attractive without being beautiful, doting, dependent, adoring of her friend, and tending towards madness. In fact, both girls are tending towards madness, and in their case, one plus one makes ten. The actresses playing the girls are simply spectacular. The more amazing performance of the two is that by Alexandra Roach. She has such sensitivity that she is like a violin that plays itself simply by being hung up on a peg in the wind, free to vibrate in a series of harmonies and disharmonies, as each scene requires and as the wind of the story blows. She plays the dependent friend, named Domenica Law, who is called 'Do'. Her performance is the key, and makes the whole film work. One can imagine other actresses playing the other girl, but I can think of no other actress who could have played 'Do' so well. The other lead actress has the charming name of Tuppence Middleton. She must have had very whimsical parents and endured a great many jokes about her name at school. She is certainly worth more than that. Miss Two Pennies has a special quality of what I would call 'languid allure'. This works very well in the quieter moments of her performance, and when she is meant to be raving, she ceases to be languid and becomes frenetic instead. The end result is a nicely balanced portrayal of a girl on the edge. Kerry Fox plays a sinister and enigmatic protectress, who may be a mantis. The study of the intimate friendship between two girls who cannot bring themselves to part even though they are wholly incompatible is handled with elegance and sensitivity. Perhaps Iain Softley is really a girl. This is a deeply intriguing, intensely ambiguous and mysterious film with all kinds of resonances, some of them out of the range of hearing but nevertheless efficacious. The film reminds me of Tartini's 'third tone'. And that remark also is an intelligence test.

suite92 Mickey and Domenica meet each other after a number of years. Do is a bank employee; Mickey is a photographer who lives as if she were rich. Do quits her job, and they get to know each other somewhat. They decide to get together at a house where they had common experiences as children.There is a terrible fire. One of them is killed, and the other gets amnesia and burns on her face.As 'Mickey' recovers her memory, and recovers from reconstructive surgery, we switch to flashbacks of when the two had just met each other again. Then there are further flashbacks to the estate where there was a near drowning incident when Do and Mickey were pre-teens. Mickey was blamed for this and a subsequent event that was at least as bad. They do not see each other for years, partly at Do's family's insistence.In the depths of these flashbacks, a plot is hatched. Will it succeed?-----Scores-----Cinematography: 7/10 Mostly good, parts excellent, but sometimes in shaky camera mode, which looked horrid.Sound: 3/10 Bad sound leveling.Acting: 2/10 There was acting? The characters were repellent, but not engaging. I hoped the trap would spring on Cinderella so that the film would end.Screenplay: 4/10 Neither the pacing nor the labyrinth of flashbacks and reinterpretations were engaging. I had a strong hope that all the main characters would be terminated with extreme prejudice.

liveandlove-ak After reading previous reviews, I can only assume that most people have not actually read the book, "Piege pour Cendrillion." For most of the reviews complain about the ridiculous plot, which is not the fault of the producer, but the author of the original book. I do admit, this plot is not at all realistic. But first: realize the book this film was based on was FICTION. Fiction is not supposed to be or held to be realistic. Second: realize that if one wanted to make an adaption of the BOOK, they would not be able to greatly deviate from the novel's plot, considering they would have had to obtain the author's consent. So if you did not like the plot, do not blame the screenwriters or the actors; blame the author of "Piege pour Cendrillon." Yet I have a feeling most people have not actually read the novel, therefore, you have no place to comment, considering this is an ADAPTION OF THE NOVEL.I thought the actors, directors, and producers gave a great performance based off of what they were given. Cheers to all involved in this movie.