The story is taken from a novel in a series by Fred Vargas. Inspector Adamsberg figures in most, but not all of those novels, each of which has an odd plot. I felt that I knew Adamsberg from the several novels, six in all. José Garcia is perfect. Adamsberg is vague, lonely, uncommunicative, and – at times – brilliant. He would be an irritating fellow to work with or for. Only his lieutenant Adrien Danglard has the patience and persistence to put up with his eccentricities, one of which is an inability to remember people's names, including his subordinates and colleagues. Perhaps the author intends this feature to indicate his unwillingness to commit to others. Adamsberg is at least as remote and annoying as Sherlock Holmes, but in different ways.The film makes the local community a character in the story. The Bar Viking, the plaza, the boarding house, the regulars all add to the texture of the story, and to some degree determine events. There are chases for those who must see movement and color on the screen to stay tuned, one over rooftops and another on roller skates. There is a shoot out for those who must have noise, though it seemed to add nothing to either plot or character.But the center of the film is Adamsberg, brooding and intense without saying a word very often. It is an unusual approach these days to rely on acting, rather than shouting, guns, or special effects, but it works. Garcia is compassionate and dedicated, but he is also guarded and vulnerable. He makes mistakes, but presses on. He does not defy authority, but occasionally asserts it slowly and steadily.When Adamsberg's famed intuition does occur, he is as confused by it, as the viewer is, but he works through it, as do we along with him.I hope the film leads to more the Vargas books being filmed and that José Garcia plays Adamsberg again, and again. This film was the last credit for the great Michel Serrault. He gave us much to think about over the years and a great deal of pleasure, too.

There are tons of movies based on books. Some are good, some are fine, and some are bad. As someone who read most of Fred Vargas's novels, I was quite disappointed by this movie adaptation of "Pars vite et reviens tard". There are too many plot and character changes, but, most importantly, the movie fails to seize the spirit of the novel - which effectively turns it in a bland and unoriginal police thriller.At its core, "Pars vite et reviens tard" (translated as "Have mercy on us all" in English) is a not-so-traditional police thriller in which we follow Commissaire Jean-Baptiste Adamsberg as he tries to catch a mysterious murderer who makes it seem as if the plague kills his victims. The general storyline is followed in the movie, but most of the finer points have been modified; arguably to make the story more accessible to people who haven't read the book. Indeed, there are lots of details in the book and it would be impossible to include everything. Still, they made some very odd changes that somewhat disturbs the flow and character development.In the same line of thought, the casting came in as a surprise. The much missed Michel Serrault delivers erudite Decambrais pretty well, but others are blatantly different (both in physical appearance and personality) than their book counterparts (Danglard, Adamsberg's sidekick, was particularly botched in my opinion: even calling him a foil is giving him too much credit). For the most part, I found the acting to be generally bland and uninspiring.Of course, it's impossible for a movie to be made as a carbon copy of a book (and then, such a thing could turn out bad). Minor edits to the plot line and the look of the actors are things that can be forgiven, at least up to a certain point. What really kills the movie in my opinion is how it turns the unique style of Vargas's writing in a run-of-the-mill thriller. Before being about a police officer who runs after a bad guy, Vargas's novels are about the psychological depth of her characters, particularly Adamsberg. In the movie, Adamsberg is a bland cop whose distinguishing feature is his need of a woman at night to be able to make progress in the case.Overall, "Pars vite et reviens tard" is a disappointing movie for those who read the book. For others, it could pass as a decent police thriller, although the average acting and flow issues make it less interesting. I would warn those people though not to judge Vargas's novels on this adaptation, as it would be a big mistake.

Yet another entertaining policier from France and one of the last films made by the late and very much lamented Michel Serrault, which would be reason enough to see it but as it turns out that reason is superfluous because the film stands on its own two feet as an excellent thriller with an unusual storyline which begins with mysterious signs painted on doorways and embraces the introduction into Paris of bubonic plague to which no one is immune least of all cop Lucas Belvaux, taking a break from directing to play second lead here. Olivier Gourmet is a modern version of the old Town Crier - and though I go to Paris several times each year I've yet to see one, although that doesn't mean they don't exist - who collects letters daily and then reads them out publicly, unaware that they are being 'treated' with the plague virus. The mystery, of course, is Who and Why and we get there in the end but not before a well-balanced mixture of the cerebral and physical such as the sequence where a suspect escapes on roller blades and is pursued on foot and by car or the linking of the cerebral in the shape of Michel Serrault and the physical represented by Marie Gillain - in her third film in the salles this week - who almost chokes him to death before herself being pursued underneath the supports of a bridge from which she eventually plunges into the Seine. All in all a very satisfactory thriller.

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)