Denis Villeneuve's weakest movie.a movie trying to display about sin and redemption.like all other 'guilty spoiled female protagonist' movies, she transformed into a new person.and then the funniest thing.our revenge seeking hero (who realized his enemy is a woman instead of a man) fall in love with her, have sex with her and that's the end of the film.

A creepy fish being chopped up by a bloody butcher tells the story of 25 year old Bibiane Champagne (Marie-Josée Croze). She owns clothing boutiques and just got an abortion. She is struggling in her life and then kills fishmonger Annstein Karson in a hit and run accident. Reporter Marie-Jeanne Sirois interviews her about being a daughter of celebrity Flo Fabert. Suffering from the guilt, she drives her car off the pier. She encounters Annstein's son Evian at the funeral home and pretends to be Annstein's neighbor.On the good side, the surrealism is memorable. The crumbling of Bibiane is palpable. Croze is terrific. On the other hand, the movie is a bit confused. The flow of the story is a bit disjointed. Nevertherless, there is an edginess and originality in Denis Villeneuve's vision.

This is a somewhat 'arthouse' film with lots of symbolic metaphors intertwined into the story. The story itself is not bad, it is focused around one main character and manages to sustain the interest of the viewer through some clever turns. The filming, the imagery, are extremely well done at times, managing to convey perfectly a sense of isolation/dissociation. The drawbacks are certain extended scenes, romantic interludes that begin to feel a bit slow, a bit quiet. Some scenes could have been put, like the fish in this movie, on the chopping block. Still other scenes seem a little too fabricated/coincidental. Overall, this is a minor success, compelling and dramatic, interesting and original. No earth shattering epiphanies here, but still a solid tale done up in many colours.

MAELSTROM labored far too hard be unconventional, yet Denis Villeneuve(director) did demonstrate the possibility for a very interesting film. Guilt due to an abortion which is exacerbated by a hit and run incident communicates a compelling narrative, but why introduce...a talking fish??? Sure, one could make a case for a 'talking fish', but how about a 'laughing typewriter', or an 'all knowing piece of cheese'. You just can't introduce something so outré without explanation, or you cross the line into extreme pretension. Of course, the 'talking fish' might represent Fertility, yet 'a laughing typewriter' could also indicate a playful creator, or 'an all knowing piece of cheese' could represent all of the above. If you want to get weird, the weird can turn pro. MAELSTROM had a fine cast, but the script failed to blend the ham-fisted element of 'the fishy fable' with the story's inherent dramatic subject matter, and in the end, the film aborted