An unrecognized film by the great director Claude Chabrol, here in the final phase of his career. I do not understand the reason for the poor recognition of this great work. I found the film to be excellent in all aspects: a very interesting and mysterious story that "grabs" us from beginning to end, excellent movie rhythm, never monotony, extremely interesting dialogues, subtly humorous, ironic and relaxed, but at the same time hovering some tension in them, fantastic interpretations of the whole main cast, with a special highlight, of course, for Isabelle Huppert. As for the end of the film, could it possibly have been better achieved? It is a question that I still can not answer, as I am not yet sure of my opinion on this end. I am not referring to the fact that we never get to know who the son of the pianist really is and this mystery remains open. I even thought it was credible. I am referring to the outcome regarding the character of Isabelle Huppert (Mika). I do not think the ending is bad, far from it, but by the time I am writing these lines and having just seen the film a few minutes ago, I still have doubts about whether there could have been a more convincing conclusion. 8/10.

I rented this movie, hoping that this would lead to something interesting. It started out a bit dubious already with swapped children, which would have been fine with Shakespeare but in more modern-day technology is not very plausible. And then it leads out to the various plots of possible fathers, suspicious deaths and incidents, and a woman who poisons people through her hot chocolate (Huppert). It sounds rather ludicrous, like it should make for a very good comedic story or something of the sort. It bored me to tears. I sat there and sat there, while the film moved at a glacial pace through those plots, and while inconsistencies popped up. And there were even some implausible cases--how very convenient that the girl who suspected Mika (Huppert) put drugs into the hot chocolate had a boyfriend working in the lab in her mother's place! That was the one big thing that irritated me; the rest I was too bored to notice, and I haven't seen this movie for a few months since. Huppert was about the only redeeming value, as the rest of the actors are conventional, have no chemistry, boring, and quite frankly did the whole movie in for me. Huppert played Mika quite well though--a seemingly normal woman, but underneath that facade you just know that something's wrong, even though what she does is hardly suspicious at first. And as usual, Huppert uses micro-gestures to convey the creepiness and twistedness of Mika well, although I feel like Huppert was delivering for something, only that thing never arrived. If you like implausible plots, a glacial pace (but I've seen and liked "Four Months, Three Weeks, and Two Days", which moves rather slowly; don't mistake me for hyperactive or with ADD), and just sheer boringness, this is the movie for you. I am sorry if my opinion seems blatantly wrong, but this movie was just not up to my taste or standards. 5/10.

This movie was a waste of time. It looks nice, pretty settings, nicely acted, appears earnest and seems to be leading somewhere so you stay tuned awaiting a meaningful payoff. It doesn't happen. It surprised me that so much effort could be put into a movie, it was clearly very professionally done, and have an outcome that seems nothing short of a b-movie.Save your precious time and see a good french film like Les Visiteurs (funny), Jean de Florette or Manon of the Spring. I can't recall the language in Europa Europa, but that's another Great film--heavy but very worth viewing.This film appears to promise a lot but delivers nothing.

Like all thrillers made by Claude Chabrol during the last decade, this is quite well-made and intensive film. It is nearly perfect except for one thing: it is not fresh. Unlike new films made by Chabrol's Cahiers du Cinema -colleague Jean-Luc Godard, this takes no risks, nor does it surprise. Unlike Godard, Chabrol has became a tame artists since the days of the New Wave.Still, this is a very entertaining and professional film, worth watching once or even twice. And surely at its best on the big screen, on television the intensity of the film will never come through.