Denis Villeneuve is a bystander who fails to show the real workings from behind the scenes and adheres firmly to political correctness to avoid an uproar by sexist feminist hate groups. Independent studies reveal that girls torment and abuse others in different ways that are not even recognized by the current laws. The lack of public awareness on abuses by girls, allow such atrocities to continue beyond reproach. When bullies pick on loners in schools, they pay the price when the loner gets a weapon and hurts those girls who tormented him. A gang of girl bullies cornered and killed an Indian girl not too long ago. The world gets to see inside the minds of those involved, and pick out who is responsible and what part of the process that led to such a tragedy. Polytechnique avoids all of that. In fact, it is just an exercise in panning the camera about and never digging into the facts that is expected from a movie. It never goes beyond the information already provided by the news media, and even tells us less than what we already know. There was nothing gained by shooting it in Black and White, other than to give an amateur false sense of newsworthy material. It never mentions the Disturbing Misandrist Quebec society that fosters extreme bigoted Feminist hate and discrimination via Affirmative Action. The misandry is systemic and is completely entrenched in the education system which leads to more sexist misandrist hate and discrimination against men.Marc was the victim of intense hate and discrimination because Misandrist hate is so ingrained in Quebec society that everyone, including young girls, think that it is acceptable to hate and abuse men because men do not have the political voice to cry out when they are victimized and oppressed. There is not a single men's shelter in Canada and men are not recognized as victims under the current gender-biased sexist Feminist laws. At some point when the misandry is just too much to bear, the abused man will lash out and strike out against the feminist abusers to defend himself. Marc's pain and suffering was not recognized, and his feminist abusers were not exposed so they will be free to continue their abuse and discrimination under the protection of the sexist feminist misandrist laws. 4 men were shot at Polytechnique, but their suffering have been erased because under an abusive sexist feminist regime, men are not allowed to be victims, but must be held responsible. Girls are given absolute rights but are not required to be held accountable. Only girls get to hold the Victim Card.No one is allowed to speak out against the misandrist feminist tyranny without being silenced under such an oppressive Marxist regime. Larry Summers made such a mistake by speaking out, and he was silenced. Now Harvard University falls victim to the Feminist Communist oppression. Warning, you will walk away with the feeling that the movie was heavily censored and was an amateur attempt to evoke emotions, without providing known explanations for the misandrist backlash because of intense fear of political subterfuge from Feminist hate groups. The Polytechnique event is revealing and exposes feminism for its militant hate policies, but the misandrist truth is far too disturbing for the public to fathom. 20 years later, the disturbing feminist misandrist rampage has spread to little boys in elementary school. Only 32% of university students this year are men. The circle of bigoted feminist misandrist hate and oppression against men is complete, and paves the way for the Marxist Communist New World Order.girlwriteswhat on youtube said it nicely, Feminism is the destroyer of worlds, and the dumbest people will promote Feminism.

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.

This Canadian movie is really some different approach on a school massacre movie, made by someone who obviously had a lot to say. It's shockingly grim and brutal, yet made with artful eyes and a close look to details, made by a future film genius.We're immediately drawn into the story, which tells about the horrific shootings at the technical high school in French speaking Montreal in Canada in December 1989. We meet both the shooter and the victims in a film which makes an everyday event like school is, to be a nightmare. The shooter was a young man which have lost his way in life, the meaning of it all, blaming women's liberation, and women in general. It was a great shock to the peaceful Canadian nation, giving the country a shell shock. A true depicted tragedy, here recreated with a horrific feel of the reality in it.The film has lots of film references. It's filmed in a Hitchcockian style. Some scenes and sounds are even inspired by Psycho. The film is made in black and white, which adds to this feel. The film would have been unnecessary gory if the blood had been red. It's in many ways very similar to Gus Van Sant's Elephant Camera moments are excellent. Angles are eventfully made and at times astonishingly beautiful, adding to the artistic feel. Music is scarce, ambient and adding to the feel. Both things makes us remember this film. The walking in corridors of the school is also quite similar. I also found similarities in the film language with the Swedish "Låt den rette komma in" (Let the right one in). Wonderful and great acted by the main role here. He is terrifyingly without any reason to carry on his life.Not longer than necessary, which today is a blessing, when we see long movies dragging the story out. A well made film, which forces you to reflect on the event, and others like it. Kudos to the involved. Watch out for director Villeneuve, which gas already made some great stuff. He's gonna make a real important movie in the near future. Actually he right now has got his two latest films, 2011 Oscar nominated "Incendies" and the fresh smash hit "Prisoners", both with 8,2 rating here on IMDb. What a film maker!

(English version)If you didn't enjoy Gus Van Sant's "Elephant", then hopefully you'll enjoy "Polytechnique". The director doesn't use long camera shots of characters walking, and they have more of a back-story. In "Elephant", the characters had practically none. I enjoyed the film, regardless, but "Polytechnique" is done better, and I'm not saying this because I'm Canadian.I was only two when the massacre happened, but I learned about it as I grew up. Like the events depicted in the film, a disturbed misogynist with a semi-automatic rifle walks into Montréal's École Polytechnique, on a winter day in 1989. He picks a classroom, tells the males and females to divide up, and you can guess what happens. What I didn't learn is that he wasn't done. He continued his rampage in the school, until he committed suicide.The film is in black and white, making things more depressing, along with shots of snow falling. We occasionally jump back and forth in time, from earlier in the day to sometime after the tragedy. It was a little confusing for me, but I eventually understood what was happening. The killer is shown thinking and preparing, beforehand. Whenever he's on screen, it's especially tense. Part of that is credited to Maxim Gaudette's performance.The other main characters are two female students living together, and a male friend of theirs, who wants to help the killer's victims in the school, instead of fleeing. These three characters aren't highly developed, but we do get to know them more than the ones in "Elephant". As for the killer, his development comes from his narrated suicide letter. Regardless, I don't believe the filmmakers were out to make him look like a monster. He's basically filmed the same way the hijackers were in "United 93". Just people.The version of the film I'm reviewing is not actually dubbed. From what I understand, the scenes were retaken with the actors speaking English. It's more obvious, for instance, when you see someone writing on paper in that language. Personally, I would've liked to see it in French. There wouldn't even be that many subtitles, because the film doesn't have much dialogue. It doesn't really matter, though."Polytechnique" plays like the tune from the soap opera "The Young and the Restless". It's tragic and memorable. The other day, a teenager in Britain nearly went on a rampage in his school, but it was prevented because the threatening message he posted online was quickly reported by someone with a heart. A heart that these filmmakers have, to not exploit the tragedy, but to show it respectfully, and dedicate it to those who lost their lives that day. Lest we forget.