Blood Relatives Reviews

Good viewing for people who enjoy television

This is an enjoyable TV-grade murder mystery, possibly of interest to people who like programs like Law & Order. It's tempting to say the acting is poor, but to be fair to the actors, it's hard to judge since most of the voices have been dubbed over (despite the fact that the original mouthwork was obviously performed in English)and this could very well be creating the illusion of poor acting. The voice of the girl at the centre of the mystery is particularly bad. She's 14 years old and her voice sounds like a middle-aged woman trying to sound like a young girl. Not only that, the voice over-acts while the body doesn't, and it's all very distracting. It isn't up to Chabrol's usual standard, to say the least. Some European directors seem unable to access their talent when working on an English language production. Have you seen Bergman's 'The Touch'? How embarrassing. It was like a moment of delirium in the middle of an otherwise exemplary career.

I recommend this film only as a decent murder mystery for people who enjoy that genre on TV.

If it is measured against Chabrol's other films, it is nothing less than a disaster.

Little-seen film, for Chabrol completists only

Disappointing considering the names involved - Claude Chabrol, one of France's best directors of crime films, from a novel by Ed McBain, one of the US's best writers of police procedurals.

The basic problem is the mix of English and French speaking cast, with the French cast dubbed into North American English. The result is flat and unconvincing when it should be most exciting. The DVD seems to run 10 minutes shorter than the listings given in the reference books - you won't want to see the missing 10 minutes.

Bloodless

Set in Montreal, based on an Ed McBain novel and featuring an international cast, this is every bit the mish mash it sounds and a long way from Chabrol's considerable best.

Stephane Audran is completely wasted and sounds as though she has been dubbed into English. McBain is noted for police procedurals, being an ex cop himself, but the plotting here is woeful. The acting is wooden as though the cast can't quite believe the script as written. Chabrol is usually good at adaptations, notably Ruth Rendell, but here he should have stayed on home turf as the blood relatives are, in fact, bloodless.

[Highly rated reviewer]

Don't get fooled by the year it was made

The story would work as well today and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

[Highly rated reviewer]

Very disappointed

I do love this directors other films but thought this was utterly awful! Bad acting, rubbish story, lack luster direction it has nothing going for it at all. Avoid this film.

Relative Disaster

Bad bad bad bad bad. Chabrol, France's king of suspense (supposedly), directs from an adaptation of an Ed McBain 87th Precinct novel. So where'd it go wrong? Right from script stage, with a great big undigestable wodge of flashback towards the end - and IS it flashback, or what's going on in Donald Sutherland's head as he reads the girl's diary? Not the only confusing aspect of this film. Like, was the camaraman drunk? Why does the camera start wavering halfway through shots? And, since Stephanie Audran is/was Claude's missus, didn't he know she couldn't do an American accent adequately? Her performance was spoiled by terrible dubbing - as for the younger performers, there wasn't much performing to spoil, though the dubbing crew did their best. I had no problem with Quebec doubling for McBain's Isola (his parallel universe New York), but somebody should have had a word with Claude about the French language signs in the garage scenes. They just add to the confusion. And what the hell was happening with the music? Was it deliberately intrusive in an attempt to distract from the film's other inadequacies? The non-dubbed PROPER actors - Sutherland, David Hemmings and (too briefly) Donald Pleasance - look out of place on account of being far too good for the grim mish-mash of a film they've somehow found themselves in. And - one last major quibble for McBain fans - Teddy Carella's been a deaf mute since the 1950s, yet here, unaccountably, she's got a full compliment of faculties. Unlike the director. France's Hitchcock? Oh well. Maybe this is Chabrol's 'Topaz'.

dubious Tales of the Bleeding Obvious

Like a couple of other Chabrol films I have seen the conclusion to this one turns out to be a simplistic 'we guessed it from the start' disappointment rather than a complex unexpected. If this film has a theme of any interest then it must be the ambiguites and self-deceptions in the attractions and attentions of middle-aged men towards too young and only just old enough girls..however despite having quality star actors on the cast in these roles they get but little used. Even though it's very obvious what the outcome is going to be the character involved is played in such a way that lends little credibility to this outcome and the one liner explanation from the culprit as the film closes is a major let down.

* * * This review contains spoilers * * *ShowHide

[Highly rated reviewer]

tv

girls just wanna have fun

Relative Disaster

Bad bad bad bad bad. Chabrol, France's king of suspense (supposedly), directs from an adaptation of an Ed McBain 87th Precinct novel. So where'd it go wrong? Right from script stage, with a great big undigestable wodge of flashback towards the end - and IS it flashback, or what's going on in Donald Sutherland's head as he reads the girl's diary? Not the only confusing aspect of this film. Like, was the camaraman drunk? Why does the camera start wavering halfway through shots? And, since Stephanie Audran is/was Claude's missus, didn't he know she couldn't do an American accent adequately? Her performance was spoiled by terrible dubbing - as for the younger performers, there wasn't much performing to spoil, though the dubbing crew did their best. I had no problem with Quebec doubling for McBain's Isola (his parallel universe New York), but somebody should have had a word with Claude about the French language signs in the garage scenes. They just add to the confusion. And what the hell was happening with the music? Was it deliberately intrusive in an attempt to distract from the film's other inadequacies? The non-dubbed PROPER actors - Sutherland, David Hemmings and (too briefly) Donald Pleasance - look out of place on account of being far too good for the grim mish-mash of a film they've somehow found themselves in. And - one last major quibble for McBain fans - Teddy Carella's been a deaf mute since the 1950s, yet here, unaccountably, she's got a full compliment of faculties. Unlike the director. France's Hitchcock? Oh well. Maybe this is Chabrol's 'Topaz'.