IMDb > Un couple épatant (2002) > IMDb user comments

IMDb user comments for
Un couple épatant (2002) More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Index 7 comments in total 

3 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
See all three, 1 May 2004
Author: culturedogs from United States

Lucas Belvaux's trilogy of films is meant to be taken as one multi-faceted unit, and indeed it is best viewed as such. The first (as I saw them), "On the Run," was a `thriller' with the main character, a convicted terrorist (Belvaux himself), escaped to settle scores and look up an old flame (Catherine Frot) who has settled down with a family. There we got our first glimpses of a relationship between the escapee and the drug-addicted wife (Dominique Blanc) of a down on his luck cop (Gilbert Melki), and the first hints of the events in this second film, a romantic comedy, "An Amazing Couple" ("Un couple épatant"). The comedy is about a fearfully hypochondriac husband (François Morel) and his loving wife (Ornella Muti (DeLaurentiis' "Flash Gordon"!)) who is driven to suspicion. The trilogy ties up with a character study (or `melodrama'), "After the Life," about Melki's cop and Blanc's drug-addled wife. The romantic comedy and `melodrama' work fine as stand alones, and are even enriched by the angles explored and explained by the other films. Only the thriller is really hobbled by it's involvement with the other interwoven stories. All three should be seen together, though. Or, as a friend recommended, maybe I should just watch Kieslowski's `Three Colors' trilogy instead…?

Was the above comment useful to you?

3 out of 3 people found the following comment useful :-
Part 2 has to be seen with Part 1 and Part 3, 29 February 2004
Author: noralee from Queens, NY

"On the Run (Cavale)" is the first third of an engrossing experiment in story telling that crosses "Rashomon" with a television miniseries to show us an ensemble of intersecting characters over a couple of days to gradually reveal the complicated truth about each.

Writer/director Lucas Belvaux uses a clever technique to communicate just how differently the characters perceive the same situations-- they are literally in different movies and, a la "Rules of the Game," everyone has their reasons.

"On the Run"is a tense, fast-paced escaped con on-the-run Raoul Walsh-feeling film, with the auteur himself playing a Humphrey Bogart-type who can be cruel or kind; "An Amazing Couple (Un couple épatant)" is an Ernest Lubitch-inspired laugh-out-loud comedy of mistaken communication; and "After the Life (Après la vie)" is a Sidney Lumet-feeling gritty, conflicted cop melodrama with seamy and tender moments.

"Time Code" experimented turning the two-dimensions of film into three with multiple digital video screens. This trilogy is more effective in showing us what happens as characters leave the frame. Belvaux goes beyond the techniques used in the cancelled TV series "Boomtown" or the films of Alejandro González Iñárritu in "Amores Perros" and "21 Grams" with their stream-of-consciousness flashbacks character by character.

I don't see how I can deal with each film separately. Theoretically, one can see the three movies alone or independently out of order, but that would be like watching one episode of a series like "The Wire" or "The Sopranos" and wondering what the big deal is. Only a handful of patrons in my theater joined me in a one-day triple-feature; I guess the others have a better memory than I do that they could see each film on separate days, though a marathon does inevitably lead to some mind-wandering that could miss important clues and revelations so this is ideal for a triple-packed DVD.

On DVD we'll be able to replay the excellent acting to see if in fact the actors do shade their performances differently when particular scenes are enacted from different characters' viewpoints -- are these takes from the same staging or not? How is each subtly different that we get a different impression each time? Or are we bringing our increasing knowledge (and constantly changing sympathies) about each character to our impressions of the repeating scenes?

One reason this conceit works is because of the unifying theme of obsession - each character is so completely single-minded in their focus on one issue that they are blind to what else is happening even as they evolve to find catharsis. One is literally a heroin addict, but each has their psychological addiction (revenge, co-dependence, hypochondria, jealousy).

The slow revelation technique also works because of the parallel theme of aging and acceptance of the consequences of their actions, as some can face how they have changed and some can't change. You need to see all three films to learn about each character's past and conclusion, as secondary characters in one film are thrust to the fore in another in explaining a key piece of motivation.

The only place they really interchange is in an ironically, meaningless political debate at the public high school they each have some tie to.

Was the above comment useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
The weakest link in "The Trilogy," but the whole, one hopes, is more than the parts, 21 July 2007
7/10
Author: Chris Knipp from Berkeley, California

The Belgian director's trilogy, number two as shown in the US, but shown first in French theaters, this is a domestic comedy (the title is ironic) about a hypochondriac and increasingly paranoid small tech business owner Alain (Francois Morel) who runs around hiding from his wife that he's going to have a very minor operation because he absurdly thinks it's going to be the death of him. His wife Cecile (Ornella Muti) senses that he's sneaking around and, thinking he's having an affair, gets her friend Agnes' cop husband (Gilbert Melki) to follow him, which makes him more paranoid. Eventually things end up at the chalet where Belvaux's escaped political prisoner character (central in the Cavale/On the Run panel) is hiding--the chalet being the main link with other episodes. This is generally and not without reason considered the weakest of the three films in The Trilogy. It's thin and repetitious pretty much throughout, and though poised as a comedy, its main character's obsession with death is hardly funny.

As one French critic wrote, he might have done better if he'd just made one good film. Mahohla Dargis wrote that 'The Trilogy' was "more conceptually fascinating than cinematically engaging." "'The Trilogy'" (she also wrote) "is nothing if not a logistical coup. Inspired by the way genre determines meaning, Belvaux used three editing teams to shape his overlapping stories and the results are (these three films)." In the third, which I haven't seen yet, 'Apres la vie'/'After the Life,' the genre is drama (or melodrama) and in it Melki, the cop, falls in love with Cecile, the wife who's hired him to investigate her husband. It's generally agreed that Melki shines in 'The Trilogy'. I also like Catheriine Frot, who is important in 'Cavale.'

Belvaux's 'Trilogy' is good potential material for a film course (comparison of genres, alternate takes, etc.), but the basic content of each film could be better. The hope with Belvaux's 'Trilogy' has to be that the whole is more than the parts.

Was the above comment useful to you?

1 out of 1 people found the following comment useful :-
The 1st part of a fascinating trilogy., 22 February 2006
7/10
Author: michel-crolais from France

Alain is the manager of a small company. He is on the way to be have a surgical heart operation and he his convinced that he is on the point to die. He hides his disease to his wife and records his testament. His wife who perfectly knows him has suspicion and asks herself if he has relations with other women as Claire, his secretary, for example. In order to be sure, she asks to Pascal, the husband of his friend Agnes, to conduct a survey on Alain comportment. But Pascal has also another most serious inquiry about a gangster escape, Bruno Le Roux. All these characters will be mixed in various situations. This first episode pf the trilogy is very interesting and well realised and it is a good beginning for the entire story, but can be seen independently.

Was the above comment useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
The comedy of errors., 26 February 2004
6/10
Author: jotix100 from New York

Lucas Belvaux approached this film with a lot of ideas. This is the second of the trilogy that was recently released. Being curious as to what it was about, I ventured to see this installment and the next one, but will not see the first one.

At the beginning of the story, we see Alain, a successful lawyer, who goes to pieces when his doctor tells him, a small operation must be performed. When he asks if it is serious, the doctor reassures him, it's routine. Well, this news makes Alain reconsider "what if" this procedure is cancer.

Alain goes to extremes to keep it from his wife and family, thus triggering the mechanism for this comedy of errors he embarks. Some of it is mildly funny, most is tedious. The only redeeming feature in the film is that Ornella Muti plays Cecile, Alain's suffering wife.

It would have been much simple for Alain to confide in Cecile at the expense of not having the comedy thus created by his misjudgment.

Was the above comment useful to you?

1 out of 2 people found the following comment useful :-
Well-plotted, fine performances, 6 January 2004
9/10
Author: egp03jts from Taichung, Taiwan

I have seen all each film in Lucas Belvaux's of inter-connected, multi-genre trilogy, and like this light, romantic comedy the best. The plot and performances are the strengths of this work. Each twist and turn, every mis-understanding and each instance of wrongful identity ratchet up the comic tension, and we are presented with solid work by each of the ensemble of fine actors. I like, too, that though the film is farcical, it is also realistic and sometimes messy and threatening in its import, reminding us that moments of grace and acts of kindness are not inevitable and must be (or ought to be) appreciated and acknowledged in each and every case. In other words, this is not a sappy love story. I believed that the characters cared for one another. I am surprised that others have not responded as positively to this film as I have; perhaps it hit me the right way on the right day. I agree that seeing all three films enriches the experiences of each. I saw them in order, but I don't think that matters much.

Was the above comment useful to you?

3 out of 6 people found the following comment useful :-
An experience nearly successful, 13 January 2003
3/10
Author: faniouge from Paris, France

This film (which can be seen as a standalone film) is part of a trilogy. Three films, not consecutive, but parallel. Three stories, simultaneous, with same actors, same characters. Main actors in one film are secondary actors in the two others. There are common scenes between each movie, but always shown in a different way, a different point of vue.

"Un couple epatant" is a comedy, with (Ornella Muti/Francois Morel),"Cavale" is a thriller, with (Lucas Belvaux/Catherine Frot), and "Apres la vie" is a drama, with (Gilbert Melki/Dominique Blanc).

You can see only one or two of these movies, but it is really better to see all of them, as each one enlights some dark moments of the two others. The supposed order is the one i used, but you can see these films in any order.

Individually speaking, the films are average (except "Apres la vie", the best one), but globally the experience is very good and very exciting.

Was the above comment useful to you?

Add another comment

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
Newsgroup reviews External reviews Official site
Plot keywords Main details Your user comments
Your vote history