dbdumonteil As I have often pointed out in several reviews, François Truffaut is far from being prominent in my canon of favorite French filmmakers of all time. I have always thought that he was one of the most overrated ones and he contributed in making me hate the New Wave and its pretensions. "Les 400 coups" (1959) is a very academic work. "Jules et Jim" (1962) has not worn very well and its innovative camera work couldn't conceal the extreme unlikeliness of the story. I also pass in silence the Antoine Doinel saga starring stiff Jean-Pierre Léaud. However, there are some palatable flicks in Truffaut's filmography: "l'Enfant Sauvage" (1970), a very harrowing, sensitive work, "l'Argent De Poche" (1976), a delightful children's realm and this one "Vivement Dimanche!" (1983), his last opus before he passed away the following year.It was not the first time, Truffaut had tried a stab at handling the detective genre. "Tirez Sur Le Pianiste" (1960), "la Mariée Etait en noir "(1968), "la Sirène Du Mississippi" (1969) gave so-so results but "Vivement Dimanche"!" is far more gripping and enjoyable than the three quoted films. An estate agent, Julien Vercel (Jean Louis Trintignant) is suspected of having murdered his wife and his lover. He has to hide in his workplace and her secretary Barbara (Fanny Ardant) investigates about this mystery and leads her to reconstitute Barbara's murky past. Julien confides to Barbara that he knew very well his wife but in the same time, he didn't want to know her hidden face. He'll however discover it.With his 21st long-feature movie, Truffaut wanted to pay a tribute to one of his masters, Sir Alfred Hitchcock and also to the detective films with which he grew up. The Truffaut insiders surely know that he was a big fan of the master of suspense, in the 1960's, Truffaut published a book in which through a series of interviews, he related the work he did in his prestigious filmography. In our present movie, Hitchockian references are evident with, for example winks at "Rear Window" (1954) (Truffaut's favorite film from Hitchcock) or "Dial M For Murder" (1954). And some objects play a vital role for the evolution of the plot like in some Hitchcock's works: the telephone among others.Truffaut's movie conciliates two sub genres of the detective film: the whodunit and the film noir (the film takes place in the south of France where it is usually sunny, but here quite a lot of scenes takes place at night) enjoys a solidly structured plot with the usual ingredients of the genre: wrong culprit, shady places, a gripping investigation with the scattering of clues revealing Barbara's past and leading to the resolution of the plot. Actually, one could have an inkling about Barbara's and her lover's murderer. What matters is why he killed them. Then Truffaut's work is also served with genteel camera work and especially there's humor which isn't in general his forte. But here, it works. My favorite moment would be (when Barbara is in front of the brothel: a passer-by: "Excuse me. How Much?" Barbara: "Pardon?" "How much?", "it's twenty-five to eight". And of course, Truffaut couldn't make a work without inserting movie-loving details. The cinema plays the Stanley Kubrick film: "Paths of Glory" (1958).The cast? It's immaculate. Fanny Ardant (Mrs Truffaut at the time) is excellent as well as Jean Louis Trintignant. But the rest of the cast doesn't stay on the bench. Each actor who acts a colorful character makes his or her part count.What is puzzling is that Truffaut hated Sundays. It's mysterious why he entitled his last movie with something he disliked. Was he contemplating retirement? Perhaps not since after, he wrote the script for "la Petite Voleuse" which was about to be directed by Claude Miller in 1988 with gratifying results. But Fanny Ardant sighs in the film: "I can't wait to be on Sunday". It's true that in the film, it's a complete change of life. She acts more like a detective than a secretary and it may be grueling to try to resolve a mystery. So, Sunday is eagerly awaited. Anyway, Truffaut began his cinema career with an overrated work, "les 400 coups". He will have ended it with a buoyant one.

MartinHafer This film, with some editing and a slight re-write could have been a fantastic film. I wonder if Truffaut's declining health (he died of cancer right after this was completed) perhaps had something to do with the roughness of the plot--there were too many plot holes to keep me engaged. Over and over throughout the film, the characters reacted WRONGLY to a given situation--often in VERY illogical ways. Let me point out a few examples: 1. When the main character confronts his wife about her adulteries, she admits it and treats him like dirt (I mean, she is REALLY obnoxious about it). Then, seconds later the police arrive and she asks him to tell the police she is not home. Fine. But then he DOES EXACTLY WHAT SHE SAID--even though any normal person wouldn't have given a rat's behind for her based on the previous scene AND because his lying to the police only served to implicate him for murder! 2. When the accused man's secretary returns after going to Nice to find clues, the man responds by slapping her--when she is trying to save his sorry butt! Then, she doesn't even get angry or yell at him for physically abusing her! This whole scene made no sense. Perhaps the French treat their women like that, but I seriously doubt it.3. A romance suddenly materializes just before the film ends. Where it came from and why it occurs makes no sense at all. For more info, see #2 above! So, in summary the movie has an excellent overall plot but is just too full of holes and logical errors to make it anything better than an average film. That's a shame because I'm sure Truffaut was capable of better.FYI--One little thing I really DID like about the film is the priest who gets decked towards the middle of the film. When he reappears, I had to laugh out loud!

magicturtle This was Truffaut's last film. Didn't he die of a brain tumor? His health was evident in this film. If you watch with the intent of finding insight into his relationship with Ardant, this film is vaguely interesting. As an homage to Hitchcock, this film does not measure up.Fanny Ardant is beautiful in her leggy, tall girl way. Jean-Louis Trintignant is short, older, and in possession of a mature attraction that men sometimes fall into in their forties and fifties. The chemistry between them is as fiery as the spark between a sponge and a pencil.The story, in all of its contrivance, is inconsistently humorous and does not near Hitchcock's tongue-in-cheek.If you are a Fanny Ardant fan, you will see her walk, run, walk some more, drive, walk, fall, run a little bit, walk some more...another name for this film could very well be, "Walk, Fanny, Walk". She is stunning, none-the-less and, as a result, the only thing worth watching. If you like her, you'll like seeing her in this film.

barberoux I was a bit disappointed by this movie. I expected a complex drama in the Hitchcock style but I got a mediocre story more like a Hitchcock TV presentation. It isn't a bad movie. It's more a vehicle for Fanny Ardant. She is a pleasure to watch and listen to. Jean-Louis Trintignant was also good. The writing wasn't all that great. The plot was simplistic and some scenes were clunky.