Armand a girl. two women. a past episode. a recollection. and the truth. nothing else. a sensitive story about feelings, past and accident. and a beautiful cast.nothing else. the tale is not new. but it is delicate and profound. the steps of search of truth is a precise work. and the final answer is like rain drops - clear, honest, dramatic. so, out of performance is the science to present a form of pain with many faces. and the beauty of a verdict. the fall of masks. the power of words. the force of gestures. the life as hided flower of choices and needs. a film like a moral lesson or like morning wind. because its object is silence as cloth of cry.or only walk of a mother and her daughter.

Catherine I thought this was a great film, totally compelling, with fine acting. In answer to the implausibility of the plot (based on true events) I would say that a mother can have a sixth sense about her offspring. Some people are much more visually aware than others and I think it's therefore possible to have an idea of what someone would look like years later. Besides there may well be photographs and memories of what close relatives looked like at a similar age which would heighten that sense of recognition. As for Sandrine Bonnaire not recognising Catherine Frot as the woman she presumed dead lying on the floor of the hospital, we don't know if they had much, if anything, to do with each other in the hospital and, panic-stricken as she was after realising that her own child had perished and in the midst of an inferno, it's perfectly plausible that she did not remember her. This is a film which will stay with me for some time and I'd thoroughly recommend it.

writers_reign This has several things in common with Ruiz' Comedy de l'Innocence: in both a mother has lost a young child several years before the start of the film, in both the mother forms an attachment to a child with parents of its own and in both there are implausibilities which are, to some extent, compensated for by outstanding acting. As the two previous posters have already revealed the plot I need only reiterate the SPOILER warning before discussing the flaws. We meet Catherine Frot in the midst of a divorce and sharing custody of her son, Thomas, with her estranged husband. At a children's party she appears drawn to a girl of perhaps seven or eight and determines to find out all she can about her. Turns out that Lola is the daughter of Sandrine Bonnaire and has a brother, Jeremie, the same age as Thomas who Frot uses as a lever to insinuate herself into the Bonnaire household. After an early meeting Bonnaire remarks to her husband what a nice woman Frot is. Frot becomes convinced that Lola is the daughter who burned to death in a hospital fire seven years ago and confides as much in her parents. She confronts Bonnaire and offers to pay for a DNA test. Bonnaire naturally thinks she is crazy but when Bonnaire's husband says a DNA test will clearly resolve the matter Bonnaire admits to Frot that Lola is indeed her child. Bonnaire was at the hospital, saw Frot out cold and assumed she was dead. She then exchanged her own dead infant with Frot's. Flaw #1. How could Frot detect that a seven year old girl was the child she last saw at FIVE DAYS OLD. How come Bonnaire NEVER RECOGNISED Frot when she later admits thinking she saw her dead. Apart from this Frot is outstanding and Bonnaire only a whisker behind.

doug-697 This is a movie best enjoyed if you know nothing about it except that it is a fun thriller, so I wouldn't advise reading any reviews before seeing it.At the heart of the film is the premise that there's a special connection between a mother and her child that cannot be denied.The movie is very good at hiding where it's going. At first, you're not sure if you're watching something seamy, then you fear it may be about violence done to a child and finally it's fun to find out where it actually is going. You're not even sure if you're watching a thriller or a drama. It's keeps you on the edgeCatherine Frot is perfect as a woman who lost her newborn baby years ago in a hospital fire and thinks she's found her living with another family. You sympathize with her despite the fact that she may be insane or at least nearing a breakdown and even while you don't know whether her intentions are good or evil.I only have once concern about the movie, and that's the ending. So please don't read this if you haven't seen the movie as I'm about to give the ending away!!!First, I can't believe that finding out one's mother is not one's mother could be as easy on a child as depicted here. This part was done too cavalier and was simply not believable. However, what bothered me more was the very last scene. Forget the practical, legality of the situation depicted in this movie, a child's parents are the parents that raised her in a loving caring way. To see this woman, who had no relationship with the child during her entire life, who may still be in a dubious mental state, then walking alone with her at the end of the film was to say the least creepy. Either this was intended by the makers of the film to have a creepy ending, or it showed some lack of concern for children.Regardless of the ending, this is great fun.