狼族盟约

最后，我还是坐在了这里，像故事的结尾一样，像那墙上黄昏的影子，像叙述人年迈的目光，正环顾着四周，摸索着情绪。

当我问自己，要说什么的时候，我想起了原因。

如今，再不能如同从前，两个人坐在长长的枕木上，谈了这样的话：等我积蓄够了钱，就找个月租便宜的房子，在僻静的地方悄悄地生活。

那是个阳光耀眼的下午，我蹲在公交站牌旁，在水泥的灰尘扑向鼻尖时，仿佛是来自从前的情形，那灰尘让我想起了自己的童年，当然，还有那天早晨。

我总觉得不该这样开始，更怕让自己想得更多。

怕自己愧疚。

听到敲门声时，望着远处的身影，我已养成习惯地垂着头。

听自己喃喃低语。

再有一个小时，又到明天了。

而那天早晨回旋在穹顶的光芒仍然为我所记着，像故事里人们聚在餐桌前闲谈哲学和艺术，还是青年的叙述人站了起来，给人们朗读着他刚想起的诗般。

那天早晨的光芒便这样不时从眼前一掠而过。

从我稚拙的言谈里。

也许笨拙和从来不曾灵敏过。

我发现自己就是这样。

有天早上，我花一块钱买了厚厚一叠《北京青年报》的旧报纸用来贴窗户，阳光照在上面时，看到了上面有篇金基德《弓》的影评。

那是二零零六年的春天，北方的寒风尚未过去。

当时，读影评让人感到像在受苦，以致我至今还很排斥那些格式。

所以，我如同自己在黑黢黢的屋子里看电影一样，老听到别人间的指责：你怎么看着看着又睡着了。

2011.8.4

整部影片围绕着法国大革命前夕，当时民众被所谓的“怪兽”侵扰，国家组织各方力量来围剿“怪兽”，一时流言四起，最后将所谓的“怪兽”归咎于狼族，接着就是不断地剿灭狼族，其实“怪兽”就是政治家臆造出来的，可以说这是一部披着狼皮的阴谋夺权的政论电影。

这其中也不乏爱情，但是爱情在这部电影里的比重很轻，可以说是一种修饰，公主和骑士的爱情似乎是那个时代背景下的偶然，他们爱情的纯洁也似乎是对当时环境的一种讽刺。

如果说哥特式电影是一种更加倾向于艺术的，确切的是更加带有恐怖色彩和神秘气氛的艺术作品，它给人带来的是另一种感觉，恐惧、不安，直接裸地剖析人性的思考，那么《狼族盟约》做到了。

关于宗教和信仰在众多电影中，都有关于宗教和信仰的话题，本部影片中所谓的教义最后都被证明是政治阴谋。

是洗脑的一种方式，而片中印第安人的信仰，却显得那么有力量，它注重自然，尊重真理。

这里不由得让人们讨论起宗教的本质问题，肯定有很多观众不假思考起宗教的本质，宗教的本质可能是灵魂的慰藉，或者说是对自然的尊重，或者说是人们对未知世界的一种想象。

它是哲学的一部分，在任何国家的历史长河中，都扮演着重要的角色。

但是当它被政治所利用的时候，历史往往会证明，它仅仅是政治的掩饰。

在很多时候，或者说在一场革命爆发之前，都有其沉淀许久的怨愤，都有其已经根深蒂固的矛盾。

宗教这个时候往往被利用，往往被披上虛假的外衣，制造所谓的“怪兽”，制造恐慌，愚弄民众，这个时候宗教的本质被曲解了，被利益化了，不再被用来净化心灵，净化世界。

在影片中能看见法国传统的浪漫情怀，公主的圣洁和骑士的勇敢之间摩擦出爱情火花，给人一种唯美的感觉，公主和骑士的爱情在当时的背景下，似乎是一种奢望，整个社会都弥漫着恐怖的气氛，整个国度都似乎笼罩着沉重的阴霾，他们之间的爱情，似乎就是黑暗中的那一点点灯光，照亮心灵，给人希望。

这不仅让人想起影片中的一个细节，当所谓的“怪兽”呈现在国王王室的时候，所有的人都在假惺惺地庆贺，明知道是假的，明知道是自欺欺人的，这似乎充分体现了革命爆发之前的一种征兆，政治高层的不作为、自欺欺人、腐朽等都是征兆的特征之一。

这部影片似乎也有这方面的含义，当宗教被政治无限地利用的时候，它将不是人们心灵的寄托，而是政治家们控制民众的绳索，在这种模式下，很多行为都被视为上帝的指示，很多行为就变得更加理所当然合乎情理。

说一下这部影片的叙事流程，导演采用悬疑的叙事方式，所有谜团到影片的最后才得以揭开。

整部影片是有事实依据的，在18世纪60年代中期，是法国国王路易十五统治时期。

在法国吉瓦冈地区，很多妇女和儿童不断地受到一只凶残的巨狼的迫害，人们胆战心惊，全国上下一时间都被这些触目惊心的杀戮震惊了，他们每天生活在恐惧当中。

为了安抚、安定民心，国王决定命令皇家骑士弗朗萨克及其随从玛尼赴吉瓦冈捕杀怪兽。

弗朗萨克从最开始就对巨狼的存在产生很大的怀疑，因为据幸存者描述，恶狼体形惊人，而他是特别擅长制作动物标本的，即使这样，他也从未见过这种庞然大物。

在当地调查期问，弗朗萨克爱上了当地伯爵的女儿玛丽安，他的勇敢和坚强征服了玛丽安，他们坠入爱河，同时他还与美艳动人的官妓西尔维亚上床，这似乎是对当时法国社会腐朽的一种讽刺，并结识了玛丽安的哥哥让·弗朗索瓦，他在非洲猎狮的时候一只手臂被咬掉了。

但是随着调查的逐渐深入，弗朗萨克从一具被害者尸体上发现了一颗钢牙，而且一位目击证人发誓地说有人正在控制着这头巨狼，这头狼是被人控制的，于是弗朗萨克开始希望通过研究其攻击的方式找到线索，但最后却一无所获。

这样的结果也招致品了国王的不满，于是国王又派来了一位武器专家波特纳，但是这位专家立功心切，简单捕杀了一只野狼，同时让弗朗萨克对其改头换面，制作成一头巨狼被送回巴黎，国王和贵族，并不知道其中的真相，顿时欢欣鼓舞，这又从另一方面极度地讽刺了当时的政治环境，一切都是虚假繁荣，一切都是皇帝的新装。

在巴黎，弗朗萨克看到了一本红色的书籍，这本书主要阐述的巨狼是为惩罚沉迷干哲学和科学的国王而来阐述反叛理论，弗朗萨克马上意识到巨狼可能是狼族兄弟会的工具这一事实，这个秘密组织计划以所谓的“怪兽”来破坏公众对国王的信赖，进而控制整个国家，在国家角度来讲，这个组织是个反动组织，他们不惜牺牲民众的生命，制造恐慌，制造混乱，但是这也正是当时那种极端腐朽的社会矛盾积攒到一定程度的反映，反之如果一个国度，国王英明，治国有方，百姓安康，天下太平，又怎会出现凡此种种？

然而假的毕竟是假的，真正的巨狼还是没有被抓捕，它仍旧在危害百姓，弗朗萨克没有顾及警告，毅然决然地返回吉瓦冈，他想彻底铲除巨狼同时带走玛丽安。

玛尼一个人在一次激烈战斗之后，发现了巨狼的巢穴，在那里竟然居住着狼族兄弟会成员和一群吉卜赛人，寡不敌众的玛尼最后还是倒在了血泊之中，这是故事的一个高潮，从某种程度来说，玛尼的信仰是正确的，是纯洁的。

在知道好友惨遭不幸之后，弗朗萨克变得悲痛欲绝，在尸检中，他从玛尼的身体中发现了一颗银弹，然而只有让·弗朗索瓦才使用银弹。

极度愤怒的弗朗萨克要为玛尼报仇，于是接连杀了很多吉卜赛人，同时还发现了巨狼的巢穴。

政府把弗朗萨克关进了监狱，在监狱中，他见到了西尔维亚，原来，西尔维亚是梵蒂冈派来的密探，而当地牧师萨迪斯居然是狼族兄弟会的首脑，弗朗萨克知道过多内情，于是她受教皇指派来刺杀弗朗萨克。

弗朗萨克被埋葬了，但实际上，西尔维亚的毒药只让他暂时昏迷。

弗朗萨克很快被西尔维亚手下营救，并随即出现在狼族兄弟会的秘密集会上。

在浴血奋战中，弗朗萨克杀死了实际控制着巨狼的让·弗朗索瓦，山中狼群则吃到了逃亡到山里的萨迪斯。

最终，弗朗萨克在狼巢中找到了恶狼，它已经在经过恶战之后变得奄奄一息，原来，它是一只被让·弗朗索瓦从非洲带回的怪兽，受过攻击人类的训练，最后，弗朗萨克让它安然死去。

以上就是这部影片的主要故事内容，包含的情节所反映的东西是很发散的，可以让不同的人有不同的感受，从我的角度来说，最主要的就是有关政治和宗教的关系，影片的背景画面也是看点之一，法国波旁王朝那个时期的风格，不论是古老建筑，还是装扮服饰，都给人一种别样的雍容华贵的感觉。

影片中的惊为天人的莫妮卡·贝鲁奇和艾米莉·德奎恩，一位是清纯动人的伯爵女儿，一位是妩媚的，当画面停留在她们身上的一刹那，宛如一幅精美的油画。

任何一部电影，背景音乐都很重要，它要和影片的。

故事进程融为一体，更好地和故事的灵魂完美结合，这部影片的音乐就很成功，它大气豪华中带平淡，它时而将人带入紧张气氛，时而将人带入浪漫气氛，像史诗一样。

影片和其他好莱坞影片相比，不是那么紧凑、震撼，欣赏它的时候，会犹如欣赏一幅缓缓舒展开的画卷，如行云流水，使人舒服，使人对片中的故事人物和情节都能有很好的理解。

往往会是这种情况，很多影片谁也搞不清它到底想说什么，但是片中的某个场景、某个情节，却会让人感到什么，而这往往是成功的。

特别欣赏片中的服饰，十七八世纪的欧洲服饰，对我而言，我更加欣赏剧中印第安人的眼神，它带有坚韧和智慧，具有远古气质，同时其信仰，和动物的沟通，无非就是对大自然的尊重和理解，这种古朴纯净的气息在现代社会中是很难找寻的。

总之，这部影片中，狼不是怪兽，人也更不是人，狼被政治利用，也就是被人利用，群众也被政治家诱导，矛盾充斥在整个社会，随时爆发，任何因素似乎都无法阻止革命的爆发。

这部影片是成功的，至少引起了很多思考。

电影艺术的魅力就是这样，它能从不同的角度来诠释历史、爱情、信仰。

它能让现代的人们感悟历史的教训，历史的轮回，能让现代的人们领会曾经的爱情，能让现代的人们体味宗教在特定时期的真正含义以及对信仰的重新坚守。

对现代人的启示很生动形象地呈现出来，这是其他艺术作品所达不到的。

再说这部影片的外在表现形式，它集结了美、亚、欧三方面的电影人士，剪接得很有张力，动作设计也很漂亮，其中给人印象深刻的是印第安人的武士这个角色，这个人全场给人很冷很酷的感觉，一人对付一群人，他能和自然通灵，让人倍感神秘，片中他简单地和“女巫”的眼神交流，恰到好处地表现了这个印第安人的爱情渴望，他的话不多，但时时刻刻都在传递各种信息，这是导演的成功，更是演员的功夫所在。

导演克里斯多夫·甘斯好像要履行约定，想要让所有观众人人满意，即使不是好莱坞史诗片，但是有慢镜头的原野场面；即使没有深究政治内涵，但是有宫廷阴谋的情节；即使没有电脑制作的怪兽，但是有比恐龙还怪异的“怪兽”；既有色情的，又有古代欧式妓院刺激你的荷尔蒙，等等，这些都足以在影片中欣赏到。

画面精美绝伦，剪接张弛有度，动作设计相当漂亮，值得推荐。

盛佳蓝光标注

影片一再强调.谎话说多了,说真了.就成了真理.就像国王与其弄臣的所为.可以把一只普普通通的狼变成一只怪兽.然后昭告天下.如果权威所说的就是真实.那末,这个就是真实.而真实的背后,随之而来的是一个妇女的惨叫,一条小狗的悲鸣.在政治的眼里,现实的怪兽已经死去.于是我们只能说,真正伤人的那只怪兽,其实是政治.那个只有一只手的男人.其实暗藏着一只手.就像每个人心里都藏着一怪兽,他的那只手其实就是怪兽."他训练着你,你训练着怪兽".怪兽.在这里成了心灵的一种附属.就像他的主人那只驱使它的手那般畸形.从这颗心,我们可以窥见一个兄长对其妹畸形的爱,一个臣子对权势畸形的迷恋.又或者,我们看到更多.只是不愿说出.带着几分诡异.影片从一部奇幻片向一部历史剧陡然转变.我们看到了一场世俗权力与教会权力之间的相争.看到了为此生灵的涂炭.就像目睹了一场与参战者本身无关的战争.而流血的,恰恰是参战者本身.如果舍弃影片里个人英雄的情结,舍弃复仇的价值标榜,舍弃骑士与公主的相遇相知相融.那末.这确实是一部历史剧.他用了整整两个半小时为我们讲述了一场关于怪兽的闹剧.而这只怪兽的名字,就是政治.http://hi.baidu.com/kutu2003/blog/item/e3cf51eec5d12cfdb3fb9578.html

可笑的法国贵族，让人作呕的法语，法国特色的乱伦，真是汇聚了能想到的所有法国垃圾，外加永远光明不起来的世界最大恐怖组织教廷。

唯一看的舒服的印第安小伙，操着明显的中国功夫，却不是法国货。

2个半小时……看完那个叫累啊，洗把脸，再把耳朵掏掏干净，delete，真浪费我时间。

不过开场两个人的立领风衣真是酷，就是海报上那个，相当酷。

这是我见过的相当漂亮的法国电影之一！

看的过程真的是一种视觉享受，听原声还是一种听觉享受，因为法语真的很好听。

还有就是，享受那种法国的浪漫主义爱情，浪漫的社会文化，等等这些都是这部优秀影片的可圈可点之处！

赞一个！！

R.I.P. Émilie Dequenne (1981-2025), the brilliant Belgian and the recipient of Best Actress award at Cannes for her first acting gig in Dardenne brothers' Palme d'or winner ROSETTA, has sadly succumbed to a rare cancer at a young age of 43. Dequenne is endowed with a superb knack for disappearing into a role, making her performances feel both instinctually naturalistic and uninhibitedly expressive. After ROSETTA catapults her status as a promising young thespian, her follow-up, Christophe Gans' BROTHERHOOD OF THE WOLF is an authentic Gallic blockbuster. A lush, genre-mashing period epic where Dequenne takes on a smaller but still intriguing part cannot be more different from the one in ROSETTA ROSETTA is a stripped-down, bare-bones exposé of underclass subsistence. It’s not trying to charm or entertain, but to make audience feel something real but also too close for comfort, regarding poverty, misery and struggle with no buffer between spectators in cushy seats and the relentless hardship on show. In short, a poverty porn in its most effective and acute fibers. The plot follows our titular heroine, a teenager living in a dreary caravan park with her alcoholic mother (Yernaux), scraping by on the edge of the society. Her sole hope is to find a stable job, and the only way to achieve that turns out to be a cruel zero-sum game, to heartlessly betray the kindness of Riquet (Rongione), a coworker who befriends her and throw him under the bus, especially after that cardinal scene where Rosetta hesitates while Riquet falls into the murky lake, flailing, in real danger of drowning. Rosetta's longer-than-it-is hesitation is brutal. It’s not cinematic suspense but ethical discomfort. The camera traces her face, and we can see the storm inside her: should she help him or not? And what’s devastating is that, for a few long seconds, she leans toward not. Not because she hates him, or because she’s evil, but because she’s desperate, beaten and exhausted. She knows that if he dies, the job at the waffle stand - the one lifeline she clings to - could be hers. This is one of the film’s most daring moves. The Dardennes refuse to protect Rosetta from her worst thoughts. They let her hover on the edge of some horrible thoughts: letting an innocent person die out of her personal economic desperation. It’s a moment that rips away any illusion of moral clarity. The world has taught Rosetta that survival is a ruthless game, that there is no room for compassion, only competition.But then she thinks better of it and rescues him. This action doesn't erase the hesitation. It doesn't redeem her in a neat way. But it does mark a crack in the hardened shell she's built around herself. It’s one of the few choices in the film that feels free - ungoverned by necessity, nor by the grim laws of a world where everything must be earned in pains. She chooses to save Riquet simply because, despite everything, a trace of moral instinct remains. That’s the genius of ROSETTA. It shows us that morality, especially in a world like that, is messy, costly, and sometimes even irrational. The fact that she nearly lets Riquet drown makes her human whereas the fact that she doesn’t makes her still worth rooting for. In a lesser film, this would be the redemptive climax. But Rosetta keeps going. It keeps grinding. The weight of survival doesn’t lift. But we, and Rosetta, are left with the memory of that decision - a moment when she could have been monstrous, and wasn’t. A reminder that even in the ugliest conditions, humanity clings on by its fingernails.The Dardennes’ approach is famously no-frills. Handheld cameras, natural lighting, and zero gloss over its milieu, a cinema-vérité style mixed with a stimulating guerrilla kinetics. The camera is almost invasive in how close it sticks to Rosetta, her face, her hands, her feet stomping through the mud. We barely get a second to breathe without being pulled into her smoldering rage and frustration of constantly getting the short end of the stick, her kept-to-herself tenacity, or the incessant pain from her period cramps. ROSETTA's focus on natural sound rather than a traditional score only adds to the Dardennes’ felicitous evocation of realism. The sound design focuses on the grating, everyday noises of Rosetta’s environs: the crunch of gravel under Rosetta’s boots, the droning noise of the factory where she briefly works, and the susurrus of the sylvan area where her digs are. No emotional manipulation through music - just the raw sounds from real life. There’s no color, no warmth. The film is washed out and gray. The caravan park itself feels like a cage - muddy, gray, and bleak. Even Rosetta herself looks drained of vitality, dressed in cheap, worn-out clothes. The Dardennes avoid any kind of aesthetic appeal because the film is meant to hit a raw nerve, exposing the underside of a developed Western country many folks refuse to acknowledge. Dequenne’s performance is all in the body language - tense shoulders, a clenched jaw, defensive eye contact. You can feel how much emotional energy it takes for Rosetta just to get through the day. She’s desperate to find stability, but also held back by her mother - a lush who cannot shake off her jones - who is as much a weight around her neck as the poverty they live in. Just when the film heads to a dismally tragic end, the Dardennes scores with a finale that is quietly devastating and, at the same time, subtly redemptive. Attempting ending her misery by turning on the gas, Rosetta strains to carry a gas canister - a heavy one - back to her trailer (for her, the bitter irony is that even suicide comes with a price tag). The canister is an obvious metaphor for the life-size burden she must grapple with. Then Riquet arrives on his moped, circling around her noisily, and she puts down the canister, finally cracks up. There’s the beginning of a tremor in her voice. She breathes heavily, perhaps for the first time in the whole film, and we can almost see her letting someone in.This ending is masterful for a few reasons. First, it’s ambiguous but emotionally clear. The film ends with an act of human decency. It signifies that even in a base, survivalist world, there might still be room for forgiveness, for solidarity, for connection. Secondly, it is a moral ending without being moralistic. In the end, Rosetta is not cheaply saved, but she pauses, and that pause is monumental. After 90 minutes of relentless motion, of trying to fix her life through sheer will, she finally stops. In that moment, something human is rekindled.It’s also important to recognize that the Dardennes are offering no easy solutions. Rosetta’s life won’t suddenly be all's well. But she’s no longer alone, and that small, stubborn act of mutual recognition with Riquet is enough to breathe life into a closing image that could otherwise have been hopeless. It tells us that while systems may fail, and institutions may be indifferent, individuals still have the power to break cycles - if only for a moment. It’s not a fairytale ending, but in the Dardennes' harsh universe, it might as well be a miracle.

If ROSETTA is hard-edged and minimalist, BROTHERHOOD OF THE WOLF is maximalist in every possible way. Gans’s film is a wild mix of period drama, creature horror, mystery thriller, and political intrigue, set during the Age of Enlightenment. It’s loosely inspired by the real-life legend of the Beast of Gévaudan - a mysterious creature that terrorized the rural French region. The story follows Grégoire de Fronsac (Le Bihan), a naturalist and royal agent, who is sent by the King to investigate the atrocious, almost supernatural killings attributed to the mythic beast. Fronsac is accompanied by Mani (Dacascos), an American Indian from the Iroquois tribe who has become his blood brother. As the pair digs closer to the truth, if laboriously (as the film is 2 and a half hour long), in time they will discover that the beast is not a natural creature but a secretively fashioned and controlled weapon, part of a political conspiracy to undermine the crown and exploit the growing unrest in the country. Eventually, BROTHERHOOD OF THE WOLF comes through as a full-bore rampage on the clash between Enlightenment rationalism and religious superstition, as well as sending the sideswipes to the political manipulation of fear.Gans goes all-in on spectacle here. Lavish period costumes, huge set pieces, engaging fight scenes choreographed straight out of Hong Kong cinema, with slow-motion flips and swashbuckling flourishes. The creature itself is a blend of puppetry and animatronics (designed by Jim Henson's Creature Shop), with CGI-assisted effects to smooth out the discrepancies. The beast looks both organic and unnatural, which gives it a genuinely unsettling quality. The film also has a kind of dark fairy-tale atmosphere - lots of shadows, candlelight, and ominous fog rolling over the countryside.Dacascos is the film's biggest secret weapon. On paper, Mani seems to be the stoic "noble savage" trope pasted into a racist Europe for flair. But Dacascos dodges that trap by grounding him in simmering intensity and spiritual presence that consistently turns heads. He's a man of few words, but every gesture speaks volumes. His stillness is as commanding as his movement, which brings a grace and precision to Mani’s fight scenes that feel balletic, fluid but also grounded, almost ritualistic, hinting at a connection to an otherworldly universe - a worldview shaped by nature, balance, and ancestral knowledge. His combat style contrasts sharply with the baroque violence of those French barbarians and the snarling chaos of the beast. There’s a discipline to Mani’s presence, something elemental.What’s perhaps most impressive is that how much non-verbal work Dacascos does. Mani isn’t given a lot of dialogue, but he communicates with expressions. There’s a palpable sense of history and pain behind his eyes - this is a man who has lost his homeland, who walks in a foreign place that sees him as alien, and yet he carries himself with calm authority. In a story that often critiques the Enlightenment’s hypocrisies - its tendency to proclaim rational order while hiding grotesque violence - Mani stands in for another kind of wisdom. He represents a form of knowledge that isn't written in books or debated in salons. He knows the forest, he respects the dead, he moves like a ghost through a land that doesn’t know what to do with him.There’s also the unspoken commentary that the film slips in with Mani's harrowing death: the outsider, the one most in tune with nature, is the one to be sacrificed. The moment Fronsac sees Mani's corpse, any pretense of diplomacy or rational investigation drops away, marks a turn in the story toward unrestrained chaos and vengeance. Dequenne plays Marianne de Morangias, the daughter of a local aristocrat, the apple of Fronsac's eyes. It’s a supporting role, but Dequenne makes her presence felt, she’s controlled and subtle, dutifully playing a damsel in distress within the formal confines of nobility.Cassel, as Marianne's brother Jean-François, carries himself like a man who believes in his own superiority - social, physical, intellectual - but there’s something rotten underneath, something festering. Cassel leans into that decay with delicious intensity. His facial expressions shift rapidly - from charming to menacing, from amused to dead-eyed. He’s magnetic precisely because he’s so unpredictable. There's a hint of the dandy villain about him, but it's twisted further by a creeping sense of obsession - particularly in his scenes with Dequenne, where the presence of a one-sided attraction gives their dynamic a faintly gothic, almost incest-drama-meets-werewolf-movie kind of vibe.Jean-François’s backstory - his injury, his time abroad, his missing hand—only adds to the mythologized weight of the character. And when it’s revealed that he’s behind much of the carnage and fearmongering, Cassel drops the mask completely and revels in the character’s moral unraveling. In full villain mode, he’s Shakespearean: arrogant, bitter, and fully convinced of his own right to dominate. It’s an over-the-top performance in all the best ways, perfectly matched to the film’s high-pulp sensibility.Then there is Cassel's then partner in life, Bellucci, as Sylvia, the impossibly glamorous Italian courtesan who becomes romantically entangled with Fronsac. At first, she seems like a stock femme fatale - witchy, sensual, aloof. But Bellucci knows how to play with that archetype, and slowly we begin to suspect there’s more to Sylvia than silk and smoky glances. And sure enough - there is. It’s a fun reversal that repositions her not as the seduced, but as the one in control. Bellucci plays the double role - lover and agent - with icy cool. She doesn’t overplay the reveal; instead, she lets Sylvia’s intelligence telegraph through minimal gestures, loaded silences, and strategic manipulation. What’s particularly effective is that Sylvia never drops her mystique, even after her motivations are revealed. She’s enigmatic to the end, a conduit of both desire and disillusionment. Bellucci keeps the tone just right - seductive, slippery, always a half-step out of reach.On the debit side, Le Bihan is a bit of a mixed bag here. He’s the official lead, the rational Enlightenment-era man of science turned reluctant warrior. While he looks the part - ruggedly handsome, well-costumed, and physically up to the task - his performance doesn't always match the theatrical hijinks or charisma of his co-stars. He delivers his lines with clarity, but rarely with the emotional punch or tension that the stakes seem to demand. It’s not that he’s bad, just a bit bland. Thankfully, when Fronsac is thrusted to be an avenging force in the third act, Le Bihan gets to show some piss and vinegar, his grief becomes palpable, a killing spree and a one-to-one throw-down that follow give him a chance to step out of his moral limbo and comport himself as a legitimate, rousing action hero.After all, BROTHERHOOD OF THE WOLF is a rare example of cinematic excess that somehow works precisely because of its contradictions. It’s overstuffed, tonally chaotic, and often ridiculous, but also bold, visually arresting, and completely unafraid to take risks. A handsome revenue (grossing over $70 million in worldwide theatrical release) is a meritorious reward. referential entries: Joachim Lafosse's OUR CHILDREN (2012, 6.7/10); Albert Dupontel's SEE YOU UP THERE (2017, 7.7/10); Luc and Jean-Pierre Dardenne's THE PROMISE (1996, 8.0/10), TWO DAYS ONE NIGHT (2014, 8.6/10). Title: RosettaYear: 1999Genre: DramaCountry: Belgium, FranceLanguage: FrenchDirectors/Screenwriters: Jean-Pierre Dardenne, Luc DardenneComposer: Jean-Pierre CoccoCinematographer: Alain MarcoenEditor: Marie-Hélène DozoCast:Émilie DequenneFabrizio RongioneOlivier GourmetAnne YernauxBernard MarbaixFrédéric BodsonFlorian DelainRating: 8.1/10

English Title: Brotherhood of the WolfOriginal Title: Le pacte des loupsYear: 2001Genre: Action, Horror, Adventure, Mystery, DramaCountry: France Language: French, Italian, GermanDirector: Christophe GansScreenwriters: Stéphane Cabel, Christophe GansComposer: Joseph LoDucaCinematographer: Dan LaustsenEditors: Xavier Loutreuil, Sébastien Prangère, David WuCast:Samuel Le BihanMark Dacascos Vincent CasselÉmilie DequenneJérémie RenierMonica BellucciJean YanneÉdith ScobJean-François StéveninBernard Farcy Jacques PerrinHans MeyerPhilippe NahonVirginie DarmonJohan LeysenJean-Loup WolffNicolas VaudeMichel PuterflamBernard FressonEric PratAndré PenvernGaspard UllielRating: 7.4/10

要不是有这对夫妻出场，这种冗长平淡男女主角皆难看的片子实在提不起兴趣。

男主角长相偏老，身边还老是跟着个嫩嫩的小侯爵更显老……女主角这么大个脸盘子居然还被赞为迷死人不偿命的当红炸子鸡……说实话一直都没搞清楚Monica到底什么官，干嘛要装妓女，不过后来监狱里的时候那身衣服衬得气质真是高贵Vincent轻装上阵时那身材真是没话说

可以说百忙之中，偷得半日闲看了这部电影。

看完之后感觉挺震撼的，本来以为只是为剧中的氛围感染而已，谁知久久不能平静。

还有一大堆工作要做，可是心中涌动着一种莫名的情愫，促使我必须写点什么。

剧中浪漫的情境，美丽的景色，离奇的情节，恐怖的氛围，对精致浮华的上流社会的描绘，及对政治宗教深刻的讽刺等等不作多讲，单讲玛丽安的哥哥，剧中第一大反派。

无疑，他是变态和邪恶的，但是他那阴鹜的眼神与桀骜的行为，带着上流贵族的高贵在一开始就深深吸引了我。

加上他在非洲游历失去了一条臂膀，自制猎枪，使用银弹以在猎物身上留下自己“独特的印记”，无一不昭示着这是一个坚毅果敢，桀骜不驯的人，正是由此才使他具有了致命的吸引力。

看到一半的时候，我就猜测他是幕后boss，果然不出所料。

但是最后决战的时候，按照正义必会战胜邪恶的套路，他还是没有逃脱死亡的结局。

如果不是剧情的需要，这样一个强悍的人绝不会被男主角三下五下干死。

唉，可悲可叹!当然，最后，他对妹妹玛丽安的禁忌之恋及他对其实施的暴行，将他邪恶的一面展现到了极致。

但是我却认为，正是由于他在这段畸形爱恋之中表现出的痛苦和脆弱，恰恰反映了他人性中的真、善的一面。

别管他爱的是谁，别管他对其他人怎样，在爱情中，他也是一个容易受伤的普通人，对比之他的邪恶冷血，更显示出他对玛丽安的真挚情感。

至于他爱上谁不好，偏偏爱上了自己的亲妹妹，我只能说是上帝对他的惩罚了，因为在面对自己所爱的人时，人是没有选择权的。

但正是在这禁忌之爱面前，才显得他所受折磨之深刻，他的灵魂之脆弱，他的感情之真挚，至死，他想的也不过可以和玛丽安永远在一起了，对他未必不是一种解脱。

想起了一部电影中的一句话，小时候妈妈带我去看白雪公主，人人都爱上了美丽的白雪公主，我却爱上了老巫婆。

看了这部电影，我竟有类似的感受，不是爱上正义的骑士，却爱上了邪恶的哥哥。

不知道广大的豆友有没有人有跟我一样的感受。

法国电影一贯讲究镜头感。

即便再烂的情节，再平庸的表演，但镜头一定会用的很有想法。

虽然一开头就已经猜到了整个剧情的发展，但那种不同于好莱坞模式的镜头语言还是让人为之动容。

虽然电影的长度在2小时20分左右，但也没什么好说的，讲述了一个小城镇里发生的一个故事，娱乐性方面比较低，没有平常好莱坞电影里观众喜欢的元素，例如爆炸啊、智谋啊、特效啊什么的，动作方面倒是有，但打起来比较像中国功夫，慢镜头不少但似乎不大熟练，故事也比较平淡，毕竟描述基本围绕着上层社会，能有趣到什么地方呢，一群达官贵人围在一起说说无聊的话题，平常的娱乐活动也就喝酒和讨论下戏剧诸如此类的而已，大概农村的娱乐活动要比贵族们的还要好，说起这个我倒是好奇以前人们白天劳作，晚上做些什么事情来消遣呢？

片中有少量儿童不宜的内容，毕竟法国拍的嘛，尺度总是比米国大很多，以前我老婆要去法国几年时就很担心被拐跑了，当然现在也和我没什么关系了说回电影，布景虽然很多都比较精细，但总觉得简陋了点，不是很能展现出那个时代的风格，尤其是巴黎那里，总觉得很现代化……总体评分：2.8/5.0（评分修正：原2.5）某个官员很像卷福……后面有一幕挺揪心，一个农村姑娘跑去把跑丢的羊羔捉回家，一个踉跄掉到齐腰的污水坑里，稍微稳了稳就慢慢向羊羔走去，慢慢地把羊羔抱在胸前，忽然四周传来危险的嘶叫声，她紧张地往四周望去，手里依然紧紧的抱着羊羔，她越看越害怕，似乎察觉到一点动静后马上放掉羊羔拼命沿着树根往上爬，但是行动敏捷的怪兽依然把她杀掉了。

这一段实在受不了，感受太深刻，后面的剧情都没啥心思看了