Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

I think the story itself is very interesting and keeps people busy in these times but how this movie highlights the theme is a pity.The acting is not so well, at some points it looks like a cheap (American style) soap series with the same 'soapy' camera shots and thin conversations. It gets worse as the movie progresses and the director is trying to get emotions in the viewer but that didn't work that well. Some dialogs are just not natural in the emotional state the people intend to be. The part on the beach with the man (lead actor) reading the newspaper article of the journalist is really lightly and the movie itself feels like a rattled off story.There's not much wrong with the lighting and cinematic quality. There are some very pretty harbor/boat/city shots in the movie, especially in the beginning but later in the movie some (repeated) shots start to irritate and the director uses the same silence/hard-noisy sound trick too much. The camera angles were pretty standard in dialogs. The movie is more photographic than cinematic.If the story is not so strong and the acting is not so well, the soundtrack can save the 'general atmosphere' of the movie. Unfortunately, that part also failed because of the very simple and obvious guitar tunes.A story like this should hit the 'emotional snare' but I think the the director failed to attract the audience in his emotional story.There are much better (French) movies available so my advice is to skip this one.

This movie is based on a notorious rape-murder case which happened in 1964. Kitty Genovese was stabbed and raped in New York. Two weeks later the "New York Times" published an article titled "Thirty-Eight Who Saw Murder Didn't Call the Police." Following lengthy investigation, it appears that the headline was incorrect, as nobody witness the whole brutal attack from beginning to the end, because it took place in the course of half hour and in different locations.However, the case sent social psychologists wild, in search for explanations. The conclusion was that contrary to common expectations, larger numbers of bystanders decrease the likelihood that someone will step forward and help a victim.Anyway, I suppose that the movie was set in Le Havre to keep the "city by the sea" background, even if in another continent. But I find it sloppy and disrespectful towards the audience to have used as a plot device horrible murder, which is a classic feature of social psychology textbooks.

I read the other comments for this film. I respect this point of view, but don't share it. That doesn't mean I am right and they are wrong. I consider this film as a brilliant, unusual, daring and powerful drama. One more masterpiece directed by Lucas Belvaux, who already gave us RAPT, in 2009, starring the same Yvan Attal at his peak. His best. The story of a murder committed at night, in a neighbourhood where every one heard or saw the killing BUT without calling the police. Because of their fear, their cowardice. Only one among them, one week later, dares admitting to his wife that he actually heard a long cry in the night. A cry of agony. He goes to the police and tells the truth. But afterwards, a journalist gets the information and each one of the 38 witnesses of the crime is aware of the courageous man's - Attal - behavior which points out their own cowardice...A tense, poignant gripping downbeat film that I won't forget.

In the harbor city of Le Havre, France, a woman is stabbed during the night, just below the windows of her neighborhood. Pierre (Yvan Attal) has witnessed the murder, and heard the wails of the women crying for help. So have the neighbors, certainly. But at the end, nobody called the police. Nevertheless, sorrows are too heavy for Pierre, who feels the need to tell everything to his wife (Sophie Quinton), and to the police. During the investigation, it appears that 38 people witnessed the murdering, and none reacted...I was really appealed by the premises of this plot. That is also why I was really disappointed with the resulting film. Let me enumerate the main caveats I was annoyed with :scripts and acting. The dialogs often sound awkward, unnatural and sometimes I was wondering if I was looking at theater rather than cinema. The acting is not good (especially with the main roles), but I am not sure if actors or director have to be blamed.Le Havre. This city and its harbor is constantly in the picture, but the director does not really use it. Is it metaphor of dehumanization of modern urban life? Is it because the city center was rebuilt with bare concrete after 1945? The effect is wasted.the end. The scenario introduces many story elements which could have be explored and resolved into a powerful conclusion. Contrarily, the actual movie end is coming out of nowhere, unimpressive, and I felt, stupid.