The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

Sometimes the best way to understand a film is to listen to the director's own words. With "La demoiselle d'honneur," even that may not aid one's comprehension. For me, this film appears to be too loosely constructed to provide much more than very casually related scenes which appear to go nowhere. For example, director Clausd Charbrol, in a written interview in the special effects section of the DVD, says: " In my films the plot is not terribly significant. I try to get it out of the way in the first reel." One is left wondering why there is a wedding anyway? Why is there a bridesmaid? Why so much emphasis on the bride's mother doing hairdressing in her kitchen? Charbrol wants the audience to identify with Beniot, but identify with what? Charbol claims Phillipe's character is 80% sex and 20% passion. From this, the director expects the audience (in his words)to be "strong enough or crazy enough to reject their whole mental makeup." Phillipe drives a new car in the film apparently because the auto agency delivered it to the set by mistake, so his boss Nadeau lets him drive it for six months until his own driver's license is reinstated, but he admonishes Phillipe to "bring it back in one piece." The beach scene is an clearly stated as being an illusion to FROM HERE TO ETERNITY. There is also a clear illusion to PSYCHO. Of course, the absence of plot as the film progresses seems to allow the story to go out of control. Chabrol explains: "You have to ask funny questions at times." The only funny question I can think of is "Why would anyone want to see this film?" I find no merit for recommendation.

I have not read Ruth Rendell's novel, so I cannot judge this film as an adaption of a fictional work. On the other hand, I think the film fails primarily because Rendell's story doesn't work well in a French setting. If I'm reading the film correctly, I think that Rendell wanted to get at class distinctions as a central topos of the novel, and this theme would play out superbly in an English setting, where class differences are part and parcel of the social fabric. In Chabrol's film, such distinctions are so understated as to be lackluster, if not plain dull, a thematic failure that is only made the worse by characters who are lifeless and lacking in the telling character traits and hard-scrabble wisdom one expects of certain class types. Everyone in Chabrol's film is bourgeois, bourgeois, bourgeois, and therefore just plain boring. The acting is not so great and I felt that the casting decisions were flawed. Finally, Senta is a ridiculously deranged young woman (wouldn't you, too, hear the stylus skipping across the LP if someone said they loved you and that you were the person for whom they had been waiting forever, after one afternoon of sex?), so it's difficult to imagine anyone taking her very seriously. Let's not forget the absurdity of Senta's mother and the mother's lover, played by untrained dancers (it's very obvious) who spend their waking hours practicing the tango in awkward and clumsy moves. Why didn't Chabrol do something else with them other than film the pair practicing steps they can never hope to master? I would not recommend this film.

If the director wasn't Claude Chabrol, I'm not sure this picture would have been released. It's a mystery story with a rather common theme. Ordinary man meets strange girl with secrets and his values tend to change in dangerous ways, because of the passion.But the acting alienates the viewer. The dialog and the facial expressions don't mix together and you can't take the theme seriously. That's a problem in many French movies and not at least those of Chabrol. Maybe it's because one is too used to American actor manners, but I'm not sure that's really the problem here.Passions can be boring and this is unfortunately an example.

This is a very good Chabrol movie. To me, probably his best since "Merci Pour Le Chocolat". The "atmosfear" was captivating, the script well written. The casting is great. The sets were mysterious (the old castle, for example). Well, to make a long story short, if you like Claude Chabrol's suspense movies, please, do yourself a favour and watch this one. Much better than the previous one, "La Demoiselle D'Honneur", was, I think, innovative enough to mark the mind of even his (Claude Chabrol's) long time fans in the deepest way. If he's physically getting old, as we all do, Chabrol's mind is still very sharp and a joy to explore. In a word, the French Hitchcock is back in top form ! May be the Ruth Rendall background of this movie gives it its best aspects. "La Demoiselle d'Honneur" is a kind of child-movie to an older Chabrol's masterpiece called "La Cérémonie".