Happenstance (2000) User Reviews

A Cute Film Lacking Depth

[nbott · 6/10 · 13 March 2002]

This film is cute and spirited but not particularly deep. I was drawn into the film just to see how far this director would take this outworn theory that every event in life effects things immediately around us. There is a Law of Cause and Effect that determines what happens to an individual, but the theories of luck, fate, predestination and coincidence are not true. Therefore, I had some trouble accepting the butterfly theory. The butterfly or a man does something and something happens as a result of that action. It does not happen in the nice convenient way that this film seems to wish us to believe. In other words, our actions determine our life but do not, necessarily, influence those around us, though they may.

Audrey Tautou is as charming and delightful as she was in Amelie. The supporting cast is delightful. The film is delightful and I recommend it. Just do not get so caught up in the "message" of the film for it is fairly meaningless.

Un Petit Bijou et un Grand Mystery

[PolitiCom · 8/10 · 12 June 2002]

The mystery here is why this delightful, small comedy has been ignored by most critics and has failed to find the audience it deserves. Simply showcasing the budding talent of Audrey Tautou should be enough to generate greater recognition from the cognoscenti.

Lacking in pretension and relying on quirky characterizations, itÕs rumination on the interconnection of human behavior manages to be both amusing and life affirming and, unlike some of itsÕ more critically acclaimed competition in the genre, such as The Taste of Others, it actually entertains.

Connecting the Dots

[Urantia · 6/10 · 1 March 2011]

My initial expectations of disappointment never fully came to fruition since this movie turned out to be better than some reviews suggested. In fact, my inclination to skip this one after the first few scenes quickly fizzled into an enjoyable excursion of dramatic intrigue. Even though this film delved deeply into how some people place their reliance about their mortal futures in the hands of either some ancient superstition (astrology) or on the outcome of some random occurrence dictated either by the arbitrary whims of chance or by the predetermined will of fate, I tended to focus more upon another theme that to me was just as prevalent and less controversial. What I am referring to here is the philosophical view as to how all of our lives are interconnected in ways we cannot quite fathom and might never fully comprehend...how no person can escape the benefits or the penalties that may come as a result of relationship to other persons. I will not give any specific examples from the movie since the journey it offers the viewer is one that involves slowly unfolding the connectedness of seemingly unconnected people and events. If I connected the dots about connectedness for you, where would be the fun (for you) in that? So I guess you could say that this movie validated some of my philosophical views: I believe that there is an organic unity in the universes of time and space which seems to underlie the whole fabric of cosmic events, inexplicably manifested ever and anon by what appears to be an amazingly fortuitous co-ordination of apparently unrelated universe happenings. I am also inclined to believe that it is this far-flung and generally unrecognizable control of the co-ordination and interassociation of all phases and forms of universe activity that causes such a variegated and apparently hopelessly confused medley of physical, mental, moral and spiritual phenomena so unerringly to work out to the glory of God and for the good of men and women and angels...but not always for the good of a bug (in this case, one who had a walk-on role but whose agent forgot to include a tiny clause in his contract that specified enabling this creepy-cute character-actor to walk off the set in the same healthy condition he was in when he crawled forth onto it to shoot his final scene...and to make matters worse, no listing in the opening credits, no "IN MEMORY OF" dedication at the end and worst of all, no favorable recognition from the Academy for opting to do all his own stunts).

Another charmer from the French.

[manxman-1 · 12 October 2002]

Charming little movie about a girl on her way to work on the Metro who has her horoscope told and is informed that today she will meet the man she will fall in love with. The story then divides into a bunch of individual tales about the people on the Metro platform, with each tale in one small way moving the girl closer to meeting her intended. A lot of hilarious and unexpected belly-laughs. A movie one has to trust in as the payoff is uproariously funny. Along the way one wonders how some of the stories will affect the outcome but inevitably they do. The meaning of the title in French - "The beat of a butterfly's wings?" When a butterfly beats its' wings on one side of the Pacific it creates a tidal wave on the other side. A very funny charmer with the gorgeous Audrey Tautou who has all of the delightful screen persona of that other unforgettable Audrey.

A novel idea and little more.

[=G= · 6/10 · 27 April 2002]

"Happenstance" is a well made French flick about a long series of interconnected cause/effect events which bring the storyline full circle resulting in the realization of a prediction made early in the film. Unfortunately, because of the film's novel premise, there is no time for character development or a story with depth, etc. The result is a sort of light drama with the feel of a concocted documentary...little glimpses into the lives of many giving the audience little time to do more than try to keep up with what can become a monotonous and seemingly endless chain of events. Given that the film is a subtitled novelty product at best, it would be difficult to recommend it to the public at large.

Does chaos rule because there are no rules to chaos or in spite of it?

[RJBurke1942 · 7/10 · 17 February 2008]

Narratives – whether written, visual or poetic epics – generally try to avoid too may characters; readers and viewers, after all, can be too easily overwhelmed by trying to keep track of who exactly is who. This is especially true in film, I think, simply because we cannot easily go back to refresh our memory in a cinema. Viewers like myself, however, don't have that problem because we see all our films on DVD or VHS.

A year ago I was introduced to Audrey Tautou, a French actress, whom I first saw in The Fabulous Destiny of Amelie Poulain (2001) and later in A Very Long Engagement (2004), both of which were finely crafted and complex stories with a large cast of characters. This earlier offering exceeds the others in both ways: more characters and more complexity.

Now, other directors have used those techniques before: Robert Altman with The Player (1992), Short Cuts (1993), Gosford Park (2001) and others; Paul Thomas Anderson did the same with Magnolia (1999). Stanley Kramer did it with A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World in 1963, a comedy of almost epic proportions. The difference with this film is, first the director lets us 'see' inside the head of some of the characters and second, some scenes are repeated as means to refresh the viewer's memory as the story flip-flops between different time periods.

The basic – the core, so to speak – story concerns a young woman, Irene (Tautou) who is told, by a fellow commuter on a train, that she will meet her true love on that day. This occurs in the first few minutes of the film. The clever irony at this point is that Irene doesn't realize that the young man opposite (Gilbert Robin) may be that 'one true love'. And, nor does he...

They go their separate ways with neither realizing the potential significance of their close encounter. However, chaos results throughout the rest of the day, not only for the two young people, but for the rest of the characters who appear in a series of cleverly constructed and interwoven vignettes that all seem to be going nowhere, and yet...

If the story were simply that, it could tend to be boring, and even quite predictable. Not so. The script and the director rip into our expectations with a host of innovative scenes that are all too commonplace, but which are turned into believable, extraordinary events that allow the two possible lovers to meet again. For example, the next time some bird poo from the sky drops onto a book or paper of yours, consider your alternatives; two characters make an obvious choice that must occur before Irene and her man of destiny meet again. Or what about a stone chip flying onto your windscreen? Consider again what would happen...

All of that is interesting enough. What was more interesting for me was assessing each new man who came along and trying to decide whether this guy was THE ONE for Irene, or whether it was, in fact, the young man on the train. That kept me guessing for a while.

I'll let you think about that, should you see this delightful romp.

Recommended for all.

This jewel of a film really shines

[deming · 9/10 · 25 June 2000]

The fluttering of butterfly wings in the Atlantic can unleash a hurricane in the Pacific. According to this theory (somehow related to the Chaos Theory, I'm not sure exactly how), every action, no matter how small or insignificant, will start a chain reaction that can lead to big events. This small jewel of a film shows us a series of seemingly-unrelated characters, most of them in Paris, whose actions will affect each others' lives. (The six-degrees-of-separation theory can be applied as well.) Each story is a facet of the jewel that is this film. The acting is finely-tuned and nuanced (Audrey Tautou is luminous), the stories mesh plausibly, the humor is just right, and the viewer leaves the theatre nodding in agreement.

give fate a chance

[lee_eisenberg · 7/10 · 11 October 2010]

Laurent Firode's peculiar "Happenstance" (called "Le Battement d'ailes du papillon" in its original French) focuses on the theory of the butterfly effect, meaning that any action or decision, no matter how small or insignificant it seems, will cause other things to happen. The movie focuses on several different individuals in Paris over the course of one day, as their lives intersect and their actions affect each other.

Any movie like this - others include "The Cooler" and "Match Point" - begs the question as to whether or not our lives flow independently or are in fact getting influenced directly by each other (as it was, the last scene in "The Shining" posed this question also). One could easily look at the course of world history to find events that, had they turned out differently, would have easily changed the course of history.* But a person could spend eternity talking about that. "Happenstance" is certainly fun to watch, gazing at the characters as their actions initiate a new series of events every time. And of course, who doesn't like the sight of Audrey Tautou? I recommend it.

Also starring Faudel, Eric Savin, Nathalie Besançon and Lysiane Meis.

*Without World War II, power might never have shifted from Europe to the United States.

loved it

[mercedesmoon · 10/10 · 26 April 2004]

Most people who chase after movies featuring Audrey Tautou seem to not understand that Amelie was a character - it is not really Audrey Tautou's real life personality, hence, every movie she partakes in is not going to be Amelie part 2, part 3, etc.

Now with that said, I too picked up this movie simply because Audrey was in it. Yes, it's true, there is a big gap after the first scene where she isn't seen at all for maybe 45 min, but I didn't even miss her because I was having so much fun with the other characters. The guy who lies about everything is too funny, the guy who justifies people who run out of his cafe and skip out on the bill by finding coupons and such which balance out the loss, actually.... getting into all the characters here could take quite a while, but this is one of the best movies I've seen in a while.

Audrey Tautou's character Irene is not the overdone sugary girl that Amelie was. In fact, as Irene, her rudeness to a bum asking for change caught me off guard at first. In this film, Irene is a girl with good intentions, but over the course of a (very awful) day, her disposition becomes more and more sour and pessimistic.

What makes this film completely great is you have all these really interesting stories and plots building... very entertaining to watch, great scenery and shots, very colorful and never too slow, and all of the characters can actually act. The best part of the movie comes with about 20 minutes left.... this is when all of the plots start to mesh together and the ride really picks up and everything ties together and makes sense, and the whole butterfly effect blossoms. I swear, it was the best 20 minutes of film I've seen in quite a while, and the ending.... It made me think "damn I really lucked out finding this movie". The ending to this movie is top notch. Whoever wrote the script for this is brilliant, because not only are there all these other subplots going on, but to somehow make them all tie in together (and in a sensible manner, which is the case here) but also to make each character feel human and come alive, not just some stale persona used as a crutch to build up this whole butterfly effect... very impressive.

I highly suggest this movie as it's a great film to watch anytime, in any mood, with any company or alone.

Charming Look at Multi-Ethnic Lovers in a Very Urban Paris

[noralee · 7/10 · 6 December 2005]

"Happenstance" is the most New York-feeling Parisian film I've seen since "When the Cat's Away (Chacun cherche son chat). "

A film from last year released now to capitalize on the attention Audrey Tatou is getting for "Amelie," its French title is more apt: "Le Battement d'ailes du papillon (The Beating of the Butterfly's Wings)" as in summarizing chaos theory as a controlling element in our lives.

Tatou's gamine-ness is less annoying here because she only occasionally flashes that dazzling smile amidst her hapless adventures, and because she's part of a large, multi-ethnic ensemble, so large that it took me a long time to sort out the characters, especially as some of the cute guys and older women looked alike to me, and some of the characters fantasize what they should do such that I wasn't sure if they were doing that or not.

But I loved how urban the coincidences were, from immigrants to love nests to crowded subway cars to hanging around cafés.

The subtitles quite annoyingly gave both parts of a dialog at once.

(originally written 12/8/2001)

Plot is not enough

[random1-1 · 4/10 · 23 March 2002]

I found this film to be an interesting study in cause and effect but little more than that. The basic plot follows the lives of a handful of people and how their actions (deliberate and otherwise) effect the lives of the others. The film's premise holds great promise but I feel it fails to deliver on its promise. Too much time is spent telling the audience about chaos theory and too little time actually showing it. As a result, I never got a true feel for any of the characters and never made a good connection with them emotionally. By the end of the movie, I had a "so what" attitude about all of them. A stronger direction in character development would have made this movie great, but as it stands it is merely so-so

Best ending ever, ever, ever...

[leeloo67 · 10/10 · 22 February 2003]

To me, this review may contain spoilers, but I like watching movies with NO idea of what is going to happen, so therefore I think many of the other reviews here of this movie contain spoilers!

I just watched this movie again, and I must reiterate that it has the BEST ending to any movie. Ever. Ever. Ever. The real translation, 'The Beating of the Butterfly's Wings', is oddly not used as the translated title. I suppose they thought most Americans wouldn't know what Chaos Theory is (except for those who saw or read "Jurassic Park"). The movie is based on chaos theory, and how one small event can affect the outcome of seemingly unrelated events, which all lead back to one event. The movie is a whirlwind of wondrous cause and effect, as we follow the chain of chaos as it intertwines between several characters (about 20?). In a way, the ending seems inevitable despite this, but if you think about it, it is a perfect ending. Think to yourself, "what else needed to be said"? It is at the same time a very brave ending. Too bad we have to go overseas for a gem like this one, but an ending like this would NEVER come out of Hollywood.

It's a Small World After All

[crypticcrytic · 7/10 · 16 May 2002]

Seldom do we see such short comments written by IMDb filmgoers. Perhaps it's because this lightweight dark comedy entertains and pleases without depth, or are we missing something? I'd watch it again if I had some incentive.

So what's a happenstance? To the French it is "Le Battement d'Ailes du Papillon" Serendipity? Fate? Perhaps it's an event that is the culmination of a series of random happenings. We've all had these (it's called life) but when looked at in this way, you begin to get the feeling that "random" might be more like "fated."

A 'happenstance' in this film might be an occurrence as minor as knocking a few leaves of lettuce off the back of a truck or as major as basing a major life decision on the accuracy of a stranger tossing of a pebble. All these incidents cause other events that ... well you get the picture? Dominoes. Multiply those by 30 characters and an average of 6 each and you have to really stretch your imagination to accept the remote chance that this scenario could happen. And I think that there's a diagnosis for those who believe that life is like this. But then this is the magic world of cinema.

We admit that it is fun to watch the way the writer/director weaves together these unrelated events into a story which enmeshes the lives of these French citizens. If you have a couple of hours and are looking for a whimsical escape, here's the place to do it. Or if you're recovering from surgery and aren't going anywhere anyway, this will engage you while your stitches are healing.

"Happenstance" will not go down as an award winner but it should develop a cult following. Stranger things have happened.

Soren Kierkegaard is attributed with the following: "Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forward." If you looked at the detail in many of your own life experiences (meeting your first love, finding the perfect gift, your last auto accident) you would find a series of seemingly random events leading up to it.

That's the answer! I forgot to bring along an existentialist to explain "Happenstance" to me.

Every action has a reaction...and my reaction to this film is--BORING

[three-m · 4/10 · 1 January 2009]

A missed train. A wrong phone number. An extra cup of coffee. What happens to those around you when you make a seemingly innocuous decision? Most people don't give it a thought as they absorbed in their own thoughts and actions.

"Happenstance" tells the story of the interrelations and cause-and-effect of the mundane as it pertains to a group of normal Parisian folk. It has all the components of what passes for contemporary theater, with the full cast of the dysfunctional and disillusioned.

There's a cheating husband, an illegal immigrant, a classic slacker, a pickpocket, a crazy grandmother, an annoying girlfriend, a selfish roommate, and a homeless man. Audrey Tautou serves as the erstwhile protagonist (in the sense that she's on camera as much as anyone else and opens and closes the film) and normal girl who just can't seem to find the right rhythm in her life.

She learns at the beginning of her day from a stranger on a train what her horoscope holds for her. What happens to her in the course of the day is told through various characters. Does the prediction come true? The concept is good, but the storytelling is flimsy. The connections from one event to the next are weak. There's better storytelling in 15 seconds of the Liberty Mutual insurance commercial where one person sees a good deed and passes it along to another than there is in two hours of Happenstance.

If you enjoy Audrey Tautou, then you certainly can sacrifice the time for this film, but you'll finish it dissatisfied and wondering what this same storyline could be if it were handled by a better producer and director.

a clever scenario is not just a clever scenario

[eric.rambeau · 28 June 2000]

Films that crisscross different stories are no novelty (Short Cuts, Magnolia, Iossellani's "Favoris de la lune"...) but few of them have dared go as far as "Le battement d'ailes...". It would take a good deal of thinking and remembering to tell just HOW MANY stories are embedded in this wonder. And it would be pointless because, precisely, the object of the film is to show that it is not possible to separate one individual story from another.

One day in the life of so many people, characters that can be in turn charming, infuriating, lovable... And, on top of that, you get the feeling the director really loves them all (or, at any rate, most of them because some are frankly off-putting. That's life, here, just for you, on the screen.

a series of events expertly woven

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 22 March 2006]

This isn't exactly a great film, but I admire the writers and director for trying something a little different. The film's main theme is fate and small, seemingly insignificant things that can greatly change the future. In some ways this reminds me of the film SLIDING DOORS, though instead of focusing on one random event, seemingly random stuff happens repeatedly and each one helps build to the cute conclusion. Plus, an odd bald guy seems to understand all this and he talks about this during one brief scene--like he's some sort of omnipotent being but there's absolutely no explanation of him in the film (like the two guys that fight each other in the clock tower in THE HUDSUCKER PROXY).

The DVD jacket shows just Audrey Tautou. This is capitalize on her success in AMELIE, though she is only one of many actors in the film and there is no one starring role. The pace is brisk, the acting fine and the conclusion isn't bad at all. The only reason I didn't score it higher is that some of the characters were a bit uninteresting and I think the movie could have perhaps been tightened up with a few less subplots.

Happenstance

[lasttimeisaw · 6/10 · 5 June 2013]

It's Audrey Tautou before AMELIE (2001, 9/10), from writer/director Laurent Firode, HAPPENSTANCE is adept in contriving a string of butterfly effects engendered among two dozens of people in one day until at the very end concludes with a boy-meet-girl scenario, they share the same birthday and meet earlier in the morning, then fate brings them together in its unique design, with a bruised nose.

The brisk premise of a horoscopic premonition is intriguing, the pace is upbeat and the camera is restless in introducing a kaleidoscope of quirky dramatis personae into the stage one after another, bewildering sometimes, then once we get a hold of that it is an assemble piece whose mainstay is hanging on a thin theory of unwitting behavior's chain-reaction, its allure begins to dwindle, the desultory contrivance oversteps the original intention of "an accidental slice-of- life", the story is totally at the disposal of writer's wild and arbitrary imagination as long as the circle meets its end in the coda (not such a demanding request for one who is capable of imagining), which could be assessed as an artistic shortchange fails to meet the face value of a feature film, a concise short form is enough to spread this one-track mind precept.

There are no clear leads inasmuch as the bulky cast, so besides Tautou and Faudel's belated encounter, other threads never have their own closures, e.g. Eric Feldman's mendacious museum guard and Eric Savin's wavering husband, neither find their answers in their respective stores. Maybe it is what happens in real life, but as an entity, the loose-ends are despondent and incompetent. Luckily, the film should be merited for its variegated caricature of human behaviors, mostly are transient due to the repetitive structure, nevertheless the film entertains audiences in its down-to-earth earnestness and leaves us a wistful sigh only if fatalism could dominate the world, life would be much easier and simpler!

Best Final Scene of Any Movie Ever

[lizamayyyy · 8/10 · 28 April 2002]

This entire movie is worth watching just for the magnificent final moment - its the best ending of any movie I've ever seen. Perfect, beautiful, funny, simply wonderful.

I found this movie delightful, even with it's French taking-itself-too-seriously deep meanings thing going on. I loved it - it's a great love story. And I loved the way Algerians were woven in - and by the way, the music during the final credits is great. I want the CD!

Butterflies

[jotix100 · 8/10 · 18 November 2006]

This whimsical film had the misfortune of being released at the same time of the highly popular "Amelie", both having the wonderful Audrey Tautou playing the central role. Laurent Firode, the talented director made one of the most enjoyable films that have come out of France in recent memory.

The film deals with chance, as its English title indicates. The French title makes reference at how butterflies wings can create chaos over the Atlantic as they fly, as well as hurricanes in the Pacific, something not to be believed just by looking at these colorful insects. From the start, the director interlaces all the characters one sees in the film and how each has a connection to the other, something that is hard to imagine, but in the film's context seems to work well.

A chance meeting at the metro sets the tone for the film. Irene, who is going to work, is asked by the woman sitting opposite her to tell her what her Zodiac sign is and proceeds to read from her paper. Irene, it seems will cross paths and will find her soul mate that same day. After Irene leaves the train, the quiet young man seated next to the woman tells her he has the same birth date as Irene. It seems they are destined to one another from the start, but alas, they will not reconnect until the last frame of the film.

Audrey Tautou is wonderful as Irene. Faudel, who plays Younes, doesn't have a lot to do until the end, but he shows he has a presence and plays well his part. The talented young cast makes a valuable contribution to the success of the film, which is as light as butterfly wings.

We look forward to future films by Laurent Firode because he appears to be a director with the heart in the right place and an ear to the way humans are connected.

Butterfly Wings mounted on a Science Fair Project

[film-critic · 2/10 · 26 July 2006]

Witty. Quirky. Genuine. Surreal. Butterfly wings? One could ask what all of these words best describe, and some (those in fuse with the international film community) may quickly say Happenstance, but others may jump aboard the more American train and immediately yell, The Butterfly Effect. Strangely, I would be one of those screaming for that sci-fi Kutcher film mainly because none of those words that I initially mentioned at the start of this paragraph accurately depicts the Tautou feature that I witnessed. Sure, we all loved her in Amelie and thought she was the daughter of Jesus in The Da Vinci Code, but in this film first-time director (of a feature film at least) Laurent Firode doesn't give Tautou the opportunity to shine. Sadly, he gives nobody the opportunity to really demonstrate themselves because he is too delicately caught up in the moments of "random chance" to bring this film to anything but just a shimmer (never a true boil). Firode has ample, and I use "ample" as a small word, moments throughout this film where he could have built us a fantastical story, a genuinely whimsical fairy-tale of love and coincidence, but instead he fell face-first into a mud-bucket of chaotic intertwining that overwhelmed us with inconsistent characters and a story that left us gasping for less.

Tautou's beautiful face adorns the cover of this box, but do not be so taken immediately as I did in assuming that this was going to be another monumental journey into Tautou's French cinema. Tautou is in this film, do not get me wrong, but one could argue that she is not at the center of this story. Firode's job is to create a series of random events that eventually will lead to an audience friendly (albeit confusing) ending which exemplifies that meaning of refreshing "melodrama". He utterly, utterly fails. Firode fails by giving us, the audience, too many characters. With too many characters he gives us too many random interventions, and by the end you don't really care who is who, or what is what, or how is how; your main focus happens to be centered solely on the ending credits and the time destination of their arrival. Tautou could have saved this film from the disaster it was if only Firode would have given her the center. Alas, he did not, but attempted to seemingly force a group of 12 through a theoretical film hole about the size of a penny. It just didn't work and we were left with a jam in which we were completely stuck.

Firode fails because he focus' so intently on the minor details that, for one of those rare film occurrences, he actually forgets the central focus. I can say that there was no defined central focus to Happenstance. In the beginning he attempts to create one with our two supposed main characters discovering that they share the same birthday and their horoscope promises love by the moonlight, but we never go back to that throughout the film. Instead, again, we are bombarded with new characters, stuffy scenes, and meaningless drivel obviously chosen to direct us away from an actual story and more into a world full of "ifs, ands, and buts". I couldn't do it. I couldn't believe this film. Writer Firode (yes, the same guy directing this garbage) uses a technique so primitive in this film that I immediately felt like ending it immediately. He must have been assuming that many of us were incapable of actually following the storyline (or the scientific premise) because he grabs the aid of a homeless person to actually fill in the respective blanks. I didn't need this, nor do I think Firode needed to belittle his audience in this matter. While there were other elements that just didn't seem to work for me at all (again, felt like a jumbled Parisian collage of shredded paper), this was the icing on the cake. I don't need my hand held through films.

I will give this film one star for credit. This is a rather difficult genre to master successfully. Time travel films are especially hard because of the innumerable amounts of possibilities that are never accounted for, but with Happenstance it works because Firode semi-explores the different avenues. While I will counter with saying that he does not do it well, it did make for at least five full minutes of enjoyment. I liked where Firode was headed with this film, he had a genuinely diagramed story, but the final execution just blew this film to shreds. Firode could have saved this film if he would have strengthened his characters, while lightening up his premise and story. I think my overall mood of this film would have changed if just these two simple directions were taken. Oh, how I only wish I could time travel back to the production of this film to show Firode the errors of his ways.

Overall, for the first time (and probably last), this was a Tautou film that I must say utterly disappointed me. From the choppy opening to the apathetic ending, I just felt that Happenstance failed due to Firode's leadership and horrid marketing. Marketing is something that I didn't mention before, but why would anyone purchase this film thinking that it was an Amelie 2 (per the title released in Hong Kong), and why would you place Tautou squarely on the cover knowing full well that she wasn't carrying this film at all. I believe that from the first minute that passed on my DVD player, this film was in shambles. While I will applaud his subject, everything else was well below the level of mediocrity. I cannot suggest this film to anyone.

Grade: * out of *****

Another segment in the life of Audrey Tautou.

[LeRoyMarko · 8/10 · 3 April 2002]

This movie would probably have not been shown in North America if it wasn't for the success that «Amélie» had. And in some way, they're both the same kind of movie: an approach to life that could seem simplist at first. In this one, we see how destiny changes lives. It reminded me of «Run Lola Run», with a slower pace.

An enjoyable movie. A feel-good movie.

Out of 100, I gave it 80. That's *** out of **** stars.

Seen in Toronto, at the Carleton Odeon Cinemas, on March 24th, 2002.

hapless stances of the crassed criss-crossing

[ThurstonHunger · 5/10 · 3 June 2004]

An admirable attempt that winds up about as charming and magical as calculating a checksum. Still to create a "love story" wherein the main characters never speak to each other was an interesting feat. Ultimately I got the sense that the director didn't want us to attach to any one character too much for fear that we would lose track of the plight and the path of the cosmic pinball connecting them all.

Other films have traced the vagaries of existence, I'll never forget "Slacker" and its camera-as-transmittable-disease approach. That film, and others had characters that drew you in with more than a powerful pout and a pop star. Also the idiots in that film were more reckless than wretched. Here we have some despicable folks...

One of them is, pardon my (lack of) french, a dick. Indeed that is how he is introduced to us, full frontal and head on. We've also got a heartless mother, a selfish roommate, a compassionless store clerk, a petty thief and a liar. Well at least the liar does have a bit of reckoning, and provides some humor along the way.

At various points in the film, popular methods of charting the fates are engaged. A horoscope, tarot cards, a palm reading, a strange scrambling of the letters of a name, I don't think there were any tea leaves to be read. These methods are generally dismissed, but the intricate criss-crossing of the crasser crowd does help to guide our stars towards a more star-crossed pairing.

Will they meet or miss by the width of a butterfly's wing??

More importantly, will the audience care? At the end of the film, I found myself more intrigued by a bald character who we meet during another game of chance in a park (when "le penis" stakes his actions to the toss of a pebble). His bald comments and clear voicing of intention make him stand out like a lucid dream.

What the hell is he doing? Is his act of volition meant to taunt us, the invisible voyeurs in every scene? Or is he god...not playing dice with the universe, but loading the pebble? I'm afraid I'm making this film seem more interesting than it was...the battle of will versus fate versus karma versus various crystal balls, like the depth of the characters never quite gets to the foreground.

But perhaps by my not enjoying this film so much, I will not tip as much the next time I go out to eat, so your roommate will come home in a crabby mood, so you'll not go out to the Bottom of the Hill together, instead you'll rent a movie from the bald incarnation of Zeus at your local video store who *intentionally* will slip this DVD into the "Slacker" box you thought you were going to rent.

And you'll love it...

But in case that doesn't happen...

5/10

fate and perception

[johnnyleston · 28 March 2004]

Laurent Firode's film Happenstance (2000) is an extended meditation on the relationship between fate and perception. In a film with few real characters and no discernable plot, Firode would seem to be doing nothing more than expounding a form of applied chaos theory if it wasn't for the fact that this film is so much fun. The joy of this film comes with the god's-eye view afforded to the viewer. In a single day of Parisian urban interactions, none of the characters perceive the intricate web of chance that ties them together to the delight of the audience.

Happenstance uses chance relations to construct a paradigm which allows for a kind of karmic justice to flourish. As the human mind develops free will from the deterministic relationships of atoms and molecules, so justice emerges from a series of random seeming encounters. The lovers meet, as they were destined to. The cheating husband avoids harming his innocent son. Luc Gossard admits his failings, and while he loses his job, he gains his inheritance.

This perspective could be termed a sort of theoretical physicist's version of karma. Complex systems with seemingly random cause-effect relations are recognized to have very significant levels of emergent organization when seen from different scales. The human mind is one example; the formation of the solar system from clouds of cosmic dust is another. Biology can offer the concept of evolution, which is based on random-seeming interactions between predator and prey leading to extremely complex forms and survival mechanisms, from the venus fly trap to the giraffe. Is it so very unbelievable that a network of humans (intelligent particles) can exhibit an emergent intelligence of its own?

jonny muggs

One of the Best Movies EVER!

[Solo_a14 · 10/10 · 24 September 2004]

REnted this one accidentally, it was behind the movie box of what i thought i was renting, didn't find out until i got home, watched it anyways. Absolutely FANTASTIC! a wonderful movie, and one of my top three favorite of all time, i recommend it to Everyone!

The story is enjoyable and easy to follow, this could have been easily messed up, but the actors and director do a great job of keeping it together.

The actors themselves are fantastic, displaying wonderful character and doing a terrific job.

Gotta find a copy somewhere...........

A fantastic film

[jakobs_peter · 10/10 · 21 September 2001]

This film has renewed my interest in French cinema. The story is enchanting, the acting is flawless and Audrey Tautou is absolutely beautiful. I imagine that we will be seeing a lot more of her in the States after her upcoming role in Amelie.