Matrixiole Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Patience Watson One of those movie experiences that is so good it makes you realize you've been grading everything else on a curve.

Rosie Searle It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

MARIO GAUCI Though coming from Chabrol's major phase (1967-1975), this was only recently released on DVD – and exclusively on R2 at that!; still, I had missed an incongruous Saturday morning broadcast of the film on Italian TV several years back. Ironically, even if it can lay a claim to being among the director's best-regarded efforts, I admit to having found such lesser-known Chabrol titles as DEATH RITE (1976) and ALICE OR THE LAST ESCAPADE (1977) – both of which immediately preceded this viewing – more readily satisfying…though the fact that JUST BEFORE NIGHTFALL treads typically bourgeois i.e. inherently mundane territory, whereas the others were fanciful (thus essentially lightweight), may have had more to do with this than anything else! Actually, my main quibble with the film is its overlength (due to the protagonist's wallowing in self-pity, this being basically an update of Dostoyevsky's literary classic "Crime And Punishment", during the last act); in a way, it is also a reversal of Chabrol's own LA FEMME INFIDELE (1969), with the very same stars (Michel Bouquet and Stephane Audran) no less. In the latter she is initially oblivious – and eventually forgiving – of his having learnt about her infidelity and murdered the other man, while here it is he who has a clandestine affair, kills the woman concerned and then confesses to both the wife and his best friend (husband of the deceased and played by Francois Perier), both of whom try to convince the guilt-stricken hero thereafter not to give himself up to the Police (she even taking extreme measures to this end)! Audran, still at the height of her statuesque beauty, is a particular delight and she went on to win a BAFTA award for it (shared for the actress' famously unruffled turn in that Luis Bunuel masterpiece THE DISCREET CHARM OF THE BOURGEOISIE [1972]).A subplot, then, depicts a comparable folly to the protagonist's – where the elderly and meek-looking cashier in Bouquet's firm embezzles funds to sustain his unlikely romance with a much younger woman (not that the perennially exhausted hero bore the looks of a Casanova himself but, at least, his sluttish mistress is clearly shown to be into sado-masochism). Ultimately, such ironic yet provocative (indeed quasi-surrealist) psychological nuances, are what make Chabrol's work so intriguing and quietly rewarding – more so, in fact, than perhaps any other of the "Nouvelle Vague" film-makers.

Theaetetus This is the most morally exquisite of Chabrol's many explorations of the human condition. Guilt, forgiveness, revenge coexist and mutually triumph. Many of us assume these three moral stances are mutually incompatible. Chabrol balances them against each other and then fuses them together. The actors reveal their inner dilemmas with gestures more than words. Deep intentions run across surface motives. And the final gesture of this compelling film casts all that went before into another, deeper level. Of course, no deed is as simple as it seems. But few appreciate as Chabrol does here that our all too common morally mixed motives can continue to coexist to the grave. No evil deed is ever straightforward, but neither are the best ones. Had Chabrol filmed this in the style of Bergman, this film would be a Criterion Classic. But filmed as a thriller, it has sadly failed to gain the audience and admiration it so richly deserves. It is a philosophical triumph!

writers_reign This is perhaps best viewed as a complement to La Femme Infidele inasmuch as both films feature infidelity in the well-heeled set and in both cases infidelity segues into murder with both murderers confiding in their spouses - those same spouses on whom they'd been cheating - whilst waiting to be nailed by the flics. Staphane Audran (then Madame Chabrol) is common to both films playing the adulterous wife in the first and then seeing how it felt to be cheated on in this one. This is often spoken of as a great period - late 60s, early 70s - for Chabrol and he certainly turned out some slick, glossy, psychological thrillers at the time, favouring a pastel, muted colour and steady, reliable actors. This is no exception and all three principals cannot be faulted performance-wise but it's difficult to escape the feeling that the whole thing is a tad over-clinical.

patate-2 One (Perrier) is architect. The other (Bouquet) is an advertisement executive. They've been friends forever and Perrier even designed the Bouquet residence (lady of the house speaking), a tremendous house. Bouquet who is married to Audran has an affair with his friend's wife. They play S&M and he kills her by accident. Every hint points the culprit but no-one wants to face the scandal. Perrier forgives him. Bouquet who wants to be punished decides to face justice but his wife puts him to sleep before he does. About that for a plot, Hollywood? Money can't buy talent.