Cult Review
Senior Film Conservator
If you have a soft spot for grainy, old-school dramas that don't care much for pacing, give it a shot. People who need constant momentum or high-def clarity will probably hate this with a passion. It’s for the folks who like staring at old wallpaper and trying to figure out why people are whispering in the corner. 🕵️♂️
There’s something about La complice that feels like finding an old envelope in an attic. It’s not exactly a masterpiece, but it’s got this weird, persistent hum to it.
The dialogue moves at the speed of a tired turtle. You’ll find yourself waiting for someone to just say it already, but they never quite do. Régine Poncet has this way of looking at the camera that makes you think she’s hiding a sandwich in her coat pocket. Or maybe just a heavy secret. Who knows.
I found myself zoning out during the long walks through hallways that seem to go on for miles. The lighting is hit-or-miss—sometimes it’s moody, other times it’s just dark enough to hide the budget constraints. 🎞️
Reminds me a bit of The Donovan Affair, where everything feels slightly claustrophobic. You’re just trapped in a room with people who are probably lying to you.
It’s not as snappy as Chickens Come Home, obviously. That’s a totally different beast. But there’s a stubbornness here that I kind of respect.
I stopped caring about the actual mystery halfway through. Once I realized the plot was just a clothesline to hang these performances on, I just started watching the way the smoke drifted across the lens. 💨
Is it great? No. Is it interesting? Maybe in the way a broken clock is still right twice a day. Don't go in expecting to be blown away. Just go in for the mood, if you're into that sort of thing.

Year
1932
IMDb Rating
—

Editorial
Deciphering the legacy of transgressive cult cinema.
Community
Log in to comment.