User reviews

"The Woman in the Fifth" throws us into the middle of the story. Seemingly a perfect way to start, a back-story is implied begging to be told, and future events destined to unfold to eventually come together in an interesting climax and dénouement. But the back-story never was revealed and the plot elements are indiscernible to the average eye.

Tom (Ethan Hawke) is an American writer moving to Paris. His first novel was a moderate success and he is most likely suffering from various creative blocks, probably not helped by the fact that his ex-wife has a restraining order against him, prohibiting him from seeing his daughter.

At this point, we are driven into a world of crime – not surprising for a thriller, but we don't know what crimes yet. Broke and alone, Tom makes a deal with a shady "businessman", develops an affair with a mysterious worldly woman (Kristin Scott Thomas) and then develops an affair with a sweetly mysterious waitress (Joanna Kulig).

For the few crimes that we do know were committed, it's awfully hard to understand why or by whom. The reality of the film and the imagination (or fantasy) element of the film are most likely impossible to separate. Almost all viewers have come up with different explanations, if they came up with any.

It can be interesting watching a jarring film and deduce whatever explanation you like. It can also be disappointing if you don't come up with any explanation that you like. I'm afraid I fall into the latter group.

That being said, it's nice seeing Ethan Hawke in a lead role in an indie. And speaking French no less (not perfectly, but it fits the role)! The imagery and cinematography chosen for this film were interesting and walked the thin line between thriller and horror, helped along with a slightly off-beat score. "The Woman in the Fifth" is off- beat, if it's anything at all.

The Woman in the Fifth (2011)

Well, the reason this movie gets some pretty awful reviews is the utter confusion of the plot. And yet it's a deliberate confusion--which is no excuse. It just means this isn't quite bad filmmaking, but a bad decision or two taken too far.

You see, the main character, played with ease and almost familiarity by Ethan Hawke, is mentally unstable. He seems to have two distinct realities, and these are easily confused by the viewer. And in one of these realities he does terrible things, though it isn't clear because we see those terrible things as innocently as he does (which is to say, not at all, it seems).

The character, Tom Ricks, is an American in Paris, a writer ostensibly in town to find and visit his daughter. But the mother's reaction to his showing up at their house is the first clue that something is wrong. This seemingly smart and very nice fellow scares her to call to the police. We see Ricks run to save himself from arrest but we don't quite know if he's to blame or if the mother is just overreacting.

The fact is the confusions in the movie are overwhelming. Maybe there was a better logic somewhere that an editor, under pressure from a producer or distributor, made much out of. Or maybe it was an artful decision to leave us bewildered, to spend time and emotional energy gathering the pieces and clues. The director, Pawel Pawlikowski, has something of a success or two behind him and so might have pretensions that got the better of things here.

In a way, the movie is better than it's overall impression by the end. There are numerous scenes that show a modern Paris very far removed--and much more revealing--than the glorified city seen in both mainstream French movies and American love letters like Woody Allen's recent time-travel. And the acting is overall restrained and convincing. In its bones, this is a substantial movie. Most of all, the cinematography is superb, some of the best creative stuff I've seen recently, dependent not on creative editing but on smart visual seeing--framing, kinetics, focus, and so on. I think you could watch it on many levels with great pleasure if you knew ahead of time the overall meaning and plot were going to be a mess.

Without forewarning, I'm guessing it leaves mostly frustration and bitterness.

To say that Tom is down on his luck is an understatement. He has lost his job as a university lecturer on literature and flown to Paris in search of his young daughter, Chloe, and his wife, who has had a restraining order issued against him. His bag is stolen on the bus; he has no money, and is forced to rent a grotty room in a down-and-out Parisian café, owned by a domineering, criminal character called Sezer.

Tom has also written a novel. He has no faith in it, but it clearly shows potential. His passion for literature seems to have been extinguished by the time we meet him; yet he hopes that writing a second novel will bring him some income. In the meantime, Sezer sets him up with a scary night shift in an underground bunker, where he must watch a screen for six hours each night and only allow people to enter if they know the correct 'password'.

It is at a literary gathering that Tom meets Margit. From the first moment she appears, we get goosebumps. The effect she has on Tom is electric – it might not be love at first sight, but there is something cool, mysterious and effortlessly sensual about Margit that immediately captivates him. From a simple glance through a doorway, he is compelled to follow her onto the balcony. The conversation they have there is tinged with sadness and sinister undertones; she recognises something in Tom and hands him her card, telling him to call 'any time after four', before slipping away. Who is this woman? Why does she unsettle us so much?

Ethan Hawke plays Tom. Critics have complained about his dodgy French accent, but try and put this into perspective. He is playing an outsider, a foreigner who is able to get by in conversation. Surely the American accent adds to the authenticity of the role, and emphasises his isolation. Give him a break – it's a fine performance.

Even more impressive, though, is Kristin Scott Thomas as the ethereal Margit. It is not the details of her life or the tragedy in her past that fascinates us – these are eventually revealed, but they won't be what you remember most. It is the constant performance – the cold, removed beauty of this character that startles us. Intelligent, demure and sinister, there is a potent dread and sorrow that pervades the scenes she is in, and permeates throughout the rest of the film in ripples that seem to emanate from her presence.

Consider the first time Tom visits her apartment. He is awkward, and tries to make small talk. He asks about her husband, a Hungarian writer. She indulges him for a short time, but they have no delusions. Both know very well why he is there. The shot that follows is perhaps the finest in the entire film; finally, we have found someone who understands how to film sex. It is sad to think that so many directors believe that the more you show, the more erotic the scene is. The tension in that apartment is almost unbearable, and sex does not diffuse it. Watch closely as Tom tries to kiss Margit, at what point she stops him and undoes his trousers. No detail is shown, and even the sounds of rustling material are muted. The camera focuses on their faces, in one steady, unmoving shot: Tom recoils in shock, closes his eyes, murmurs, almost disintegrating from the overwhelming emotion and physical pleasure of this act. Margit only watches, silently, smiling knowingly as if she were gazing at a small child trying to learn the alphabet. She is in complete control, and knows it.

I am not sure how to describe 'The Woman In The Fifth'; the word 'strange' doesn't even scratch the surface. It is a classy movie – the aesthetics and cinematography are top notch (notice the deep reds and blacks that cling to Margit, for example), and the influence of Polish cinema is patent. Paris is an alien world – behind a romantic façade lie the gray skies, the lonely train tracks, the tragic aura of mystery and always the looming sense of danger and death. This is a movie that defies rational judgement, as the plot swings from one bizarre event to the next. The twist about two thirds of the way through had many cynics in the audience scoffing – I have to admit, I wasn't completely convinced. But we are in the hands of a director who has complete confidence in his medium, and by the end, I had a deep respect for his efforts. This movie isn't perfect, but it is nevertheless beguiling and utterly compelling. It takes some skill to blend the genres seen here so effortlessly – from domestic drama to romance to crime thriller and finally entering the realms of the supernatural, this shouldn't really work. Yet the threads between these genres and the themes on display are as tangible as those woven by spiders and serving to capture insects in the brief interludes within the film, often showing snapshots of nature in its deformed, frightening beauty, focusing in particular on a faraway woodland. Where is it? What do these images mean?

It only really struck me as I left the cinema just how desperately sad this movie is. Whatever else 'The Woman In The Fifth' explores, it is primarily about suffering and loss, and our need for love and human companionship. It may not be a masterpiece – I would argue its flaws are quite substantial - but it is never pretentious. Pawel Pawlikowski is a director who has a story to tell, and does so with flair and imagination, without ever alienating his audience. Surprisingly deep, concisely expressed and including within its short running time glimpses of cinematic genius, 'The Woman In The Fifth' is an unassuming little gem. I highly recommend it.

The American professor of literature and novelist Tom Hicks (Ethan Hawke) travels to Paris to see his beloved daughter Chloé (Julie Papillon) that lives with her mother Nathalie (Delphine Chuillot). However, Nathalie uses the restraining order to call the police and avoid letting Tom to meet Chloé.

Tom flees from the police and takes a bus but he is tired and sleeps. When he awakes in a poor neighborhood, he finds that his luggage and money were robbed. He goes to a bar and the Polish waitress Ania (Joanna Kulig) brings a coffee for him. He asks for a room and explains that he had been robbed and she asks him to talk with the owner Sezer (Samir Guesmi) that allows him to stay in a very low budget room and pay him later. Then Sezer offers a job of night watchman in a suspect building.

One day, Tom goes to a bookstore and is invited to a party with writers where he meets Margit Kadar (Kristin Scott Thomas), who is a translator and widow of a Hungarian writer. She gives her address and telephone to Tom. Soon Tom has a love affair with Margit at her apartment and with Ania on the roof of the bar. But Tom is also obsessed by his daughter, snooping around Chloé during the days. When his next door neighbor at the hotel that is blackmailing Tom is found dead, his only alibi is Margit. But when the police officers go to her place, they discover that she had committed suicide many years ago.

"La femme du Vème" is one of those movies like "Triangle" where there is no explanation for bizarre and surrealistic situations. I am not sure whether the director Pawel Pawlikowski had this intention or not, but forget any explanation about the plot and simply enjoy (or not) the movie.

David Lynch is the master of this style while Claude Chabrol was the French master of thrillers with open endings to make the viewer think and discuss possibilities. But this is the practically unknown Pawel Pawlikowski and I was disappointed with the lack of conclusion of the good plot. But as an unconditional fan of Kristin Scott Thomas and Ethan Hawke, I do not regret this strange experience. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "Estranha Obsessão" ("Weird Obsession")

Douglas Kennedy's perplexing novel THE WOMAN IN THE FIFTH has been further contorted by writer/director Pawel Pawlikowski for the film of the same name (aka La femme du Vème). If the viewer has read the novel then the confusion of the story will not be as surprising as it is to the novice viewer. In many ways this is a brilliant cinematic exploration of the fragility of the human mind, how events of the past can influence the manner in which we attempt to reconstruct a viable present. But in other ways this is a film that refuses to tell a story that is logical and will leave many viewers with some serious head scratching by movie's end.

Academic professor of literature and writer Tom Hicks (Ethan Hawke) seems to be fleeing America in the wake of a scandal simply because he wants to see his six-year-old daughter Chloé (Julie Papillon): Tom's estranged wife Nathalie (Delphine Chuillot) refuses to let Tom see his daughter, has a restraining order in place and seems fearful of Tom's character (it is suggested that Tom may have been in prison for the past six years). The police are called and Tom escapes onto a bus, falls asleep and s awakened at the end of the line having been robbed of this luggage and money. He is in the sleazy part of Paris inhabited by North Africans and Moroccans and finds a degree of solace in a tiny café, the beautiful Polish waitress Ania (Joanna Kulig) offers him coffee and introduces him to the owner, Sezer (Samir Guesmi) who allows him to room in the filthy place, an offer that is accompanied by a 'job' where he will be a night watchman in a warehouse visited by shadowy figures who must give a code for Tom to allow entry. Tom uses his night jobsite to write lengthy letters to Chloé and spends his days spying on her at her school. At a bookstore he meets a fellow American who invites him to an evening reception for writers and there he encounters the very strange Margit (Kristin Scott Thomas), a bewitching but enigmatic widow of a Hungarian writer who is obviously attracted to Tom and sets meeting times and places for them to engage in a tryst (in the Fifth Arrondissement). Tom and Margit begin a tempestuous physical affair but at the same time Tom and Ania have an equally passionate affair and there is always in the background Tom's obsession to reunite with his daughter. But the story implodes with a murder, a disappearance, and a very strange change in the veracity of Margit's existence. It is at this point that the film becomes purposefully deranged and bizarre and the audience is left with merely some ideas and clues as to what has really happened. How are these incongruous events to make sense? Can they make sense? Is Tom succumbing to the same fever that kept him sheltered for many days upon his arrival in beautiful Paris? Has time somehow passed him by or is he living in an even grander deceit than he first thought?

The film is basically in French with English subtitles. Ethan Hawke struggle with the French but that is credible for a 'just arrived' American. Kristin Scott Thomas offers her usual excellent skills as the strange Margit and the remainder of the cast do well with what little dialogue they are given. The dank atmospheric cinematography is by Ryszard Lenczewski and the correctly strange musical score (from an aria form a Handel opera sung by a countertenor to piano music excerpts form the Romantic era) is the work of Max de Wardener. Pawel Pawlikowski's moody, menacing, downbeat film takes something from the director's Polish compatriots Polanski and Kieslowski. It is offbeat but for those who appreciate experimental cinema this is well worth your time.

Grady Harp

I really like Ethan Hawke as an actor. I don't even know why I do. He wasn't really on my radar until Sinister, and I've worked my way back from there. But as much as I enjoy him acting (if not his films themselves aside from Sinister and Daybreakers), even that can't make me say this was a good film, and as much as I enjoy abstraction and expression, there are some things I'm left not understanding, but the film is unfortunately too boring and underwhelming to have warranted a thousand think pieces by film essayists, so I'm left scrunching my face somewhat.

I enjoyed Ethan, at least, but I'd never recommend this or watch this again. It's not fascinatingly vague and open to interpretation; it's just vague. It's clearly a movie pretending to be something it's not. I was sitting here thinking a fascinating story would have been about his same situation (sans the family I couldn't care less about) but focusing on his "job" in the locked room. There were many mysteries and thrills they could have made out of it instead of the pretentious, half-baked, poorly paced, dull "story" we actually got. (Also, the characterization of the immigrant characters is suspect.)

Despite the promise of a collaboration between Pawel Pawlikowski, Ethan Hawke, Joanna Kulig, and Kristin Scott Thomas set in Paris, this film fizzles into a frustrating, rather dreary mess. In a nutshell, an American writer (Hawke) shows up at his ex-wife's apartment, hoping to see their daughter. She calls the police on him and he flees, and after being robbed on a train, he ends up in a seedy hotel. He takes a shady job to pay for his room, and gets involved with a couple of women, one of whom was the muse for a Hungarian author (Scott Thomas), and another who works at the hotel (Kulig). Things go south when a man trying to blackmail him turns up dead, and the muse (who is also his alibi for the evening in question) turns out to be imaginary.

The meaning to the film is probably along the lines of an artist struggling with his own sanity, and having to make difficult choices between creative output and family, all while living in impoverished conditions. He tries to write beautiful, touching work but he's doing so in the dingiest of places, the struggle of which has been felt by a large number of artists since time began. While Kulig and Scott Thomas felt rather wasted in their parts, Hawke shows his range here and has several fine moments, which were the highlights of the film.

Where it falls down is in the narrative, which is too vague and open-ended. I disliked the muse reveal, and thought the murder was an odd bit of drama, things that sent the story over the rails for me. I wondered about what had led to the restraining order which was alluded to early on, and wished that the film had focused more on the dynamic with his ex-wife and child, as opposed to the other women in Paris. How much of this is in the imagination of the author is subject to interpretation and that's kind of interesting, but ultimately it just doesn't come together.

Watch this with a group and have a great discussion on questions like: What happened in that movie? What was that about? How much of the content was symbolic and how much of it was actually concrete?

Or watch it alone and become miserably confused.

There are films that pretend to be high art, and The Woman in the Fifth is clearly one of them. It insults your intelligence with its twists, because if a film were to suggest everything had happened in the protagonist's mind, then surely, why bother with this story when you can imagine everything yourself just by looking at the poster and watching the trailer. And surprisingly this is based on a novel written by Douglas Kennedy, so there should be a story at least, unless something went wrong with director Pawel Pawlikowski's adaptation of the screenplay.

A French-British-Polish production, the film boasts the likes of Ethan Hawke and Kristin Scott Thomas, the latter being the titular woman, a widow of a not-so-well read Polish writer. But she appears only about halfway through the film, and we're left to follow Hawke's Tom Ricks, an American English literature professor and writer of only one book, who had journeyed to Paris indefinitely so that he can stalk his estranged wife, and kid. That's because he has a restraining order, and has to keep a distance. He loses all his possessions, and ends up in a motel-bar, where the goodwill of the owner Sezer (Samir Guesmi) meant he could live on credit for the time being.

One hour is spent together with Tom in getting into a routine. He mopes around trying to write, gets frustrated with his neighbour who has bad shared toilet manners, Sezer gets him a job which is a night guard equivalent of sitting in a windowless room screening people entering some premises that is never revealed to be what it is, and in between, he gets to physically romance Scott Thomas' Margit Kardar, who sets certain rules and conditions when and where they can get jiggy with it, and interchanges his muse to Sezer's squeeze Ania (Joanna Kulig) because she's obviously more nubile, and more impressed with his writing credentials than Margit.

But it is this routine that does the film in, because it doesn't bother to lead the story anywhere. If Pawlikowski's objective is to bore, or put something existential onto film, then he succeeded, complete with dreary lines where Margit tells Tom the latter has to experience tragedy in order to write that next big novel. Right, so a translator for her dead husband's literary works suddenly becomes life's guru to a writer, and dispenses plenty of knowledge nuggets to her lover when he visits her periodically for one sole objective.

It's one thing being open ended so as to make the audience work for the pay load, but another if things are kept open ended as a cheat because of the emptiness of the film, leaving it to the audience to guess in any fashion, without clear parameters drawn up because the filmmakers are clueless as to where they want the film to go. No amount of beautiful cinematography can cover up the lack of clarity, and to sugar coat the flimsiness, and silliness of the film, is but a futile effort. While Kristin Scott Thomas and Ethan Hawke put in good performances, ultimately they are done in by their lines, and probably had an exercise on how to brood effectively for the screen.

The twist could have been done in creepy fashion, since it blows open the possibilities just when things were turning rote and stale past the hour mark, but nothing was done to exploit this sudden window of hope. When it happened, it provided a temporary lift, but ultimately did itself in again by going for things that are inexplicable both logically and emotionally, and as mentioned, if everything can be imagined, then why the need to watch this in the very first place? Save your money for something else more worthwhile, as this stinker sinks to the bottom of the pile, not worth another mention unless to list down the worst of the year.

A phenomenally ambitious, mostly successful film that (almost) atones for the cardinal sin that was Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris. It says so much about cinema audiences that Midnight in Paris was so popular. Here's a film that is startlingly beautiful, utterly intriguing and perfectly cast, and with a drop dead gorgeous soundtrack. The result? A lot of very angry people because... it didn't make sense. No-one mentions that the "Midnight" script had holes you could drive a truck through, because they had a good time. Wake up, people! You're getting the cinema you deserve and it ain't pretty. Or maybe it is. How about Mark Wahlberg and a teddy bear? There you go. That works. Don't blame Hollywood (where I live and work). You're voting with your wallets. Films like The Woman in the Fifth that need intellectual and emotional input from its audience are being stoned to death. The world's becoming a Disney theme park and you're all accessories after the fact. If you think that the word "consumer" is an insult, there's still hope. Take a moment. Watch this film. It isn't perfect. The balance between physical and metaphysical is off and therein lies the confusion. Kieslowski (another obvious comparison) would have handled it better but he wasn't hampered by a literary source when he made La Double Vie. But... it's fKKKing gorgeous. Difficult, challenging, flawed? Yes, but I'll take it over the processed pap that is the American mainstream anytime.

this is a very very weird movie with Ethan hawk and his magnifying eyeglasses. guess through his eye ware like what he told his little daughter: "don't do it, your eyes are as perfect as mine." maybe, i say maybe, that this guy's eyes or his eye ware could really enable him to see the dead and revive her from ashes and turned her into warm, lustful flesh, a ghost who could wash his hair and made love to him 'any time after 4:00pm", any time he felt lonely he could visit her, rang the bell on the front, went up the staircase, rang the door bell again, then when she opened it, he could walk in, embraced her with a long passionate kiss, then went to the bed.

in this weird film, Paris never made you feel lovely but senselessly cold, hopeless and helpless. those streets with cobble stones only echoed the walking dead, the losers, the daily struggling lower level Parisians, those naturalized citizens from Morocco, north Africa or where else they could sneak in and mess up the whole social structure of France. a pathetic American one-book writer with a vague past relationship to a pure french woman, then weird but also vague things happened, he left and back to America, then after 6 years separation, he came back trying to picking up the loss years of his growing up young daughter....blab, blab, and blab. fell asleep on the bus, all the luggage were stolen except his passport. so far, the screenplay still felt quite normal, then his journey to Paris became weirder and weirder, finally, a normal nostalgic odyssey gradually turned into a super nature goof ball, so goofy that a drama suddenly became a goddamn mess.

i definitely believe that the screenplay writer(s?), the director and the editor were exactly playing a practical joke on we stupid clueless audiences. they produced an actually not bad but serious enough decent film, but then at some point, they decided to turn a serious movie into a practical joke, and they were laughing their pants off when critics and viewers came out of the cinema with puzzled and troubled expressions, everybody's face with only one word: "WTF?!" on their faces. while these french goof-balls couldn't stop their guffaws, we viewers just heard they said behind our back: "Ce qu'il vous faut, ha ha! (Got you, ha ha!!)

I regret wasting my time on watching this pretense of a movie. It's so slow, extremely boring, and absolutely pointless. It's starts out as something that could be interestingly developed, but that doesn't happen. A typical example of a movie that could've been, but alas it wasn't. Various subplots in the end either get lost or are left unexplained and underdeveloped. Watching absent-minded Ethan Hawke in a coat for 80 minutes -- that's pretty much this movie is. Granted that the two female leads (Kristen Scott Thomas and Joanna Kulig) looked good and acted well, but that's not enough. Especially in the case of Kristen Scott Thomas's character -- I mean seriously, what the heck was that about?

If you have read the book, then by watching the film, you will be very disappointed because there is one great change in the plot location that will affect and ruin the whole tone of the story:

Yes; both versions are set in Paris: hence the title 'The Woman in the Fifth.'

In the book, the estranged wife and daughter have been left behind in America as 'Tom' flees to Paris alone to avoid a scandal of his own making. This is not so in the film.....Tom arrives in Paris to re-unite his family from estrangement . Furthermore, there are also a great number of plot details missing from a fascinating story from the author Douglas Kennedy... it is like a big gap of a hole that the film can only seem to portray and make sense of.... by compressing the whole story into an 80 minute narrative with occult like interpretations with director's own fancy?

Furthermore, the lengthy plot of the book is vital to hold the story together. I am also not keen on Ethan Hawke who plays Tom ( whose name is 'Harry' in the original story. ) Ethan Hawke, as an actor, looks too introspective and miserable for the character to be liked. I do however, like Kristin Scott Thomas - she is irresistible, and perfectly cast as the mysterious Margit of which the the mystery is based upon.

Having compared the film to the book though, there is great merit to savour - with great artistry of film -making -it is art-house filming -and remarkable in quality. Overall, the film appears dreamy, but drab, and ends abruptly without the full story being told, leaving one feeling sad, confused, and a bit short changed...and it does not help that the filming of the 'imaginary of the woodland' can offer a clue to the 'owl like' magic to solve the mystery?

Again, while the film has merit on its own strength- it would have been a real plot spoiler to have see the film prior to reading the book -to have known the mystery of Margit, to whom: The Woman of the Fifth is so named. I am glad I did not attend the Curzon cinema in Mayfair, London to do just this, as the book is great to read: Of course, I feel sad and confused -having now watched the film....but I wish that the film director, Pawel Pawlikowski could explain his interpretation?

A Haunting Enigma of a Film where there are no easy answers, but they are there if you look and listen closely, that is filled with Ugly and Beautiful images suggesting a Schizophrenic impression of Life. Illustrating that, in effect, perception and point of view is all in the Mind.

This is Creepy and Complex and is not an easy decipher, like Psychoanalysis it may take some time to penetrate its Secrets and uncover the Pathology. It is intriguing, but not always Fun discovering the ambiguous layers in this Movie with its decidedly Euro feeling. Through the glasses darkly.

It is Cerebral Cinema for those wanting that sort of thing. Upon reflection it is much more than the initial Viewing would suggest and would seem to invite a second look. Obviously not for everyone, but those willing to take chances and explore the wide range of Experiences that Movies have to offer, this is a good one. Ethan Hawke shows some disciplined range and the Foreign Director may pick up a few American admirers with this Artistic Vision.

If you enjoy a movie with loads of atmosphere that leads you deeper and deeper into a complex mystery, and then refuses to give easy answers, then you will love "The Woman in the Fifth" - I know I do.

An American writer, Tom Ricks (Ethan Hawke), arrives in Paris to try to meet with his daughter. His ex-wife immediately calls the police and we realise that there has been some ugly history between them.

Broke, Tom is given a room in a seedy hostel in exchange for taking a job as a nightwatchman in the basement of a strange building. At a literary gathering he meets Margit Kadar (Kristen Scott Thomas). Margit lives in the fifth arrondissement - the woman in the fifth - and they have an affair. His life starts to take unexpected turns. At the hotel, he also has an affair with a young Polish waitress, and a confrontation with the aggressive man in the next room. All the while, trying various ways to see his daughter.

By the end of the film there has been a murder, a kidnapping, and revelations about Margit Kadar that reveal that all is not right with Tom Ricks. Not much is explained at the end - the last scene leaves us wondering.

Movies that blur the line between what is real and what is being imagined have been around for a while now. Back in the days of Film Noir it usually turned out that it was all just a dream - a not too satisfying resolution that quickly became trite. However, over the last couple of decades, movies that blur the line have become much trickier.

The process in more recent times may have started with movies that are not exactly ghost stories, but feature people who don't know they are dead. A forerunner was "Carnival of Souls" in 1962, but Haley Joel Osment in "The Sixth Sense" wasn't the only one to see dead people, they popped up in "Jacob's Ladder", "The Others", "Passengers", and "November" to name a few.

Then there are the split personalities - the cinematic interpretation of schizophrenia. David Lynch's films, "Lost Highway" and "Mulholland Dr." come to mind. Then there is "Fever", "A Beautiful Mind", and the recent "I, Anna" as well as "Trance", which have explored this phenomenon. "The Woman in the Fifth" belongs with this group.

Although that tricky shift between the real and the imaginary has probably been seen a few times too often now, "the Woman in the Fifth" does it well. This intriguing film has an affecting central story, a fascinating location and compelling performances all round.

Bad luck ... I happened to purchase - on a whim - the original "arrow" paperback novel a sheer week prior to finding out that the motion-picture adaptation was being shown nearby, with tentative acting by no less than Etan Hawke and (!) Kristin Scott Thomas ...; all the more than tantalizing ...; Having read through Kennedy's incredible/unbelievable story, I was more than curious how -the heck- both script-writer and Director would/had rendered , or came-out of this lame ending tale ?! Lo and behold, it's even worse than I had expected ...: gloomy, pessimistic, unhinged -since some/most characters' interaction(s) are left out- with Ricks and Margit factual plain physical relationship wholly left out ... being compensated by an 'end-of-second World War' Parisian feel and atmosphere ... ?! Neither are these credits any justification for leaving-out some of the original script justification &/or relating's ...; The whole experience become/come-out as an WIDE AWAKE NIGHTMARE of unrealistic happenings ...; P.S.: credited appraisals by 'Mail on Sunday' and 'The Times' literary critics must have been disclaimers ...