Blood Relatives (1981)

I've just been reading the previous comments and what emerges is 1) these people are easily pleased and 2) not only have they not read the novel which was the jumping-off point but they are clearly unfamiliar with Ed McBain's 87th Precinct series of 'police procedurals' in which the 87th itself is the hero rather than any one individual cop. There is a regular team of well-drawn detectives, uniformed cops, medical examiners etc and the novels are clearly set in New York albeit a New York city with five fictitious boroughs clearly corresponding to Brooklyn, Queens, Richmond, Manhattan and The Bronx. Here Chabrol has taken perhaps the best known detective, Steve Carella and teamed him with a Bert Klinger, who is dark haired and in his thirties whereas McBain wrote a character named Bert KLING who was a blonde blue-eyed WASP (the precinct comprised all the ethnic mixes that would be found in a Manhattan precinct house). This is bizarre to say the least; if Chabrol was, as seems very possible, interested in the incest factor - which in the novel was merely the solution to a killing - all he had to do was develop his own plot around that theme but by crediting McBain, keeping McBain's title and ONE of McBain's regular cops he winds up with a hybrid that pleases no one. This is one of those movies when the audience gets the feeling that Donald Sutherland, Donald Pleasance and David Hemmings are acting in three different films and none of them is all that good. See it as a curio.

"Les Liens De Sang" got chilly reviews in Chabrol's native France and the movie has sunk into oblivion.Made at a time when Chabrol was really good again (it was made between "Alice Ou La Dernière Fugue" and "Violette Nozière" ),after a period of barren inspiration (1974 /1975),you can enjoy this movie provided that you forget all that you know about Claude Chabrol.It's a pleasantly-anonymous thriller which could have been made by any director at all.Which does not mean it's bad.But if you know the fifty+ Chabrol movies ,you cannot hail it as his masterpiece.What you can say,though,is that it's neatly superior to his recent movies (the last ten years were full of mediocrities).Donald Sutherland and Pierre Mallet are very convincing.Aude Landry's playing,on the other hand ,displays nothing disturbing,nothing irrational in her behavior ,which makes the ending,although praised for its "unexpected twist" ,a bit artificial.Remember the characters in such works as "Le Boucher" "La Rupture" "Que la bete Meure" or even "Les Biches" Of Chabrol's world,only Stephane Audran remains:but her part is underwritten ,and she is probably dubbed for I cannot recognize her voice,so it's not worth talking about it.The social background ( the director's trademark)has completely disappeared here.As Chabrol works in a foreign country,he is incapable to depict the Canadian society whereas his métier was the ruthless portrait of French bourgeoisie.That said,you can enjoy the film:it is a good thriller if you do not think it over too much.Donald Sutherland portrays an endearing human cop.

When Patricia Newell is attacked after witnessing her cousin's murder,Detective Carrella searches the city for her killer.Identifying the murderer after an intensive manhunt,Patricia is sent to live with relatives in the country.For Carrella the case is closed...or is it?"Blood Relatives" is an overlooked masterpiece.Donald Sutherland plays a cop and it's nice to see Donald Pleasance in a small role as a child molester.The conclusion is pretty disturbing.Still "Blood Relatives" is more of a mystery than a horror film,so fans of gore will be disappointed.A must-see for fans of old-fashioned mystery movies.9 out of 10.

Claude Chabrol shooting a movie under the premises of a Marlowe's story. More American than French. Donald Sutherland claiming to be considered one of the best actors of the 70's. The movie begins with a very very frightened teenager girl going into a police station. She tells about a murder: her cousin. Sutherland, the inspector, try to solve the case by asking some usual suspects and, eventually, reading the personal diary of the dead girl where he finds the clue to get to know who's the killer. In the middle of the movie, the story turns to be more about the relationship between the murdered girl and his cousin: the brother of the accusing young girl. Finally, we can see a surprising end. Good movie just to watch once, not more. It's not strong enough because the script is not very solid. It deserves to be watched because of a Donald Sutherland in his best and a little character supported by Donald Pleasance, doing quite well.