source: Blood Relatives

"Blood Relatives" begins as a police procedural, with interrogations, red herrings, police line-ups, etc., but gradually transforms into a psychological family drama, with long flashbacks that take up nearly the entire second half; the ultimate solution of the murder is guessable for fans of the genre, but it remains chilling to see unfold on the screen. Aude Landry (why did she have to quit acting so early? She shows huge potential here) and Lisa Langlois give very accomplished performances for their age, and Donald Sutherland is effectively introspective as the inspector who, much like Hercule Poirot, tries to understand the psychology of the crime in order to get to the truth. There are two strangely "off" turns by the usually dependable Donald Pleasence and Stephane Audran, but thankfully their parts are minor and don't really affect the quality of the film, which I consider one of Claude Chabrol's best and most underrated. *** out of 4.

When a 17 year old girl is murdered in the streets of Montreal, the case is taken on by detective Steve Carella (played by Donald Sutherland). The only witness to this horrific crime is the girls younger cousin, who was also viciously attacked, but managed to escape with her life. The cops pick up a number of sex offenders, hoping they will snatch up the culprit in the process. But they are back to square one, when the girl is unable to identify any of them. Eventually, she fingers her own brother...saying that he forced them both to perform sexual acts on him, before stabbing her cousin to death, and attempting to kill her. But he denies it. From here, the film goes into a series of flashbacks, as the detective goes through the victims diary, in hope of finding a secret that may lead to the identity of the killer. Turns out that she was having an illicit affair with her cousin- the boy who has been fingered as the murderer. But she was also being wooed by her boss...who claims he barely knew her. The fact her cousin turns increasingly jealous and violent, drives her into the arms of her boss, who is married with children. He encourages her to leave her cousin, and find her own place to live. Eventually the diary reveals enough information, that the detective is able to put two and two together...and solve the mystery. This is meant to be a twist, but it's much too predictable. That aside, it's a pretty engaging film, but the fact that it is so easy to solve, from such an early point detracts a lot from the whodunnit aspect of it all. The acting from Sutherland and the three kids is pretty good though. It's construction in two acts, with the first half introducing the players and investigation, and second half portraying the back story- leading up to the conclusion- works on an entertainment level, but leaves you wanting more on the cinematic front. In the end, it's entertaining enough, but not overly complex. Which may speak to different people differently, but for me personally...it was just too simplistic. But it's certainly worth a watch. 6 out of 10.

Casual misogyny as one expects from the 70s and this director, but the script is just not that good to begin with and declines even more after the middle of the film. The production is so bad that you can even see a microphone dipping down in the second last dialogue between Donald Sutherland and Aude Landry characters.

Evocatively directed and slickly photographed psychological mystery thriller with an exceptional lead performance by a sombre Donald Sutherland, and potent support roles from Donald Pleasence and David Hemming. The material decides to keep it all glum, and moves from the investigation period into the back-story of the victim. The seldom, and quite sullen nature of investigation pulled me in, but when it flashback to the victim's side showing her final days weren't as compelling, and became somewhat stodgy and stock-like. While the script is strongly detailed and to a certain degree complex in stringing us along, however the final and surprising revelation should have been more bone-jarring and it's not helped out by its sloppy execution. Howard Blake's music score has an emotional sting to its cues that simply linger, and director Claude Chabrol's capable handling (well for most part) has a strong stylistic and tight manner, which gets the best out of moody locations and flexible cast. The young faces Lisa Langlois and Aude Landry do an incredibly good job as well.

As a critic once said, "Making a commercially viable film in Canada is like trying to compete with Ford by building a car in your basement." The lack of attention to details is really inexcusable. When even small details are overlooked, it creates doubt for the viewer. The investigators found the knife. What, no fingerprints? There were killer's blood stains. Couldn't the detectives match even the blood type? And finally, if the girl lied in the beginning, why the investigator believed her story? Why didn't he press her more? Both girls are beautiful, but they are bad actresses. Although it comes from a great director, this movie looks very amateurish in the script writing ( Claude Chabrol took a part in it) and in his direction.

"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.

There are several great reasons to see "Blood Relatives"! First of all because Donald Sutherland is a magnificent actor and his project choices in the 70's practically all resulted in brilliant movies ("Klute", "Don't Look Now", "Day of the Locust", Invasion of the Body Snatchers"…), the supportive cast is also terrific, with Donald Pleasence and David Hemmings, and – most of all – controversial murder mysteries are always worth checking out, especially if they're directed by an acclaimed French filmmaker. "Blood Relatives" opens truly powerful and remains fascinating for almost a full hour. On a rainy Saturday night, a violent aggressor attacks two minor girls and one of them – the oldest one – doesn't survive. The girls turn out to be cousins and police inspector Carella (Sutherland) is charged with looking for the killer, starting with the usual line-up of notorious sex offenders and pedophiles. It's only with the discovery of the dead victim Muriel's personal diary that Carella realizes the culprit is very close to the family, as she hid a relationship with her first-degree cousin Andrew and an affair with her employer. The first half of "Blood Relatives" is great with a close follow-up of the police investigation and a specifically well-scripted red herring involving the respectable Donald Pleasence playing a repulsive monster. The story has you guessing along with Sutherland's character and you try to focus on every possible sub theme and/or underlying message. Regretfully, and nearly impossible to comprehend, the film pretty much turns into a campy teen-horror story with the arrival of Muriel's diary. The remaining playtime is filled with flashbacks and narrated scenes from the diary, padded with an incredible amount of uninteresting info about typical teenage girl stuff and overly detailed footage of Muriel's private love-life. The identity of Muriel's killer suddenly seems secondary to her puppy loves and Sutherland only occasionally comes on screen when he turns over the pages in the diary. Bummer! How can a film that starts so promising end up so tacky, dull and immature?

Considered by many to be a strangely overlooked Chabrol it seems to me the reason it has been cold shouldered is its sleaze factor. Not as overtly sexy, violent or gory as many films of this period it nevertheless starts rather startlingly and although becoming more measured continues to ooze a rather unpleasant odour. Ms Audran, not here the ice maiden but a drunken mother, Donald Pleasence does a cameo as a child molester, David Hemmings has his eyes on underage sex and the central theme involves the relationship between a brother, sister and niece. No not very nice at all and Chabrol treats it all as if it is very normal (like it might be in some small French village!) instead of Ed McBain's New York City. Had this been treated in a more sensational manner then it would have been a more acceptable but lesser film. Here we really have to choose between the likelihood of various unpleasant options before the final denouement. Very watchable

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.