狼族盟约

R.I.P. Émilie Dequenne (1981-2025), the brilliant Belgian and the recipient of Best Actress award at Cannes for her first acting gig in Dardenne brothers' Palme d'or winner ROSETTA, has sadly succumbed to a rare cancer at a young age of 43. Dequenne is endowed with a superb knack for disappearing into a role, making her performances feel both instinctually naturalistic and uninhibitedly expressive. After ROSETTA catapults her status as a promising young thespian, her follow-up, Christophe Gans' BROTHERHOOD OF THE WOLF is an authentic Gallic blockbuster. A lush, genre-mashing period epic where Dequenne takes on a smaller but still intriguing part cannot be more different from the one in ROSETTA ROSETTA is a stripped-down, bare-bones exposé of underclass subsistence. It’s not trying to charm or entertain, but to make audience feel something real but also too close for comfort, regarding poverty, misery and struggle with no buffer between spectators in cushy seats and the relentless hardship on show. In short, a poverty porn in its most effective and acute fibers. The plot follows our titular heroine, a teenager living in a dreary caravan park with her alcoholic mother (Yernaux), scraping by on the edge of the society. Her sole hope is to find a stable job, and the only way to achieve that turns out to be a cruel zero-sum game, to heartlessly betray the kindness of Riquet (Rongione), a coworker who befriends her and throw him under the bus, especially after that cardinal scene where Rosetta hesitates while Riquet falls into the murky lake, flailing, in real danger of drowning. Rosetta's longer-than-it-is hesitation is brutal. It’s not cinematic suspense but ethical discomfort. The camera traces her face, and we can see the storm inside her: should she help him or not? And what’s devastating is that, for a few long seconds, she leans toward not. Not because she hates him, or because she’s evil, but because she’s desperate, beaten and exhausted. She knows that if he dies, the job at the waffle stand - the one lifeline she clings to - could be hers. This is one of the film’s most daring moves. The Dardennes refuse to protect Rosetta from her worst thoughts. They let her hover on the edge of some horrible thoughts: letting an innocent person die out of her personal economic desperation. It’s a moment that rips away any illusion of moral clarity. The world has taught Rosetta that survival is a ruthless game, that there is no room for compassion, only competition.But then she thinks better of it and rescues him. This action doesn't erase the hesitation. It doesn't redeem her in a neat way. But it does mark a crack in the hardened shell she's built around herself. It’s one of the few choices in the film that feels free - ungoverned by necessity, nor by the grim laws of a world where everything must be earned in pains. She chooses to save Riquet simply because, despite everything, a trace of moral instinct remains. That’s the genius of ROSETTA. It shows us that morality, especially in a world like that, is messy, costly, and sometimes even irrational. The fact that she nearly lets Riquet drown makes her human whereas the fact that she doesn’t makes her still worth rooting for. In a lesser film, this would be the redemptive climax. But Rosetta keeps going. It keeps grinding. The weight of survival doesn’t lift. But we, and Rosetta, are left with the memory of that decision - a moment when she could have been monstrous, and wasn’t. A reminder that even in the ugliest conditions, humanity clings on by its fingernails.The Dardennes’ approach is famously no-frills. Handheld cameras, natural lighting, and zero gloss over its milieu, a cinema-vérité style mixed with a stimulating guerrilla kinetics. The camera is almost invasive in how close it sticks to Rosetta, her face, her hands, her feet stomping through the mud. We barely get a second to breathe without being pulled into her smoldering rage and frustration of constantly getting the short end of the stick, her kept-to-herself tenacity, or the incessant pain from her period cramps. ROSETTA's focus on natural sound rather than a traditional score only adds to the Dardennes’ felicitous evocation of realism. The sound design focuses on the grating, everyday noises of Rosetta’s environs: the crunch of gravel under Rosetta’s boots, the droning noise of the factory where she briefly works, and the susurrus of the sylvan area where her digs are. No emotional manipulation through music - just the raw sounds from real life. There’s no color, no warmth. The film is washed out and gray. The caravan park itself feels like a cage - muddy, gray, and bleak. Even Rosetta herself looks drained of vitality, dressed in cheap, worn-out clothes. The Dardennes avoid any kind of aesthetic appeal because the film is meant to hit a raw nerve, exposing the underside of a developed Western country many folks refuse to acknowledge. Dequenne’s performance is all in the body language - tense shoulders, a clenched jaw, defensive eye contact. You can feel how much emotional energy it takes for Rosetta just to get through the day. She’s desperate to find stability, but also held back by her mother - a lush who cannot shake off her jones - who is as much a weight around her neck as the poverty they live in. Just when the film heads to a dismally tragic end, the Dardennes scores with a finale that is quietly devastating and, at the same time, subtly redemptive. Attempting ending her misery by turning on the gas, Rosetta strains to carry a gas canister - a heavy one - back to her trailer (for her, the bitter irony is that even suicide comes with a price tag). The canister is an obvious metaphor for the life-size burden she must grapple with. Then Riquet arrives on his moped, circling around her noisily, and she puts down the canister, finally cracks up. There’s the beginning of a tremor in her voice. She breathes heavily, perhaps for the first time in the whole film, and we can almost see her letting someone in.This ending is masterful for a few reasons. First, it’s ambiguous but emotionally clear. The film ends with an act of human decency. It signifies that even in a base, survivalist world, there might still be room for forgiveness, for solidarity, for connection. Secondly, it is a moral ending without being moralistic. In the end, Rosetta is not cheaply saved, but she pauses, and that pause is monumental. After 90 minutes of relentless motion, of trying to fix her life through sheer will, she finally stops. In that moment, something human is rekindled.It’s also important to recognize that the Dardennes are offering no easy solutions. Rosetta’s life won’t suddenly be all's well. But she’s no longer alone, and that small, stubborn act of mutual recognition with Riquet is enough to breathe life into a closing image that could otherwise have been hopeless. It tells us that while systems may fail, and institutions may be indifferent, individuals still have the power to break cycles - if only for a moment. It’s not a fairytale ending, but in the Dardennes' harsh universe, it might as well be a miracle.

If ROSETTA is hard-edged and minimalist, BROTHERHOOD OF THE WOLF is maximalist in every possible way. Gans’s film is a wild mix of period drama, creature horror, mystery thriller, and political intrigue, set during the Age of Enlightenment. It’s loosely inspired by the real-life legend of the Beast of Gévaudan - a mysterious creature that terrorized the rural French region. The story follows Grégoire de Fronsac (Le Bihan), a naturalist and royal agent, who is sent by the King to investigate the atrocious, almost supernatural killings attributed to the mythic beast. Fronsac is accompanied by Mani (Dacascos), an American Indian from the Iroquois tribe who has become his blood brother. As the pair digs closer to the truth, if laboriously (as the film is 2 and a half hour long), in time they will discover that the beast is not a natural creature but a secretively fashioned and controlled weapon, part of a political conspiracy to undermine the crown and exploit the growing unrest in the country. Eventually, BROTHERHOOD OF THE WOLF comes through as a full-bore rampage on the clash between Enlightenment rationalism and religious superstition, as well as sending the sideswipes to the political manipulation of fear.Gans goes all-in on spectacle here. Lavish period costumes, huge set pieces, engaging fight scenes choreographed straight out of Hong Kong cinema, with slow-motion flips and swashbuckling flourishes. The creature itself is a blend of puppetry and animatronics (designed by Jim Henson's Creature Shop), with CGI-assisted effects to smooth out the discrepancies. The beast looks both organic and unnatural, which gives it a genuinely unsettling quality. The film also has a kind of dark fairy-tale atmosphere - lots of shadows, candlelight, and ominous fog rolling over the countryside.Dacascos is the film's biggest secret weapon. On paper, Mani seems to be the stoic "noble savage" trope pasted into a racist Europe for flair. But Dacascos dodges that trap by grounding him in simmering intensity and spiritual presence that consistently turns heads. He's a man of few words, but every gesture speaks volumes. His stillness is as commanding as his movement, which brings a grace and precision to Mani’s fight scenes that feel balletic, fluid but also grounded, almost ritualistic, hinting at a connection to an otherworldly universe - a worldview shaped by nature, balance, and ancestral knowledge. His combat style contrasts sharply with the baroque violence of those French barbarians and the snarling chaos of the beast. There’s a discipline to Mani’s presence, something elemental.What’s perhaps most impressive is that how much non-verbal work Dacascos does. Mani isn’t given a lot of dialogue, but he communicates with expressions. There’s a palpable sense of history and pain behind his eyes - this is a man who has lost his homeland, who walks in a foreign place that sees him as alien, and yet he carries himself with calm authority. In a story that often critiques the Enlightenment’s hypocrisies - its tendency to proclaim rational order while hiding grotesque violence - Mani stands in for another kind of wisdom. He represents a form of knowledge that isn't written in books or debated in salons. He knows the forest, he respects the dead, he moves like a ghost through a land that doesn’t know what to do with him.There’s also the unspoken commentary that the film slips in with Mani's harrowing death: the outsider, the one most in tune with nature, is the one to be sacrificed. The moment Fronsac sees Mani's corpse, any pretense of diplomacy or rational investigation drops away, marks a turn in the story toward unrestrained chaos and vengeance. Dequenne plays Marianne de Morangias, the daughter of a local aristocrat, the apple of Fronsac's eyes. It’s a supporting role, but Dequenne makes her presence felt, she’s controlled and subtle, dutifully playing a damsel in distress within the formal confines of nobility.Cassel, as Marianne's brother Jean-François, carries himself like a man who believes in his own superiority - social, physical, intellectual - but there’s something rotten underneath, something festering. Cassel leans into that decay with delicious intensity. His facial expressions shift rapidly - from charming to menacing, from amused to dead-eyed. He’s magnetic precisely because he’s so unpredictable. There's a hint of the dandy villain about him, but it's twisted further by a creeping sense of obsession - particularly in his scenes with Dequenne, where the presence of a one-sided attraction gives their dynamic a faintly gothic, almost incest-drama-meets-werewolf-movie kind of vibe.Jean-François’s backstory - his injury, his time abroad, his missing hand—only adds to the mythologized weight of the character. And when it’s revealed that he’s behind much of the carnage and fearmongering, Cassel drops the mask completely and revels in the character’s moral unraveling. In full villain mode, he’s Shakespearean: arrogant, bitter, and fully convinced of his own right to dominate. It’s an over-the-top performance in all the best ways, perfectly matched to the film’s high-pulp sensibility.Then there is Cassel's then partner in life, Bellucci, as Sylvia, the impossibly glamorous Italian courtesan who becomes romantically entangled with Fronsac. At first, she seems like a stock femme fatale - witchy, sensual, aloof. But Bellucci knows how to play with that archetype, and slowly we begin to suspect there’s more to Sylvia than silk and smoky glances. And sure enough - there is. It’s a fun reversal that repositions her not as the seduced, but as the one in control. Bellucci plays the double role - lover and agent - with icy cool. She doesn’t overplay the reveal; instead, she lets Sylvia’s intelligence telegraph through minimal gestures, loaded silences, and strategic manipulation. What’s particularly effective is that Sylvia never drops her mystique, even after her motivations are revealed. She’s enigmatic to the end, a conduit of both desire and disillusionment. Bellucci keeps the tone just right - seductive, slippery, always a half-step out of reach.On the debit side, Le Bihan is a bit of a mixed bag here. He’s the official lead, the rational Enlightenment-era man of science turned reluctant warrior. While he looks the part - ruggedly handsome, well-costumed, and physically up to the task - his performance doesn't always match the theatrical hijinks or charisma of his co-stars. He delivers his lines with clarity, but rarely with the emotional punch or tension that the stakes seem to demand. It’s not that he’s bad, just a bit bland. Thankfully, when Fronsac is thrusted to be an avenging force in the third act, Le Bihan gets to show some piss and vinegar, his grief becomes palpable, a killing spree and a one-to-one throw-down that follow give him a chance to step out of his moral limbo and comport himself as a legitimate, rousing action hero.After all, BROTHERHOOD OF THE WOLF is a rare example of cinematic excess that somehow works precisely because of its contradictions. It’s overstuffed, tonally chaotic, and often ridiculous, but also bold, visually arresting, and completely unafraid to take risks. A handsome revenue (grossing over $70 million in worldwide theatrical release) is a meritorious reward. referential entries: Joachim Lafosse's OUR CHILDREN (2012, 6.7/10); Albert Dupontel's SEE YOU UP THERE (2017, 7.7/10); Luc and Jean-Pierre Dardenne's THE PROMISE (1996, 8.0/10), TWO DAYS ONE NIGHT (2014, 8.6/10). Title: RosettaYear: 1999Genre: DramaCountry: Belgium, FranceLanguage: FrenchDirectors/Screenwriters: Jean-Pierre Dardenne, Luc DardenneComposer: Jean-Pierre CoccoCinematographer: Alain MarcoenEditor: Marie-Hélène DozoCast:Émilie DequenneFabrizio RongioneOlivier GourmetAnne YernauxBernard MarbaixFrédéric BodsonFlorian DelainRating: 8.1/10

English Title: Brotherhood of the WolfOriginal Title: Le pacte des loupsYear: 2001Genre: Action, Horror, Adventure, Mystery, DramaCountry: France Language: French, Italian, GermanDirector: Christophe GansScreenwriters: Stéphane Cabel, Christophe GansComposer: Joseph LoDucaCinematographer: Dan LaustsenEditors: Xavier Loutreuil, Sébastien Prangère, David WuCast:Samuel Le BihanMark Dacascos Vincent CasselÉmilie DequenneJérémie RenierMonica BellucciJean YanneÉdith ScobJean-François StéveninBernard Farcy Jacques PerrinHans MeyerPhilippe NahonVirginie DarmonJohan LeysenJean-Loup WolffNicolas VaudeMichel PuterflamBernard FressonEric PratAndré PenvernGaspard UllielRating: 7.4/10

《狼族盟约》(Brotherhood of the Wolf)：其实不过是一场宗教政治悲剧　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　(文：火神纪)1.所谓大片。

　　什么样的电影可以称为大片呢。

我在想如果真的有一些所谓的大片标准的话，那么这部电影会具备多少的大片的因素呢。

这喜欢法国电影，像喜欢法国小说一样没什么理由。

　　细腻、大气、浪漫、淡淡的忧伤和深沉的底蕴。

这是法国小说的特点。

看这部电影的时候常常有这种看小说的感觉。

用一个配角的角度以第一人称的叙述一个英勇的故事，加一点爱情作为佐料，姗姗道来的那种叙述手法让我平静而安逸。

　　也许是因为喜欢法国式的小说，有人说这部电影看起来很闷，很拖沓，在我看来这些更像是它的忧点。

电影的某一方面作为电影的缺点或优点，只是在于观望的角度罢了。

　　我可以毫不客观彻底主观而且不需要被认同地说，这是我看过的最接近史诗的电影。

毕竟，这只是一个主观的看法。

当我固执地这样认为的时候，也许，只是我的角度问题罢了。

　　电影讲叙的是十八世纪中期发生在法国的故事，这样的故事背景让这部电影有着美伦美奂的唯美视觉效果。

因为法国，还有十八世纪中叶。

法国大革命之前，还是一个奢华的年代。

所有的一切追求奢美，尤其是皇室和贵族，而这个故事正是贵族阶层里的内部斗争，奢美是必不可少的。

　　盛宴；沙龙；晚会；捕猎；玩笑；甚至是中时期的妓院。

一切美得让人心醉。

也许只是我已经被所扭曲的审美作祟。

我喜欢这种奢华的颜色和浓烈的气息。

就像我喜欢司汤达和大仲马的小说一样没有什么理由。

我喜欢；接近于迷恋地喜欢奢糜的所有一切。

　　喜欢这部电影，从每一个细致的镜头调度到每一个华丽的摆设；纵然这是应该被批判的审美观。

可是我想，如果可以的话，我希望自己很歌特。

　　所谓的大片应该是经得起推敲，而不应该只是一层奢华的外表下空泛无物。

而现在重新看这部电影，我发现这部电影那种古朴的美感依旧还在，我在想，时间流逝之后，会沉淀出一些真正的大片。

纵然这部电影讲叙的只是一个没什么意思的故事。

可是制作的精细和叙事方式的考究，镜头的美感、调度和镜头里的空间层次、摆设等等依旧值得一看。

　　精致的影像；奇巧的构图和一流的剧情编排。

从电影本身来说，具备了这样的素质怎么样也算是一部经典之作了。

　　第三视角的叙事便于更冷静客观地表述事件的经过，而因为作为叙事者的托马斯也参与了事情的始末，所以没有了那种超脱于物外的冷漠。

2.所谓男角。

　　第一主角的法兰沙骑士，阅历丰富，勇敢而渊博，带着他特有的风趣和俊俏的脸庞在吉瓦斯的上流阶级里，在那些油头粉面戴着假发的所谓绅士里显得如此卓而不群。

像反角尚法兰柯斯所说：博学家，工匠以及医生，还有些别人都不知道的。

　　马尼，第二主角。

印第安部落里硕果仅存的唯一遗族。

信仰着狼图腾和掌握着一些所有人都不知道的神秘技能。

勇猛，强悍，冷静而果断。

在欧洲人当成野蛮人的时候，他是如此出色而引人注目。

无疑，他是这部电影里我最喜欢的角色了，甚至比法兰沙还要更吸引我。

　　这部电影甚至可以看成是他的舞台。

不管是前面的第一组动作对抗时的抢眼的特写，还是后面中枪后倒地时的挣扎，这个角色深深地吸引着我。

　　就算最后法兰沙突然勇猛无比地挑了整个神秘地下宗教，其实也只不过是为了马尼复仇的欲望。

说到底还是马尼的戏。

法兰沙脸上涂抹了马尼的图腾的时候，神勇无比，在我看来不过是马尼的替身或者复仇的化身罢了。

　　马尼是这部电影里最出彩的一个人物，也许这也是这部电影最大的硬伤。

第二主角居然比第一主角更抢眼，这有点喧宾夺主的味道了。

从这个人物的塑造来说的确很成功，可是毕竟这只是第二主角，第一主角的光彩被第二主角抢了，从电影的整体角度上来说，这的确不是一件好事。

要么是马尼过于出彩，要么是法兰沙的角色塑造不够显眼，喧宾夺主始终是电影的大忌。

3.所谓女角。

　　这部电影里三个主要的女性角色倒是塑造得非常成功的。

像玛莉安，为爱情疯狂的女贵族。

在法兰沙的追求里逐渐软化的女子，或者说，在爱情里，所有的女子也许都一样吧。

从矜持到相互爱慕，再到深爱。

偶有失望甚至绝望，可是最终依旧会为了自己深爱的男人而痴迷。

或者说，在深爱之前已经痴迷了，只是在失望或者绝望了之后依旧无法忘却。

　　在给法兰沙写信之前，最后的理智彻底地崩溃了。

加上误会已经烟消云散。

于是带着私奔的想法去找法兰沙。

至少可以这么说，这是一个勇敢的角色。

　　我挚爱这样的女子。

为了爱情疯狂地逃奔。

或者说，我挚爱这样的勇气。

只是因为爱一个男人，只是因为深爱，所以深信不疑，所以抛弃现有的所有一切。

有时候爱情需要的是这种不言败的决心和深信的甚至是迷信的信念。

　　还有妓院里那个来自罗马类似于卧底的神秘女子。

也深爱法兰沙，只是为了法兰沙本身的情感选择了放弃而成全了法兰沙和玛莉安的爱情。

　　这是一个悲情的女子。

为了爱而放弃爱，这样的情感高尚得不像常人。

而且这个角色在这部电影里也很重要，如果不是她的话最后法兰沙也许只能真地死在监牢里了。

法兰沙说：你杀过我一次；她说：那只是为了让你复活。

　　极端而霸道，爱你，在我们疯狂做爱的时候，从枕头下拿出一把短剑，在你的胸口留下刀伤，我会舔着你留在刀上那腥甜的血，我说，只有这样，你才会记得我。

　　我至今还不知道她在电影里的名字，也许我没有找到。

或者是这个人物并不需要名字。

来自一个神秘的地方，为了她神秘的任务，以及杀了法兰沙并复活了法兰沙，甚至帮助法兰沙完成在这部电影里需要他完成的复仇计划。

　　神秘，就彻底地神秘。

　　如果说玛莉安是一个代表女子温柔的意象，而神秘女子是女子神秘和无我的意象，那么兽医的女儿也许应该是一个女子暴戾的意象。

　　首先这是一个不同于前面两人的女子，玛莉安受过上等家庭良好的教育，而神秘女子无疑是受过严格的训练，只有她，是一个最底层的工匠女儿，在三教九流中长大，并且身染恶疾。

这就解释了当她看着马尼时眼睛里的那种嫉恨和当马尼倒地时她眼睛里的无奈和悲痛。

她是一个歇斯底里的女子。

因为身染恶性循环疾而被当成另类和魔鬼，因为生活环境而淫荡和邪恶。

　　在她看来，也许，马尼是她唯一的依靠，是她摆脱困境的唯一路途。

然而嫉恨，因为自己不能像其他人一样地活着，因为自己只能在困苦和常人的憎恨里活着。

　　最后她死了，在还没有来得及感觉疼痛的时候死去。

被法兰沙一刀刺进了心脏，连抽畜的时间也没有。

我在想，也许，那个时候她会不会想起马尼死去时还看着她的那双悲戚的眼神。

4.所谓反角。

　　依旧还是那种喧宾夺主的感觉。

最大的终极BOSS沙丁只是一个阴郁而低沉的角色，而尚法兰柯斯其实只是他训练出来的一个政治阴谋的棋子罢了。

虽然尚法兰柯斯在电影的大部分境头里晃来晃去，可是他行使的依旧是沙丁的意愿。

或者说，尚法兰柯斯以为自己行使的是自己所信仰的宗教意愿，而其实还是沙丁。

　　只是沙丁习惯于在镜头的阴暗处冷冷地发笑，而尚法兰柯斯却在明处里痛苦而黯然地活着。

沙丁最后死于狼群的围剿而不是死在主角们的剑下，多少带了点轮回的味道，或者说是因果循环。

　　因为他的政治目的而导致了狼群被大面积地剿杀，最后被狼群嘶咬。

而狼群是马尼信仰的图腾，多少也带有点替马尼复仇的感觉。

或者说，在某个时候，狼群最终成了马尼的象征和替身。

完成了马尼最后的意愿。

　　非洲的旅行让尚法兰柯斯隐藏起了一只阴秽的手臂。

以及让他带回了一些来自非洲的猛兽。

和他彻底扭曲的心理。

迷恋的女人是自己的妹妹，因为想着受伤的时候照顾自己的只有这个妹妹，其他人都已经舍自己而去了。

带着一种仇世的心态以及沙丁的欲望，让非洲的猛兽交配而留下最强壮的幼兽。

训练，驯养。

　　法兰沙是他最仇视的，因为法兰沙威胁到他的情感领地。

所以他会去妓院偷取法兰沙的画，污陷，挑拨以及制造混乱。

他侧着脸背着玛莉安和法兰沙阴沉的对话以及倒地时的假摔，都可以看到他那种嫉恨而仇视的眼光。

　　我觉得这个角色挺可怜的，就算他在电影里常常制造一些让人感觉应该憎恨的事情。

可是我就是憎恨不起来。

　　在政治地位上，他只是一个附属于沙丁的信徒罢了。

而在人性和心理上，他也只能彻底地依赖着沙丁。

情感上，爱上自己的妹妹诱发的悲剧没有办法给他带去半点的同情，而最终杀死玛莉安似乎只能是这个角色彻底歇斯底里的疯狂的一个侧面描绘罢了。

　　其实他挺可怜，在所有的方面都显得楚楚动人，只是因为他的角色让人无法同情。

某种程度上说，他的存在本身已经是一场悲剧了。

只是我们没有能够宽容到这种程度罢了。

5.所谓怪兽。

　　怪兽是附属于尚法兰柯斯。

上一辈被尚法兰柯斯带到欧洲，繁殖之后被孤独地留在一片陌生的土地上，从幼兽开始被严格地训练，长大后全身被披上厚重地铁铠，与嘴巴也被安置了锐利的铁牙齿。

这一切，仅仅只是为了满足自己的主人或者主人的主人政治上的欲望。

　　所谓的怪兽其实只是一场宗教政治阴谋罢了。

为了让皇室害怕，为了赋予主人以及主人的主人们更多的权限。

四处杀戮，撕咬。

不停地受伤，直至最后被法兰沙杀死。

我记得它死去之前满眼的悲哀和孤独。

6.所谓结局。

　　玛莉安死了，由马尼的手镯以及印第安人的疗法复生。

和法兰沙从此过上幸福的生活。

看起来像童话一样美丽。

这似乎是电影不可避免的大完美结局，只是看着的时候感觉有点审美疲劳了。

　　而托马斯，这部电影的视角和故事的叙述者，因为深爱着自己的国家和人民，继承了父亲留给他的爵位，最后死于法国大革命前夕的暴乱。

在他走出他的城堡之前，他看着这些他挚爱着的却已经疯狂得失去理智的子民推打着他的时候，我在想，他是不是后悔当初没有和法兰沙和玛莉安一起远走，一起去追求那种自由和冒险的生活。

　　也许，一个人有一个人的活法，一个人有一个人的责任和信念。

也许，他死之前叙述的这个故事只是想告诉人们一个他想说明白却没说明白的寓意。

也许，他没有后悔，只是，也许只有他自己知道了。

2006-09-20；丙戌年丁酉月壬子日草稿。

附注：电影资料扩展链接。

　　■片名：《狼族盟约》() 　　■导演：Christophe Gans 　　■主演：Samuel Le Bihan/Vincent Cassel/Emilie Dequenne/Monica Bellucci 　　■类型：动作/恐怖/悬疑 　　■片长：152min/加拿大版本 　　■国家：加拿大/法国 　　■语言：法语/德语/意大利语 　　■发行：Metropolitan Filmexport 　　■首映日期：2001年1月31日/法国

影片一再强调.谎话说多了,说真了.就成了真理.就像国王与其弄臣的所为.可以把一只普普通通的狼变成一只怪兽.然后昭告天下.如果权威所说的就是真实.那末,这个就是真实.而真实的背后,随之而来的是一个妇女的惨叫,一条小狗的悲鸣.在政治的眼里,现实的怪兽已经死去.于是我们只能说,真正伤人的那只怪兽,其实是政治.那个只有一只手的男人.其实暗藏着一只手.就像每个人心里都藏着一怪兽,他的那只手其实就是怪兽."他训练着你,你训练着怪兽".怪兽.在这里成了心灵的一种附属.就像他的主人那只驱使它的手那般畸形.从这颗心,我们可以窥见一个兄长对其妹畸形的爱,一个臣子对权势畸形的迷恋.又或者,我们看到更多.只是不愿说出.带着几分诡异.影片从一部奇幻片向一部历史剧陡然转变.我们看到了一场世俗权力与教会权力之间的相争.看到了为此生灵的涂炭.就像目睹了一场与参战者本身无关的战争.而流血的,恰恰是参战者本身.如果舍弃影片里个人英雄的情结,舍弃复仇的价值标榜,舍弃骑士与公主的相遇相知相融.那末.这确实是一部历史剧.他用了整整两个半小时为我们讲述了一场关于怪兽的闹剧.而这只怪兽的名字,就是政治.http://hi.baidu.com/kutu2003/blog/item/e3cf51eec5d12cfdb3fb9578.html

非常棒的电影！

画面精美！

剪接张弛有度，动作设计相当漂亮。

尤其是印第安人的武士这个角色，给人印象深刻！

商业动作片的典范！

有以下原因令你要看看2001年的《狼族盟约》：1. 如果你喜欢好莱坞的史诗式电影的话，片中有大片原野任你眼部驰骋，让你有《勇敢的心》的体会。

2. 如果你喜欢文艺片的话，片中有大量关于贵族的宫廷对话，足以填饱你对十八世纪中叶的宫廷文化的饥饿，使你会找到《圣女贞德》的感觉。

3. 如果你喜欢带有激情的场面来促进一下荷尔蒙，片中有意大利宝贝Monica Bellucci，也有萎靡的古代欧式妓院，让你回忆起《惊情四百年》的兴奋。

4. 如果你喜欢英雄主义和动作至上者，片中请来了香港的武指和剪接，恰到好处的慢镜头处理不但没有卖弄技术，反而会令你过足功夫瘾。

5. 如果你喜欢故事中有残缺的人物，片中的Vincent Cassel便是独臂者，可以勾起你对《独臂刀》系列的思念。

6. 如果你喜欢特技魔兽场面，片中电脑制作出一只硕大的怪兽，可媲美《风云雄霸天下》的火麒麟。

7. 如果你喜欢古代政治阴谋片，片中有法国大革命之前的宫廷阴谋，当然比《夜宴》要好看。

8. 如果你对狼或者种族主义话题有兴趣，片中有印地安人漂洋过海借助狼的力量侦察神秘谋杀案，相信你定会回忆起《与狼共舞》。

9. 如果你是环保主义者，印地安人马尼绝对是你最钟情的战友。

10. 如果你钟情爱情片，本片仍可满足你的需求，也有《神雕侠侣》小龙女被玷污那段的影子。

11. 如果你喜欢对抗好莱坞电影，本片也是一个例子，融合了以上10大元素并且让人大呼精彩，绝对是对好莱坞电影的一个反击。

本片为2001年法国十大卖座片第四名，并获得第27届凯撒奖最佳服装奖。

当然以上也可以是你不会去看《狼族盟约》的原因，反正如果我早知道是这样的话就不会去看。

由于此片同时向众多电影做出了“致敬”，因此它也只相当于一头美轮美奂的“四不像”。

2006年11月15日

虽然电影的长度在2小时20分左右，但也没什么好说的，讲述了一个小城镇里发生的一个故事，娱乐性方面比较低，没有平常好莱坞电影里观众喜欢的元素，例如爆炸啊、智谋啊、特效啊什么的，动作方面倒是有，但打起来比较像中国功夫，慢镜头不少但似乎不大熟练，故事也比较平淡，毕竟描述基本围绕着上层社会，能有趣到什么地方呢，一群达官贵人围在一起说说无聊的话题，平常的娱乐活动也就喝酒和讨论下戏剧诸如此类的而已，大概农村的娱乐活动要比贵族们的还要好，说起这个我倒是好奇以前人们白天劳作，晚上做些什么事情来消遣呢？

片中有少量儿童不宜的内容，毕竟法国拍的嘛，尺度总是比米国大很多，以前我老婆要去法国几年时就很担心被拐跑了，当然现在也和我没什么关系了说回电影，布景虽然很多都比较精细，但总觉得简陋了点，不是很能展现出那个时代的风格，尤其是巴黎那里，总觉得很现代化……总体评分：2.8/5.0（评分修正：原2.5）某个官员很像卷福……后面有一幕挺揪心，一个农村姑娘跑去把跑丢的羊羔捉回家，一个踉跄掉到齐腰的污水坑里，稍微稳了稳就慢慢向羊羔走去，慢慢地把羊羔抱在胸前，忽然四周传来危险的嘶叫声，她紧张地往四周望去，手里依然紧紧的抱着羊羔，她越看越害怕，似乎察觉到一点动静后马上放掉羊羔拼命沿着树根往上爬，但是行动敏捷的怪兽依然把她杀掉了。

这一段实在受不了，感受太深刻，后面的剧情都没啥心思看了

要不是有这对夫妻出场，这种冗长平淡男女主角皆难看的片子实在提不起兴趣。

男主角长相偏老，身边还老是跟着个嫩嫩的小侯爵更显老……女主角这么大个脸盘子居然还被赞为迷死人不偿命的当红炸子鸡……说实话一直都没搞清楚Monica到底什么官，干嘛要装妓女，不过后来监狱里的时候那身衣服衬得气质真是高贵Vincent轻装上阵时那身材真是没话说

可笑的法国贵族，让人作呕的法语，法国特色的乱伦，真是汇聚了能想到的所有法国垃圾，外加永远光明不起来的世界最大恐怖组织教廷。

唯一看的舒服的印第安小伙，操着明显的中国功夫，却不是法国货。

2个半小时……看完那个叫累啊，洗把脸，再把耳朵掏掏干净，delete，真浪费我时间。

不过开场两个人的立领风衣真是酷，就是海报上那个，相当酷。

法国电影一贯讲究镜头感。

即便再烂的情节，再平庸的表演，但镜头一定会用的很有想法。

虽然一开头就已经猜到了整个剧情的发展，但那种不同于好莱坞模式的镜头语言还是让人为之动容。

很喜欢，也让人遗憾，这是一部含有大量顶级镜头的作品，许多构思细节场景让人喜欢让人惊叹让人凝望，更不用说绝赞的音乐。

但是！

可是！

可惜的打斗部分不伦不类，装逼指数破表，还有个就是影片前期就各种精彩，把后期给透支几乎殆尽，变得冗长，这点不够明智，就我认知的满分作品，前期铺垫大多枯燥，一个好故事需要先抑后扬，于高潮处落幕，不过有时也会想正式因为拖着这么冗长，大多数人都能感觉这部影片本身落寞不行的感觉，居然和片尾老帅哥从人群中走出来的落魄结局相呼应，由戏外呼应戏内，如果这么想，也算一个小亮点。

　　 给4星。

后半部给透支的有点厉害，有时候烂尾太长就不能说烂尾了，不仅仅只是收尾不好，而是拉低整个影片的层次感觉。

所以其实3.5星也许更合适。

令人惋惜！

143分钟剧场版和150分钟导演版的剧情差别从68分钟开始，杀了怪兽以后，导演版有在妓院的一段剧情，剧场版则跳过。