Don't listen to the negative reviews

Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

First thing, people should know about this movie is that it is based for a large part on real events. The war between the two police departments and their police officers really happen (at least during the 1970's) and really drive to the death of police officers during a raid.This film is not really a movie for me, it is a catharsis for Olivier Marchal about his past (he was police officer).So yes the film is dark, hopeless or almost but it was like that. If you dislike this movie, please avoid MR73.If you liked it, you will enjoy all Olivier Marchal's movie as well as some french classics like :"Police Python 357" or "The red circle"

We live in a world full of mediocre crime thrillers, so when a well made film such as Olivier Marchal's "36 Precinct" comes along, it's deserves some attention and respect. In the underbelly of the Parisian criminal world, the Police are frustrated by a gang committing a series of violent robberies. Leo Vrinks (Daniel Auteuil) and Denis Klein (Gerand Depardieu) are two cops seeking promotion, and the imminent departure of the Chief (Andre Dussellier) sets the scene for them to compete for the vacant throne. It's the unrelenting opposition between the two lead characters that is really make this so compelling. The competition between them becomes increasingly ruthless and blurs the usual lines of morality, until there seems no difference between the police and the criminals they chase. The inner turmoil raging inside of Klein, a man torn between rigid morality and grasping ambition. Auteuil is a model in understatement, his low-key depiction of a cop determined to see justice at all costs. As the hunt for the crew drags both men deep into the Paris underworld, Vrinks and Klein spiral towards what seems an inevitable mutual destruction. Nicely constructed plot twists will keep you guessing until the end. I often refer to this film as France's version of "Heat", though story lines aren't the same or nearly as great, it carries itself in a similar fashion, and possesses that tone and ambiance. A stellar cast, a great story, and some momentous shoot-outs; what more could you want from the French?

This is a terrific film that I thoroughly enjoyed. Gerard D always terrific and is yet again here. I'm also a massive Daniel A fan now. Great if slightly familiar story but well told. It's an atmospheric and consistently exciting film. It's really well directed and full of great actors. Very highly recommended by me anyway. I don't know anyone else who has seen it so interesting to read other reactions of English speaking (re)viewers.The story isn't the easiest to follow especially when following all the subtitles but well worth the effort. It feels a bit like a Scorsese film circa 1980s. The locations are also fantastic. Actually I think I might watch again now.

A great film with superb performances by Auteil and Depardieu and notable others.I *like* a film where there are plot and character ambiguities - this properly reflects the human condition. Life is not black and white and French cinema excels and is perhaps preeminent at delineating these complex truths of life. Such a movie leaves you thinking about it -and yourself- for a long while afterwards. Here, the inner conflicts of the various police units, the tension between moral conscience, duty, the desire for justice, loyalties, were powerfully recorded.Let's leave aside the technical point of the prostitute being able to identify Vrinks - I'd be happy to grant artistic licence here (perhaps she did see him though: we could say street-girls have -and need- the eyes of an owl). But do we believe Klein when, in the rest-room confrontation at the end, he contends with his old friend that his wife was 'already dead' when he shot her? He might have meant that she was so horrifically injured that he made a mercy killing. It's possible he meant that she was 'dead' in a more abstract sense.Klein though, was no cold, heartless monster. Nor did he act exclusively out of ambition or vanity. That Vrinks knew this, was referenced by a line early in the film where he rebutted a colleague's censure of Klein: 'he wasn't always like this'. What the film portrays is the brutalising effect that such experience can have on the individual - Klein was brutalised by his desire for justice, the agonies of his regrets for the families of men killed by the security van robbers, and his personal resolve -to the point of obsession- to achieve closure for them. This explains, if not mitigates, his seemingly unconscionable and irrational actions. His experiences, his regrets, forced on him a compromise of ethics - that same compromise of ethics which Vrinks had himself earlier enacted; and for the same reasons. Referring back to the rest-room scene, Vrinks couldn't bring himself to kill Klein because in Klein, he recognised himself, his own errors and fragilities (in fact he was the first to abuse ethics by being a party -if hesitantly- to the street murder)- all powerfully symbolised in the cinematography through the dialogue being screened via their reflections in the sink-mirrors. His enjoining Klein to dispatch himself was more in the sense of an old comrade advocating that as he (Klein) had played the game and had lost (notionally even more: integrity, morals, friendship, and broad respect), perhaps it was time to 'leave the table', rather than being animated by a bitter need for vengeance. If Klein really were such an indifferent, callous beast, it wouldn't have troubled him and he would have celebrated his reprieve- that it did clearly trouble him, defined the humanity, the morbidly-injured conscience in the man. The motorcycle drive-by was, in a sense, another merciful killing, and may well have saved Klein having to do it himself. When Vrinks later read of his friend's demise, his reaction was hardly one of 'high-fiving' jubilation. There was no certain 'victor' here and I don't think the film maker intended to frame it as a straightforward adversarial tale. In some sense, Vrinks prevailed in merely being alive and having a healthy daughter to live for. If it was any victory though, it was a pyrrhic one as he was, to no small degree, a principle author of the tragedies that unfolded.