impdb.org

IGCD

[ Login ]

Meurtres à domicile, Movie, 1982

Pictures provided by: humungus

1973 Ford Ambulance

Grove RT-Series

1982 Land-Rover Range Rover Series I

1979 Mitsubishi Colt

1972 Simca 1100

1980 Volkswagen unknown T3 [Typ 2]

Where to find this title?

Comments about this movie

See all comments about this movie and its vehicles

Author	Message
humungus ◊ 2025-11-21 20:06	The title with an 'à' is only on the poster, so IMDb is full of crap again. Anyway, filmed in Brussels. Spoiler - click here to see it The World's Most Reliable Movie Reference Site wrote Yes, this is definitely a French banknote:
PMEntertainmentLives ◊ 2025-11-22 05:40	humungus wrote The title with an 'à' is only on the poster, so IMDb is full of crap again. I understand your continuous hatred for IMDb on certain aspects, but here, IMDb is simply using the correct grammar. 😛 Back then, accents were often neglected when text was printed in all-caps. Being a French speaker, I can tell you that the correct title is "Meurtres à domicile". -- Last edit: 2025-11-22 05:40:36
humungus ◊ 2025-11-22 08:05	PMEntertainmentLives wrote I understand your continuous hatred for IMDb on certain aspects, but here, IMDb is simply using the correct grammar. 😛 Back then, accents were often neglected when text was printed in all-caps. Being a French speaker, I can tell you that the correct title is "Meurtres à domicile". I never suggested it wasn't the correct title, but IMDb's declared policy is to display movie titles as they appear on screen (never mind the case), so correct grammar doesn't enter into it. Because if it did, what of "Ain't Them Bodies Saints"?
LVCDC ◊ 2025-11-22 10:39	humungus wrote (...) IMDb's declared policy is to display movie titles as they appear on screen (...) Stupid rule ! This is OK for languages without accent nor special letters. Not for others. Accent could change lot of things. And what about Scandinavian languages ? (... for exemple; one among several others !) Read the Swedish section to understand that why Å, Ä, Ö could not be consider just like A, A, O !. Same thing about the date : year of screening is used !... (c) should be the only reference (when it appears on the film, of course; often missing during the first decades). This is an important point : some movies have been broadcasted only years after their filming. Does it make sense to say “the year 2024” if a film from the 1930s, never released, only appears then? The actors are all dead, the environment has changed... How is it a film from 2024? Nowadays, a film released in January couldn't have been shot and edited in 15 days! Especially when the action takes place in the middle of summer in the northern hemisphere! OK, it's so long to see the (c) after 10 minutes naming all the team, contributors, music copyrights, ... But this (c) has a sense ! Well ... I'm going for (zen attitude again)
Gamer ◊ 2025-11-22 10:41	LVCDC wrote (c) should be the only reference (when it appears on the film, of course; often missing during the first decades). Especially true for post/Soviet films which always have a production year and a premiere year: https://www.kino-teatr.ru/kino/movie/sov/3517/annot/ "Produced 1991, premiered May 1992"
humungus ◊ 2025-11-22 11:46	LVCDC wrote Stupid rule ! Not really. The title on screen is actually part of the movie, bad grammar and missing accents notwithstanding, and the one you're likely to use in your search after you see the movie. The title on the poster, correct grammar and all, is NOT part of the movie. But, when you make your search engine as finicky as IMDb's, it'd better find both titles when you search for either (search IMDb for "Fistful of Dollars" and "A Fistful of Dollars" and be amazed). LVCDC wrote Same thing about the date : year of screening is used !... To be exact, it's the date of the first public screening (so test screenings, for example, don't count). But yes, let's hear it for "Jet Pilot"! I agree it's strange to see Orson Welles directed a movie in 2018 but it's also true that's when the movie was actually completed, so I figure both views are valid, as long as one's cosistent about it.

Add a comment