Between the report and the reconstruction, the movie by Jean-Jacques Annaud is excellent. The only extra-production thing that makes a stain is that we collect hundreds of millions to rebuild what has been destroyed and we can't find a hundred cents to give to the unfortunate. A crazy world.

This is not a subtle film at all. You have the build up which comes on like an episode of Casualty with people casually tossing cigarettes left right and centre, faulty electrics blowing up and hand tools sparking everywhere. It feels a bit ott and very heavy handed.

When the fire starts the sequence of events jumps about a bit and there are some odd moments of 'light relief' that seem out of place. It is a very uneven film, and overlong too I would say. Which is perhaps why the ending feels sudden and rushed, it doesn't even tie up the loose ends the film has invented.

At times it wants to take itself seriously while at others its straight exploitation fayre. Some of the final fire scenes are very well filmed though and you could completely believe that it was taking place at the cathedral.

I think it probably does a disservice to a lot of those at the scene and some of it felt a little inappropriate, as well as inaccurate. I would highly recommend the film from a couple of years ago by the Naudet brothers as this had much more emotional depth(as well as actual facts).

Notre Dame Brûle is a crying indictment to the entire system (or lack thereof) that was supposed to protect and preserve from the risk of fire one of the most ancient and beautiful monuments of the world.

How is it possible that the several tons of very old wood that made the roof of the cathedral were not equipped with an extensive state of the art anti fire system? Had any of the cathedral's curators ever took a stroll across what was called "the forest"? Had the idea of what a sparkle could do in such environment ever crossed their mind?

How is it possible that none of the curators ever felt the need to design and put in place a pre-defined plan of intervention that would allow an instantaneous deployment of the fire brigades in case of fire emergency?

How is it possible that no one ever thought it might be a good idea to invest into equipping the cathedral with a modern, reliable, pervasive fire alarm system?

How is it possible that so many of the cathedral's infrastructures, like the pipes supposed to carry the water to the roof, were completely decrepit and unusable?

All the polemics surrounding the crisis management after the fire were simply sterile: one hour after the roof caught fire, the cathedral was doomed, the fire was out of control. All was decided in those 60 minutes when all the outdated, failing systems in place did nothing to trigger a prompt response.

This is no hindsight: the hypothesis of a fire was (should have been) a very real one; but none of those in charge acted upon it.

If Notre Dame is still standing, despite the ineptness of its curators, it is thanks to the superior bravery of a bunch of fire brigades officers who put their lives at risk to go in and extinguish the fire in the left tower.

This incident however will remain a forever stain on France's credibility in its ability to protect its artistic patrimony.