I would have regretted watching this movie, because the ending was so horrific. But then I discovered that the story was very closely based on an actual case in New York in 2012, so then it became a warning to parents everywhere to be much more vigilant when searching for a child minder. A relatively short interview is not enough, and candidates may be in cahoots with dubious referees being asked for references. But how come just anyone, a total stranger, can come into someone's home and be trusted with the care of children without child services or the appropriate agency vetting the prospective employee first?

That said, there were enough clues in the story, taking it at face value, that Louise, the child minder, was daft in the head. The way she was abrupt with her employer when she did not get her own way and flounced off home with hardly an au revoir. Later, the daughter told her mother that Louise had done a wee in the children's potty, but the mother just disregarded this as a made-up story and did not ponder even for a minute why would a very young child think of making up that particular scenario, as it is so outlandish. The Arab woman, Louise's kind of friend from the playground, started to become worried about Louise's attitude, but did not mention it to the parents. The man's mother, Sylvie, came for dinner and stated categorically that Louise was dangerous. Again, the parents did not react. Their own lives were too important to be thinking what might be happening in the apartment while the parents were at work.

A terrible, shocking case in real life and more than adequately depicted in the movie.

I have to admit, when I read thriller I thought this was going to be over the top ... but overall that is something the movie can not be accused of. Yes there is a characer who takes things to far. But even small things are served in small bites for us to chew - no pun intended.

The central performance is amazing - and while I am still struggling with that end ... it still elevates the movie for me. Of course that can go either way for the viewers. Which by the way if you say you are using spoilers, I'd hope you would actually talk about something than being vague about it - like an open review - again no pun intended.

This creeps up on you for sure and while you may not agree with certain decision the characters take ... you can understand them. Empathy can be a great thing ... sometimes it is "wasted" on the wrong person. But how could you know that, right? Really well done and slow moving (pace wise),this will not be everyones tea ... but those who will like it, will actually cherish it.

I anticipated a dark psychological thriller, more in the French tradition of Chabrol, 'The Page Turner', but this film is more of a serious study of intimate relationships & the breakdown of a personality that eventually becomes so unhinged, it commits a shocking act of violence.

'Lullaby' (UK title) is primarily about obsession as well as being a social commentary on class, & a critique on modern parenting & motherhood.

Louise, a middle-aged nanny, quickly inveigles her way into Paul & Myriam's home - a busy, young middle-class couple - by evincing an impressive calm, authoritative manner with their children. Yet gradually her brooding personality reveals itself as she tries to exert control not only over the children, but the entire family. There is a clear desperate need within her which Mila & Adam are able to fill but which goes unnoticed by others, due to a lack of interest, a preoccupation with their own lives, or simply the fact that she is only a nanny after all. For instance, towards the end of the film, when Paul & Myriam discover that Louise has given a false reference, Paul is more upset about getting penalised for tax reasons than actually trying to discover what drove her to commit this act in the first place.

The children soon become dependent on Louise, such as when she toys with them during a game of hide & seek, early on in the film, yet it soon becomes apparent that if anyone is dependent on others for her emotional state of mind, it is Louise herself. She becomes so fiercely protective of her charges to a degree that goes beyond the normal & attracts adverse attention (the incident in the playground) . She becomes sullen & withdrawn when Paul's mother assumes responsibility for Mila & Adam at short notice and their attention is drawn elsewhere, leaving her isolated & alone.

Leila Slimani's original source novel emphasized how the supposedly cosy domestic environment of a family home can possess its own sense of threat. For Myriam, it has become a constraint from which she wishes to break free & resume her own career. It soon becomes clear that Louise has an unstable, erratic personality. The big bad wolf she impersonates to amuse the children exists not only in the world of picture-books & children's stories, but in the actual guise of a well meaning adult.

We never learn the true reason regarding this desperate need (an absent daughter is mentioned as a possible reason). Louise is so insecure of her role & position, she even resorts to try and preserve her place in the family by manipulating Paul & Myriam into having another child - even prompting Mila to do her bidding - as well as performing a disturbing sex magic ritual.

However, Louise is no mere psychopath. She, too, is a victim, particularly of social & economic circumstance; she lives in a less prosperous suburb, that is dangerous at night. She lives alone, and as her hold on reality begins to slip, suffers from paranoid delusions (the surreal scene with the octopuses in the kitchen).

In one early scene, the roles are reversed and it is Louise (the child),who is chastised by Myriam (assuming the role of adult) which flags up that no matter how enmeshed she becomes in the family's emotional lives, she remains a hired servant . In that sense, the film is a complicated study of a constantly shifting master-servant relationship (echoes of 'Parasite'). Myriam may have concerns about the nanny but they are superseded by her own needs, to maintain her independence as a working mother & devolving these responsibilities on to a substitute mother figure instead. Both Paul & Myriam prioritise their own needs (career, social life) despite misgivings about Louise. Sharply critical views on modern parenthood are provided by Paul's mother, Sylvie, as well as by a concerned teacher in Mila's school. She makes the wry comment that, 'Hurry up' appears to be the most commonly uttered phrased used by parents to children, in this fast-paced, time-poor society.

The film is mostly conveyed through the perspective of Louise's gradually disintegrating personality. As pointed out by others, the film inhabits a comfortable middle class domestic milieu but one which is skewed with an increasing sense of unease and whose apparent normality is undercut by the bizarre & erratic. It is made clear to the audience that something is not quite right, the dramatic tragic irony here is that Paul & Myriam choose to cast aside doubts for their own reasons.

I agree with other reviewers that the film's strength is Karen Viard. It is a complex central performance, calling upon many shifts of mood, a fateful combination of the caring & the destructive, a maelstrom of emotions who finds a refuge in another family's home but is unnerved by any perceived threat which may undermine her tenuous position with in it (the letter towards the end offering a nursery place to Adam, which acts as the trigger towards her final act). Louise is a hired-hand (service culture, market forces, the outsourcing of care) , who can be readily dispensed with at a moment's notice, without anyone realizing the tragic effect this may have on her fragile equilibrium.