This dreary film was a bad start for Simenon on the screen. Surprisingly, it was directed by Jean Renoir, who could rise to such heights as a great director, but here sank to unparalleled depths of mediocrity and dullness. It was not as if Renoir was new to directing, for he had already directed several films before this one. So there is no excuse. Because the action of the film largely takes place at night (as the title indicates), the film is literally very dark indeed. The lighting is terrible, and as it was such an early sound film, the sound is not much better. But the greatest disappointment of all is Pierre Renoir, older brother of Jean, in his role of Commissaire (Inspector) Jules Maigret. He is dull, dull, and duller. Many will remember him fondly from the later film LES ENFANTS DU PARADIS. But he was no good as a Maigret. He gives the character no personality whatsoever. A golem could have done a better job of it. Those of us who appreciate Jean Gabin and Bruno Cremer as Maigret can only sink into a slough of despond at the sight of this lifeless first screen incarnation of our hero. The Danish actress Winna Winifried, in her first screen appearance, attempts to inject some mystery into the film by her extraordinarily louche and languid performance, a deeply weird portrayal which if better exploited and directed could have worked very well indeed. She ceased work in 1940 with her seventh film, and as far as IMDb is concerned, vanished from the world after that. I wonder if the Danes could tell us more. She must have fled the Nazi invasion of Paris in that year, and who knows what might have become of her after that. She had made four French films and three British ones, none of which seems to be particularly known today, and only one has been reviewed by a single specialist reviewer, except for this one, which has been revived recently. As for the story, it is a rather meandering and feeble one, involving the smuggling of cocaine in automobile tyres. Perhaps that is why the action appears to go round in circles. Jacques Becker (father of Jean Becker), who three years later was to begin his directing career, was Production Manager. A third member of the Renoir family also worked on this film, Claude Renoir, who was focus puller. Three years later, he commenced his career as cinematographer, and only retired in 2010, after 86 films in that job. Truly the Renoir family have made their mark on French culture. Claude Renoir's most spectacular success as a cinematographer was probably, and most appropriately (considering who his grandfather was), the magnificent film about another famous painter, LE MYSTÈRE DE PICASSO (1956), directed by the brilliant Henri-Georges Cluzot. He was also the cinematographer for his brother Jean's magical and evocative film THE RIVER (1951), a classic made all the more memorable by Claude Renoir's fine work in capturing the atmosphere of India on location. It is such a pity that all these talented people could not have done a better job on this particular film, but there is no use pretending that they succeeded, because they did not. I agree with another reviewer who says that this film is 'awkward, amateurish and even inept'.

Carrefour has been considered a precursor to film noir and it can be agreed that the film is all about atmosphere. Renoir uses long sweeping pans to explore the space. There is a consciousness with regards to constructing depth in the mise-en-scene. Interestingly groups of characters are organized and move around in this film slightly differently from Grande Illusion or Regle, and is more similar to Cordelier. If theses differences can be connected to two overall stylistics systems for Renoir's work, with one being more focused on psychology (I realize Renoir spoke vehemently against it), then perhaps Carrefour can be understood as a bit of a hybrid between Renoir's two dominant stylistic systems. In Carrefour, ample closeups and angular shots support this claim while a lack of mobile framing (on interiors certainly) goes further to promote this thesis. Closeups on particular objects (cigarette pack) are ambiguously pov and hint at a transcendental position (not typical of Renoir) and is perhaps explainable through the film being an adaptation of a Simenon book. Again, Renoir finds novel uses for synch sound with alternating sound design and sound used through a sense of privilege. The settings are beautiful and the nighttime scenes become eerie and displaced (the displacement is all the more provocative when piecing together a film that is missing a reel). There is a Renoirian dilemma at play in this Simenon story and Renoir's use of polyvocal systems (Illusion, Carosse) underscore it. Carrefour is not unobtrusively political in its presentation of foreigners (Danes) being blamed for the murder of a Jew. A theme of separation and disconnect permeates those 'reasons' that people have for doing what they do. Pierre Renoir as Maigret performs perfecting in navigating the layers of the drama with subtle intent and sharpened will. The employment of great depth of field (lattice of door frame, staircase through doorway) plays more on this psychological disconnect of motives for action than it does for constructing space unobtrusively. That is to say, the direction is willful and therefore driven by auteur psychology and defined by construction of transcendental subject positions. Convergence is a force that surges forward to counter the themes of separation and disconnect. Class structure comes colliding into a single plane (and for this reviewer) reveals more about what holds everyone together in unity as opposed to toying with issues of servitude/mastery. Eventually, the pace slows and the atmosphere dominates. The foggy night and dim light provide a nice juxtaposition to the possibility of elucidation on the plot of the film. Some have commented that Night at the Crossroads is impossible to make sense of (without the full working print), but perhaps even with a complete print it would defy any logical and straightforward readings.

An user says that the movie is inept.He is not completely wrong.But it's not Renoir's fault.You've got to know that one reel was definitively lost and that may account for some plot holes (Winna Winifried's behavior for instance) The plot is not essential .The atmosphere of a humid country where the fog falls every night matters more .There's also a study of xenophobia -although the ending (a bit incomprehensible anyway)- tends to deny it.They say Simenon did not like the film.If you like French movies based on the Belgian writer's books try Duvivier's "Panique" and Delannoy's "Maigret et l'Affaire Saint-Fiacre" and "Maigret Tend un Piège".

I was surprised at how awkward, amateurish and even inept this early Renoir film was. Admittedly, there are moments of greatness where one sees the later master, particularly in some closer shots, where one can see fine, detailed, subtle acting. But for the most part of the film, this is a clumsily executed work of poor technical quality, and shaky narrative control. A sequence such as the night-time car chase is technically very brave for this period, but this doesn't excuse it for its poor realisation; one can be sure that Murnau would never have accepted such shoddy work. If one compares LA NUIT DU CARREFOUR with other films made in 1932, such as QUEEN CHRISTINA or GRAND HOTEL, one can see how inelegant and primitive this film's mise-en-scene is. I write this negative review merely to share with other people my disappointment; I travelled to see this film in a rare screening at London's NFT, but felt that I shouldn't have bothered.