Tell No One

Good movie!

Good movie!

Good movie!

WRONG MOVIE

I just returned from an overseas visit; this film is in wide and aggressive release in France. We saw it in Paris, and it was good enough to prompt us to discuss at length what did and did not happen (our French being only moderately up to the task of following the of-course-unsubtitled dialogue), and to try to figure out how all the plot details fit together. We found a copy of the novel at a book shop and one of us promptly read it cover to cover (in French). So that's what happened! Apparently the novel was a bestseller in the US in 2001, and there was interest in making a film here but it fell apart, possibly leaving the author angry (I see he does have another novel heading to the US screen). He's been in the French press a lot, and says he loves the way Canet changed the plot (subtly) and the ending (substantially) for the screen. I liked all of it except (I agree with the previous poster) the final scene. And I find it awful that it and so many other excellent European films never see the US big screen. Maybe this one will, who knows ... (or has - in New York? - and I am not aware).

the second half really falls apart. Too many plot holes, another of those stories where a very interesting scenario is constructed only to have a convoluted, far-fetched & at times absurd ending simply because the movie can't find a realistic way to put things together (or one which wont have the silly happy ending). I found so many questionable situations: SPOILER ALERT 1. Wouldn't the bad guy had been suspicious from Day 1 since his hired thugs never came back to him to report their success? 2. Shouldn't the wife have known her husband was alive from the news? She was really fully alert & unharmed. Especially since she knew her dad was scheming this elaborate hoax. 3. No one else saw the body? 4. Can a police officer really believe a person would allow himself to be hurt enough to be in a coma for 3 days to avert suspicion? 5. A sister remains mum despite the wife's 'murder' when she could have a crucial info? And why involve the sister really, why couldn't the father have taken the pics?? After all this was after she had killed the guy, so why involve anybody else who will be suspicious immediately! 6. And how did the wife set up an untraceable email account? 7. And really wouldn't the info with that kid come to light during the inquest? Like, we are letting this kid off the hook since he was sleeping with this lady (even if it was made up)? After all, a very prominent guy has been murdered, one would think the reason exonerating the prime suspect would hardly remain hidden. And so on...really nothing adds up in the end...

Guillaume Canet's thriller opens on one of those naturalistic dinner party scenes: all glasses clinking and laughter and dialogue just a pitch below hearing. Yet this is a misleading beginning for a film that progresses into a thoroughly surprising and superior tale of a husband's desperate search for his seemingly dead wife. Canet executes the set-up for his tale beautifully, placing his couple stark naked, lakeside, and under the moonlight to emphasize the sheer indulgence of their love. Then with little dialogue he changes the tone from romanticism, to blinding horror as Alexandre (Francois Cluzet) hears a scream and tries in vain to save his wife Margot (Josee Croze) but is beaten over the head by her attacker. The casting of this couple was crucial as for all its twists and turns what follows is essentially their love story; and neither Cluzet nor Croze disappoint-the latter possessing a perfect vulnerable quality (akin to Naomi Watts in 'King Kong'). However, it is to Cluzet that we owe such an absorbing tale of grief and that false friend: memory. As we flash forward eight years he conveys sometimes only through his eyes the ever-present grief ready to resurface as soon as his wife's name is mentioned. And, this being a thriller her name is mentioned pretty quickly in the form of an email, plunging the audience into a taut whodunit/what really happened/who's hiding something tale, the answer being of course everyone. And what a terrific supporting cast we are treated with: Margot's father (Andre Dussollier) effortlessly conveys equal parts frustration and resolute duty; while one cut to Jean Rochefort's brooding and wrinkled face alerts the audience to all the pain of his past. Kristin Scott Thomas is possibly even more captivating in French and her poise and cheekbones seem to be a natural marriage with the language and Parisian backdrop. . Canet uses this midsummer Paris to his full advantage to turn up the heat on his fevered search, notably in a touching scene where Alex is racing through the sweltering streets with a giant dog. "An innocent man" declares Alex's lawyer "does not run". (What-has she not seen 'The Fugitive'?) In any case thank goodness in this circumstance he does as these provide the most compelling scenes in which even Alex crossing a motorway becomes a thing of beauty. What keeps us gripped though, is that we actually care about these characters and their fate-about what really happened that night (which is possibly why I put up with a slightly indulgent confession scene), and despite the fact that this thriller utterly surpassed most of the usual Hollywood offerings; I found myself craving what Tinsel Town does best: a happy ending. **** 4/5

This was reviewed in my newspaper as 5 star (the best). I was expecting a classic French thriller perhaps in the style of Claude Chabrol. This movie was silly, too artificially convoluted for its own good. I look forward to French movies as they avoid the hyperactive pace of Hollywood (and British) films. There were weak attempts at back characterisation of the detectives. It looks as if they shot too much footage and then tried to make the film in the edit suite. This is real Agatha Christie stuff, the explanation at the end is "well I killed a, because first b killed c, and then z killed x but really it was g" - what a waste of 2 hours. I think the writer of the story is the main criminal here.

The actors are quite good (I am sure that the director is partly responsible for that). The story not bad but a bit convoluted and nothing really new. I was a bit disappointed by the last scene, i think it is not necessary. Some camera angles seem gratuitous. The soundtrack is good except for the songs used (U2 etc...) these are too distracting and are already on everyone's psyche to use in such a movie. I though it was a bad idea to have the director also act in the movie.... The scenes with the gangsta guys from the bad neighborhoods seems badly built and the actors are not the best in the bunch... In any case, i guess that for a young director (second movie) it is pretty good...

The movie is wonderfully directed and well-acted, there are many scenes which would keep you on the edge of the seat. Very nice chasing episodes and the hood gang's escapades, among others. What left me unsatisfied is the bumps in the script. I will just name a couple of major ones, but there are more. First, how logical is it that a middle-class French woman would grab a shotgun and kill her longtime acquaintance because he punched her a few times? Not too likely, in my opinion. Next, how probable is that she would go into hiding for eight years without revealing this to the man she loves and trusted the most? Of course she knew he is alive, well and innocent - just replay the scene at the lake. That's a huge burning hole, which is hard to patch. Also, her father, with all the police connections - would he really sit down and do nothing for eight years and then resolve his problems in the stupidest way possible? Also, thinking back, why did the rich bad guy kill that woman? To plant the evidence on the lead character - oh it would be so much easier to whack the guy and solve most, if not all of his pending problems, wouldn't it? Maybe I am not entirely fair to the plot, but the bottom line in my opinion is that chasing the possible twists in the plot, the creators made the movie overly confusing, offering only very superficial explanations to the serious actions of its characters. And I suppose, I wanted something a bit more logical, revealing the depths of a human nature, not just artificially created twists and turns.