criterionforum.org

I didn't find a thread for this, so I had to make one- Last night I spent a gripping 2 hours with this movie, and I must say its one of my favorites this year. Tell No One is one of the better thrillers I've ever seen, and was very impacting emotionally. Has anyone else seen this?

I also caught this. I was most taken by the cinematography and the fantastic foot-chase scene. What soured the deal for me were all of the plot twists and thriller tropes. For such a well-constructed and executed film, the plot surprises seemed contrived and mostly unnecessary.

I was also a little put off by the montage that accompanied Jeff Buckley's rendition of "Lilac Wine." The cinematography is stellar, but I wasn't sure that the film needed a music video inserted into it. I'm also a little iffy on the obviousness of juxtaposing wedding and funeral images.

Totally enjoyable film nonetheless.

The way that scene was presented, though... I adored the fact that there was no shying away from the grim images of the funeral, particularly the casket going up in flames in the cremation oven.

I guess looking back, there were a bit too many plot twists going on, but by then, you're so engrossed in the story that you don't care. It was a great, great film.

This is a superb thriller, with a great Hitchcockian normal guy caught up in grand scheme peril concept.

Has a broad range of characters, great acting (especially the lead guy Francois Cluzet, nice to see a normal looking middle aged guy panting through the action scenes rather than a handily toned and bronzed 25 yr old action hero how just happens to be a doctor!), some thrilling chases, (the already mentioned foot chase!) and some very well shot sequences, wont say to much as people should really seek this one out! You can get it for 6 quid on dvd!! Bargin

Ok if some of the plot elements seem a little coincidental and far fetched upon postviewing discussion it none the less manages to totally grip, thrill and generally entertaining while your watching it. How many of us roll our eyes DURING most modern thrillers.

My only complaint is with the UK 2 disc dvd, its extras packed, with a interesting looking making of and a ton a deleted scenes, only snag... NO ENGLISH SUBS, seems to be to be a direct port of the french release, still better than nothing! Most french releases never see light of day anywhere else!

I saw this a couple of weeks ago, and I was fairly disappointed. All the stellar reviews had me excited to see it, but I didn't feel much connection with the characters, which added to the confusion of the various plot twists. The aforementioned "music video" sequences didn't work for me either.

One perhaps minor nit-pick that also took me out of things at the beginning: there are some quick flashbacks of the main couple to when they were young kids first falling in love with each other, deftly cross-cut in a couple of instances with them doing similar things "today," but the two actors playing the couple (Cluzet and Marie-Josee Croze) are clearly about 15 years apart in age! It was a bit too much for me to believe that they were supposed to be exactly the same age. It might have worked if Kristin Scott Thomas had been playing the wife instead of one of his friends.

I did like a few things in it--the cast overall is very good, particularly KST. The explanation in the end of what really happened (I'm not spoiling anything here), plus the manner in which it's revealed, both to the main character and to the audience, is very effective.

I wouldn't discourage anyone from seeing it if they're interested, but it didn't do much for me.

I think I was most off-put by the pedophilia subplot, mixed together with strange unnecessary images of the two lovers as pre-pubescent lovers.....

Also, aren't they like 20 years apart? wtf.

I bought the idea that they were around the same age. Despite the fact that she's unbelievably beautiful, Marie-Josee Croze has that mature, naturally lined look to her that suggests a young looking woman in her late 30s or even early 40s. And Cluzet doesn't look his age, he has a younger Dustin Hoffman thing going on. I can buy that they're around the same age. I never once thought it during the film.

barrym71 wrote:I also caught this. I was most taken by the cinematography and the fantastic foot-chase scene.

yes, that chase scene was incredible! I caught myself gaping openmouthed at the screen sometime during it.

What soured the deal for me were all of the plot twists and thriller tropes. For such a well-constructed and executed film, the plot surprises seemed contrived and mostly unnecessary.

to be fair, this was based on Harlan Coben's book, and the film certainly tied everything up better than the novel. I think one's acceptance of the abundance of plot twists has everything to do with willingness to suspend belief and get caught up in it. Like others said, during the film I was completely engrossed by every little detail and felt extremely connected to the main character, but if I were watching it objectively and with skepticism, I'd have little patience for it all.

I do agree that the flashbacks to when they were child lovers were unnecessary.

She is in her late 30s, 38 now, probably 35 when it was filmed (and yes, she's scorching hot). I just didn't think he looked any younger than late 40s/early 50s, which is what he actually is.

Though I did kind of like the U2 moment. I also liked when they arrested the Chabrol-like bad guy he was still more interested in the horse riding.

I dunno, I'll be interested to see what else this guy makes in the future. I wont write him off just yet.

barrym71 wrote:What soured the deal for me were all of the plot twists and thriller tropes. For such a well-constructed and executed film, the plot surprises seemed contrived and mostly unnecessary.

What soured the whole thing for me was that someone in hiding and in fear of their life would actually use e-mail as a means of communicating their continued existence. Am I being too pedantic/analytical or does anyone else agree? Is it one of those 'high concept' ideas that leaks like a torpedoed ship if you stop and think and therefore it's best not to?
Does this happen in the book too?

Not to give too much away, but within the parameters of the plot - she had just recently figured out that there was even anyone to communicate to. She was in hiding, but no one knew where she was and she wasn't in any immediate danger of being caught - but her husband was. She cleverly used techniques to communicate with him secretly - like the U2 moment - so he'd be one step ahead of those pursuing him.

I'm not sure how that isn't a smart way to go from her perspective.

LQ wrote:I do agree that the flashbacks to when they were child lovers was unnecessary.

I have to disagree - seeing into his tortured memory created a bridge between us and the main character. And by seeing them at their youngest, most innocent, and most vulnerable created a great 'then and now' contrast once you considered how messy the situation they found themselves in truly was.

Zazou dans le Metro wrote:Does this happen in the book too?

yep

mfunk9786 wrote: And by seeing them at their youngest, most innocent, and most vulnerable created a great 'then and now' contrast once you considered how messy the situation they found themselves in truly was.

well, okay. I suppose. I was just so engrossed in their present. However, it does re-inforce the idea that their love really spanned a lifetime... I was touched by the fact that 8 years later, he still bore the pain of her disappearance, like it was just the day before. Not to be callous, but people move on. Unless you are truly, profoundly in love. So in retrospect I guess the flashbacks did add to that idea. Like I said before, I was genuinely moved by the portrayal of love in this film.

Especially since he thought she was dead. Although, I don't know, if I were in that situation with the person I love, I would get a rush of ludovico technique nausea if I even considered becoming attached romantically with someone else. I can't really fault the guy, or the movie for portraying it that way. Seems pretty legitimate to me.

This was in my Top 10 for 2007, but on a recent second viewing it was less impressive. Since the main participants in the twist ending barely appeared in the film, it was hard to care. And the U2 moment was godawful. It's an excellent, absorbing popcorn flick, but without any resonance.

P.S. The leads are 15 years apart (born in 1955 vs. 1970) in real life. Although I never thought about the age diff until I read this thread.

Disappointing despite good performances. It's way overplotted & at times very heavy-handed, especially the overbearing music cues. I don't think the director appreciates the value of subtlety at all & the film has a flashy, self-conscious, tv commercial quality to it which I found distracting & probably reflects the directors lack of experience (this was only his second feature). That said the set-up is compelling & it certainly keeps you watching so it's by no means a failure. But on the other hand neither is it the sensational thriller some of the reviews paint it as.

I saw it last night, after some personal recommendations and, basically, having read nothing bad about it anywhere. At first I really liked it, but by the end I was supremely annoyed at the plot, and specifically, the mammoth exposition scene at the end. I mean, Jesus, why not just give us a page of typed notes to read on the way home...

After some reflection, the movie felt to me like one of those stories told by multiple narrators, where one person will start out, then someone else takes over and continues the plot, possibly in ways unintended by the first person, and then someone else takes over, etc. There was no consistency to what was going on as far as I could tell. And the chase scene, while fantastic and wonderfully shot and edited, seemed so incongruous that the effect was a bit jarring. Also, while most of the performances were great, so many big names were in it that I couldn't help feeling Baye, Scott-Thomas, and Rochefort were giving extended cameos...

Put me in the disappointed camp. My complaints about the film are similar to those mentioned above i.e. the plot becomes convoluted in a ‘bestseller’ kind of way and it started with the involvement of the local hoods and went downhill from there. Up until that point it was balanced as a good Hitchcock style thriller and then went all stupidly Hollywood, undermining what good work had been put in up to that point.

barrym71 wrote:I also caught this. I was most taken by the cinematography and the fantastic foot-chase scene. What soured the deal for me were all of the plot twists and thriller tropes.

This sums up my experience ... I can't think of much more to add. Sorry.

Can anyone verify that the French DVD has English subtitles?

Matt wrote:Can anyone verify that the French DVD has English subtitles?

It has.

It also has naked Marie-Josee Croze. [waits for LQ to say something snippy]

mfunk9786 wrote:It also has naked Marie-Josee Croze. [waits for LQ to say something snippy]

Hey, she's hot! It's all good.

I'm looking forward to seeing this again. It could easily be one of those movies that completely hinges on the dénouement, and is not worth seeing again once you know the "gotcha!" But this is just as much a very emotionally touching film as it is a tightly wound thriller. And the performances are just amazing.

I enjoyed it. To me, the trouble with the typical Hollywood approach to this classic theme (man unjustly accused) is that there seem to be two archetype approaches:

1. Leave the puzzle unsolved until it all comes together in the final scene.
2. Show the viewer everything, and emphasize the suspense and action aspects.

I applaud this film for charting a middle way, where the lead character slowly understands more and more through the movie. It helped my enjoyment, in that the plot development seemed more organic, and less contrived that way.

A remake is in the works.