Tell No One

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.

...atrociously constructed and written french wanna-be thriller, incompetently directed and horribly paced with too many characters throwing information at the viewer left and right, a much advertised ''on foot chase'' which is actually a man crossing a road, plot holes as big as Mount Everest, bad score with some pop interludes in all the wrong places, cop-out ending where one of the main characters explains the whole plot which isn't even a plot and defies all logic, reason and inspiration.... ....only redeeming qualities Marie-Josée Croze and François Cluzet. 1 star due to the overall idiotic and amateurish handling of direction and script. Truly a low-point of french cinema.

Tell No-one is the debut feature from Guillaume Canet, a guy arguably best known outside of France for being that bloke in The Beach who shouts "Francoise!" a lot. While he may not have seemed to be up to much then, judging from this stunning adaptation of Harlan Coben's novel of the same name, he certainly is now. Tell No-one is the story of Dr. Alexander Beck, a man who gets an email from his wife. Boring, you say? Beck's wife was killed eight years ago in an attack that left him (in a sense) lucky to be alive. The email instructs him to "tell no-one" and with nobody to turn to, Beck throws himself into a desperate search for the woman he loved and lost. What follows is arguably a typical array of thriller conventions: the secrets, the lies, and the inevitable betrayals, but what sets this movie apart is its pacing. Canet sheds some of Coben's superfluous subplots which ramps the tempo up so effectively that you soon forget that it's all in French. The move from the States to France also works in its favour, especially for foreign markets (as in the UK & US), as it makes the movie feel edgier and more unfamiliar than a standard American cop-chase movie. The combination of these factors give Tell No-one a freshness and intelligence that a lot of modern thrillers are lacking. The quality of the acting (especially from Cluzet) and the dialogue, no doubt helped by Coben's writing, keeps the story believable as everyman Beck races ever closer to the truth, and to round it off, the score is great too, with clever use of familiar tracks to help keep the audience somewhat comfortable as Beck's search becomes more and more dangerous. Tell No-one may sound like another average thriller, but its pacing and finesse place it head and shoulders above the rest of the crowd.

Dr. Beck and his childhood sweetheart Margot continue to live a fairy tale romance well into their marriage as they skinny dip one night at a pond they frolicked in as children. They have a slight disagreement and she swims off into the dark where she calls for help. When Beck goes to her aid he is blindsided, she murdered. Eight years pass and Beck, always a person of interest to the police becomes a prime suspect when new evidence appears. He also begins to get E-mails from someone that may be his presumed dead wife. When the police prepare to arrest Beck he runs for it enlisting the help of a local Paris thug and his gang. Mayhem and murder ensue but Beck remains unbowed in this Vertigo/Fugitive hybrid manqué that goes wildly out of control before it reaches the halfway point. After a relatively intriguing beginning and an excellent chase scene the tautness of this thriller snaps in all directions becoming ridiculously convoluted, bending credulity beyond it's breaking point. Director Guillaume Canet remains determined to get his lovers back together but not before throwing a lot of gratuitous violence and strong hints of cover-up and corruption at the audience with cliché cops, thugs and personages of power as well as an abundance of tiresome 90's computer screen suspense. The actors spend most of their time looking dutifully stoic and glum with smatterings of tears supported by murky lighting and an awkward music score that sounds like part of it was recorded underwater. The editing is tight most of the way and the cinematography has some decent moments with some deft moves that ooze suspense but it has little chance of saving this far fetched thriller built on violence and tension but bent on a ridiculous happy ending.

According to most people I know that saw this film and to the reviews I've read this was supposed to be a hugely entertaining thriller that oh so needs to be seen by more people. I didn't expect this film to blow me away but I certainly didn't expect to find this movie mediocre at best, which is what it is. I'm no stranger to French films being both French and having studied them as a student so i'm aware of the clichés and corny plot twists that can go unnoticed by English/American audiences. There are some great French films that should have been given widespread international release but this isn't one of them. To begin with the plot is both far fetched, over complicated and too smart assed to be entertaining so you really feel every minute of its 2hr and 5min run time and by the time everything is finally revealed you are beyond caring. The main character himself is lacking any real charisma or even acting talent to keep your attention fixed mainly on him and his journey anytime close to the crap ending so by the time you've even considered swallowing the main plot twists it's begun to dawn on you that you've wasted your time! I actually remember switching off before the credits actually began to roll after the film's climactic reunion - that was the point in which I was sure I had almost completely wasted my time by the way. The film is not at all the worst thing i've seen but it seems completely overrated. For instance I read somewhere that it beats all the Bourne Identity films in terms of suspense or even that it has 'wall-to-wall tension'. I can safely say some people are hyping up this frankly dull movie. 4/10 is a generously considerate rating for this film I feel, and since I have seen some complete and utter stinkers, I'll therefore save the 1s, 2s and 3s for them.