list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Tell No One on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Tell_No_One/299565/default.aspx Title: Tell No One
Year: 2008
Director: Guillaume Canet
Plot: An innocent man is on the run after he's accused of murder and his spouse seemingly returns from the grave in this thriller from France. Alex Beck (François Cluzet) is a doctor who has slowly been putting his life back together after his wife Margot was murdered by a serial killer. Eight years on, Alex is doing well enough until he finds himself implicated in the murder of two people, with plenty of evidence pointing to him as the killer even though he knows nothing of the crimes. The same day, Alex receives an e-mail that appears to be from Margot (Marie-Josée Croze), which includes a link to a video clip that seems to be recent and features his late wife looking alive and well. Margot's message warns Alex that they are both being watched, and he struggles to stay one step ahead of the law as a gang of strong-arm men intimidate Alex's friends into telling whatever they might know about him. Alex's sister Anne (Marina Hands) persuades her well-to-do lover Helene (Kristin Scott Thomas) to hire a well respected attorney, Elisabeth Feldman (Nathalie Baye), to handle Alex's case. While Elisabeth tries to keep Alex out of jail, she learns that her client has a warrant out for his arrest, and Alex goes on the lam while he and his lawyer struggle to find out the truth about the murder as well as Margot's reappearance. Tell No One (aka Ne Le Dis a Personne) was based on the international best-selling novel by Harlan Coben. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 14
Number of Lists: 12
Number of blog posts: 4
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 03:13:33 GMTTell No One2008Guillaume CanetAn innocent man is on the run after he's accused of murder and his spouse seemingly returns from the grave in this thriller from France. Alex Beck (<a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P____13767/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>François Cluzet</a>) is a doctor who has slowly been putting his life back together after his wife Margot was murdered by a serial killer. Eight years on, Alex is doing well enough until he finds himself implicated in the murder of two people, with plenty of evidence pointing to him as the killer even though he knows nothing of the crimes. The same day, Alex receives an e-mail that appears to be from Margot (<a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P___277415/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Marie-Josée Croze</a>), which includes a link to a video clip that seems to be recent and features his late wife looking alive and well. Margot's message warns Alex that they are both being watched, and he struggles to stay one step ahead of the law as a gang of strong-arm men intimidate Alex's friends into telling whatever they might know about him. Alex's sister Anne (<a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P___277158/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Marina Hands</a>) persuades her well-to-do lover Helene (<a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P____64027/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Kristin Scott Thomas</a>) to hire a well respected attorney, Elisabeth Feldman (<a href="http://www.spout.com/players/P_____4689/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Nathalie Baye</a>), to handle Alex's case. While Elisabeth tries to keep Alex out of jail, she learns that her client has a warrant out for his arrest, and Alex goes on the lam while he and his lawyer struggle to find out the truth about the murder as well as Margot's reappearance. Tell No One (aka Ne Le Dis a Personne) was based on the international best-selling novel by Harlan Coben. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide14Tag Target (>10)1244http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s299565.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Tell_No_One/299565/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/wonga/archive/2009/2/2/40140.aspx Post By: wonga
Post To: wonga's filmblog
Post Date: 2/2/2009 10:12:18 AM
Body: favorite 10 movies seen in the theater (2008) Man On Wire In Bruges Kabluey I've Loved You So Long Young@Heart Song Sung Blue Snow Angels Tell No One Behind The Glass (2008)* The Dark Knight *Croatian movie from the Denver Film Festival. original title is "Iza Stakla" and director is Zrinko Ogresta. honorable mention (alphabetical) Burn After Reading Caramel The Damnation Of Faust (Metropolitan Opera broadcast) Happy-Go-Lucky Iron Man The Last Command (1928) Mongol Nick And Nora's Infinite Playlist Son Of Rambow Towelhead
]]>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 15:12:18 GMTwongawonga's filmblog2/2/2009 10:12:18 AMfavorite 10 movies seen in the theater (2008) Man On Wire In Bruges Kabluey I've Loved You So Long Young@Heart Song Sung Blue Snow Angels Tell No One Behind The Glass (2008)* The Dark Knight *Croatian movie from the Denver Film Festival. original title is "Iza Stakla" and director is Zrinko Ogresta. honorable mention (alphabetical) Burn After Reading Caramel The Damnation Of Faust (Metropolitan Opera broadcast) Happy-Go-Lucky Iron Man The Last Command (1928) Mongol Nick And Nora's Infinite Playlist Son Of Rambow Towelhead http://www.spout.com/blogs/jimbell/archive/2009/1/28/40010.aspx Post By: JimBell
Post To: JimBell Blog
Post Date: 1/28/2009 3:08:24 AM
Body: Tell No One (2006/2008) is a classic thriller, a fine French rendition of the novel (2001) by American crime writer Harlan Coben. It grabbed my attention even with the poster which went something like “Eight years ago, Alex’s wife was brutally murdered . . . today she sent him an e-mail.” I loved the complex plot. As some conversations on the internet reveal, some people have trouble following it. But all the information is there, you just have to stay alert and pay attention for two hours. The tension in the plot comes from an innocent man being squeezed from both sides. We know that Alex did not kill his wife, but the police have long suspected him and they have new evidence that sends them looking to convict him. At the same time, some ruthless thugs are after Alex for reasons that slowly become evident. He’s pretty much on his own, and if he does rendezvous with his wife, it may be the end of both of them. The intricate plot leads to a final confession which explains everything. This is a worn out way to wrap things up, but in keeping with the high quality of this movie, even the confession has a second version, an intelligent touch. The acting is excellent. I suppose it is fair to say that only Francois Cluzet, as Alex, has a meaty role, a part that require real depth and complexity. He manages beautifully that difficult acting challenge of being reserved and manly yet very expressive. Not surprisingly he won a Cesar for Best Actor. But the other parts are acted with as much care. I like to be able to relax and know I will not be suddenly slapped in the face with an amateurish turn. Although this is a thriller, the pace is not frantic. Unlike, say, the latest James Bond flic Quantum of Solace, the editing allows things to happen in what feels like a real-life pace. While the plot reminded me of The Fugitive, the pace reminded me of The Bourne Identity, as opposed to The (hyper) Bourne Ultimatum. This more natural pace allows you to follow the plot and even to think seriously about what might be going on. The movie is not perfect. I can think of four shortcomings, not crucial but worth mentioning. First, there is one terrible edit where a man suddenly appears out of nowhere with a huge bouquet of flowers. I mention this because the editor won a Cesar for Best Editing. Just as the editor for The Departed won an Oscar and had two scenes completely out of sequence. Once awards enthusiasm gets going for a movie, there is apparently no stopping it. Second, the scene where Dr. Alex, the paediatrician, is teaching a pre-schooler his colours as the cops close in, is terrible because Alex is not teaching the kid anything, there is no expertise, no technique, just a bunch of nonsense. I hope that in the novel Alex actually teaches the kid something worthy of a child development professional because Harlan Coben’s wife is a paediatrician. Third, in a plot that is, as Ebert says, more than air tight, there is one element that could have been explained better: Why are the deadly thugs suddenly so interested in Alex? After the fact, you can sort of figure it out: The guy who hired the thugs was one of only two people who knew that Alex’s wife’s murder did not go as planned, and given his ubiquitous corrupt influence in the police department, he would have known why the police were suddenly expressing renewed interest in Alex. Neither of these is brought out, and thoughtful viewers may be wasting energy trying to figure it out for themselves. Finally, while the original music is fine, the songs layered onto the movie do not work. While Director Guillaume Canet loves some of my favourite musicians—Janis Joplin, Al Green, Curtis Mayfield—the soulful and English tunes work against the illusion that we are in France. At other times, the tunes (again in English) are coordinated with the cinematography in a way that reminds you of early rock videos. For example, during Jeff Buckley’s “Lilac Wine,” Alex takes another shot of hard liquor just as Jeff sings about drinking too much. But these are quibbles about a movie that is a delight to watch and easy to love. Do you think Alex and his captivating wife get together in the end? And if they do, will it be a joyous reunion—will they run across the fields by their favourite lake and fall into each others arms? Or, maybe, given all that the two have been though, they have lost so much innocence that a Hollywood reunion is impossible? Maybe she walks timorously across the grass, uncertain about what she will meet? Maybe he turns his back and crouches down, overcome with sobs? Maybe they still have the enthusiastic love but will have to work diligently to rediscover the purity?
]]>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 08:08:24 GMTJimBellJimBell Blog1/28/2009 3:08:24 AMTell No One (2006/2008) is a classic thriller, a fine French rendition of the novel (2001) by American crime writer Harlan Coben. It grabbed my attention even with the poster which went something like &ldquo;Eight years ago, Alex&rsquo;s wife was brutally murdered . . . today she sent him an e-mail.&rdquo; I loved the complex plot. As some conversations on the internet reveal, some people have trouble following it. But all the information is there, you just have to stay alert and pay attention for two hours. The tension in the plot comes from an innocent man being squeezed from both sides. We know that Alex did not kill his wife, but the police have long suspected him and they have new evidence that sends them looking to convict him. At the same time, some ruthless thugs are after Alex for reasons that slowly become evident. He&rsquo;s pretty much on his own, and if he does rendezvous with his wife, it may be the end of both of them. The intricate plot leads to a final confession which explains everything. This is a worn out way to wrap things up, but in keeping with the high quality of this movie, even the confession has a second version, an intelligent touch. The acting is excellent. I suppose it is fair to say that only Francois Cluzet, as Alex, has a meaty role, a part that require real depth and complexity. He manages beautifully that difficult acting challenge of being reserved and manly yet very expressive. Not surprisingly he won a Cesar for Best Actor. But the other parts are acted with as much care. I like to be able to relax and know I will not be suddenly slapped in the face with an amateurish turn. Although this is a thriller, the pace is not frantic. Unlike, say, the latest James Bond flic Quantum of Solace, the editing allows things to happen in what feels like a real-life pace. While the plot reminded me of The Fugitive, the pace reminded me of The Bourne Identity, as opposed to The (hyper) Bourne Ultimatum. This more natural pace allows you to follow the plot and even to think seriously about what might be going on. The movie is not perfect. I can think of four shortcomings, not crucial but worth mentioning. First, there is one terrible edit where a man suddenly appears out of nowhere with a huge bouquet of flowers. I mention this because the editor won a Cesar for Best Editing. Just as the editor for The Departed won an Oscar and had two scenes completely out of sequence. Once awards enthusiasm gets going for a movie, there is apparently no stopping it. Second, the scene where Dr. Alex, the paediatrician, is teaching a pre-schooler his colours as the cops close in, is terrible because Alex is not teaching the kid anything, there is no expertise, no technique, just a bunch of nonsense. I hope that in the novel Alex actually teaches the kid something worthy of a child development professional because Harlan Coben&rsquo;s wife is a paediatrician. Third, in a plot that is, as Ebert says, more than air tight, there is one element that could have been explained better: Why are the deadly thugs suddenly so interested in Alex? After the fact, you can sort of figure it out: The guy who hired the thugs was one of only two people who knew that Alex&rsquo;s wife&rsquo;s murder did not go as planned, and given his ubiquitous corrupt influence in the police department, he would have known why the police were suddenly expressing renewed interest in Alex. Neither of these is brought out, and thoughtful viewers may be wasting energy trying to figure it out for themselves. Finally, while the original music is fine, the songs layered onto the movie do not work. While Director Guillaume Canet loves some of my favourite musicians&mdash;Janis Joplin, Al Green, Curtis Mayfield&mdash;the soulful and English tunes work against the illusion that we are in France. At other times, the tunes (again in English) are coordinated with the cinematography in a way that reminds you of early rock videos. For example, during Jeff Buckley&rsquo;s &ldquo;Lilac Wine,&rdquo; Alex takes another shot of hard liquor just as Jeff sings about drinking too much. But these are quibbles about a movie that is a delight to watch and easy to love. Do you think Alex and his captivating wife get together in the end? And if they do, will it be a joyous reunion&mdash;will they run across the fields by their favourite lake and fall into each others arms? Or, maybe, given all that the two have been though, they have lost so much innocence that a Hollywood reunion is impossible? Maybe she walks timorously across the grass, uncertain about what she will meet? Maybe he turns his back and crouches down, overcome with sobs? Maybe they still have the enthusiastic love but will have to work diligently to rediscover the purity? http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/8/38088.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/8/2008 5:00:35 PM
Body: It’s beginning to look a lot like 1991. A former Disney starlet is on track for a Best Actress nomination. One of cinema’s greatest villainous performances is a sure thing for an acting Oscar. And, due to a relatively disappointing crop of Academy Award contenders, an animated feature is being talked about for Best Picture. One major difference between now and 1991, however, is now there’s a separate Oscar category for Best Animated Feature. While that doesn’t mean Wall-E can’t be the first animated film nominated in the top category since Beauty and the Beast, it does potentially mean that it shouldn’t be. Historically, animated features have been marginalized by the Academy, though not unfairly. The first of its kind in the U.S., Walt Disney’s Snow White and the Seven Dwarves was not adequately recognized at the 1938 Oscars, so the Academy gave Disney a special Honorary Award (in the form of one normal-sized statuette and seven miniature statuettes) in 1939 to make up for it. The official credit given to Snow White was that it was a “significant screen innovation,” that “pioneered a great new entertainment field.” Basically, but not technically, this designated animated features as a new, separate art form from live-action motion pictures. Fantasia was similarly set apart a few years later with two Honorary Awards spotlighting the film’s achievements in sound and music, yet this time credit was given to the film for “widening the scope of the motion picture as entertainment and as an art form.” Still, for almost fifty years, the closest an animated feature came to being nominated inclusively in such a scope for Best Picture were live-action films incorporating animation, such as Anchors Aweigh and Mary Poppins. It should have officially been made clearer in the 1930s or 1940s that animated features are in a class of their own. Since 1932, the Academy has differentiated between animation and live-action with its short subject categories, but no corresponding distinction was ever made for features, possibly because there weren’t enough animated features to recognize with a separate award for many decades. Even today, the Best Animated Feature Oscar is only given if there are a certain number (eight) of animated features eligible in that year. Thanks to the Best Animated Feature Oscar, though, there is greater encouragement for the mainstream production of this kind of film and also a greater acknowledgement of foreign feature animation. Some critics might argue that it seems to lower the esteem of animated features, yet the creation of the category was in fact pushed for by animators, according to the AMPAS press release announcing its inception (the animators’ campaign, spearheaded mostly by Dreamworks Animation’s Jeffrey Katzenberg, was apparently fueled by the snub of Chicken Run as Best Picture in 2001). The Academy’s error, then, was in continuing to allow animated features to be eligible for Best Picture rather than renaming that “top” category Best Live-Action Picture. Now, if Wall-E or any other animated film is recognized in that category, the Best Animated Feature Oscar will indeed appear to be a lesser honor. An unsourced claim on Wikipedia says the existence of the Animated Feature category creates a sort of psychological effect, which blocks voters from considering an animated feature for Best Picture. However, with enough campaigning from Disney and plenty of prodding from the media (blogs especially), Wall-E may have sufficient placement in the consciousness of Academy members to allow such a nomination to happen. The call for a Best Picture nod for the film has been around and growing since New York magazine’s Vulture blog first championed the idea back in June, writing that it “would be the smartest thing the Academy’s done in years.” For ratings, perhaps, but individual members themselves do not think of nor are they encouraged to consider telecast viewership when marking their ballots. As a celebration of great filmmaking, though, it would be smarter for voters to acknowledge Wall-E’s place and prestige as a front-runner in the Best Animated Feature category and then pick another deserving film, which isn’t likely to be recognized elsewhere, to nominate as Best Picture. For example, how about a popular and critically acclaimed foreign film that hasn’t been submitted for consideration in the foreign-language category, such as Tell No One or Let the Right One In? In July, Time magazine, which referred to the separate Animated Feature category as “Oscar’s cartoon ghetto,” began sampling quotes from supporters like New York and went so far as to call the film an “Obamaesque trailblazer.” In some way, Wall-E could resonate with Academy voters with relation to Obama, but perhaps only because it is one of the few hopeful, feel-good movies contending at a time when Bush–inspired negativity is supposedly no longer welcome (New York writer Logan Hill also acknowledged Best Picture candidate Slumdog Millionaire as similarly fitting the optimism bill after Fox Searchlight’s COO referred to the film as “Obama-like”). And maybe the environmentalist theme of Wall-E will be heavily supported by liberal Academy members, but ultimately the film seems even more preachy and, at times, dystopic than even The Dark Knight, let alone An Inconvenient Truth (which, by the way, had to settle on Oscar’s documentary ghetto and wasn’t considered Best Picture material, either). One significant point against the likelihood Wall-E receiving a Best Picture nomination was noted by Anne Thompson at Variety: actors tend to vote for live-action films because they feature live actors. Surely actors, forever in fear of being replaced by computer-generated characters, look at an eerily realistically rendered computer-animated film like Wall-E and contemplate the worst for their profession. Still, on the other hand, actors could actually celebrate Pixar for making an animated film that incorporates live actors (a kind of reversal of Anchors Aweigh and Mary Poppins, no?). But if actors want to pay respect to this technique, they should completely surprise Oscar prognosticators (and pay them back for another 2001 snub) by nominating Fred Willard for Best Supporting Actor. Maybe Wall-E is one of the best films of 2008, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it should be recommended for a Best Picture nomination. The Oscars are never an exact or fair measure of a year’s best in cinema, and even Oscar bloggers should be aware of the politics and logic of the Academy. This is the same organization that, for its first awards, ruled The Jazz Singer ineligible for Best Picture (or “Best Production” as it was named then) because it had the unfair advantage of being a sound film. Instead, the landmark film received a Special Award (almost like Disney received in 1939). Perhaps it is best, then, to think of animated features as also having an unfair advantage. After all, particularly with computer animation, they allow for more ease in certain aspects of direction, cinematography and special effects. In that case, let us, if not the Academy, view the Best Animated Feature category as the actual “top” category and shake off this unnecessary desire for an animated film to win “Best Picture.” Now, can we re-channel our energy into campaigning for Wall-E to be nominated in other categories, like Best Director, Best Original Screenplay and Best Art Direction? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 08 Dec 2008 22:00:35 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/8/2008 5:00:35 PMIt’s beginning to look a lot like 1991. A former Disney starlet is on track for a Best Actress nomination. One of cinema’s greatest villainous performances is a sure thing for an acting Oscar. And, due to a relatively disappointing crop of Academy Award contenders, an animated feature is being talked about for Best Picture. One major difference between now and 1991, however, is now there’s a separate Oscar category for Best Animated Feature. While that doesn’t mean Wall-E can’t be the first animated film nominated in the top category since Beauty and the Beast, it does potentially mean that it shouldn’t be. Historically, animated features have been marginalized by the Academy, though not unfairly. The first of its kind in the U.S., Walt Disney’s Snow White and the Seven Dwarves was not adequately recognized at the 1938 Oscars, so the Academy gave Disney a special Honorary Award (in the form of one normal-sized statuette and seven miniature statuettes) in 1939 to make up for it. The official credit given to Snow White was that it was a “significant screen innovation,” that “pioneered a great new entertainment field.” Basically, but not technically, this designated animated features as a new, separate art form from live-action motion pictures. Fantasia was similarly set apart a few years later with two Honorary Awards spotlighting the film’s achievements in sound and music, yet this time credit was given to the film for “widening the scope of the motion picture as entertainment and as an art form.” Still, for almost fifty years, the closest an animated feature came to being nominated inclusively in such a scope for Best Picture were live-action films incorporating animation, such as Anchors Aweigh and Mary Poppins. It should have officially been made clearer in the 1930s or 1940s that animated features are in a class of their own. Since 1932, the Academy has differentiated between animation and live-action with its short subject categories, but no corresponding distinction was ever made for features, possibly because there weren’t enough animated features to recognize with a separate award for many decades. Even today, the Best Animated Feature Oscar is only given if there are a certain number (eight) of animated features eligible in that year. Thanks to the Best Animated Feature Oscar, though, there is greater encouragement for the mainstream production of this kind of film and also a greater acknowledgement of foreign feature animation. Some critics might argue that it seems to lower the esteem of animated features, yet the creation of the category was in fact pushed for by animators, according to the AMPAS press release announcing its inception (the animators’ campaign, spearheaded mostly by Dreamworks Animation’s Jeffrey Katzenberg, was apparently fueled by the snub of Chicken Run as Best Picture in 2001). The Academy’s error, then, was in continuing to allow animated features to be eligible for Best Picture rather than renaming that “top” category Best Live-Action Picture. Now, if Wall-E or any other animated film is recognized in that category, the Best Animated Feature Oscar will indeed appear to be a lesser honor. An unsourced claim on Wikipedia says the existence of the Animated Feature category creates a sort of psychological effect, which blocks voters from considering an animated feature for Best Picture. However, with enough campaigning from Disney and plenty of prodding from the media (blogs especially), Wall-E may have sufficient placement in the consciousness of Academy members to allow such a nomination to happen. The call for a Best Picture nod for the film has been around and growing since New York magazine’s Vulture blog first championed the idea back in June, writing that it “would be the smartest thing the Academy’s done in years.” For ratings, perhaps, but individual members themselves do not think of nor are they encouraged to consider telecast viewership when marking their ballots. As a celebration of great filmmaking, though, it would be smarter for voters to acknowledge Wall-E’s place and prestige as a front-runner in the Best Animated Feature category and then pick another deserving film, which isn’t likely to be recognized elsewhere, to nominate as Best Picture. For example, how about a popular and critically acclaimed foreign film that hasn’t been submitted for consideration in the foreign-language category, such as Tell No One or Let the Right One In? In July, Time magazine, which referred to the separate Animated Feature category as “Oscar’s cartoon ghetto,” began sampling quotes from supporters like New York and went so far as to call the film an “Obamaesque trailblazer.” In some way, Wall-E could resonate with Academy voters with relation to Obama, but perhaps only because it is one of the few hopeful, feel-good movies contending at a time when Bush–inspired negativity is supposedly no longer welcome (New York writer Logan Hill also acknowledged Best Picture candidate Slumdog Millionaire as similarly fitting the optimism bill after Fox Searchlight’s COO referred to the film as “Obama-like”). And maybe the environmentalist theme of Wall-E will be heavily supported by liberal Academy members, but ultimately the film seems even more preachy and, at times, dystopic than even The Dark Knight, let alone An Inconvenient Truth (which, by the way, had to settle on Oscar’s documentary ghetto and wasn’t considered Best Picture material, either). One significant point against the likelihood Wall-E receiving a Best Picture nomination was noted by Anne Thompson at Variety: actors tend to vote for live-action films because they feature live actors. Surely actors, forever in fear of being replaced by computer-generated characters, look at an eerily realistically rendered computer-animated film like Wall-E and contemplate the worst for their profession. Still, on the other hand, actors could actually celebrate Pixar for making an animated film that incorporates live actors (a kind of reversal of Anchors Aweigh and Mary Poppins, no?). But if actors want to pay respect to this technique, they should completely surprise Oscar prognosticators (and pay them back for another 2001 snub) by nominating Fred Willard for Best Supporting Actor. Maybe Wall-E is one of the best films of 2008, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it should be recommended for a Best Picture nomination. The Oscars are never an exact or fair measure of a year’s best in cinema, and even Oscar bloggers should be aware of the politics and logic of the Academy. This is the same organization that, for its first awards, ruled The Jazz Singer ineligible for Best Picture (or “Best Production” as it was named then) because it had the unfair advantage of being a sound film. Instead, the landmark film received a Special Award (almost like Disney received in 1939). Perhaps it is best, then, to think of animated features as also having an unfair advantage. After all, particularly with computer animation, they allow for more ease in certain aspects of direction, cinematography and special effects. In that case, let us, if not the Academy, view the Best Animated Feature category as the actual “top” category and shake off this unnecessary desire for an animated film to win “Best Picture.” Now, can we re-channel our energy into campaigning for Wall-E to be nominated in other categories, like Best Director, Best Original Screenplay and Best Art Direction? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/docpotato/archive/2008/9/7/34875.aspx Post By: docpotato
Post To: One Movie a Week
Post Date: 9/7/2008 8:01:28 PM
Body: The crisis of an innocent man wanted for crimes he did not commit is closely identified with the films of Alfred Hitchcock, and for a brief time, Tell No One looks like it's going to be a solid French entry into the "Hitchcockian" genre. The film reaches its zenith when its hero, a pediatrician framed for murder, leads the police on a footchase through urban streets and across a busy highway. Using speeding traffic to foil cops is amusing to both the audience and the hero, and seeing this standard hallmark of a major metropolitan area treated like a wild, deep river is a nice trick (Though the hero's proud smirk at the multi-car pileup he's caused is a little worrying. Isn't this guy supposed to be a doctor?). But, while there are other good moments in the film and Tell No One is a nice, diverting mystery, it never really finds a comfortable stride. The plot is too loose and freewheeling; I spent most of the time keeping track of all the characters that populate the film and trying to pin down exactly what they were after. Worse, the film isn't front-loaded enough. Too many times, the film drops a clue that makes no sense to the audience and lets a character explain why it's meaningful. It's not nearly as much fun to be told that (hypothetically) Person X could never have fired the gun because he broke his finger the night before than it is to figure that out for ourselves. This is a film that works on a scene-by-scene basis, but, taken as a whole, it doesn't cohere.The premise is simple, intriguing. The doctor's wife was murdered eight years in the past, but then he starts getting emails that seem to be from her. This inspires him to dig into the events of the night of her murder, and he soon finds that her death might not have been the open and shut case it once appeared to be. Soon, he's in over his head, embroiled in an elaborate conspiracy of crooked cops, seedy hoods, and equestrians that all want to take him out of the picture. As it progresses, it gets to be too much. Tell No One is far more convuluted than its structure can support. The film starts with one too many significant characters, and, like a season of Lost, makes the fatal mistake of adding on even more instead of exploring the people it started with. It all builds to an exhausting, interminable scene where somone in the know tells the hero everything that happened, but it's not satisfying. For one, the scene goes on forever and all forward momentum stops cold; the protaganist just sits there listening to the description of events. Further, the events that transpired unbeknownst to our clueless hero are so far-fetched and ridiculous, that I started getting inappropriate giggles during the explanation. Summation scenes like this are a staple in mystery stores, and (with few exceptions) I can't abide these moments. I loved a similar scene in Redbelt because the explanation did not end the movie, it only deepened my understanding of the character's problems. Plus it was over quickly. Despite its chaotic plot and overpopulation, the filmmaking from director Guillaume Canet often has a powerful kick to it. I really enjoyed the way the movie played with time; the flashbacks here feel more like the free-associative memories of its main character than the plot points that they are. And the noisy score by "M" is a delight, reminiscent of some of the crazier choices made by Morricone or Badalamenti. At one point, the woman sitting next to me whispered to her friend, "Good soundtrack!" and she's right. Of course, she said this during a moment when U2's With or Without You was playing, a moment when the doctor makes his first positive step toward figuring out what exactly is going on around him. I pretty much don't like U2, but I still loved its use in this scene. The camera slowly creeps onto François Cluzet's face, and he cracks a very meaningful smile as the music builds and builds. It's forever changed my perception of this song, but the triumph ends too soon. The music fades out just as it's reaching a crescendo, and the movie cuts to some mundane shot of the doctor unlocking his front door. It's not just here--the movie is full of this sort of cinematticus interruptus, cutting to something else just as things start to really heat up. Whatever powerful moments exist, they're often undercut by the film's clunkiness.Tell No One is based on a novel by Harlan Coben (a writer I have absolutely no familiarity with, and, based on the film's merits, one I won't be paying attention to anytime soon), and it bears the hallmark of an adaptation that hews too closely to its source. The surfeit of characters and plotting would feel much more at home in the expanse of a novel than the tight confines of a feature film. For all the confident charge in the filmmaking, it's just too much weight, and the story begins to stall just a few scenes after its great chase. Hitchcock once made the claim that bad books made good movies, but I think, even then, they need to be mercilessly pulped of their novelistic excesses the way plays sometimes need to be taken out of the drawing room and onto location. Would be a good double feature with: Frantic Originally posted on:One Movie a Day/Week
]]>Mon, 08 Sep 2008 00:01:28 GMTdocpotatoOne Movie a Week9/7/2008 8:01:28 PMThe crisis of an innocent man wanted for crimes he did not commit is closely identified with the films of Alfred Hitchcock, and for a brief time, Tell No One looks like it's going to be a solid French entry into the "Hitchcockian" genre. The film reaches its zenith when its hero, a pediatrician framed for murder, leads the police on a footchase through urban streets and across a busy highway. Using speeding traffic to foil cops is amusing to both the audience and the hero, and seeing this standard hallmark of a major metropolitan area treated like a wild, deep river is a nice trick (Though the hero's proud smirk at the multi-car pileup he's caused is a little worrying. Isn't this guy supposed to be a doctor?). But, while there are other good moments in the film and Tell No One is a nice, diverting mystery, it never really finds a comfortable stride. The plot is too loose and freewheeling; I spent most of the time keeping track of all the characters that populate the film and trying to pin down exactly what they were after. Worse, the film isn't front-loaded enough. Too many times, the film drops a clue that makes no sense to the audience and lets a character explain why it's meaningful. It's not nearly as much fun to be told that (hypothetically) Person X could never have fired the gun because he broke his finger the night before than it is to figure that out for ourselves. This is a film that works on a scene-by-scene basis, but, taken as a whole, it doesn't cohere.The premise is simple, intriguing. The doctor's wife was murdered eight years in the past, but then he starts getting emails that seem to be from her. This inspires him to dig into the events of the night of her murder, and he soon finds that her death might not have been the open and shut case it once appeared to be. Soon, he's in over his head, embroiled in an elaborate conspiracy of crooked cops, seedy hoods, and equestrians that all want to take him out of the picture. As it progresses, it gets to be too much. Tell No One is far more convuluted than its structure can support. The film starts with one too many significant characters, and, like a season of Lost, makes the fatal mistake of adding on even more instead of exploring the people it started with. It all builds to an exhausting, interminable scene where somone in the know tells the hero everything that happened, but it's not satisfying. For one, the scene goes on forever and all forward momentum stops cold; the protaganist just sits there listening to the description of events. Further, the events that transpired unbeknownst to our clueless hero are so far-fetched and ridiculous, that I started getting inappropriate giggles during the explanation. Summation scenes like this are a staple in mystery stores, and (with few exceptions) I can't abide these moments. I loved a similar scene in Redbelt because the explanation did not end the movie, it only deepened my understanding of the character's problems. Plus it was over quickly. Despite its chaotic plot and overpopulation, the filmmaking from director Guillaume Canet often has a powerful kick to it. I really enjoyed the way the movie played with time; the flashbacks here feel more like the free-associative memories of its main character than the plot points that they are. And the noisy score by "M" is a delight, reminiscent of some of the crazier choices made by Morricone or Badalamenti. At one point, the woman sitting next to me whispered to her friend, "Good soundtrack!" and she's right. Of course, she said this during a moment when U2's With or Without You was playing, a moment when the doctor makes his first positive step toward figuring out what exactly is going on around him. I pretty much don't like U2, but I still loved its use in this scene. The camera slowly creeps onto François Cluzet's face, and he cracks a very meaningful smile as the music builds and builds. It's forever changed my perception of this song, but the triumph ends too soon. The music fades out just as it's reaching a crescendo, and the movie cuts to some mundane shot of the doctor unlocking his front door. It's not just here--the movie is full of this sort of cinematticus interruptus, cutting to something else just as things start to really heat up. Whatever powerful moments exist, they're often undercut by the film's clunkiness.Tell No One is based on a novel by Harlan Coben (a writer I have absolutely no familiarity with, and, based on the film's merits, one I won't be paying attention to anytime soon), and it bears the hallmark of an adaptation that hews too closely to its source. The surfeit of characters and plotting would feel much more at home in the expanse of a novel than the tight confines of a feature film. For all the confident charge in the filmmaking, it's just too much weight, and the story begins to stall just a few scenes after its great chase. Hitchcock once made the claim that bad books made good movies, but I think, even then, they need to be mercilessly pulped of their novelistic excesses the way plays sometimes need to be taken out of the drawing room and onto location. Would be a good double feature with: Frantic Originally posted on:One Movie a Day/Week http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/love/MemberTagFilms.aspxlove
Number of films tagged: 12479

Number of people who tagged: 338

Number of times used: 1481

]]>Wed, 23 Dec 2009 05:51:34 GMT124793381481Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/funny/MemberTagFilms.aspxfunny
Number of films tagged: 609

Number of people who tagged: 316

Number of times used: 942

]]>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:10:58 GMT609316942Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/murder/MemberTagFilms.aspxmurder
Number of films tagged: 8748

Number of people who tagged: 157

Number of times used: 831

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:42:29 GMT8748157831Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/film/MemberTagFilms.aspxfilm
Number of films tagged: 657

Number of people who tagged: 82

Number of times used: 190

]]>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 20:35:41 GMT65782190Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/intense/MemberTagFilms.aspxintense
Number of films tagged: 162

Number of people who tagged: 81

Number of times used: 249

]]>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:07:45 GMT16281249Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/fantastic/MemberTagFilms.aspxfantastic
Number of films tagged: 106

Number of people who tagged: 74

Number of times used: 137

]]>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:19:21 GMT10674137Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/clever/MemberTagFilms.aspxclever
Number of films tagged: 57

Number of people who tagged: 40

Number of times used: 74

]]>Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:40:08 GMT574074Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/serialkiller/MemberTagFilms.aspxserialkiller
Number of films tagged: 996

Number of people who tagged: 32

Number of times used: 64

]]>Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:03:15 GMT9963264Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/doctor/MemberTagFilms.aspxdoctor
Number of films tagged: 736

Number of people who tagged: 24

Number of times used: 63

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 19:47:27 GMT7362463Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/voyeur/MemberTagFilms.aspxvoyeur
Number of films tagged: 68

Number of people who tagged: 24

Number of times used: 28

]]>Sat, 01 Aug 2009 09:37:11 GMT682428Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/witty/MemberTagFilms.aspxwitty
Number of films tagged: 30

Number of people who tagged: 22

Number of times used: 32

]]>Sun, 12 Apr 2009 16:46:30 GMT302232Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/unexpected/MemberTagFilms.aspxunexpected
Number of films tagged: 16

Number of people who tagged: 15

Number of times used: 17

]]>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 15:03:05 GMT161517Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/festival/MemberTagFilms.aspxfestival
Number of films tagged: 213

Number of people who tagged: 13

Number of times used: 30

]]>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 13:13:22 GMT2131330Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/deceit/MemberTagFilms.aspxdeceit
Number of films tagged: 11

Number of people who tagged: 12

Number of times used: 14

]]>Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:08:41 GMT111214Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/international/MemberTagFilms.aspxinternational
Number of films tagged: 202

Number of people who tagged: 10

Number of times used: 24

]]>Fri, 01 Aug 2008 22:27:42 GMT2021024Tag