Pretty good movie overall. First half was nothing special but it got better as it went along.

This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

When the fiction is more unsatisfying than the real life, then you're in a big trouble. "The Chameleon" is a weak film because it fails to generate interest in a real life story that has all the elements that could make into a great project. The director made questions he couldn't answer and we couldn't figure out possible reasons for all what happened in the events surrounding a young French (Marc-André Grondin) who claims to be the disappeared son of a poor American family, "returning" to his home after being kidnapped and taken to Europe. The problem is that it's obvious that some members of the family know that this French accented guy can't be Nicky, but they continue with this game until an FBI agent (Famke Janssen) get suspicious about this sudden reappearance.Its cheap insistence in creating a mystery bigger than the one existing just doesn't work, with the skeletons in the family's closet with people who knew about the kid's real fate, like his older brother (Nick Stahl). And we are easily bothered by the lack of choices, lack of ways for the story to move in a proper manner. A movie like this can't dwell in the psychology involving the main character, therefore we'll never understand the reasoning behind the boy's staying with people who don't care about him. Why the hell he'd trade his erroneous life in France by shooting in the dark with a strange and careless American family, or why he didn't run away from this family he adopted, a bunch of people who wouldn't provide for him with anything? He's not getting much by staying there, no indicative that he's winning something.The cast tries a little bit harder than what the script can offer to them make something worthy of our attention. Grondin is a fine actor as evidenced in "C.R.A.Z.Y." but here there's only glimpses of that actor, his duality of angelical innocence with some darker traits is relatively good; Janssen was pretty decent and the more her character progress the more we like her, same goes with Emile De Ravin and Brian Geraghty, doing their best; Ellen Barkin was distractive while trying to be exceptional as the mother. As a drama, it's not as compelling as the plot sounds and could be; as a thriller is just dull and worthless. Bits of decent acting aren't enough to make it tolerable or watchable. 4/10

The Chameleon is not as good as The Imposter, but still this movie is pretty clever. Actually, it gives you more doubts than documentary, cause it does not much follow the line of real story. The Imposter mostly concentrates on actions of Frédéric Fortin, on crimes he's committed and leaves Randall family beyond the interest. However, the movie itself is more complex giving a closer look to every character.Writers did a great job mixing documented material with fiction one. They clearly show development of main characters after Nicholas's comeback. The script makes you concentrate on three topics: first is Frédéric (or Nicholas) who is kind of shocked as he is introduced to family members closer. As time goes by, he understands that he came in "wrong" place, because they are definitely making his life worse. Every new family, Frédéric has "returned" to before, welcomed him, made him feel comfortable, but not Randalls, because they have their reasons, why Nicholas should not be back.Another story is how FBI thinks of this sudden appearance of kidnapped child. Famke Jensen is the only agent who does not believe in any words of Nicholas and his family. Therefore, she decides to hold an inquiry independently. This investigations lead us to the third story, which is story of Randall family itself.They seem to be not that happy by arrival of long lost child. But still they have no doubt that he, whoever came back, is their little boy and that is why they refused to do a DNA test, or cooperate with police. They know something that is hidden from everyone.These three stories make a superb and horribly interesting movie. Potentially, The Chameleon could be far more better film, because it can easily attract one's attention, thrill you and make you wanting more about this topic. But still I found it average. Mostly the reason is pure directing and acting. I believe that this film could be more engaging and powerful if Jean-Paul Salome had worked more on visualization of whole idea. The camera-work and acting panel could be better and yes! this kid of movie really needs better actors. The only performance I enjoyed was Emilie de Ravin as a sister of Nicholas. I have never seen Marc-André Grondin (Frederic, Nicholas) before and I think he was not the best choice for the role.The biggest dignity of The Chameleon is that in the final scenes, it almost clearly shows what really happened to real Nicholas Mark Randall

We can never be sure about dramatised true stories because tricks are played on our memories even as we try to retell with accuracy. This story of a character who is unlikely to be who he claims to be from the start is as much about doubts as it is about rebuilding hopes. From the opening shots of a body hunt through to the final frames this film attempts to tackle the driving forces of all the characters who make up the plot by showing up flaws and how all of us are sometimes drawn to papering over cracks in our thoughts.The film is quite clever in raising doubt in our minds because every player seems flawed from Fortin/Randall (Grondin), through Kimberly (Barkin), to Johnson (Janssen) as an FBI agent who seems to have no doubts. Perhaps a clumsy unevenness in the screenplay sometimes makes following the story a little less taut than it should be, but I could not fault the quality of the acting.Even a family torn apart by an undisclosed tragedy seem very adept at keeping things as they are when redemption is a possibility but the actual interaction between them is not well rehearsed in this script. Too much focus is perhaps played on the mother's relationship with her "son" when there was perhaps a lot of mileage elsewhere.I would guess many people would want a more commercial ending to a film like this and that has probably detracted from it popularity since it does stick to events as they happened but for me the real let down, having such a great cast, was a failure to grasp the real guts of the story and perhaps reveal a little more of what really may have happened.Seven out of ten for acting from a fine cast.

I have seen this movie yesterday and the director went on to ask that we post reviews of his movie on this very site during the Q&A, so I shall oblige. The heart of the problem seem to be that his vision was rejected by the producers and that the final cut done by the producers is such a disgrace that he is going around in festivals to show his own cut.When I asked him if or when the movie would be released in North-America, he answered that it would most likely go directly to DVD, which is a shame cause it really was a tense, effective thriller, faithful to the real events it depict in a stylistically gorgeous mastery. It is a psychological thriller with great actors and a subtly photographed scenery of the deep south, in the down and dirty poor neighborhood of the drugged and drunk underclass. Of course, it isn't really uplifting, but the characters are real people playing out their desperation. The narrative is well constructed and keep you interested through out, especially in the case you had no idea about the event it portrays, you'll get drawn to it only through the sheer magnetism of the central character, who also happen to be despicable in many ways, like everyone else around him.So, let's hope you'll get a chance to see this, the way it was intended to be seen. The director's cut wasn't longish or uselessly shocking, one part that was deleted involved the main character shaving his whole body in the first scene. Perhaps, for the prude and easily upset, it could be disturbing, but isn't that key to building tension in a thriller, to disturb the audience. This first scene should be in the movie, cause it is key to the psychology of the main character. Seeing a grown man shave the hair off his chest shouldn't be cause for concern, especially these days when many men are doing it to follow a trend that made hairy men undesirable. It's a surprising scene, as it is something I never seen depicted on screen, but I don't believe it would offend neither men nor women. There is no actual nudity and very little violence in this movie.To conclude, if you have a chance and it is playing in a festival near you, try to see it and review it too. I believe it should get to be seen and get a proper distribution. It's a solid thriller that wasn't just meant to do the festival circuit.