Too much of everything

Good start, but then it gets ruined

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

Bravo! The French have such a way of understatement and realism in their films. This one concerns a woman who accidentally walks into the wrong office instead of the psychiatrist that she has made an appointment to see. This wonderful film unfolds and develops into something, but you are not sure what until the end. Fabrice Luchini is so unassuming. I've only seen him in a few films, but he already has become a favorite of mine. If you choose to watch this film, there is a scene that is just him. It had me laughing in just the joy of watching him start to come out of his shell. He is one person that I would like to be able to meet in person. Sandrine Bonnaire in the film is attractive, but in an ordinary way, so again, it's realism. She doesn't need to wear a lot of make up, etc. to show that she is a very lovely woman. I liked watching her as she started to become more confident. I could only imagine what an American (yes, I'm American and I love American movies too) version would do to this quiet gem of a movie. My advise to the American film industry, don't try to remake this. It's doesn't need a Reese Witherspoon (not as attractive as Bonnaire I may add) or Scarlett Johansson (too much for the role) or a bumbling Tom Hanks (can't stand him to begin with) or God forbid, Jim Carrey or Will Farrell. Just leave this wonderful French gem alone.

Anna (Sandrine Bonnaire) has an appointment with her analyst, doctor Monnier (Michel Duchaussoy) to tell him her sentimental problems. But because of a little talky concierge and dimly lit, somewhat eerie corridors, she lands in William Faber's office (Fabrice Lucchini) who is a financial adviser. Expect the unexpected at least for a short time. Rather than telling her that he's not the right man to talk to, he listens to her very carefully and sets up a second appointment with her. The following week, he reveals her the truth but agrees to see her as many times as she wants to. Anna accepts his offer and these two idiosyncratic characters strike up an ambiguous relationship which will partly unveil their respective personalities, at least for William."Confidences Trop Intimes" is the successor of a peak in Patrice Leconte's eclectic filmography, "l'Homme Du Train" (2002) and if it doesn't exactly match the greatness of this film, it nonetheless remains a true winner which encompasses everything that makes Patrice Leconte a worthwhile filmmaker. First with this original starting point: a woman who was badly directed in a building winds up in an office belonging to a character who is a total stranger to her. But as doctor Monnier says: "there isn't a big difference between a shrink and a financial adviser: they have to define and solve their customers' problems. The difference is that to a financial adviser's his problems are bare while to an analyst's they're hidden".Ambiguity is one of the key words to describe the relationships between William and Anna. Is Anna really in bad terms with her eccentric husband (stout Gilbert Melki)? Doesn't she try to manipulate her partner? Isn't she a little crazy? They're exciting questions that call upon the viewer's imagination. As for William, one realizes that the sort of therapy that links the two characters is mainly destined to him. He's probably THE main character of the whole film. At first, he seems strong but bit by bit he proves that he's a fragile character who yearns to change his life. His unexpected meeting with Anna gives him this opportunity and makes him elated for a while (see the delightful sequence when he dances to "in the Midnight Hour" by Wilson Pickett). But then his real personality appears: he's a rather vulnerable man who has trouble with women and perhaps that's why his wedding with his former wife (Anne Brochet) went unravel. Besides she tells him that he didn't make the first move to meet her.Leconte is well served by his duo of actors and it's a real surprise to discover and appreciate Fabrice Lucchini in an introverted man whereas he is usually typecast in extrovert roles. Sandrine Bonnaire makes an ideal partner. One should also hail the filmmaker for having discerningly chosen the scenery of this idiosyncratic in camera. Dimly lit corridors and rooms are deftly incorporated to the plot and give a sultry sensation to the ambiguous relationship between William and Anne, a strong point that was tapped fifteen years ago in "Monsieur Hire" (1989) when Michel Blanc was alone in his cramped flat. Sandrine Bonnaire was then her partner. So, when the camera goes out into the open air, the interest depletes a little in spite of good moments. While I'm writing about this shortcoming, I could also regret a misunderstanding too quickly solved (the second time when William and Anna meet again, he tells her that he's not the right person) and mention a too much cozy end.But overall, when you have a strongly built story which has a lot of space for surprises and the development of its characters and a lot of food for thought, you can skip without problems conspicuous faults and leave the projection with a big smile on your face. Once again Leconte filled me with joy. Recommended to his aficionados.NB: the film was turned into a play three years later.

There is no coincidence that this film's original score (Pascal Estève) sounds like Bernard Hermann's for Hitchcock's Vertigo. The film is one of mistaken or concealed identities, delusion and obfuscation. It also investigates the equivocal nature of the art/science of professional psychiatry. Above all it's an unnatural story about love.Fabrice Luchini plays his tax consultant mistaken for a shrink as a retentive, inscrutable but humane geek. The effect of Sandrine Bonnaire's neurotic but strident and alluring 'client' engaging him in (initially erroneous) therapeutic conversation is difficult to judge. The only clues offered are in the elliptical relationships he has with other people, such as his former lover (an excellent, cool Anne Brochet) or the real therapist (Michel Duchaussoy, a French Brian Cox).Director Leconte is well-versed in concealing or creating twists and turns in his plots; L'Homme du Train is a good example. The wonder of this quiet but emotionally taught essay in love and understanding is whether the story reveals itself in the experience of watching rather than in its outcome. Evocative, touching but disorientating: and watch a good way through the credits if you don't know quite what I mean by that. 6/10

Wonderously frustrating viewing for me. I loved how the film was so focused upon the two protagonists repetitive interactions in Luchini's tax office/apartment. Yes, very much akin to a play but interactions that were far from repetitious. Interactions drawing me into the film in an implacable fashion wherein I felt as if I were the proverbial "fly on the wall" of the room. My feelings towards the two main characters were ever changing as the plot developed.Feeling, at first, what a sick and shallow cad he was to exploit her initial misunderstanding, then; how neurotically shallow she was in her masterful manipulation of his strong (yet, so subtly revealed) need for connection after being rejected by his more normal, and quite attractive, ex lover of seven years.I found myself continuously pushed and pulled as my support and allegiance vacillated between and for each character. How delicious to not be boxed in to a good girl/bad boy or vice versa type of plot. I love representations of the huge expression of humankind's complexity! Simplification sucks when it comes to humans.And, barely to mention the supporting characters, all rendered so precisely to the degree necessary to advance the story without being reduced to mere stereotypes. All refreshingly understated, serving to maintain our focus upon the movie's heart - the ongoing development of a relationship between two so dissimilar people.Leconte's ability to move this relationship forward despite Bonnaire's constant misleads and partial truths along with Luchini's often irritatingly tight leash upon his emotional expression was very masterful. All serving, for me, to set up an increasing sense of tension in need of resolution.As a rule I dislike pat endings that stifle my imagination. In this case I'd come to care so very much for both characters that I was glad that the ending teasingly allowed me to believe that all likely ended as it was meant to be.