User reviews

Completely implausible. A waste of at least 5 excellent actors. "Catch me if you can" for the feminists. At least Kathy Bates got to rest on the horizontal for ten minutes. I guess the director needed to fill some time because it's a rule that movies can't be less than 90 minutes.

Tom played by Michael Shannon is having one of those 'crisis' moments in his life. Whilst on the surface he has all the trappings of success, under the wafer thin surface he is falling apart and losing those things that he had once used to define his very existence.

Then, at a dinner party, a work colleague brings a new 'friend', this is Alice (Rachel Weisz) and immediately Tom recognises her, only he does not remember any 'Alice'. Thus begins a night of revelations and stories at odds with normally acquired experiences. It is the story of one person who has escaped through reinvention and one who craves escape but is shackled by convention.

This is an indie type film but has a high quality production and with the cast it boasts is not short on good performances. The real strength here is the story itself and so that makes this one of those films where one viewing may be enough. That said it is still more than worth seeing even if it is just that once.

This film is a drama, not so much a mystery, and it has an actual storyline, with characters who can grow and learn while dealing with life-changing decisions.

It is not boring, unless the viewer needs either a lot of exposition or explosions. Without going into spoilers, I can say that there are some seemingly implausible aspects, but nothing in the film is actually impossible to believe.

As already stated, the characters grow and change, and deal with decisions that will impact their lives, and I was pleasantly surprised with the ending, as it was unexpectedly uplifting.

"Complete Unknown" (2016 release; 92 min.) brings the story of Alice (played by Rachel Weisz). In the pre-credit opening montage, we see her in a number of completely different settings (emergency room nurse, magician's assistant, pianist, etc.) Who is this person? After the opening credits, we get to know Alice, now a biologist in New York. She takes an interest in a guy at the cafeteria, and it's not long before they befriend. One evening they go to a dinner party to celebrate the birthday of her friend's co-worker (played by Michael Shannon). Shockingly, the co-worker recognizes from a prior life, 15 years ago, and confronts her. Why did she vanish without a trace all those years ago? Why did she come back? To tell you more would spoil your viewing experience, you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out.

Couple of comments: this is the latest movie from writer-director Josh Marston. Here he tackles a potentially intriguing promise: a woman seemingly drops off the face of the earth 15 years ago, and then returns, all the while spinning tales (are they true? or made up?) about her exploits in Australia, China, Mexico, and so on. The first half hour of the movie is the best, as at that point we are barely understanding what is going on, keeping us hungry to understand the full picture (is Alice battling multiple-personalities disorder? is she a con-artist? a femme fatale? delusional? all of those?). As that full picture emerges, regrettably (but perhaps unavoidably) the mystery is lifted and the movie loses some of its appeal (but not interest). Rachel Weisz absolutely shines in the lead role, and to see her in all these different settings is a true delight. Michael Shannon at times seems to struggle to keep up with Weisz on the screen. Kathy Bates and Danny Glover play an elder couple (one long scene, maybe 10 min. of screen time). The movie flew by in no time, but I also have to be honest: the ending baffled me, and not in the best way. Last but not least, there is a wonderful score, courtesy of Danny Bensi and Saunder Jurrians.

The movie premiered at the Sundance festival earlier this year and was snapped up by Amazon Studios, yes, this is yet another movie release from Amazon, The movie finally opened this weekend at my local art-house theater here in Cincinnati and I couldn't wait to see it. The early Friday evening screening where I saw this at was attended nicely, but by no means anywhere near a sell-out. If you are interested in a character and relationship drama that seems it could go in many different directions, and stars the lovely and talented Rachel Weisz, I'd suggest you check out "Complete Unknown", be it in the theater, on VOD, or eventually on VDV/Blu-ray, and give it a try.

I watched this movie because it billed itself as a "mystery". The only mystery is how anyone could find it entertaining. It was about as enticing as a toenail clipping. I agree with other reviews in that this movie featured very bland and self absorbed characters, not the least of which was the female lead. Also, talk about implausible. The woman doesn't look much over thirty yet she has had all these jobs and experiences, many of which would take years of schooling. Sad and pathetic and yes infuriatingly stupid.

Not Everyone is in Close Proximity to Professional or Semi-Professional "Theatre", this one has "Off-Broadway" Written all over it, therefore the Movies can Offer Audiences want to Experience that sort of Thing, at least "Two Dimensionally".

This Film Looks, Talks, and Plays Out like a Stage Play. Early Television had things like "Playhouse 90" and this Story and Production would Fit Nicely in that Format. The Writing is Sharp, Ambiguous, Mysterious, Attracting, and sometimes even Profound.

The Acting is Uniform and the Two Leads (Rachel Weisz, Michael Shannon) do Their Best Weaving In and Out of the Complicated Scenario. It's one of those that if You Pay Attention, can Draw You into its Maze as the Twists and Turns will Hopefully Lead to a Reward.

Reaching the End of the Puzzle that is "Alice" is Semi-Rewarding and the Jigsaw like Journey does Unveil slightly Disturbing Behavior and is Meant to Question Commitment vs Freedom.

But Life's Important Decisions are so Multi-Layered and Complex that the Easy Answer of just "Moving On" every Year or so is Hardly the Solution to a Varied and Fulfilling Life.

This is Obviously Reflected on "Alice's" Face and Demeanor as She Relates Her Biography and after Her "Confessions/Revelations", She is right Back Where She Started, just like a Rat/Robot going through the Maze Again and Again with Little or No Lasting Reward for Her Efforts.

This is for a Limited Audience, certainly Not for Everyone, but Recommended for those that like Their Movies with More Head than Heart.

Why this vapid material needed a-list acting talent I'll never know but good on the director for getting to work with Shannon and Weisz who were utterly wasted on this meaningless and pointless film story. Starts out pretty vague and meandering and then gels into something you can understand, but then the 3rd act is just more vague, unformed nonsense with no resolution to speak of. I suppose when you have the best of the best as your leads, you can get away with weak material but this film lacked a "persuasive theory," which seems to be a trend as of late with films that either try too hard (and fail) to depict an underlying theme, and films that don't even bother, leaving an audience to fill in the gaps and conjure up their own meaning for the film.

Saw this at the Leiden International Film Festival (LIFF) in 2016. After all, the story developed much better than expected. Initially, after half an hour running time, I was asking myself whether the story was going anywhere. Birthday parties can be watched in many different movies, and it seemed to be the center stage of this story. After having done with all the "How are you?? OK" exchanges, something should happen there, a turning point after which the story was expected to take off. Some extra patience was needed, however.

It all went in a completely different direction after another 10 minutes. I must say that it went very well from that moment on, thought provoking even. How tempted one can be to break completely with the past, assuming a different identity, leaving all family members and friends behind without telling them about your whereabouts, even not telling them that you still live. And Alice has done just that several times, and she was prepared to repeat it at this very moment.

That being said, the ending did not satisfy me completely. It left me with many questions about practical things, like passports and credit cards, and how to earn a living without a solid background and without a proved education. But maybe I'm nitpicking now on details. The main idea deserves far better ratings than the ones I saw on IMDb and such. I'm glad that the IMDb User Reviews are controversial, ranging from very low to very high, proving that the movie touched a nerve and that it was not easy to let it go afterwards.

Homework for the reader/viewer: Was Alice's re-connecting with Tom a cry for help, an attempt to fall back on someone she expected to really know her, independent of the many identities she assumed in the meantime?? She took some trouble to indirectly re-connect, while a direct approach could have worked too, so why this convoluted way to meet him again??

All in all, good casting and acting, and the rest is mostly left as an exercise for the viewer. Would you ever have wanted to start with a proverbial clean slate?? And would you have taken for granted that you lose all friends and relatives in the process, since only a clear cut will work out as desired. Let alone the practical and down-to-earth problems, like having no verifiable CV and no proof of the schools you attended. And what about opening a bank account or applying for a credit card?? The devil is in the details with such an undertaking. Don't expect that this movie will teach you how it is done, however, as it will only leave you with open questions. Nevertheless, an interesting premise. The slow start is a negative point, as explained above, and it will drive away many home viewers who don't want to wait 40 minutes for a clear plot to emerge.

Rachel Weisz is one of the most talented English actresses and Michael Shannon is one of the most underrated but very good actors. When these two comes together as co-star, I thought this will be a very good drama movie. The trailer and the premises are and thought this will be another Rachel Weisz classic like "The Constant Gardener", "The Fountain", "Agora", and "The Lobster". This is not a typical storyline and I am not telling this is not a good movie but if you saw the previous drama movie of Rachel Weisz, this is definitely a poor film.

I know Joshua Marston is a good director for drama movie and he directed some good TV drama. But this movie is a complete mismatch of the story and the telling style. The screenplay was very poorly written and the story has also plot holes. This is a drama movie and the pace is almost nothing. The whole plot was rounding one specific character(I am not telling the storyline or not giving any spoiler), the dialogues are very choppy and widely not presentative for a slow paced drama movie. CHaracer development is very sluggish and it is completely understood that the lazy screenplay also harmed the character's maturity.

Joshua Marston's direction is not so bad but he didn't find the right combination for the character's chemistry and the movie completely failed to create the sympathy or the emotions for the characters. Editing is not so good and the cast has not done a good job for their roles except Rachel Weisz. She is the one and only plus point of this movie. She has done an outstanding job for the role of Alice Manning. She has a perfect emotion and her dialogue delivery was very good and maybe she is the perfect choice for the role.

Overall I gave it 3 stars only for Rachel Weisz and if the screenplay, script, and the chemistry between the characters did good then the movie would be a good example.

Maybe I was in the mood for it, but I found this little movie intriguing. It's certainly different. I didn't read anything too profound into it; I just think it was an interesting story beautifully played.

It seems to have bored some people stiff and the critical response according to Wikipedia was mixed to negative - I guess they weren't in the mood for it.

Alice (Rachel Weisz), a woman who disappeared years before, returns and meets her old boyfriend Tom (Michael Shannon). We learn that she has changed identities and occupations many times, acquiring new skills and friends, only to suddenly leave them all behind to adopt a totally new identity.

This sort of thing usually has sinister undertones often involving serial killers and people held captive in cellars, but here there is nothing evil at all, only feelings of sadness for a lost relationship and Tom's sense of purposelessness in his life.

There are a few more layers to it, and Alice's self indulgent philosophy is questioned.

There is one telling sequence when Alice and Tom help an older couple played by Danny Glover and Kathy Bates. Tom is invited into Alice's world of identity changing almost like in theatre sports where the players are given a character and then have to improvise like crazy; it unlocks something repressed in Tom.

As Alice's story unfolds I thought of that line in Kurt Vonnegut's "Mother Night" - "You must be careful what you pretend to be, because in the end you are what you pretend to be".

The film has a seductive mood aided by an atmospheric score and doesn't outstay its welcome. I won't spoil the ending, but it felt right.

I'm glad I didn't read the critics first - "Complete Unknown" was a complete surprise.

Alice (Rachel Weisz) re-enters Tom's (Michael Shannon) life after disappearing for fifteen years. Only, she's hard to identify because of the multiple personalities she has assumed in those years. She remains the titular heroine of Complete Unknown, and she is a stranger to the end of this complicated and accomplished indie.

Don't come to this absorbing adventure seeking Walter Mitty thrills: Alice subtly changes her personal shape and doesn't burden us with cheap melodrama or even sexual romance. Rather the emphasis is on discovery: As Tom peels back the layers of her personalities and discovers her, he is drawn into discovery of himself and his own unfulfilled life. Although she is the center of the exploration, he is close behind, like all of us afraid to look inside ourselves to see the multiple possibilities for life change.

Complete Unknown exposes the yearning we may all have to live other lives. In Alice's case, she may have lived as a magician's assistant and a researcher, and more in between. But actually whatever roles she has taken, she cannot efface her core self as her return to observe her parents and see Tom again shows.

In a bizarre occurrence on the street, Tom helps a fallen old lady (Kathy Bates) by pretending to be an osteopath, rather enjoying how Alice has roped him into to assuming the new role. At this point, director Joshua Marston shifts from the mystery of Alice's identity to the mystery of who Tom is or wants to be.

He becomes the one whose identity we also speculate about. Whether or not he decides to leave his unfulfilled job to go with his wife to California for her professional study opportunity becomes just as intriguing as Alice's many lives. The film is figuratively blunt about the power of changing one's life, for good or ill.

Marston has masterfully made us question our own identities and our use of talents and pursuit of other lives than the ones we have stuck ourselves in. By extension, Complete Unknown may be a discourse on the ability of art such as movies to take us into lives heretofore unavailable to us.

Anyway, this is a film for thinking people who may want to speculate on the lives they could have and the life they have.

I won't give away any spoilers although it would be a merciful thing to do if it kept anybody from spending their good money to see this thing. Besides being unbelievably boring, the idea that Rachel Weisz (who I love)would be attracted to this character is ludicrous. There is zero chemistry between them and all you can see on the screen is Shannon's huge head (I know, this is a cheap shot but sometimes it's all I could focus on - how BIG it is). Now if they had gotten someone like Michael Fassbinder the story would have (much) more plausibility as a romantic story. If you go see this film, I promise that after 40 minutes you'll be checking your watch every 5 minutes praying it will be over very, very soon and the pain will finally stop but you will still have a long, long way to go. And good luck in figuring out what either of them actually does for a living, not that it (or this film) really matters.

No doubt this was wrongly labelled as an average film. The title, the story, the performances, all stood to my expectation. I jumped into it prepared for another boring film. Indeed, it was a slow narration, at least in the initial parts. That twist in the early mid sect unleashed the bright side of the tale. Not knowing what to expect, I thoroughly got entertained for the rest of the film.

It all was a day event. In fact, most of the story happened on one night. Though for a brief moment in the opening, they have shown us events from the different timelines. Just to convince us. Alice, who befriended a man while in the lunch, decides to attend a birthday party of his friend with him. But that night the things change as some secrets about her was revealed. Then event takes a different path with different adventure revealing more about about her.

Yeah, everybody saying they saw it for Shannon, but for me, Rachel Weisz the reason the film looked so good. It is one of the underrated film of the year. It was unique. Probably less familiarity compared to any film. So not easy to predict the story. The suspense made me so curious and kept my eyes wide open till the end. I would like to see the other side of the story, probably in another film/part/sequel. Seems that's a very interesting aspect. Don't consider what the film critics say, it's definitely worth a watch.

7/10

I like Rachel Weisz, but her talents are wasted in this boring flick. The story is not believable and begs the questions: Why even make such a film? Kathy Bates' and Danny Glover's roles are completely superfluous. It would have been better to make a real mystery out of Rachel's character (with many names) disappearance, instead of what we are presented with. Maybe the screen writer should have dwelled more on the people that Rachel's character left behind (like her parents and the boyfriend). It might have been more interesting. I watched this on Amazon Prime and was glad I didn't have to pay for it, but what a waste of time!

Don't waste your time with this movie. It takes us into a swamp of frogs for God's sake.

After reading so many somewhat negative reviews I hesitated even watching this film - but then, it's actually a wonderful movie. Great actors and great script too. I guess what so many people don't like is that it's not a 'plot movie' - there's none of this 'overcoming obstacles' and stuff - I for one am glad! It's slow and thoughtful. Highly recommended!

I'm still kind of reeling after seeing this awful, pretentious, infuriating movie. 90 minutes long but it feels like 3 hours, the horribly edited scenes just drag on. Half the characters we meet at the start disappear half way through, never to be seen or heard from again. Just a movie that has no point in existing.

What themes does this movie explore? it's not grounded in any sort of modern day reality, the shooting looks like the DP saw an episode of Mr. Robot and decided to poorly approximate the shooting style. Even the score of this movie is terrible.

Avoid this movie at all costs. Take note of everybody that worked on this movie and try to avoid any of their future projects. If you're expecting to see another Michael Shannon tour de force, hell, if you're expecting to walk away the movie still a fan of his, I'd suggest skipping it.

Everybody from the director to the cast to the crew have embarrassed themselves with this hot garbage pile of a movie.

What can I say about this film? It was complete annoyance, complete irritation, complete delusion, completely nonsense, complete dementia and a complete waste of time. The only character in the film with any sense was the part played by Condola Rashad. The money spent on the making of this film should have been used to feed the poor.