SeeQuant Blending excellent reporting and strong storytelling, this is a disturbing film truly stranger than fiction

Mabel Munoz Just intense enough to provide a much-needed diversion, just lightweight enough to make you forget about it soon after it’s over. It’s not exactly “good,” per se, but it does what it sets out to do in terms of putting us on edge, which makes it … successful?

Guillelmina The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

Cassandra Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Reno Rangan I never heard of it, but I found it accidentally and then decided to watch after learning it has a good cast. I mean not that they are the very popular ones right now in the Hollywood, maybe except Elizabeth Olsen, but awesomely played their roles. All the main four characters were very crucial throughout the narration. Like the title say, it was about a secret love affair between a young married woman and her handicapped husband's close friend. In between them, a mother of one of them played an important part in the story that brings a twist in the later part.An affair means, going any extent to achieve what they want for the permanent basis. But not all the affairs, but in this one it gets darker while the story progresses. One thing I liked very much was the tale never intended to label any of its characters as a villain. That balance was so brilliant, but I did not know that, so I always expected something very bad to happen and then, except in one scene which changes the course of the rest of the film. The cinematic feel is there, but it was more like in the real life event.No ones are evil and no ones are heroes, but everyone does all the good and bad things in their life and how serious those harmful acts, particularly how it destroys who are all involved in it was the film excellently told. It was based on the 150 years old French novel. It is also set in at the same time, I mean the 1860s, Paris. The recreation of the era was very good, but my only concern was the pace and the length of the film. Feels boring in some parts, other than that I got no issue with it. Having good actors with a decent direction, still it is like to belong in the B movie category. Though the overall effort from everyone was amazing and that's the reason you should watch it.6.5/10

westsideschl A story and acting that came across as not believable. A plot that would barely make the level of the cheapest paperback crime/lover tripe. The writers and director didn't even bother to make the dialogue authentic. Example, words being spoken that could only come from a 21st century slang dictionary, e.g. "Hey …" and other idioms and interjections that would fit in with today's rap lyrics. Tired formulaic storyline of seafaring father leaving his daughter with wicked relatives while he ventures into hostile sailing; promises to return; of course, doesn't and daughter grows up more enslaved than loved; then forced to marry wicked family's uncouth son. Now living in continued misery she finds true, but forbidden love. But, Shakespeare to the rescue - doesn't, predictably, end well.

Neil Welch In 19th century France, Therese is sent to live with her aunt and her cousin, sickly mummy's boy Camille. On reaching adulthood, her aunt marries Therese off to Camille and they move to Paris. There, Camille meets childhood friend Laurent who embarks on a passionate and forbidden affair with Therese which culminates in them wishing to be rid of Camille.If Therese had only had TV, she would have watched enough to know that this sort of thing never ends well. Emile Zola's 1867 novel Therese Raquin, retitled here, may have suffered in that characters who should be unsympathetic turn out to be quite likable and rather sad. Therese (Elizabeth Olsen) trapped into a life she doesn't like by a domineering aunt, understandably turns to an affair with wild abandon as it brings her joys she has never known. Tom Felton, not someone whose work as a child actor has appealed to me, is turning out to be quite good as an adult: he makes Camille into someone whose failings are not his fault (although I think he could have gone for a better haircut. I digress). Jessica Lange, on the basis of this film, is not ageing particularly attractively, but has become an actress of a stature one would not have expected from the 1976 King Kong: her overbearing mother/aunt, while not sympathetic to start off with, suffers terribly in more ways than one, and you end up feeling sorry for her. Only Laurent (Oscar Isaac) doesn't seem to have much in the way of redeeming qualities other than being a) hot and b) a good painter. I suspect that this may not be what Zola intended.This film is lushly photographed, and contains good supporting performances from assorted unexpected British actors.I have to finish with a "but" - but it's not much fun, not that tragedies ever are. It's all a bit glum and - importantly - not very uplifting (Les Miserables was glum, but left you feeling that there is something redemptive in human potential - that's not the case here, I'm afraid). So this is good, of its sort, but I can't say I came out of it feeling particularly enriched by it.

st-shot Is Emile Zola's novel, Therese Raquin, in the public domain? With a dozen silent, sound and TV productions one would think the last word had been beaten out of it by now but back it comes in this sluggish bore probably made on the cheap in Serbia by a hack taking his swing (and missing by a country mile) at the big time featuring a tired scenery chewing performance by Jess Lange so abrasive you can almost hear her teeth grinding.Therese (Liz Olson) in a loveless arranged marriage to her sickly cousin Camille (Tom Felton) is bored, emotionally abused and sexually unfulfilled living in the country. When the opportunity to re-locate in Paris presents itself her heart soars but the frustration dynamic remains upon arrival, wiling her days away in a drab shop, her nights spent watching Madame Raquin (Lange) and friends play dominoes. When an old friend of Camille's, Laurent (Oscar Issac) makes the scene the passion amps up and tragedy awaits.In its rather shapeless telling director Mike Stratton mutes In Secret's power with sluggish pacing and tepid desire from his star crossed lovers in passionate moments as he pays lip service to censors with self conscious compositions that render most scenes with a stiffness and restraint.As Therese, Olson is wide eyed, dull and out of her depth, stretching little as she goes from innocent to cold conspirator. Oscar Issac gives a spot on imitation of Tony Bennett at times and that's part of the problem. He's more Rat Pack than 19th Century gentleman. Lange starts strong but soon veers into screeching ham in no time. In addition a group of minor supporting characters (the domino crowd) move en masse about the film like a gaggle of geese with insipid self importance and disapproving glances.Standing on it's own In Secret flaccidly fails on all levels. When compared to the 1980 television version featuring the powerfully passionate performances of Kate Nelligan and Bryan Cox with the redoubtable Mona Washburne turning in a wonderfully measured performance as Madame Raquin it looks more like a community theatre production.