Yes No Maybe So: Secret In Their Eyes
Tuesday, June 30, 2015 at 9:00PM 
It might be time to revisit the last Argentinian winner of the Oscae which triumphed over an absurdly strong Foreign Language Film shortlist in 2009. For those still smarting from the losses of Un Prophete and The White Ribbon, bad news: The Argentinian film could be coming back for more Oscars.
Not really.
Sort of.
It's been remade for English language marketplaces as Secret In Their Eyes. And though extremely mainstream genres like murder thrillers generally don't pique Oscar's interest (unless there's the patina of class via subtitles or world class filmmakers behind the camera) you never know. Though we generally disdain remakes of foreign films -- we can read so who needs 'em? -- they've cast three very watchable actors as the central trio: Chiwetel Ejiofor in the Ricardo Darin role, and Julia Roberts and Nicole Kidman as the women in his life / workplace.
Let's break down the trailer after the jump...
YES
- Chiwetel Ejiofor deserves headlining gigs. Nice to see him front and center. He's such a strong screen presence.
- The early triangulated set-up in the office between Julia, Chiwetel, and Nicole looks promising for star chemistry sparks
- Julia's intensity and the genre suggested a welcome mix of her late career skill and aggressive screen persona with her early career ease and sympathy within the thriller genre in The Pelican Brief. (Remember that scene where the car blew up and the emotions swirled all over her face?)
- Nicole Kidman doesn't get any great moments in the trailer but I...uh... respond well to her as you know.
MAYBE SO
- Here's the thing. Why does every super-charged exciting shot come from the same scene. That elevator scene plays really amazingly in trailer form. But I hope this movie has other dramatic (non violent) jolts.
- I know it's a remake so "spoilers" are a different concern but still... do you really wanna cover that much of the movie in the trailer? Everyone will feel like they've already seen it. Which is already a danger with remakes.
- I'm curious about Billy Ray in the director's chair. I liked Shattered Glass (2003) but his movies seem to be stuck at that Breach (2007) level where people seem to like them well enough but they don't stick. Will the third time be the charm?
NO
- I have to say that while they're changing genders of main characters why not change the murder victim to a man? I'm so sick of the cinema's obsession with dead girls. Enough. It's so nauseously obvious that the cinema loves to brutalize young women.
- What could this really bring to the table that wasn't there before?
- Who approved those bangs on Julia?
Here's the trailer if you missed it. I'm a 'yes' purely on the cast though otherwise I feel I could take it or leave it. You?
Reader Comments (41)
I want to say that I'm on the Maybe So but who am I kidding? I will so watch this the week it's out. Loved the original, so really curious to see what they remade and what changed. Plus the cast is so amazing, it has Nicole Kidman for fucks sake.
On a side note: Really don'tunderstand what was going on at the wig department. Some bad hair choices going on.
"I'm curious about Billy Ray in the director's chair. I liked Shattered Glass (2003) but his movies seem to be stuck at that Breach (2007) level where people seem to like them well enough but they don't stick. Will the third time be the charm?"
We've only seen two films he's directed, so how can you say his movies seem to be stuck at that Breach level, when the only movie on that level is Breach? I'm confused by that sentence (it reads like he's directed more than three movies, including one we haven't seen yet).
I need to see the original (will be rectifying that real soon), but I'm in for the cast alone. It looks a lot less "prestige-y" than I thought it would, though. And I totally agree with V. on the distractingly terrible wigs.
I liked Breach! But yeah Julia looks to have the plum role here. Is it wierd that I think Julia is kinda underrated, she's been aces since closer. So yeah, I like her dark.
Unless this is well-reviewed, it is a giant no for me. Julia is horribly photographed and Nicole receiving top-billing for a nothing role means that it's a bonafide turkey. The "but she's my dead daughter" story is a total turnoff for moviegoers.
That might be the worst I've ever seen Julia look. Like worse than Mary Reilly. What the hell?
The title is grammatically incorrect. :(((
Fan of the original movie and devoted Kidmaniac here (also spanish speaker) The trailer seems misleading regarding the importance or screentime of Robert's role, or the script has been rewritten to be about her (apparently they combined the role of the victim's husband with Darin's partner ) So far MAYBE
I'm a YES. Never saw the original, so it's a completely new story to me and it looks like it COULD be entertaining.
I was an extra on this film, during the scenes of the baseball game. (Only two quick shots in the trailer.)
Unfortunately, neither Nicole nor Julia were there, but Dean Norris and Chiwetel were there. It's a flashback scene to 2002, so we warned not to show any cell phones. It was fun but late late late. We started at 2 PM and finished after 1 AM.
But the helicoptor hovering just 50 feet or so above us an home plate was really cool!
Didn't like the trailer when I saw ti yesterday but then I almost hated the Cinderella trailer yet the film turned out to be good.
Considering I wasn't *that* fond of the original, certainly not as much as the Academy, I'm not against a remake and certainly not one that gives such big roles to the likes of Ejiofor, Roberts and Kidman. It sort of feels like it's from another era though since these sort of police/detective procedurals haven't really been that common on the big screen in the last decade. I wonder if the baseball stadium scene will be a single take like the original.
I have to say that while they're changing genders of main characters why not change the murder victim to a man?
Women earn immediate sympathy from an audience when they're victims.
The original movie was pretty much perfect, so no. I will need outstanding reviews to get me into the theater for this.
I'm a no all the way. I loved the original and don't see them adding anything new or interesting here. Additionally, without the background of the Argentinian dictatorship a huge element of the plot tension gets lost. I wonder how they'll deal with that.
I'm a total YES. Everybody needs to remember how great Girl With the Dragon Tattoo was, and it was released like a year or two after the original swedish movie. If this remake takes a whole new approach (and it really seems it does) then it can be very good and feel fresh. The idea of casting Roberts in this part is great, and they seem pretty proud of it as she's everywhere in the trailer. I only have doubts about Kidman who could be stuck in the large-but-nothing-much-to-do part if we believe the trailer. I can't wait for this to come out and i'll make sure to watch the original again before it does.
How often do I come here to be able to read a comment and know it's 3rtful's before I read it!
This looks excellent, I'm one of the few who believed that Julia was the best thing about August: Osage County and she is giving me life here but seriously. That hair. No.
What have they done to Kidman though! I love her more than most but this is one of the first roles I've ever seen a trailer of her for and thought she looked completely sexless. shes giving me nothing here. No intrigue or mystery or allure.
I guess I'm a yes because duh, but a maybe so what have they done to the actresses in the anticipation stakes.
Juan José Campanella's name is misspelled in the credits after the trailer. They wrote Campenella instead of Campanella. I hope they correct the mistake in the poster and the film credits! It would be a shame.
Julia Roberts is such a beautiful woman, why even cast her if you're going to this extent to try to make her look bad? Not only is the hair really unflattering, but her wardrobe is deliberately frumpy and the makeup and, as someone else said, lighting, play down all her uniquely lovely features.
I hate the hair in a Double Indemnity remake bad hair way
yeah reduce the actress and the game performance she seems to be giving to remarks about how her hair sucks and how frumpy she looks and how badly photographed she is (ugly you can say the word) because it is sooo not sexist. when actors play less than put together characters, they don't go through this shit. like that headline from thewrap "watch julia roberts at her frumpiest yet". anyway i don't think her character is supposed to look glamorous.
it's a yes by the way because i appreciate the route roberts is taking her career. she did career best work in a:oc and she was great in the normal heart.
but by all means, keep remarking about how badly photographed she is. god.
Eew! no!
@mcv I agree with you in theory. But that's just a bad wig, and I see a lot of them in movies. I don't know why in this day and age the bag wig problem persists. It is obvious that through the waves and bangs the effort has been made to give her some style. Neither does her character's appearance change for the worse because of her grief (a very real phenomenon). It is obvious that, for the sake of the role, her vanity has not been sacrificed. If you look at Mireille Enos in The Killing, Frances McDormand in Olive Kitteridge or Felicity Huffman in American Crime you'll know what I am talking about.
Maybe to the film.
I don't know what is up with comments about Julia Roberts appearance. Really? Who cares if the movie and performance are good. It does not look like beauty has anything to do with her role so whatever.
My main concern is Kidman. Can we talk about Nicole Kidman? What has happened to Nicole Kidman? I mean I know the Keith Urban love and the children pictures and everything is very cute but come on!!!!!!! where is the risk taking edgy actress we have grown addicted to? In the past she used to make uneven movies but she was always interesting and fascinating in them. I'm not talking about Moulin Rouge, The Others, To Die For, Birth, Dogville which were legitimate masterclasses in acting. I'm talking The Paperboy, Rabbit Hole, Fur, Margot at the Wedding..... flawed movies where she was just captivating and you could really understand what attracted her to the role.
Lately, I'm just at a loss. The Railway Man, Grace of Monaco, Paddington, The stupid nameless Colin firth movie about amnesia, The Queen of the Desert,,,, we can argue about these movies' quality but the truth is it is not our beloved Nicole Kidman who would pick roles like this and now THIS. I don't care if the trailer underplays her role and she remains a captivating screen presence (nothing will change that because of her icy looks and her magnificent beauty) but two lines!!!! TWO LINES ?!?!?!?! If you are going to reduce Nicole Kidman to a supporting player, you might as well give us a Stoker at the minimum. This is scary and I don't like it. Nicky needs to pick up the phone and call her pal Cate Blanchett for much needed career advice on how to pretend to support while actually stealing the entire fucking spotlight. That's what Hollywood royalty does - they don't .... support.
Anyways, I may just be completely wrong and this is an ill-advised trailer.
" It is obvious that through the waves and bangs the effort has been made to give her some style."
Uh, no. I don't know if you're using the word "style" broadly, but all her hair/costume choices seem to be very explicitly saying she's NOT stylish, and that this is deliberately in contrast to Kidman's character.
I'm a maybe. I actually liked Roberts' performances up through Closer but have since found her to be trying hard but not really connecting for me. I'd love to see another great performance from Ejiofor after 12 Years but I'm not sure this is it and the rest of the movie looks fairly generic.
What the fuck people?! You are judging Julia Robert´s looks?! What does this have to do with the movie´s quality or her performance. You complain about hollywood´s sick obsession with dead girls and follow with a sexist comment about Robert´s haircut?! Is this real life?
"Oh my god did you see that new trailer for the Julia Roberts movie. Disgusting. Those bangs. Ew. Pretty woman my ass. She should just retire. I wish Jennifer Lawrence would play that part. She´s like smokin´ hot."
Because of those stupid fucks, women in their 40s don´t get the parts they deserve and Denzel Washington´s girlfriends in his movies don´t age.
Hard to find a moive these days where the male lead is "10 years younger" than the feamle counterparts
How often do I come here to be able to read a comment and know it's 3rtful's before I read it!
My post attacked no one but you see it as negative.
I don't mean style in terms of being chic but more so as a conscious effort to give her a tangibly descriptive look, except there is nothing subtle about it, and the choices seem unnaturally deliberate from the immovable wig to the pant length. All of it feels so forced. Maybe that's what people are reacting to.
People talk a lot about Nicole Kidman's plastic surgery, but she is one of the few movie stars who doesn't mind scrubbing her face clean and letting her hair down if the role demands it. The Rabbit Hole, for example.
Normally I'd agree that judging a movie by an actress' appearance is unacceptable, and saying you won't see a movie because Julia Roberts doesn't look pretty enough is, indeed, unacceptable. But when it comes to things like wigs and costumes, those are artistic choices that speak to the quality of the movie just as much as cinematography, lighting, acting and other cues a trailer gives us about what we can expect. I'd say those are okay to have an opinion on.
However, if your opinion is just "Julia Roberts looks frumpy and that is bad" without taking into consideration context and the actor's/filmmaker's artistic choices, then yeah, that's lame.
"Who approved those bangs on Julia?"
"Some bad hair choices going on."
"That might be the worst I've ever seen Julia look."
"What have they done to Kidman though! I (...) thought she looked completely sexless. shes giving me nothing here. No intrigue or mystery or allure."
And my favorite:
"Julia Roberts is such a beautiful woman, why even cast her if you're going to this extent to try to make her look bad?"
or:
"Girl why you look so sad. Smile. You more beautiful!"
@DJDeeJay, you have articulated more effectively and succinctly what I have been trying to say.
Add me to the chorus of those who feel the original did not need a remake. It was terrific as is.
That said, I do think the major changes in plot and motivation of the main characters were to compensate for the fact that we don't have the historical/political backdrop of the original. My question about the change in gender for Julia's role: what does it mean for the romantic tension/regret that was such a big part of the original? Does it get transferred to her relationship with Ejiofor's character? (I suppose it's too much to hope that we get that between her and Nicole!)
Finally, I don't give a patootie about how Julia looks in this trailer, but I'm leaning NO (at best, maybe so - if it gets fantastic reviews - and I do love me some Chewie).
@dela - thanks! I was worried it came out as gobbledy-gook. And I see your point about them trying too hard with her "style."
the wig thing i get but the remarks about how bad roberts looks like she should still look glam while playing this grim character just make me cringe. these remarks cannot be defended, people. don't try.
like i said, you don't read this kind of shit about male performers.
"When actors play less than put together characters, they don't go through this shit."
When I read stuff like this on TFE, I wonder if the posters here even read about actors. One of the lead pieces on Vulture right now is a quiz about Channing Tatum's abs.
So we aren't supposed to talk about a clearly deliberate move to deglam Julia Roberts? Bitch please. I'll discuss whatever I want to discuss about this trailer. Scroll down past me otherwise.
Yes: the cast
Maybe so: didn't love the original; plus, the cutting on this trailer makes it look like one of those generic late 90s Seven rip offs, which can be good or bad, who knows
No: what the fuck is that thing on Michael Kelly's head?
Yeah, i think a terrible wig on Julia is fair game to talk about. It's not like we don't evaluate the appearance of men in movies. We're equal opportunity screen-watchers at TFE. I don't like it when schlubby actors are lauded as movie stars (since that almost never happens for women who aren't thin) or when no one bothers to clean them up when they're playing romantic leads (it takes me out of the movie since in real life a bunch of hot women wouldn't fall for a schlubby man) and I don't like it when beautiful actresses deglam unless there is an ultra specific reason and even then I'm like "can't you give a less beautiful actress this lead role for a change since she's also a great actress!".
. Realism is for real life. Give me cinematic beauty!
The romantic tension will be between Chiwetel and Nicole. She's playing the boss role.
Chiwetel, who is insanely, impossibly handsome and can take me as his sex slave is too young for this role.
Yes, they have combined the widower and the partner role In one and thats Julia's role.
I have said it before and I'll say it again - this will suck, its unnecessary, not needed and reeks of ethnocentrism and cultural imperialism.
Plus, I have no idea how will they tell this story without the dictatorship background. It moves to whole plot along and the story further. Its pretty much impossible to remove it and achieve the same results.
One of the worst blogs, I think, I have read on TFE ....