This is not a movie for an American audience in general, it just isn't. It is a move for adults. It is mature and sophisticated. That means no CGI or action with guns to solve problems. We just lost 70% of the American audience. This is not for younger people. When we say "art" movie or some other genre, what does that mean?This is a movie about relationships and the complexity of life. Are you telling me people cannot relate to their split sides? Everyone has a fragmented self. Movies like can illuminate, but I think those who are shallow and in denial cannot see what is right in front of them. If you saw this in a theater, you were probably with someone. Who wants to walk out of the theater and say, "Wow...I have a lot of Alice in me!" No...we want to hide our shame, not reveal it. If you watch this movie alone, it impacts differently. So yeah...it is slow and boring to many, but this is an adult movie with intelligence and great acting. There are so many subtle nuances to these characters. This requires attention and focus. You can't watch this with kids playing or phones ringing...FOCUS folks...this is worth it, unless you never want to look at self.

Review: I was surprised that this movie went under the radar, mainly because Michael Shannon (Tom), and Rachel Weisz (Jenny), are quite highly respected in Hollywood but now that I've watched this film, I can totally understand why. The story seemed a bit pointless and I personally got a bit bored once the plot unfolded. Its about a lady (Rachel Weisz), who keeps on reinventing herself by taking on different jobs under different names, whilst making up her past as she goes along. She decides to turn up at her ex-boyfriends birthday party, after becoming friends with his close friend at work, and they don't make there relationship known until they are alone with each other. Jenny comes clean about her strange ways, and she explains why she disappeared 20 years ago. She also offers him a chance to make a life with her, which leaves Tom in an unusual situation. The acting was decent from the main characters but I really don't know what the director was trying to portray. The whole Kathy Bates and Danny Glover sketch was also useless and I was left feeling empty when the movie ended. The template of the script was interesting but they really didn't take advantage of the great cast and her unusual life. I was hoping for some major twists towards the end but it just turned out to be a fairly average movie which could have been a hundred times better. Disappointing!Round-Up: This movie was written and directed by Joshua Marston, 49, who also brought you Maria Full Of Grace, New York, I Love You and The Forgiveness Of Blood. He also directed a few episodes of some TV series, which include Six Feet Under, Swingtown, Law and Order, The Newsroom and Black Box but he hasn't smashed the box office as yet. The cast that he got for New York, I Love You and this film, we're totally wasted, so I personally can't rate him as an director. On the plus side, the chemistry between the two main actors was believable and touching in parts but apart from that, it has to get the thumbs down from me.Budget: N/A Worldwide Gross: $215,000This movie is in the genre of drama/mystery, starring Rachel Weisz, Michael Shannon, Erin Darke, FaTye, Zach Appelman, Kathy Bates, Danny Glover, Michael Chernus and Azita Ghanizada. 3/10

Despite its intriguing premise, this film never really makes it. The acting, given the talent brought into it, is excellent, but the script provides nothing good for an audience to take hold of. It doesn't help that the first five minutes are so badly written/edited, you'll have no idea what's going on. The characters are intolerable people. Any other people would have said no to the invite to Tom's birthday party. They're not hateful or bad people, but they're either spineless, pretentious, or selfish, all to a degree that is utterly unlikable. Furthermore, the plot consists of mostly flat dialogue. The few moments when it feels like some real conflict is going to build, it fizzles out before it goes anywhere meaningful. Rachel Weisz does her best with the material, but by the tenth or fifteenth painfully obvious lie, it's infuriating that people believe her and that the people who know she's lying are so willing to shrug it off and continue interacting with her.

Plot and ScriptWhat if you could become a whole new person and often? Would you know who you are? Does our job define who we are? Or does one have to introspect often to figure out the reason fro their existence?These are some questions Complete Unknown tries to answer. Alice played by Rachel Weisz enters into Tom's (Michael Shannon) life by what seems like stalking but it is clarified that they were lovers – 15 years ago. Lovers who fell apart because Tom had a path in life to tread and Alice wanted no such thing.Alice took off without telling a soul leading her parents and Tom to think she was dead. She underwent complete transformations to become different people in different countries – biologist, nurse, magician's assistant and many more.But the lack of permanency is what brings her back to Tom whose definition of static is what is driving a wedge in his life and between him and his wife. What happens when Tom and Alice meet at his birthday party surrounded by his friends who think Alice is an enigma? Do they buy her tales of taking off or think she is a pathological liar?This is movie is a one-night tale and has a solid premise which unfortunately doesn't hold until the end.Characterization and Acting (C&A)Acting by Weisz and Shannon was very strong – we see both their points of view of who they think they are and self-imposed limitations. There are cameos by Kathy Bates and Danny Glover who are great but I don't know why they were important. Tom's friends were OK too but didn't really build into these characters. That's one reason where it fell short in this department – I didn't care enough for all the characters.Sounds and Effects (S&E)The background score was effective and the scenes which take you back to what Alice was at a given point in time were extremely 'tidy'.Cinematography and Visuals (C&V)I think this was one of the stronger aspects of the film. The movie looks great and the visuals are awesome in most settings.Direction and Overall (D &O)Amazon studios and Joshua Marston tried to make a great movie with an okay'ish script and that is what led this movie to not be great! There were many loopholes in the script and the story and characters never really develop fully.So here are my scores:Plot and Script (P&S)- 1.0Characterization and Acting (C&A) – 1.5Sounds and Effects (S&E) – 1.0Cinematography and Visuals (C&V) – 1.5Direction and Overall (D &O) – 1.0Overall Score – 6.0 out of 10One time watch but forgettable.