I watched it back in 2005.I wrote a review in Portuguese at that time, that I translate here to English. Note that I'm Deaf, so I have my perspective biased toward how Deaf people feel when seeing somewhat "fake-deaf" movies.Interpretation was not that though. Of course I wouldn't do better, but the movie lacks a lot of how a Deaf person really feels the world. Some parts of the movie where created just to "illustrate" but they don't correspond to the reality. As an example: the hearing aids have a power off button, so there is no need to constantly remove them from the ears! I think that doing things clearly wrong just to have someone understand something is not the good way of doing things.After half the movie watched, I started feeling that the pseudo-deafness of the actress, incredibly put in a job where what you most see is she participating in meetings and answering phone calls (LOL! You probably would never see a real Deaf working in such a job) was just a pretext to justify the lip reading capacity. I'm Deaf for almost 30 years, I do (I'm forced to, anyway) a lot of lip reading every day and I can assure you that it's not possible to read lips the way she does in the movie (at very long distances and in very bad conditions). There are highly trained men (e.g. in intelligence services) that are able to do something like that, but not that easy.Other wrong thing in the movie is that the actress is show to be not keen with Deaf Community. Although it is true that many deaf people is so ashamed of their condition that they reject the Deaf Community, it is also true that deaf people in these conditions are not proficient with sign language. How can someone that never signs and systematically avoids Deaf Community be so good in signing? It seemed to me like those old movies where all Asiatics know martial arts.About the story itself, it was not that special. Someone decided that mixing a fake deaf with some nude scenes, a tattooed criminal, a mafia-like crew and some examples of discrimination and the moralized replies would make a good film, then did it.I confess that I laugh in many parts of the movie, wondering if they did the entire makeup without even consulting a true Deaf person.Rui

Most so-called psychological thrillers are in fact contrived and psychologically implausible; "psychotic thrillers" might be a better way of describing them. But Jacques Audiard's 'Read my Lips' is a genuine example of the breed, a compelling story of how a bullied, repressed deaf woman is drawn to a mutually manipulative relationship with a violent criminal. Emmanuelle Devos is excellent in the lead role, subtly conveying the change in her character as the story progresses; Vincent Cassel, meanwhile, as the criminal, appears to be auditioning for the job of the next Gerard Depardieu, playing the shaggy old Frenchman in a role that seems light years away from his fresh-faced student in 'L'Appartament'. It's good; I recommend the same director's 'A Self-Made Hero' even more highly.

Sur mes lèvres or READ MY LIPS is fine little thriller that also examines the lives of 'outsiders', people who live in the periphery of our vision who struggle with the need to 'fit in'. Director Jacques Audiard with and co-writer Tonino Benacquista have created a tense, tight, completely entertaining little thriller that makes some significant statements about out of the norm individuals and their plights.Carla (Emmanuelle Devos) is a plain Jane, mostly deaf, thirty something unnoticed secretary for a company whose life is one of social and sexual isolation and whose view of the future is rather bleak. Enter Paul (Vincent Cassel) a recent released ex-con parolee who responds to an ad to be Carla's assistant. There is a mutual physical repulsion at first meeting: Carla had hoped for a well-groomed, genteel man who might fulfill her fantasies and Paul is a coarse, unkempt sleazy guy who is not impressed with being a clerk. Their concepts change rather quickly when Paul salvages Carla's job by filling her request to steal a letter that would cost her her job and Paul discovers Carla's lip reading ability which he sees as a way to spy on the criminals from his past who threaten his life for money owed. So this odd couple of a team join forces and together enter a dangerous suspense filled ploy to gain Paul's safety and freedom. The relationship is full of twists and edge of the seat suspense with each of these unlikely characters fulfilling roles in their lives that fill the chinks in their walls of isolation in surprising ways.Devos and Cassel deliver bravura performances and the remainder of the cast is uniformly strong. Once again Alexandre Desplat has produced a musical score that enhances the tension and cinematographer Mathieu Vadepied finds all the right lighting and angles to suggest the worlds of isolation of the characters as well as the Hitchcockian sense of suspense. Director Audiard wisely manipulates a factor that is at once sensitive and transformative for the story: he shows us the difference between 'hearing' the world with and without hearing aids and in doing so makes some powerful social comments. This is a fine film that remains in the ranks of the best of the French film noir genre. Recommended. Grady Harp

This film has a rotting core of flexible morality, and yet a quirky sense of justice. So many of the regular Joes among us would love to "stick it to the MAN". The "MAN" in this case is represented by several different characters. Mr. Keller, who Carla reports to at her office. Later, Paul owes 70 large to Mr. Marchand the club owner. And then there is Paul's Parole Officer. There seems to be so much question about this last character's side story. Reviewers point it out as a weakness in an otherwise well crafted subterranean game of ping-pong between our two protagonists, escalating tit-for-tat until their lives change dramatically. They are beholden to each agent of the "MAN". One or both could be fired, killed, or imprisoned if they don't do as they are told.The film has a sense of relief at the end. Carla finally gets laid. Her boss is forced out for being a jerk. Mr. Club Owner is a pulpy mess in his own bathroom. They get the $money$. And... they need not worry about reporting in to the Parole Officer, because HIS moral weakness leads him to stash his wandering wife in the basement (or whatever the police found to arrest him). It is a critical subconscious trigger to the lock tumbler that wound us up so tight. Never mind that someone else may get Paul's file later to supervise his release; for the moment they are free! They might even get away with it! Woohoo...They STUCK IT TO THE MAN!