| Overall Grade: |
D |
|
| Story: |
D |
|
|
| Acting: |
A |
|
|
| Direction: |
D |
|
|
| Visuals: |
A |
|
|
What the hell?
by Mhenry (movies profile)
Aug 18, 2009
So much of this movie is done right. Great moods, great set, great lighting, great acting. Even some of the updates made to the play to make it more contemporary give the interplay between the characters an edginess that was unexpected. Coming in as an admirer of the original filmed performance featuring Laurence Olivier and Michael Caine, I was most concerned about being put off by the starkness of the set. All the curios and collectibles of the original play served as a collective additional character. However, though stark, the clean yet complex simplicity of the new set also serves well in the same way.
Two things kept this movie from succeeding for me.
First, the overly-artistic and wandering close ups on mouths and other body parts, combined with distant views through the eyes of remote security cameras, either brought me uncomfortably close or held me at bay. Perhaps this was intentional but the end result is that I could never fully appreciate the acting. The original movie employed similar tactics but they were used sparingly as punctuations. An entire film of it is simply annoying.
Secondly, I never, not once, even remotely cared about either character. Any thrill came from trying to watch two wonderful actors play off each other. By going so far over the top with the ugliness of Caine's writer, and never really answering if Law's gigolo is a gold-digger or truly in love, it is difficult to take any pity on either. Yet, neither character is fleshed out to make them fully detestable instead of just cartoonishly menacing.
In the end, you are left with more questions than answers, whereas the original play wrapped up with very clear answers, judgement, and execution, although not necessarily in that order. |
My Public Profile 
