A real knockout that I will defend against its detractors. Director Kenneth Branagh has made a ballsy tough-mindgame of theatrics into an enthralling story of battling wits. Men sparring over love, admiration and humiliation. Oh, yeah, and the...
- 29.March.2010
- |
- by: Democritus
- Democritus rated this movie
 0/10
A real knockout that I will defend against its detractors. Director Kenneth Branagh has made a ballsy tough-mindgame of theatrics into an enthralling story of battling wits. Men sparring over love, admiration and humiliation. Oh, yeah, and the woman between them. The late playwright and Nobel-prize winner Harold Pinter's script is a dazzling reworking of the old play/movie (by someone else), made into something scintillating and razor-sharp. He has made some conscious decisions about less ambiguously defining the sparring match that probably underlay the earlier versions but are made more contemporary here--some may dispute that or regret the resulting overt social impropriety. And it is all the more arresting for its enclosed world: a vaguely post-modern set which is a combination of Hamlet's castle, '90s high-style hotel lobby , and Dr. Caligari's technogarden. I have a small quibble about a central deception, which perhaps was less effective for me----I think because I had some dim memory of the previous version, but the energy of the performances overcome this midpoint lag. A stunning example of the filmmaker's art and thrill. Jude Law and Michael Caine are both simply astounding and subtle. A rocket ride worth at least three stars, but I'll give it five for the whoosh of the Branagh/Pinter style and the audacity of its performances. Not for the squeamish (brutal social psychology, not blood), or those unable to bookend it with its equally honorable, if rather different and more nicely mannered, predecessor. 3-09
- 29.March.2010
- |
- by: Democritus
What did you think about this review?
Thank you for voting.
Abuse report sent
Report abuse
Close
|
It's really frustrating when a remake of a good film is so awful that it almost lowers your opinion of the original. Such is the case with this unnecessary revamp of the 1972 classic. Jude Law hams it up in Michael Caine's old role of Milo, while...
- 22.March.2009
- |
- by: coolerking
- coolerking rated this movie4/10Disappointing
It's really frustrating when a remake of a good film is so awful that it almost lowers your opinion of the original. Such is the case with this unnecessary revamp of the 1972 classic. Jude Law hams it up in Michael Caine's old role of Milo, while Caine now sleepwalks through the role of Andrew, which Laurence Olivier once played with infectious enthusiasm. Setting aside the numerous plot holes, predictable twists, and red herrings in this version (what was the point of all the security cameras?), the major misstep in this film was in making its protagonists completely unlikable. In both versions, Andrew and Milo do horrible things to one another, but in the original they managed to do them with an almost playful charm, thus holding our interest throughout their deadly battle of wits, whereas here they both come off as just slimy and vicious. This unwelcome change is amplified by the cold, dark, hi-tech decor of Caine's palacial home, where the entire story takes place, which sharply contrasts the whimsical, antique toy-cluttered interior of Olivier's. Personally, I'll favor watching the charm of Olivier over the nastiness of Caine any day.
- 22.March.2009
- |
- by: coolerking
What did you think about this review?
Thank you for voting.
Abuse report sent
Report abuse
Close
|
Mood:
Plot:
Genres:
Time/Period:
Based on:
Attitudes:
Does this gene fit Sleuth?
