3 Comments

1. 

   Paul Montgomery on February 28, 2007 at 2:37 am

   I agree with your review, I thought it was better than the MSM said. The main problem was that the central character was a cipher, not hot-blooded like Michael Corleone, which hurt the viewer’s ability to empathise with anything going on. It was a very sophisticated film, the art buffs would love it but it would have a tendency to leave one a little cold. Personally, I hardly noticed the time because I was enjoying it so much.

   You didn’t mention Michael Gambon, he was one of the strongest actors. Also, Billy Crudup as a Kim Philby homage. But the real star of the film was Matt Damon’s constantly changing glasses! If nothing else, the film was a fabulous showcase of Distinctive Eyewear Of The 1950s. You said that Matt Damon didn’t act with his eyes much, I think that was deliberate because there must have been at least a dozen scenes where the camera was positioned to hide Damon’s eyes behind the frame of his glasses during the shot.

   Reply
2. 

   Cameron Reilly on February 28, 2007 at 8:23 am

   Yeah Paul you’re right, Gambon and Crudup were terrific and the eyewear deserved an Oscar!

   Regarding Damon’s eyes, you’re right there as well, his eyes were always being shielded, the glasses were a prop, he’s hiding behind them, his emotions shut away, after he leaves the deaf girl for Clover and closes himself completely up. But, as you said, makes him hard to “like”, something American reviewers are always on about, “oh I didn’t LIKE the main character.” It’s a film honey, you don’t have to like him.

   Reply
3. 

   Paul Montgomery on February 28, 2007 at 3:52 pm

   If you ever want to do a joint TPN review of a science fiction film, I’d be there in a shot.

   Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.