Hey, it has Helen Mirren in it. Even if it is an annoying, melodramatic wad of self-indulgence, I still say, hey, it's got Helen Mirren in it.





Screenwriters: Michael Hoffman
Director: Michael Hoffman (The Emperor's Club)
Actors: Helen Mirren (The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover), James McAvoy (The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe), Christopher Plummer (Dragnet), Paul Giamatti (Lady in the Water), Patrick Kennedy (Munich) and Anne-Marie Duff (Notes on a Scandal)

Labels: Anne-Marie Duff, Christopher Plummer, film, Helen Mirren, James McAvoy, movie trailer, Patrick Kennedy, Paul Giamatti

Short Review: A film expressing the dangers of living frivolously in a dangerous world. So, in essence, it is a film that warns against doing all of the things Hollywood has been telling us to do for the last forty years.


Many of the thoughts I have about this film parrot what has already been published on this site. My friend Jeff offered an astute review of this film during its theatrical release. Click here to read his review.

The first thing to discuss about this film is Forest Whitaker’s performance as General Idi Amin Dada. His Oscar for Best Actor is well deserved. He navigates the delicate tightrope of this complicated character. While the character himself is somewhat of a stock piece – the brutal leader who grows more blindly egotistical and paranoid as he gains power, what is refreshing is how real Amin becomes with Whitaker as the vehicle. He isn’t a sympathetic character, but he is one who we can understand. This is a complicated maneuver for Whitaker since Amin certainly was a complex man. Amin was at once charming in public while ruthless behind closed doors. Instead of playing Amin as a type, Whitaker provides some glimpses into the manipulative man’s psychology. Whitaker handles the challenge of portraying a man whose emotional state swung more wildly than Courtney Love locked in a pharmacy.

Before we get to the film, let’s take a diversion…

The thing about Whitaker taking home the Oscar for Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role is that his role isn’t the lead. Like Anthony Hopkins’ winning for Hannibal Lector, the performance should have garnished Whitaker Best Supporting Actor. Structurally, the character of Dr. Nicholas Garrigan is the lead as was Clarice Starling in Silence of the Lambs. The Academy deemed Garrigan to be the supporting role even though he is the protagonist. To be honest, I’ve always been confused by what the Academy sees as a leading role. Yes, I get that there is an award for a guy and another for a gal and both genders can win regardless if there is a lead for both sexes (Silence of the Lambs is the best example again.) Looking at the award in this instance, there’s no rhyme or reason to Whitaker getting set up for a Best Actor nod when Ken Watanabe was marked for a supporting award has a structurally very similar role in The Last Samurai (in the role of Katsumoto). Is it simply a matter of personality or potency of a performance? This would explain Whitaker and Hopkins but then what about Tommy Lee Jones as Samuel Gerard in The Fugitive? He far out paced the lead in that film, Harrison Ford. Does it have to do with billing? Then explain William H. Macy for Jerry Lundegaard in Fargo. He received top billing for that film. I don’t have an answer here, just whining. Either the industry understands structure or they don’t. Then again, the Oscar is a political award given during a trade show so perhaps I shouldn't waste my time.

Let’s swerve back on the right track and return to the movie.

The film itself is made of somewhat predictable stuff, but still provides a well-constructed story and well formed characters. The story centers on young, Scottish jerk Dr. Nicholas Garrigan who leaves his home country to help the poor people in Uganda. While there he falls into the role of personal physician to General Idi Amin.

Garrigan lives a luxurious life as the President’s doctor and top political adviser. His duel role provides Garrigan with riches and power. What is interesting about this film is that the role also makes him as isolated and detached from reality as his paranoid leader. When things begin to unravel and Garrigan’s frivolous attitudes begin to lead to the deaths of others, the film is directed into rich moral ground.

Garrigan begins the film like many young Westerners today who think snapping their fingers along with Will Smith at Live 8 actually has meaning. They listen to Bono whimper for ten minutes and think they get it. Looking under their motives and it’s not about actually helping Africans (or anyone else for that matter) its about making themselves feel better. This amoral self-serve view allows for Garrigan to be used by the tyrant. Garrigan begins the film with a fistful of righteous bromides and but casts them aside the moment his pride and hungers are catered to. He lives to make himself feel better but then things get out of hand. Since Garrigan doesn’t have a moral center beyond his own personal gain, he is incapable of seeing the truth that surrounds him. He is complicit in the murder of a whole country before he finally wakes up out of his amoral stupor.

This film has a deep lesson to teach and does so with gravity rarely seen, let alone embraced, by the entertainment establishment. Like Hotel Rwanda, however, this film avoids presenting the massacres happening outside of the walls of the character’s residence. This drains the final act of its full potency since we aren’t given the full story of how deep Garrigan’s denial really ran. Like with Hotel Rwanda, giving a fuller idea of the level of carnage would have only made the overall point more striking. This concession made this film’s final act still hits the point hard and the lesson is taught.


Caution: This film does present a horrifying look at the results of a dismembering and a frank view of a sex act so sensitive viewers may want to avoid portions of the piece. If you’re okay with this sort of content, you’re going to find an intelligent and fascinating character piece worthy of the praise it has received.




Related Reviews:
James McAvoy movies
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005)
Wanted (2008)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Celluloid Heroes
Apps Scraps

Labels: film, Forest Whitaker, Gillian Anderson, James McAvoy, Kerry Washington, movie review

I was surprised by how tedious this movie turned out to be. Timur Bekmambetov’s (Nochnoy dozor”Nightwatch”) big Hollywood crossover is just a bunch of firecrackers tossed into a blast of hot air. There some empty flashes along with a whole load of empty dialog. James McAvoy (The Last King of Scotland) stars as Wesley Gibson, an awkward office pack mule who believes he lives a meaningless life. His father abandoned him, his girlfriend hates him and his boss is abusive. Screenwriters Michael Brandt, Derek Haas and Chris Morgan go out of their way to drill the point home that the average person is a miserable cog. Wesley only finds an escape from his commoner fate when he is approached by Fox (the frightening skinny Angelia Jolie). Fox reveals to Wesley that his father was a great assassin and that he is the heir to his legacy. From this point forward the script jumps from one moment of peril to the next until the final credits. Wesley joins a league of assassins, gets trained and then tracks down the man who killed his father. There’s supposed to be a big surprise during the mid-point reversal but this reveal is only shocking if you’re a complete dimwit. Bekmambetov forecasts his intentions clearly throughout the film removing any tension and makes the film rather plodding.

The performances are stock. McAvoy, Jolie and Morgan Freeman (as the wise old man Sloan) are all passable but not remarkable in their roles. This seems to be mostly because the script doesn’t ask too much from them. The emotional range of the film is limited and the actors spend most of their time trying to look cool instead of making a connection with the audience. Much of the film reminded me of Jolie’s previous Tomb Raider movies. This, like the Tomb Raider movies, is nothing more than content-free film making. The point of the film is a chain of action sequences, the characters are developed enough to keep them from being notably thin and the ultimate point is lost in illogical double talk. The summation provided at the final moments of the film contradicts the lesson learned in the final act as Wesley effectively adopts the philosophy of the villain. To be fair, it doesn’t really matter one way or the other because the philosophies forwarded by the script are so muddled that they are little more than slogans. He basically goes for “taste good” over “less filling”.

If you’re looking for a senseless action film you will find there’s more senselessness than action in this film. There are some action sequences that are designed to be spectacular but they are empty of tension. This leads the film to be jammed with action without purpose – the cinematic equivalent of empty calories.




Related Reviews:
Morgan Freeman movies
The Dark Knight (2008)
Evan Almighty (2007)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
Black Sheep Reviews
Roger Ebert

Labels: Angelina Jolie, film, James McAvoy, Morgan Freeman, movie review, Timur Bekmambetov

Labels: Angelina Jolie, Common, James McAvoy, Morgan Freeman, movie trailer, Timur Bekmambetov

Labels: Angelina Jolie, Common, James McAvoy, Morgan Freeman, movie trailer, Timur Bekmambetov

Labels: film, James McAvoy, Keira Knightley, movie trailer