Nominated in all major categories, this "romantic" crime drama won an Oscar for Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen. I watched the film mostly because of Forest Whitaker, but it turned out that his role, although important, is not particularly impressive. Nominee Stephen Rea did not leave a special impression either, but Jaye Davidson really deserved his nomination for a best supporting role, despite this being his film debut. Unfortunately, he had the misfortune to race for the Oscars with veterans, Pacino in "The Scent of a Woman" and Eastwood in "Unforgiven." Honestly, I was most impressed by Jim Broadbent, although he only appears in a few short scenes.
The film is about a member of the IRA, whose unit kidnaps a soldier in order to exchange prisoners. While guarding the abducted soldier, he becomes close to him and after his death goes to find his love and convey the deceased's message to her. He finds her and, of course, romance follows. But the soldier's girlfriend is not what she pretends to be, so our hero and the audience are in for a shock.
I believe that in 1992, the twist of this film might have been a surprise, breaking taboos and shocking the audience. But from today's perspective, when the things that this film shows have long since become part of everyday life, that factor of shock and surprise is lost, and what remains is a very nicely shot and acted, but totally obvious and predictable film. When the agony of boredom of the first forty minutes is added to that, my subjective impression does not reach even six. However, if I take into account the technical quality and the perspective of the time when it was created, I have to give it some slack.
7/10.
The film is about a member of the IRA, whose unit kidnaps a soldier in order to exchange prisoners. While guarding the abducted soldier, he becomes close to him and after his death goes to find his love and convey the deceased's message to her. He finds her and, of course, romance follows. But the soldier's girlfriend is not what she pretends to be, so our hero and the audience are in for a shock.
I believe that in 1992, the twist of this film might have been a surprise, breaking taboos and shocking the audience. But from today's perspective, when the things that this film shows have long since become part of everyday life, that factor of shock and surprise is lost, and what remains is a very nicely shot and acted, but totally obvious and predictable film. When the agony of boredom of the first forty minutes is added to that, my subjective impression does not reach even six. However, if I take into account the technical quality and the perspective of the time when it was created, I have to give it some slack.
7/10.