Reviews

I haven't read the novel so I can't judge how good an adaptation this was but some of the dialogue in this film is very weak and the actions of characters inexplicably stupid. The costumes in Fosca's flashback scenes are so bad that you wonder why he has suddenly been transported into an amateur dramatics production of "A tale of two cities" or "Up Pompeii". I hope Stephen Rea doesn't get dragging into many more like this one. The multinational cast makes for some dodgy accents and sound dubbing.

For long periods of this play/film. Krapp (John Hurt) is saying nothing but his voice is heard nonetheless coming from the old reel-to-reel tapes that he plays back on his tape recorder. At times he seems incapable of remembering properly the events recounted by his younger voice on the tape, highlighting the relationship between memory and recording media.

Krapp at times takes pleasure and almost relives the memories on tape and at other times looses his temper as he disagrees with his former self or becomes impatient with the pace of his musings.

He sometimes seems surprised or extremely interested at the recordings but one is never sure whether his fascination is with a story that he no longer remembers or with his former telling of that story, which he might no longer see in the same way.

As a piece of theatre the contrast between live speech and recorded speech is more pronounced. On film it is a contrivance between the voice recorded on film and the voice recorded on tape recorded on film.

Great stuff none-the-less!

When I saw this film, I was aware that it was a retelling of a Dostoyevky story but not one I had read it. I still found it a very enjoyable film, which held my attention the whole way.

The self-defeating, somewhat neurotic protagonist manages to mess up every opportunity of improving his life that comes his way but manages to do so from a position of either moral or intellectual superiority. He justifies logically all his disastrous decisions and questions the sanity of anything he does that is motivated by emotion. He can't see the point.

He vacillates constantly between rejecting everyone around him and craving their love, friendship or forgiveness. Having met the "hooker with a heart of gold" who tidies his flat and, uniquely in the film, shows him respect and love, he drives her away with brutality and insults. In a momentary spell of remorse, he searches for her in the rain-soaked streets and looking back on this act in his video diary asks: "Why did I look for her? If I had found her, I would just have got back with her and tormented her again"

The acting is excellent, the photography tight and claustrophobic, which suits the protagonists tiny world. The editing cuts between his direct contributions to video diary, historical narrative and his flights of fancy at various points. It DID make me want to read the book but I think the film a work that stands up well on its own.

This film was a revelation! When it was on general release in the cinema, I gave it a wide berth. I can't remember why, probably the combination of a weak title, Alec Baldwin in a starring role and a really unimaginative trailer. I've just seen it on a 14-inch TV screen and am so sorry I didn't catch it on the big screen (or even a 26-inch TV!).

David Mamet can write but he knows his place! This is an action adventure movie and so Mamet is not trying to make any great philosophical point. He does provide a wide variety of thematic ingredients (man V nature, youth V age, brains V brawn, machismo, infidelity) to ensure that the story line is far more interesting than most of Hollywood's action-movie schlock. And, of course, a furry killing machine that can smell a man from 10 miles and run through the forest at 30 mph!

Charles, (Anthony Hopkins' erudite billionaire character) starts out as the vulnerable, isolated character of the film. He's married to Mickey, his photo-model wife(Elle can act herself!) flirts quite openly with Bob the handsome, younger photographer (Baldwin). Charles seems set up for a fall. In his self-effacing way, he confesses to knowing a lot "in theory" but not being great at "practical application".

So when the plane crashes into an icy lake, Charles is the one for whom you most fear but that's when all the surprises start..........

The biggest disappointment for me is that a fine actor such as Harold Perrineau finds himself playing a role that is a classical Hollywood cliché, the nice black guy who gets killed. When are they going to cut this crap out? Either kill the guy in the crash or give him a character but don't just make him plot fodder. Seeing Stephen (Perrineau) with the other two on the lake shore, you just knew he would have all the longevity in this film as James Bond's first female conquest. As David Mamet doesn't share the writing credits with a studio committee or an executive producer, I suppose he has to take responsibility.

That said, this is a really gripping film. Well directed photographed and acted (even by Baldwin!). And the bear! How long do you have?

The shots where you (from Charles point of view) are staring down the roaring bear's throat and can see his uvula through an emerging cloud of steamy breath are just brilliant. I could almost smell that bear. I believe they made extensive use of prosthetics. Excellent FX!

This is not really about Claire at all! It is about the truth and about how it is so different seen through the eyes and retold through the mouths of different people. We see what seems like a docudrama unfolding as each of the tenants in a house recounts their experience of Claire, the young woman who came to stay with Denise before travelling to Britain for an abortion.

Suddenly, when a particular statement is made, the film (video) stops and rewinds. We see the fingers of a film editor (Stembridge himself) replaying the interviewee's comment. This technique has been used many times since but this is no Verfremdungsaffekt. Here the editor is a protagonist (or antagonist) in the film. We see some of these scenes reflected in the lenses of his glasses in his smoky and sinister cutting room.

Over the two episodes we see and hear each housemate's version of events and learn about the baggage and agendas they bring to the story. Then at the end we see the Filmmaker's edited version of the story, which is where the real truth is to be learned.

Although made at a time when Ireland was recovering from a hugely divisive debate on the Right to Life question, this is not a film about abortion. It is a film about the media, what we see in it and how we should question what we see in it.