I've just watched the DVD and I have to say I'm puzzled by the description of the film as a "thriller" by some of the reviews I had read. I was expecting something much better than what the film delivered. It's a very flat movie and that seems to be the fault of script, performances and editing. It has the odour of "high art" film making, sententious and vacuous by turns. "Let this be a lesson unto you..." and "The past isn't another country..." Ponderous! Particularly I found Shia LeBeouf's performance as the young reporter rather too bright-eyed and perky. The character lacked a sense of the growing excitement I would have expected as he started to understand the history of the people he's investigating and as he drew closer to his quarry. It's a very "Johnny one-note" performance - no development. I was increasingly irritated by a mannerism - his repetitive touching the bridge of his glasses. And why the glasses? So he could deliver the character defining mannerism? I was shocked when I first saw Julie Christie's character appear. I had difficulty in recognizing her. The immediate thought was that plastic surgery is not always a wise choice with a good result. I simply focused on the face and found it impossibly to see the character in the film. It disrupted the movie for me. And the performance was as featureless as the face. At least Susan Sarandon appears to have by-passed on facial reconstruction and, with little to do, did it well.
Redford was simply too old for the part he played. And the final scene, as he walked away from the camera with his adopted daughter, was very mechanical - the waving hand gestures.
All of these actors have been better in other films. Not a must see.
kamagla
Redford was simply too old for the part he played. And the final scene, as he walked away from the camera with his adopted daughter, was very mechanical - the waving hand gestures.
All of these actors have been better in other films. Not a must see.
kamagla