A mentally-disturbed man (Ralph Fiennes) takes residence in a halfway house. His mind gradually slips back into the realm created by his illness, where he replays a key part of his childhood.
I have read other reviews stating this film is "misunderstood" or that some people will get it and others will not. I think that is quite true. While I love Cronenberg and I can not deny the powerful acting talent of Ralph Fiennes, I just did not connect with this one. I found it a bit boring and not as profound as I felt it could have been.
While the directing is more than adequate, with a grim, dirty color scheme that really evokes a feeling of desolation and despair, I just did not feel this was Cronenberg's comfort zone. The issues of mental illness might be something he addresses, but here it seemed all too tame and "normal" -- he was not able to give this a personal touch. Was there something about it that screamed "Cronenberg"? To me, no.
The standout performance must be of Miranda Richardson, who played both Mrs. Cleg and Yvonne. I may be blind, but I honestly did not realize until much later that the same actress played both parts. They look different, talk different, and just do not have any common ground. I think this is a testament to Richardson's skill and deftness, and I wonder why she is not given more attention. Certainly hair and makeup must be credited, but Richardson owned these roles and therefore the film.
Roger Ebert heaps praise on Fiennes, saying he plays "a man eaten away by a lifetime of inner torment" and "looks here like a refugee from the slums of hell." Ebert is likely just glad to see Fiennes in something besides the rom-com "Maid in Manhattan". He also points out the film's ambiguous nature -- that since we are seeing things from the point of view of a madman, we can never be sure what is real and what is not.
But, in fact, we can. I strongly urge people to listen to the director's commentary on this film. I was left with questions and then went back over a few key scenes with the commentary on -- it really made me see the true perspective, at least as Cronenberg intended it. The film makes much more sense that way. Sure, I still think it comes up short and lacks any real dimension (the film follows only one character, who is almost entirely mute) but at least the message was made known to me.
Recommended? Not sure. Some people swear this is among David Cronenberg's best. I am not of that opinion, but I am just one man. Your thoughts may be different. Fans should give it a shot.
I have read other reviews stating this film is "misunderstood" or that some people will get it and others will not. I think that is quite true. While I love Cronenberg and I can not deny the powerful acting talent of Ralph Fiennes, I just did not connect with this one. I found it a bit boring and not as profound as I felt it could have been.
While the directing is more than adequate, with a grim, dirty color scheme that really evokes a feeling of desolation and despair, I just did not feel this was Cronenberg's comfort zone. The issues of mental illness might be something he addresses, but here it seemed all too tame and "normal" -- he was not able to give this a personal touch. Was there something about it that screamed "Cronenberg"? To me, no.
The standout performance must be of Miranda Richardson, who played both Mrs. Cleg and Yvonne. I may be blind, but I honestly did not realize until much later that the same actress played both parts. They look different, talk different, and just do not have any common ground. I think this is a testament to Richardson's skill and deftness, and I wonder why she is not given more attention. Certainly hair and makeup must be credited, but Richardson owned these roles and therefore the film.
Roger Ebert heaps praise on Fiennes, saying he plays "a man eaten away by a lifetime of inner torment" and "looks here like a refugee from the slums of hell." Ebert is likely just glad to see Fiennes in something besides the rom-com "Maid in Manhattan". He also points out the film's ambiguous nature -- that since we are seeing things from the point of view of a madman, we can never be sure what is real and what is not.
But, in fact, we can. I strongly urge people to listen to the director's commentary on this film. I was left with questions and then went back over a few key scenes with the commentary on -- it really made me see the true perspective, at least as Cronenberg intended it. The film makes much more sense that way. Sure, I still think it comes up short and lacks any real dimension (the film follows only one character, who is almost entirely mute) but at least the message was made known to me.
Recommended? Not sure. Some people swear this is among David Cronenberg's best. I am not of that opinion, but I am just one man. Your thoughts may be different. Fans should give it a shot.