Admittedly, the plague is not exactly a cheerful subject, but did it have to be quite so gory? And violent? And graphic? I've read a lot of reviews that talk about how detailed and well-written the plot was, but to me it was very thin and more of a loose frame for repeated and senseless violence. It was almost too simple and too complex (in the sense that it was a huge stretch to work out the point). Calling it "gothic horror" just seems too generous to me.
Of course, as I mentioned (and as should be obvious to anyone who follows my movie-viewing preferences), the main reason I watched this one was for the actors. Sean Bean is the man. Or he usually is. In this one he was just a gruff, violent fanatic with an agenda, and it didn't suit him at all. Eddie Redmayne (as evidenced in previous posts) is my newest favorite actor, and I've yet to see any role to which he didn't do justice. This one might have been the first. He was good, but not great. (Though to be fair, it could have been a poorly written script. It was a bit over the top.) Still, his normal talent shone through here and there. There's one spot in particular where he does something irrevocable (I won't go into further detail to avoid spoilers), and when he realizes what he's been manipulated into doing, his response is classic Redmayne. Well played.
Even the most devoted Bean/Redmayne fans probably want to avoid this one. I want to wash my eyeballs after seeing this violent plague-fest.
Rating: 1.5
No comments:
Post a Comment