The Critic

I had hoped for so much more from The Critic due to its premise, title and cast. I was bitterly disappointed. The pointless and fruitless direction of this film is frustrating. We see a random array of events that add little to no value. It seems like we are watching a bunch of uneventful situations playout, I found myself asking so what? Humanity is not great at times but why did we need to see a film about this and how on earth did this get the green light? Where was the payoff or purpose? Veteran actor, Ian Mckellen, gives a solid performance but it is not enough to save this pitiful excuse of a film.

The director, fully aware of how bad the movie is, had 350 people from the Philippines give it a 10/10 rating (check the voting statistics if you like).

The Critic keeps a respectful distance from its material, favoring neat dramatic ironies over shocking twists or raw, anguished revelations. Perhaps the harshest criticism one could level against it-something Jimmy, the self-proclaimed judge of creative genius, might find particularly insulting-is that the film is far too polite and cautious for a portrayal of such a ruthless character.

Movie is thankfully short, yet it still feels drawn out. Its appeal will likely be limited to older audiences drawn by McKellen's name and the subject matter, offering them mildly engaging streaming content.

Ah, a movie about a theater critic from film producers, not hard to guess where that will lead us. The script for the most part is well conceived and it will hold your attention throughout. Sadly some of the plot devices are 1.) unnecessary and 2.) just plain old cheesy. And that is most unfortunate. The main character is venal, craven, self interested and most certainly immoral (and I am not referring to any sexual orientation) which would easily describe one half of the people in the entertainment business. Ian McKellen was just devastating in his 'deliverance' of the role of the critic and the supporting cast did him justice . My criticism is the unnecessary elements in the plot and how they don't really fit , IE you could have just as easily told the story without them. I recommend the movie without reservation ,(it isn't action or fantasy) McKellen's performance alone along with the witty dialogue from his character make the movie highly entertaining and I promise you will not be bored or impatient watching this movie.

It's a period theater drama set in London, England, in 1934. Jimmy Erskine (Ian McKellen) is the elderly, acerbic drama critic for "The Chronicle," a national tabloid run by Viscount David Brooke (Mark Strong), the son of the recently deceased owner. Erskine has been writing devastating reviews about 30-something Nina Land's (Gemma Arterton) performances for 10 years. Nina has been the mistress of Ben Wyley (Ben Barnes), an artist doing a painting of 12 of the "Chronicles" stalwarts. Other crucial performances come from Erskine's secretary, Tom (Alfred Enoch), and Ben's wife, Cora (Romola Garai).

Brooke fires Erskine after learning of Erskine's homosexuality. Erskine seeks revenge by manipulating Nina with unforeseen and tragic consequences because Erskine doesn't know about critical relationships. What becomes of Erskine after it all?

"The Critic" is nicely done. Ian McKellen is blustery, unethical, manipulative, and a joy to listen to. Mark Strong is a plummy, arrogant newspaper publisher. Gemma Arterton is trying to follow her dream. The secondary characters behave appropriately. It all depends on McKellen, and I'm glad the film ends as it does. "The Critic" is a little slow at points, which drops it a point.

Unlikely the movie's titular character, Jimmy Erskine, played deliciously by Ian McKellen, I am not a professional critic/judge/reviewer.

I am, however, someone who enjoys a good story. Alas, "The Critic" baffles me. On the one hand, it had the potential of good mystery, but it didn't choose to go that way. It also had the potential to be a good revenge caper. Sadly, it also didn't go that way.

Instead, we get in a quick run-time of 1 hour 40 minutes in which we don't really get good characterization, a good plot, or even a good crime story. Instead, we get a hurried and inadequate portrayal of a desperate man.

And why is he desperate? That's not really the right question. If you do decide to watch this movie, you'll know what I mean.