The Critic

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.

With a script by playwright Patrick Marber and a starry cast that includes Ian McKellen, Lesley Manville, Gemma Arterton and Mark Strong, one has every right to expect The Critic to be at least competent and passably entertaining. But no. The story is far-fetched and implausible at almost every turn. The script is a listless, shapeless, rambling mess. The characters are all odious, and their actions fatally under-motivated. And in the attempts to breath some life into the proceedings McKellen gives a fruity, mannered, desperately arch performance that, while supremely skilled, does nothing to make his character palatable, much less engaging. If you enjoy watching accomplished actors pushing s*** uphill, then you might find some entertainment value in the critic. The art direction is also admirable, but the direction is lumbering and claustrophobic (most likely covering a limited budget and fudged locations). Seriously painful.

Greetings again from the darkness. After the lukewarm reception at last year's Toronto Film Festival, and complaints about the ending, director Anand Tucker (SHOPGIRL 2005, HILLARY AND JACKIE 1998) called the cast back for re-shoots. Oscar nominated writer Patrick Marber (NOTES ON A SCANDAL, 2006) adapted the 2015 novel, "Curtain Call", by Anthony Quinn (a former film critic, not related to the two-time Oscar winner with the same name). Although I can't comment on the original version, this one provides a bit of entertainment.

The famous saying, "Everyone is a critic", holds true because everyone has an opinion (reminding us of yet another famous saying). However, this story takes place during a much different time. We are transported back to 1936 London where we find Jimmy Erskine (two-time Oscar nominee Sir Ian McKellen) is the powerful and feared theater critic for "The Daily Chronicle". He's arrogant and brusque, and super-talented with the twisting of words and turning of phrases. His reviews are eagerly awaited and can make or break a show or career - sometimes in a humiliating manner.

Erskine flaunts his ego like the cashmere scarf around his neck. He claims, for critics, "only the greats are remembered", and he fully intends to be remembered. When the proprietor of the paper suddenly passes away, his stuffy son David Brooke (the always dependable Mark Strong) likes the idea of moving on from the old ways and creating a more contemporary publication. With 40 years of loyalty, Erskine is spared, despite his continued bashing of Brooke's favorite stage actor, Nina Land (Gemma Arterton, TAMARA DREWE, 2010). Two things of consequence soon occur. First, Nina confronts Erskine to his face (a rare occurrence). Secondly, Erskine is fired after a public incident exposes the dark secrets of his life.

These two events lead Erskine to invoke a savage scheme of manipulation and deadly blackmail in hopes of regaining his job. This plan entices Nina to cut a deal with the proverbial devil. The film features a strong supporting cast, though most are unfortunately not given enough to do. Nina's supportive mother is played by the always terrific Lesley Manville (Oscar nominated for PHANTOM THREAD, 2016); Alfred Enoch (the "Harry Potter" franchise) plays Tom Turner, Erskine's live-in secretary; Nina's lover Stephen is played by Ben Barnes (who has been off doing TV and music since 2014); Ramola Garai plays Stephen's wife, while Beau Gadsdon and Claire Skinner also appear.

This is pre-WWII London and director Tucker offers nods to the times regarding homosexuality and racism, and even throws in a jab at fascism when Erskine bellows, "fascists come and go, but theater is forever." Tucker also "treats" us to quite a sight: Sir Ian in the bathtub. This is certainly a story about ego and power, but also one of morality. Does talent afford privilege? Of course it did then, as it does now. But no amount of talent or ego should quash the good in people.

Opening in theaters on September 13, 2024.

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.