marntfield

There have been numerous postings comparing this film with the works of Alfred Hitchcock. Indeed, there is a roughly 30 minute span in the film when a latent of Hitchcock's style emerges. In the spirit of films like Rope, Rear Window, and Stangers on a Train, director Wes Craven uses the cramped confines of a finite space from which there is no immediate respite, combined with some sort of external stressor, to create some great suspense. Red Eye comes close to redeeming itself in this 30 minutes but the reality is that, unlike Hitchcock, Craven sells out to the lowest common denominator and debases what could have been a five star thriller. The litany of stock characters used to muster cheap laughs, the tedious and often embarrassingly bad dialogue through the first 20 minutes, and the superfluous action sequences which require the most arduous suspension of disbelief, all serve to eclipse an otherwise great story and character piece. The premise and actors are solid enough to have the whole film take place on the plane, but the reality is that today's average philistine movie goer has neither the attention span, nor the appreciation of narrative cinema, to make such an effort profitable. One can only wonder what this film would have been had it been directed by perhaps someone more multi-disciplinary and experienced at making true thrillers, and not banal teenage slasher flicks. Thus, let's declare a moratorium on comparing Craven to Hitchcock shall we. 5/10

First off, this film is not for everyone. It does, however, seem to delineate an emerging and exciting trend in contemporary film making whereby directors are becoming increasingly enamored with these sorts of dark, brooding, almost dreamscape-like and melodramatic thrillers which defy archetypal and conventional narrative formats. Think of the "The Machinist" and work your way backwards to "Vanilla Sky", or even as far back as 1990's "Jacob's Ladder" as one other reviewer accurately suggested.

To this end, "The Jacket" represents the apotheosis of this rising genre, and is both an artistic psychological thriller, as well as what you might call a metaphysical tragedy, and easily envelopes the viewer into its morose and sterile world replete with dreary snow scapes, perpetual grey skies and faces, muted and washed out colours, institutional isolation, and the angst of working class loners. The film's imagery and the pace of the story and script immediately command one's attention from the outset and the film is unrelenting in both its tension and gumption. Because of this, despite the story's meandering timeline and lack of feasible explanations for the protagonist's "visions", the viewer is still to an extent able to believe what they're seeing. Because the film takes itself so seriously, and actually pulls it off, the viewer then buying into the fantasy of the story becomes far more palatable than it does in other misguided attempts at this same sort of risky and artsy storytelling ie: "The Butterfly Effect".

This is an ambitious film which taps into both the romanticism and pain of our dreams and our memories, and how they both act upon us, and cause us to act upon them. It examines what is real versus perceived, the fragility of life, how each persons's life effects others, even passing strangers, and the sovereignty of the self and the mind. The film features outstanding performances from just about everyone on screen, particularly Brody as the hapless and tortured Jack Starks, and Kristofferson as the morally ambiguous and equally tortured Dr. Becker.

Despite the big names on the marquee, however, this, as previously mentioned, is not a cut and dry "popcorn flick" and will leave many people bewildered. It is for these people that the "Butterfly Effect" was made first, and now with them out of the way, the timing for a film of this caliber which deals with these issues properly is appropriate. "The Jacket" is a trippy and entertaining yet still very intelligent film which asks only that you check your preconceptions and logical rectitude at the door. By doing so, you'll find the imagination of this film is fact more real than you might have expected.

I just saw this film for the first time last night and was quite pleasantly surprised. Overwhelmingly so in fact. Knowing a little bit about the true history of Sir J.M. Barrie and yet comparatively little about "Finding Neverland" other than its Oscar hoopla, I expected the film to focus largely on the often controversial life of a man deemed capricious, anomic, and asexual by many historians, with the inception of Peter Pan as a backdrop perhaps. Instead the film celebrates Barrie's brilliant vision of what would become a timeless tale and cultural staple for the ages, and the power of imagination that we all possess and, if willing, are able to unleash. It celebrates the whimsical, the eccentric, and the "silliness" which make life, even in the stilted atmosphere of Victorian London, worth living. The film is both an artistic period piece and a rich character study (though not a biography), and features some of the best and most convincing performances from child actors in recent memory. Depp is brilliant as usual and Dustin Hoffman as his tightly wound producer/financier also makes for one of the more enjoyable, though secondary, characters to watch. The film starts somewhat slowly but seamlessly evolves into an engrossing and emotionally engaging story which unlike many other critically acclaimed dramas wrought of style over substance, is unquestionably worthy of its high praise. It has both the substance, as well as a style all its own, and should make even the most jaded and cynical viewer well up a little bit. 9/10