The Critic

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.

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.

It's 1934, you're in London. You go see a play in a theatre. You see an old man writing vigorously in a notebook. This man is a critic, somebody with the power to raise an actress's career to stardom or send it crashing down around them. This is the premise of the newly released British period drama called THE CRITIC. Jimmy Erskine (Ian McKellan) is a gay theatre critic for the Daily Chronicle, which is undergoing drastic changes since its leader passed away, giving the reigns to the son, David Brooke (Mark Strong). Worried about the old guard being fired, Jimmy does everything he can to keep his job. Actress Nina Land (Gemma Arterton) gets caught up in his schemes, forming a strange relationship. Escalation ensues! In an interview, McKellan has described his character perfectly using only one word, curdled. Jimmy has become rotten to the core, brutally mean in his critiques, manipulative and selfish to the people around him. McKellan does such a great job in the role he made me hate Ian! This movie has some pacing issues for me. It's a very slow burn, and then it rushes too fast near the end. They also don't do a good enough job in establishing the relationships between certain characters. Sometimes I didn't know who was who to who. I heard from somewhere that they had done some rewrites and reshoots, which might explain some things, I just didn't get enough payoff from the slow burn. I still highly recommend this movie simply for seeing Ian McKellan in a very interesting role and having a very fun time doing it.

London, 1934 - Arch vicious theatre critic Jimmy Erskine (Ian McKellen) is a homosexual and is forever close to being arrested either with his current live in lover and secretary, Turner or when picking men up in the park. Eventually caught, he is fired from his job by his boss Viscount Brooke (Mark Strong) and so looks for revenge by getting up and coming actress Nina (Gemma Arterton) to seduce the married and famous Brooke in exchange for good reviews, so that Erskine can blackmail him into getting his job back. Complications ensue.

Very dark and occasionally wry look at the role of this powerful critic and his desperation to cling on to power and notoriety whatever it takes, which McKellen, sneering playfully throughout, obviously thoroughly enjoys playing. Overall, it is a little too relentlessly dark and the notion of Erskine convincing Nina to seduce Brooke doesn't wholly stacks up. That said it's well put together, has a nice score and McKellen is inevitably rather good.

Entertaining performances but everything was a bit contrived to support the leads self indulgence. And it leaves you wondering whats the point? Hard to know.

Ians performance was exceptionally engaging but there was nothing likeable about the character, and there is some sort of redemption in the final 2 minutes with the stroke of a pen. This was perhaps the weakest element of the movie. Its fine to portrary the dark side of a character to the point of repulsion but when you have the audience on the hook and ready to go on the journey, don't end it in such a trivial manner, almost with a footnote. So the major failing was story structure.

Worth a watch to see one of the finest stage performers over the past 50 years but go in with low expectations around the story.