The Gingerbread Man
- 1998
- Tous publics
- 1h 54min
NOTE IMDb
5,7/10
12 k
MA NOTE
Un avocat utilise son pouvoir pour aider sa maîtresse à mettre son père derrière les barreaux, mais lorsque celui-ci s'échappe, ils sont tous en danger.Un avocat utilise son pouvoir pour aider sa maîtresse à mettre son père derrière les barreaux, mais lorsque celui-ci s'échappe, ils sont tous en danger.Un avocat utilise son pouvoir pour aider sa maîtresse à mettre son père derrière les barreaux, mais lorsque celui-ci s'échappe, ils sont tous en danger.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
Troy Byer
- Konnie Dugan
- (as Troy Beyer)
Julia Ryder Perce
- Cassandra
- (as Julia R. Perce)
Avis à la une
With house architecture, gingerbread is the decorative, fluffy lace that is put on a Victorian house. Most Victorian masses are really ugly, clumsy, incompetent -- and that's why gingerbread was developed. The reason behind all this was the rise of the carpenter-designer. Victorian architecture is a product of the industrial age. Everyone wanted such a house, and with few skilled architects around, some blunt conventions were developed that any craftsman could use. And then dress up the horrendous result with gingerbread.
So it is with this film. The key problem here is that it has no master designer. The script was rather developed on the spot in Altman's famous `let's improvise' method by the rude mechanicals involved.
This film was made for one reason: Branagh had a Clinton impression he didn't want to waste. And at least his contribution is all built around his singular idea of the man, using the blunt conventions of the `thriller.' Altman is just along for the ride.
In comments on Branagh's Shakespeare (and the Shakespeare of others), I've noted the pitfalls of putting an actor in charge. Actors are very late in the dramatic food chain, and just cannot understand bigger picture dynamics. Branagh himself has escaped these limitations (when he has) only because he is adept with Shakespearian conventions. (His acting always is remarkable, but that's another issue.)
See this film. It really helps to put perspective on the very interesting adventure of Branagh's trying to grow Shakespeare from the actor's eye. And it helps one understand why his `Love's Labor's Lost' is as it is.
So it is with this film. The key problem here is that it has no master designer. The script was rather developed on the spot in Altman's famous `let's improvise' method by the rude mechanicals involved.
This film was made for one reason: Branagh had a Clinton impression he didn't want to waste. And at least his contribution is all built around his singular idea of the man, using the blunt conventions of the `thriller.' Altman is just along for the ride.
In comments on Branagh's Shakespeare (and the Shakespeare of others), I've noted the pitfalls of putting an actor in charge. Actors are very late in the dramatic food chain, and just cannot understand bigger picture dynamics. Branagh himself has escaped these limitations (when he has) only because he is adept with Shakespearian conventions. (His acting always is remarkable, but that's another issue.)
See this film. It really helps to put perspective on the very interesting adventure of Branagh's trying to grow Shakespeare from the actor's eye. And it helps one understand why his `Love's Labor's Lost' is as it is.
You got it, even though this movie is from director Robert Altman, he has managed to produce a very average thriller here, which is raised a few bars up by the cast, which takes the movie with ease. Robert Duvall is underused (he only has three or four lines of dialogue), and Robert Downey Jr. performs his usual "wisecracker" role. The treat here is seeing Kenneth Branagh on one of his non-Shakespeare incursions and stepping into the skin of a workaholic, stressed-out, mundane lawyer which bumps into a woman that will change his way of life. Altogether it is rather watchable, but doesn't bring anything new to the genre, and one thinks if the names involved aren't just a way to promote such a standard script. Anyway, it has some fun in it, despite the clichés.
I expected more of Kenneth Branagh. It is a decent movie, on the low side of watchable. I prefer my suspense movies not to be predictable from the outset, which this was! We saw it for two reasons--Branagh and John Grisham. My final opinion was that Grisham wanted to try his hand at writing a screenplay, and he had the clout to get it produced. I hope his next screenplay will benefit from his first errors, as his subsequent novels have gotten better as his experience as an author grows.
The plot of this film was only bad in the last section of the film. Before that it builds up to something good that never comes. I had to learn a Southern accent for a play (being from Kentucky and not having a Southern accent of course) so I rented this movie and learned one. Kudos to Kenneth Branagh and Robert Downey Jr. Watching this film it seemed like there was about 45 minutes worth of plot missing that would have made this a good movie. IF you have the missing 45 minutes please send it to me.
It takes real talent to make a real lemon, and Robert Altman, a most talented director, has succeeded brilliantly here. He made things difficult for himself miscasting Kenneth Branagh as a boozy Savannah lawyer but the attempt to replicate the feel of a town in the grip of a hurricane really finishes things off. The last 20 minutes in the rain is truly appalling, with the audience reduced to guessing about what is going on. The lighting is awful throughout, the more so that it was done on purpose. Maybe we were supposed to experience the confusion of the lead character as he stumbled towards an answer but this does not make for entertainment. In this film noir genre to achieve tension at crucial moments the audience must know just a little more than the protagonist, not a lot less.
The story, though completely derivative, is actually quite tight, well plotted, and has a convincing resolution, but the lack of light and general confusion make it difficult to follow. Anyway, an absolute shocker, gross waste of talent and apparently a box office flop (there's some justice). Altman has since put this turkey behind him with the luminous Gosford Park but I am left wondering why on earth he did it.
The story, though completely derivative, is actually quite tight, well plotted, and has a convincing resolution, but the lack of light and general confusion make it difficult to follow. Anyway, an absolute shocker, gross waste of talent and apparently a box office flop (there's some justice). Altman has since put this turkey behind him with the luminous Gosford Park but I am left wondering why on earth he did it.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesBased on a discarded John Grisham manuscript.
- GaffesAt the party early in the movie, Rick and Lois are talking head-to-head on the sofa. Mallory walks behind them and you can hear Lois talking, but we see their heads at opposite ends of the sofa and they aren't talking. The camera immediately cuts back to them sitting close and talking like before.
- Citations
Pete Randle: I wouldn't spare a drop of piss on her if she was burnin' to death.
Rick Magruder: Yeah, we're aware of your urinary problems, sir.
Meilleurs choix
Connectez-vous pour évaluer et suivre la liste de favoris afin de recevoir des recommandations personnalisées
- How long is The Gingerbread Man?Alimenté par Alexa
Détails
Box-office
- Budget
- 25 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 1 677 131 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 118 278 $US
- 25 janv. 1998
- Montant brut mondial
- 1 677 131 $US
- Durée1 heure 54 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuer à cette page
Suggérer une modification ou ajouter du contenu manquant
Lacune principale
By what name was The Gingerbread Man (1998) officially released in India in English?
Répondre