daodao

I've read "Spleen's" review of this film on this site and think that to counterbalance his review, I should say some good words about this film. I don't feel that it is irresponsible to make a film about a real-life violent person, although done in certain ways it could be. I think the valuable function of this film is that it holds a mirror up to Australian society and serves to highlight the role violence plays in social interaction. Where the film works is in showing down and out criminals and junkies for the type of people that they really are - like the heroin-addicted traitor Jimmy and the drug-dealing Neville. It's true the film is extremely difficult to watch at times - especially the ears bit - but it is also evocative and really brings home the futility of crime. It also works well as a document of Australia in the 1980s - a society on the make where everything was new and developing but people were far more mono-cultural and intolerant. I think the film is worth watching - not likeable but stirring.

Unlike other reviewers, I haven't read the Kingsley Amis book that provides the basis for this movie. Therefore, I can't comment on whether Tompkinson fits the character drawn in the book. However, I would say that what I felt was a major weakness of this movie is that I couldn't find myself empathising with Tompkinson's character - I didn't want him to get the girl or keep his job, because he didn't come across as someone you wished well. His character was not particularly likeable - especially in the scene where he was drunk at the professor's house, where he came accross as obnoxious. His speech was more painful that funny to watch, though that may have been the point. I think a lead actor slightly less wooden may have created more empathy. Helen McCrory is very good, and Robert Hardy is always good to watch.

I don't know why, but people on imdb and elsewhere have been very critical of this film. Personally, as someone living in Hong Kong, I think it is both a well made and important film. At the end, the analogy of Gong Li's character starting again, as Hong Kong is starting again, worked well. I think perhaps the only drawback is Maggie Cheung's character, as it seems a little pointless. However, I like nearly everything Jeremy Irons is in - he is really one of the world's best actors. His characters are always people that I can somehow empathise with - they're always very believable and he really carries the film's themes. The idea of setting the film in the six months leading up to Hong Kong's July 1, 1997 handover works well. As Irons' character dies, so does British sovereignty - the Union Jack goes down, the last Governor cries, Gong Li shakes off her long-time sugar daddy. It's a captivating and well-told story of which the Director should be proud, although I read an interview with him a while ago, and he didn't want to talk about the film, since it's upset some people in Hong Kong, I think. This film is certainly better than most rubbish that's made in Hong Kong. I urge you to find a copy and see it.