Victory

This could have been something really fine. Dafoe, Jacob, and Neil are wasted.

The script seems like a half-hearted attempt to "do" a Joseph Conrad. The director seems lost. Odd, considering he wrote the screenplay--somehow, you would have expected more. It feels more like a project for his resume.

Read the book instead--it's wonderful.

This seems to have been a European-financed project. I don't remember hearing of it back in 1995. Was it even released in North America? I discovered it through an IMDB search.

"Victory" by Conrad is probably my favorite book of all time. So when I saw the bad reviews on IMDB, I was scared to watch it. It popped on cable the other day and I decided to give it a shot. First off, the casting is spectacular. Almost all characters are what I pictured in my mind reading the book. *ESPECIALLY* Sam Neill as Mr. Jones. I'm not sure why someone was complaining about the cinematography. It's not epic or anything, but it isn't bad. Set layouts were great as well, just as I had pictured from the book. Acting is great throughout. I'm not sure if one would like it though unless they are a fan of the book or a Conrad fan. It is a bit different. It is certainly not a Friday night joe-six pack with a pizza movie. But I thought it was great.

In the early 1900's in Sourabaya, Java, a man (Dafoe) rescues a beautiful violinist (Jacob) from indentured servitude, taking her to his desolate island home while being followed by larceny, treachery, and madness. "Victory" is a middle-of-the-marquee film which takes on the challenging elements of love, intrigue, suspense, betrayal, murder, etc. in an exotic location shoot but, in spite of good work from a good cast, never seems to be all it could have been. Hampered by ordinary cinematography, a superficial melodramatic execution, and less than sterling direction, "Victory", appears destined to die a slow death among the cable channels. (C+)

What I liked the most about this movie is that it was subtle. Nothing was pushed too far, the realistic acting and minimal melodrama made this movie very plausible, watchable and actually made you more in tune to the story, setting and characters in their feelings, where as some movies pour it on too much.

I've loved most Willem Dafoe films. Sam Neill was a joy in "Reilly, Ace of Spies" and "The Hunt for Red October". Irene Jacob is one of the most alluring and talented women in movies, magnificent in Kieslowski's film "Trois Colours-Red"--and good in "US Marshalls". Simon Callow was hilarious as the "Master of the Revels" in "Shakespeare in Love".

Alas, in "Victory", the four leads don't have the the screenplays and directors from their better movies. They become too wooden, one-dimensional, and more like caricatures rather than fleshed out characters.

The story may be based on the work of the late, great Joseph Conrad, but he was unavailable to improve the movie's dialog and pacing. Had Shakespeare been alive, he'd have loved "Shakespeare in Love". Would Conrd have loved "Victory"? I doubt it--except for the Java Sea scenery.

If you watch, ask yourself why it is called "Victory". Except for a minor line of dialog, does the title have anything to do with the movie?