The Gingerbread Man

The Gingerbread Man has all the ingredients of a fine movie. A respected director, a script by a best-selling author, and a well-rounded cast, all of whom succeed in stretching their abilities. The question of why the movie crumbles, seeming more like a mediocre television show than a movie, lies with Grisham's set of unlovable characters and a director who, disrespectful of his audience's intelligence, gives away the entire pending two-hour plot within the first ten minutes of the movie by his choice of camera shots.

The cast, each out of the respective genres that made them famous, deliver unexpectedly fine performances. Yet their characters suffer from existing as Hollywood stereotypes of Southerners whose greed, stupidity, and amorality are not grounded in the audience's reality. The movie does manage to attain a high level of suspense, yet it is difficult to muster any compassion for a sleazy dolt of an attorney, his obviously manipulative one-night stand, and a uni-dimensional supporting cast. After viewing The Gingerbread Man you'll want two hours of your life back.

The promising first half-hour is let down by the failure to develop the characters and thus waste a great cast. Downey Jnr is a fantastic actor but is given very little to work with, same goes for Hannah, Berenger and Janssen (who seems to have no purpose in the film whatsoever). Davidtz would've been great if her character had grown, but instead all she got to do was mope around for the whole movie. Majority of the bog-standard material here is given to Branagh, and although he is by no means poor, he just does not get the viewer involved in his battle.

The direction, for me, was the film's only virtue. Altman creates a wonderfully dark and intriguing atmosphere, it's just a shame neither the story nor the undercooked characters are equally dark and intriguing.

With more complex characters, more of Downey Jnr and Jansenn, and more explosive dialogue, I could've easily overlooked and forgiven the silly plot turns and contrivances, but sadly they stick out like a sore thumb.

Disappointing sub-noir thriller. 4/10

While it's true, as others have noted, that this movie succeeds on style (acting, direction and cinematography are all first-rate) a thriller must have a compelling plot, and that is something that Grisham's paint-by-numbers approach consistently fails to deliver. There is a bit of a zig and a zag at the end, but it remains utterly conventional and unsurprising, and while it's watchable one can't help but feel cheated. All that talent and atmosphere, and whiffs of tantalizing plot developments that never amount to much, make this movie one long tease.

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.

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.