The Gingerbread Man

I give it a solid 7. The acting was good and the story was good, to a point. Some of the actions of the criminal did not make sense, but I guess there are a lot of real criminals in prison that also ran a little short in that area . I can say the same thing for the lawyer. One minute he is brilliant and the next he does not know what is going on. Real people many times do the same. Fact is stranger than fiction. As an arm chair director I think this movie could have been better. Its worth watching.

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.

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.

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.