The Devil's Double

I'm a big fan of Dominic Cooper, but he's not enough to save this truly bizarre and puerile film.

The film starts off with Uday hiring a doppleganger of himself (Latif), to pass off as him publicly. Latif, hasn't really a choice, and is portrayed as having some morals, Uday is portrayed as a millionaire playboy, who is a murdering brute who gets off on violence, sodomy and rape. His only redeeming quality is his penchant for 80s British synth pop (?).

The film becomes increasingly outlandish. If it were a true story, then this could have been quite fascinating. I learnt nothing, and by the end had tuned out. It reminded me of the last king of Scotland, which I didn't enjoy either.

I thought it were unnecessary for Cooper to play both the leads. It felt unbelievable as both characters appeared unrealistically identical.

I knew nothing of the back story of Uday, a quick glance at Wikipedia describes him as quite the devil. That much the film gets right. There's some artistic license used at the end of the movie.

At no point does this feel as though it brings any truth to the history of Uday Hussein or Latif Yahai. Which makes me ask 'why make a film based on real events and then just soften it all up for an audience'??

The actual truth and reality behind the film is washes aside for repetitive Hollywood storytelling which ends up making NO SENSE in several parts and is a true waste of time.

This film was recommended to me several years ago, now I have a week off work I decided to watch it. Since it finished I now longer have said friend on Facebook. You're deleted for your terrible taste you turd.

I saw this movie not realizing that both leads were being played by one amazing actor!!! Dominic Cooper was exactly that: amazing. And deserving of an Oscar nomination when the time comes for handing them out. My film club was fortunate enough to have an interview with DC via Skype and found him to be as charming as he is talented.

Some seem to find fault with this film because it reminds them of Scarface. I don't get that at all. Perhaps they mean that at times it is operatic, over the top, but it is, after all, a biopic about a crazy man, and to me anyway, the parts of the film that deal with the double offset the high drama perfectly. Highly recommended!

Great deal of this movie is not true. Yet, this movie tells about 1/100th of the truth about the tyrant of Baghdad and his family in the 1990's. The other 99 parts are still under oblivion, thanks the the author and to the current chaotic regime of Baghdad. The movie is fine because even that 1% counts to understand what was really going on for the people in Iraq at that time.

But there is a serious drawback when someone watches this movie knowing that at the time of movie release in 2011, the main character and the author, Latif Yahia, was (and still is) glorifying the tyrant and calling on people to re-establish his era in Iraq. He actually has a YouTube channel filled with his political opinions and his shameless strange sympathy to the tyrant!! So whatever the author's claims about his political views, or about his own opinions of not having political views; he was not opposing the tyrant, and still not; he was one of the tyrant's followers and still is.

Now watching the movie knowing that the writer and main character stands there, it will make the audience uncomfortable and cautious to accept what's being told in this movie without questioning.

Aside from that, directing was weak in general, and the story is not as the original Arabic book (I Was A Son For The President), but a revised version of the English edition which was a revised version of the Arabic edition!

For example in the Arabic edition the main character was claimed to be a ranked army officer, in the movie he was just a soldier. In the original story it was claimed that the tyrant saw and examined his son's double for a few times, in the movie that wasn't happening. Now if this was a history book/movie then.. voila! There is a good definition for the person who says what he doesn't think and thinks what he doesn't say, and changes his saying/thoughts 3 times in a day...

I saw "The Devil's Double" at the Berlinale 2011. An unusual large number (over 300) stayed for the full 30 minutes of Q&A after the screening. The producer warned us that we should expect not too much of the political impact of this film. It is better (his words) to regard it as just a gangster movie. We also learned that the stand-in situation that seemed compressed here in a smaller time frame, in fact existed for a full 4 years. We saw that Latif succeeded in keeping his hands reasonably clean, but it cannot have been real for such a time span. We still may wonder how much of this life he was pulled-in, against his will and his nature, but nevertheless being part of it.

According to the film maker, what we saw was in more respects not completely accurate. Some freedom was exercised while portraying the situation in Baghdad at that time. The existence of stand-in's, however, was realistic and publicly known. That went as far as showing them openly, if only to confuse potential attackers. It certainly reduced the risk in public appearances, since one could never know whether you saw the real one, or a double dressed and acting like the real one.

There were also questions about using English as the prime language. The producer had some arguments in favor of the choices made. Firstly, raising a 50M budget for a movie with Arabic speaking actors, was considered a Mission Impossible. Also, English is generally accepted as the standard movie language, spoken by Roman emperors as well as aliens from other planets.

The Q&A also revealed some facts about how Dominic Cooper handled his double role. We now know that he played both roles on the same day, given the entourage and colleague actors present that day. He always played the "lunatic" parts first, and (without much time in between) the "Latif" parts shortly after that. Of course, there was a challenge in keeping track of the places where the counterpart actor stood at particular moments during the scene. Anyway, if he missed a few and looked in a wrong direction at some instances, I did not notice it and I think the same of other people seeing this film for the first time.

At various moments throughout the screening the notion crossed my mind that this movie could be construed as a justification of overturning the Sadam regime, or (in other words) as propaganda in favor of George W for a completed project in Iraq. In retrospect, I don't think such a hidden meaning was intended. The film was not against Sadam as a dictator in particular, but rather against dictators in general. They existed and ruled since the time of the Roman emperors (and probably before that), and still are ruling nowadays in countries all over the world. We see the wrong side effects of unlimited power. We also see how uncooperative people were regarded "that is the thanks we get for uplifting this country" (or variations thereof).

Political issues and hidden meanings set aside, we saw a well constructed story line, believable casting, and an inside view in the palace and its inhabitants at that time. One can argue about the torture, punishment and other violent scenes, that these better could be left out, or otherwise included implicitly by telling about it (without showing actual pictures). On the other hand, leaving these out would change the film too much into a costume drama, thereby reducing the impact it now will have on the average viewer. Anyway, it is easy for us to criticize choices being made by the film makers. In my opinion they did their job very well, all things considered.