JSlack

"Thriller", for me, probably means something different to what most people describe as a "thriller". Ronin, for example, is not a thriller. It's an action film, which works on car chases and gunfights, not on plot twists, shady characters or (more crucially) high stakes. It's a wonderful action film, far better than most, but it's not a thriller.

By contrast, Enigma is most definitely a thriller. At its true climax, only a single shot is fired on screen, and it is nowhere near any character of name. Barely ever is any characters life in danger. Yet the stakes are so high and the consequences of failure are so real that the film achieves a sense of worry and nervousness that a million car chases cannot accomplish.

Performances are excellent, Jeremy Northam stands out as the driven Wigram, and the two leads (Scott and Winslet) also are in fine form, I've never liked a Winslet performance as much as I've enjoyed this one.

Much has been made of the films pacing, which is best described as "patient". All critics who have declared it slow are impatient and weren't paying attention. They should be fatally shot and then fired from their position. In that order.

The film is not perfect, one leap of logic seems dubious at best, and whilst I appreciated the flashbacks that helped us understand the characters logic, they're still distracting.

But they don't get in the way enough to stop Enigma being a fine example of film in the morass of film blandness pre-Potter.

So I screwed up.

As you may have noticed, there are two comments from me on this film. A bit of background may be in order.

The first one was written by me immediately having followed watching the movie. Previous to that, I had seen (In order) Dogma, Mallrats and Chasing Amy. On an absolute buzz from the pure Kevin Smith wit, I plugged in the original.

And was tremendously disappointed.

Feeling betrayed (For no adequately good reason) I wrote an incredibly harsh review here. (You can read it at http://us.imdb.com/CommentsShow?109445-116 )

Then I went to work. And boy oh boy, did I suddenly realize exactly where this film is coming from.

Kevin Smith has done a wonderful, almost scarily lifelike representation of what working in any convenience industry is like. I've had customers worse than Randalls "Do you have the film from last year with the guy who was in that other film?", I've been able to see exactly what kind of brain-dead morons so many people really are. If anything, Smith is a little gentle on the people who come into the store.

Many of my complaints I hold to. It's slow at times, and the words on screen at times remain mysterious and don't enhance the film.

But damn it all. If you can't relate to this film, you've never worked in a burger chain, a video store, or even, yes, a convenience store. Otherwise, you _will_ relate to it.

Even if it takes you two goes.

OK, let it be made clear. I'm a Kevin Smith fan, OK? I think the guy's a brilliant writer, and as of Dogma, not too shabby a director, either. I thought Mallrats, while pointless, was funny. I though Chasing Amy was excellent, a quite honestly clever and thoughtful comment on love, sex, and identity. Dogma is incredible, a beautifully done and often profound discussion of religion and spirituality (If a bit preachy.)

But this film sucks! Yeesh. I mean, the writing is witty. Great. But the acting is bad. I mean really, really bad. Even Mewes is somehow ... wrong in all his deliveries.

To be honest, I think maybe the writing isn't as good as it's made out. Kevin Smith has delivered a ton of wit into his characters mouths, but I'm reminded of Harrison Fords snap at George Lucas, "You can write this [expletive], George, but you can't say it." The characters are way too witty to be believable. And what the hell is with the words that periodically came up on screen?

In short, Kevin Smith in his very early days. He does get better, thank goodness.