Conflitto di interessi

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.

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.

You got it, even though this movie is from director Robert Altman, he has managed to produce a very average thriller here, which is raised a few bars up by the cast, which takes the movie with ease. Robert Duvall is underused (he only has three or four lines of dialogue), and Robert Downey Jr. performs his usual "wisecracker" role. The treat here is seeing Kenneth Branagh on one of his non-Shakespeare incursions and stepping into the skin of a workaholic, stressed-out, mundane lawyer which bumps into a woman that will change his way of life. Altogether it is rather watchable, but doesn't bring anything new to the genre, and one thinks if the names involved aren't just a way to promote such a standard script. Anyway, it has some fun in it, despite the clichés.

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.