Le voyage de Felicia

If I had to make a top five list of the most consistent of contemporary film directors, then Atom Egoyan would certainly be included.

Felicia's Journey adds another notch to a terrific portfolio of films. Yes this film could of trimmed ten minutes from the sagging middle section, and also lost the seemingly tacked-on epilogue.

Those points aside, it's still far superior to practically all other films on offer. Dealing with his familiar pre-occupations with family disfunctionality, sexuality and videotape, Egoyan coaxes Bob Hoskins into the most subtle and mesmeric performance of his career.

Felicia's Journey is quality work for mature audiences.

Egoyan's presentation really sets the mood for the film. The music is particularly effective, and the look has a certain ominous feel even in the scenes where characters would normally be at peace with nature.

This movie was so riveting and engrossing because it kept building up by revealing more about the mysterious main characters. It goes about doing this in a manner that makes the film more interesting by opening up possibilities instead of closing them. As we get more of an idea of who these people are, the tension mounts because we can see the movie is leading to a major disaster, but we aren't sure what and when.

The flashbacks and transitions between the two main characters are so effective. The flashbacks slowly reveal what caused the characters current traumatized state (their main similarity is it's one parent, but they don't know of this similarity), while the transitions emphasize comparisons between the two.

Hoskins performance is really the key because he has most of the lines. He does an exceptional job, changing a little bit with each revelation about his character. By the end of the story, he's nothing like the guy that you thought he was at the very beginning, but the changes are totally credible. Although I mentioned he has most of the lines, the most impressive thing about his performance is the believability of the emotions he's portraying throughout this dialogue because his character is one that generally doesn't say what he's really thinking and feeling. On some occasions, his intense feeling is really obvious. In a lot of others though, it's buried beneath the skin as the point is the topic of conversation or the other persons actions have caused something to stew inside of him but his character is trying his best not to boil over.

Cassidy is highly impressive because she's able to convey the all the emotions without many lines, especially since all her lines are purposely delivered with the same unassuming nature and low key tone. As is one of the trademarks of characters in Egoyan's movies, she also has a dualism in her actions and words where we kind of believe more toward the opposite is actually true. We aren't really sure, but we can see that something is beneath the surface. It's hidden just enough so that the person she's with doesn't see it. Depth, subtlety, and what lies beneath are definitely the strengths of this movie and Egoyan's cinema in general.

The movie really stands out because you could see how easily it would have been another boring and predictable thriller had it been made in Hollywood. Hoskins would have been much more narrowly defined so he could be a clear-cut villain. The narrative would have been dumbed down and told in a more conventional style. The director would feel he had to insert some happy or comical moments that would only water down the intensity and weaken the portrayals of these characters. The temptation to totally leave the psychological level and have Hoskins chase Cassidy around his house with a sharp object at the end would have been too great. Luckily, it wasn't made in the land of the rehash, so it was a somewhat challenging movie that stayed true to its roots from start to finish.

Aside from leaving Canada, I don't see why people think this is so different from Egoyan's other famous films, Exotica & The Sweet Hereafter. The core ideas, style, and presentation are all here. Like those other two, this is an excellent film that's one of the years 10 best. 9/10

Egoyan has disappointed me many previous times, although his "Next of Kin" remains one of my all-time favorite films. Not in a thousand years would I have expected a film like this from Egoyan. We've left Canada, for god's sake; a lovely country, some very talented and multi-talented people there, especially most -- it often seems to me -- of Hollywood's greatest actors and actresses. But to travel across the Atlantic -- Egoyan hasn't done that before. And this plot is character-driven (like "Next of Kin") -- and not always shouting at you "Hey, I'm a strange and brilliant director presenting all this odd stuff for you." Egoyan's penchant for films within films and pictures within pictures and other eccentricities don't distract,this time -- they remain, but much diminished, muted. And it works. Tremendously well, in fact. Families -- that's what Egoyan does best, what he knows most deeply -- how wonderful it is when they work, how deeply we need their sustenance. But how terrible, cruel, sometimes funny, but more often monstrous the effects parents have on their children in so many cases. Hoskins has been so great, so often before, can it really be surprising he's especially excellent here? A fine film; the old Peter Lorre film "M" comes to mind, his role somewhat comparable to Hoskins' here -- but many differences exist between these works. "Felicia's Journey" is amazingly beautiful to watch, idyllic at times; we see Felicia's inner and outer beauty first through our own eyes, then increasingly through Hoskins' character's odd lens. There's beautiful countryside to view. We have both hope and menace -- something slightly askew -- a spicy mix. The mundane, the commonplace are pleasantly present, but murder and madness hover very near. Entirely, hypnotically compelling; that's the best summation. And wonderful.

In an interview he did with Maclean's last year(the Sept. 12 issue, I think, though I'm not exactly sure), writer-director Atom Egoyan talked about an incident in his life which partly explains why his last three films - EXOTICA, THE SWEET HEREAFTER, and now FELICIA'S JOURNEY - have been about very twisted, almost predatory, relationships. It seems when he was a teen, he fell in love with a girl who, as it turns out, was being molested by her father, and naturally, that caused all sorts of difficulties. Unconsciously maybe, in order to understand how anybody could do such a thing, maybe Egoyan has tried since to use film to do that(although I won't state that as a fact; I'm no psychologist).

What is clear in FELICIA'S JOURNEY is that, for the first part of the movie anyway, Egoyan is clearly more interested in telling the story of Hilditch, the caterer who is more disturbed than meets the eye, than in Felicia, the young woman he befriends. If this were just a movie about Hilditch, maybe that would suffice. But in the novel by William Trevor this is based on, even though Felicia's story is a familiar one(young, somewhat naive girl falls in love with boy her family doesn't approve of, he leaves, she gets pregnant, and tries to find him), her story is of equal importance to the story of Hilditch, and Trevor is interested equally in both of them. The problem is Egoyan seems disconnected to Felicia's story, even though Elaine Cassidy is quite good in the role, so not only does the story go slack there, we start to question, as you didn't in reading the novel, how she could be so naive.

Eventually, though, when Felicia ends up staying with Hilditch and gradually learns about him, the terror of the story, and the fact that, thanks to Egoyan, we're seeing her primarily through Hilditch, makes us care. And, as I said, Cassidy is quite good.

Of course, the movie belongs to Bob Hoskins as Hilditch. Hoskins doesn't make the mistake of coming across as a sneering psychopath. Instead, he trusts us to make our associations from past roles of his(THE LONG GOOD FRIDAY, MONA LISA) to realize there's something bubbling under this mama's boy, and concentrates on playing Hilditch on someone who genuinely believes he's doing good deeds here, and just want to help. It also helps that Arsinee Khanjian, as Egoyan's wife, is quite good, and funny, as the domineering mother; you may never watch cooking shows the same way again.

Egoyan also doesn't make a conventional Hollywood thriller as the movie draws to its conclusion. What he substitutes is something which, admittedly, played out better in the novel because Trevor was able to stretch it out more, but it still chills you to the bone. One may wonder why Egoyan took to a genre piece right after THE SWEET HEREAFTER, but he reworks it into a movie which does resonate.

I just got back from seeing this film, and it hasn't quite gelled in my head. It's the story of a very creepy man (Bob Hoskins) who "helps" an out-of-town girl find her boyfriend. The movie had me squirming in my chair for a good hour of it with the man's methodically manipulating the girl into staying with him. But like the other two films of Atom Egoyan's I've seen ("Exotica" and "The Sweet Hereafter"), I have a really hard time categorizing it.

Hoskins' character is a strange and disturbed man you can't really understand; he can't really understand himself, I'd say. The young girl does a great job, and I could virtually see the innocence being torn away from her through the film.

If you're a fan of Egoyan's, you'll want to see this movie. If you like disturbing psychological thrillers (heavy on the psychological), you might like it, too. It has a tension I'd liken to "Eyes Wide Shut," which I also liked.