The Good German

I was so aware of the attempted style of the film that I could hardly concentrate on anything else. The look, oh, the look. Clooney and Blanchet - Bergman, Bogart, shadows and fog. Pity. It could have been a tense war time thriller - Who is he? Where is he? What is it about? I was always mesmerized by questions like that on films that "The Good German" seems to want to emulate. Sodebergh is one my most recent favorites and one of the main reasons is because he is unafraid of taking chances. The question is, what are the chances taken for? I get more "Bubble" - sort of - than "The Good German" Blanchet is great to watch, she's Hildegarde Kneff and/or a lip-full Gloria Grahame but other than admire her right there on the screen I wasn't permitted to feel anything. George Clooney is just as solid in black and white as he is in color and Tobey McGuire - well, the best I can say is that his contribution is brief. What I took with me as the most valuable aspect of this experiment is/was Thomas Newman's classically colorful score.

Journalist Jake Geismer arrives in Berlin to cover the Potsdam conference. Assigned soldier Patrick Tully as his driver, Geismer soon finds that the cheerful, happy-go-lucky driver is also a quite violent man, tied up with a prostitute named Lena. This is Geismer's second shock as Lena turns out to be an old flame before she turned to selling herself in order to survive. Whenever a body is found in the Russian sector, Geismer finds the authorities unable or unwilling to investigate the crime and is himself drawn into the shady affair.

Like Theo Robertson before me (so often the way here), I had reasonably low expectations for this film, partly due to the so-so reviews and "hit and run" appearance in cinemas in the UK and US alike. Watching it I can understand why it did come and go so quickly because it is not the most modern or immediately engaging of films if you look at it just on the surface. Underneath there is actually a solid political drama narrative that may not be as well done as I would have liked but was still interesting and well delivered. Part of the problem is also part of the appeal of the film and this is the style and feel of the film.

Made in several regards as if it had been made in the mid-1940's, this film seems to have been a project for Sodenbergh to try to pull it off. I'm pleased to say that he has achieved it and that the film has the air of the period (in regards the making of the film rather than the place and period that the film is actually set). The problem is that so much focus seems to have been put on this and not enough on the delivery of the plot. By deliberately shooting on sound stages and in a rather stiff fashion the film cannot help but stiffen the way it all plays out and it does rather rob the narrative of urgency and thrills that it could easily have had in spades. It is a trade-off though, because stylistically the film is very interesting even if I wasn't totally sure the trade was always a good one.

The cast do well to do quite an unnatural style of delivery but still engage with the audience and convince. Clooney holds back his easy charm and delivers in line with the spirit of the overall product, although I can see why his performance didn't please many of those that do love him. Maguire is much more interesting, mixing the typical bright-eyed GI character with something much darker at the same time. Blanchett also impresses with a solid performance as Lena. These carry the film although it is worth noting the good support from Bridges, Isyanov and others. The main impression left on me though came as a result of the Soderbergh as cinematographer as he captures the actors and sets with great style.

Overall a great looking film with a solid, but not great, narrative driving it. It is a shame that the former seems to have come at the expense of the latter and that the trade-off is not totally worth it but it is still an interesting and engaging film.

I read the book, then saw the movie and cannot for the life of me figure out why screenwriters/producers/directors, et al take a perfectly good story and bastardize it all to hell! The only resemblance between the book and movie is the title and the character's names. How disappointing the movie was, they combined subplots into the main plot, distorted the main characters and made it something it wasn't. Generally books are better than movies, granted, but in this case they aren't even in the same universe, not even a parallel one. The music was overkill, nothing like a 40's flick. Overall, a HUGE disappointment! Don't waste your time/money. Read the book instead!

Soderbergh continues to experiment, but as with Solaris, it just doesn't pay off.

Its clear that from the off that Soderbergh has set himself a strict mandate for this film, make it as much like a forties movie as possible. The music, the acting style, the lighting, the process shots and background paintings all give it a great look and feel.

However, everything is so low key and downbeat that it fails to deliver any suspense or menace. What is essentially a modern thriller dressed as classic noir just isn't thrilling. The plot twist and turns but the drama is never heightened, the pace never seems to increase, it just plods along to its conclusion.

Apart from the sex and swearing, the actors seem straight jacketed into their roles by the 40's styling seemingly because the script lacks any of the dry wit and charm you'd find in a genuine movie of this era. George Clooney for example has every little to do, his character has none of the snappy dialog you'd expect, given his Marlowe-esquire role in the plot. Soderbergh compounds matters by drawing an unfortunate comparison with Bogart. Though generally the acting was of the high quality you'd expect from such a sterling cast, it's difficult to empathise with their characters plights given the lack of suspense or melodrama.

Overall the experiment fails to deliver anything other than a beautifully shot but unengaging film.

Very disappointing.

Soderbergh is a director with a decent amount of guts but not a lot of talent. Here he attempts to make a classic Hollywood film, reminiscent of The Third Man and Casablanca, by mimicking, or at least trying to mimic, the classical style of cinematography, by scratching the negative, having the dialogue recorded on mono (I think), and having the actors deliver performances along the lines of the studio days. The gimmick honestly doesn't work all that well. Lovers of classic films will notice how different the film-making is from that of the '40s. How hazy the cinematography is compared to Casablanca or The Third Man (it looks like you're watching a movie on a black and white television). Or how much more swearing and sexual content there is in the film. Yes, the gimmick is a weak one and somewhat detrimental to the rest of the film. Otherwise, it's a pretty good mystery. Not a great one. The pacing lags in the middle, and the mystery only starts to make sense right near the end, when much of the audience has stopped caring. The film's strongest asset is Cate Blanchett, who channels Marlene Dietrich. She is easily one of today's best actresses, and the only cinematographic triumph of the film is the lighting of her face – she's drop-dead beautiful. I'll probably be hung by the nostalgists, but I'd take her – in both her acting skills and beauty – over the lead actresses of Casablanca and The Third Man. George Clooney is decent, but his character is fairly two-dimensional. He's a pretty boring hero. I really liked Tobey Maguire, though. His character was much more interesting, and I wish he could have been in the movie more. I absolutely loved the climactic sequence, but the film continues on for too long after that. Blanchett's big revelation at the end feels rather anticlimactic.