The Critic

If you saw Sir Ian McKellen with fellow thesp Sir Derek Jacobi in the television sitcom "Vicious" from around ten years ago, you'll be able to anticipate the gist of his characterisation of the acerbic theatre critic "Erskine" who is way more famed for distributing bile rather than bouquets. His new boss (Mark Strong) wants the newspaper to appeal to an altogether more wholesome family audience and so wants him to tone things down a bit. "Yeah, right" thinks he - and then his own behaviour gets him into trouble with the police and given one month's notice from his job. Facing looming ignominy, he determines to get the lowdown on his ostensibly pure as the driven snow aristocratic proprietor and to that end recruits aspiring actress "Nina" (Gemma Arterton) of whom he has been much less than flattering in the past. Rather gullibly, she agrees to become a pawn in his manipulate game that leads to a series of misadventures and thence to a tragedy that maybe puts the role of opinionated curmudgeon into perspective. This starts of quite entertainingly with plenty of pith and ghastliness from the star, but very quickly it descends into an entirely far-fetched and rather disappointing affair (no pun intended) that plays to just about every stereotype as it rather sadly sets out to prove that the best bits are all in the trailers. At it's best, the writing does make you smile and writhe a little uncomfortably in your cinema seat, but for the most part it's just predicable with characters that it's fairly easy not to like - except, maybe, Alfred Enoch's factotum "Tom" whom at least starts off with some shred of human decency to counter "Erskine" and his selfishness. Ben Barnes shows he is ageing well but again hasn't really enough of a part to work with developing his lovestruck character and Strong is really anything but. It does look good, but it's too reliant on a shock factor that isn't so very original and that soon peters out.

I had hoped for so much more from The Critic due to its premise, title and cast. I was bitterly disappointed. The pointless and fruitless direction of this film is frustrating. We see a random array of events that add little to no value. It seems like we are watching a bunch of uneventful situations playout, I found myself asking so what? Humanity is not great at times but why did we need to see a film about this and how on earth did this get the green light? Where was the payoff or purpose? Veteran actor, Ian Mckellen, gives a solid performance but it is not enough to save this pitiful excuse of a film.

Anyone who thinks this tale exaggerated was not alive when critics for the papers really did have this much power, which survived into the 1970s to some degree. Ian McKellen delivers a powerful portrayal of an aged, egotistical, and vain theatre critic of the 1930s.

Walter Kerr in New York in the 1950s and 1960s had such power but was, I am pleased to say, not anything like the corrupt McKellen character. The story is based upon the novel CURTAIN CALL by the interesting novelist Anthony Quinn (no relation to the actor of that name), who enjoys writing stories set in the early to mid-twentieth century in England. I have read a couple and have more sitting around waiting for my attention. McKellen's character is gay, a condition not unknown to McKellen himself I believe. An adoring younger man lives with him and looks after him, played with quiet devotion by an excellent young actor named Alfred Enoch who underplays the role so well that it makes the entire story more plausible. McKellen's character walks a dangerous tightrope in numerous ways and seems perversely to enjoy the thrill of taking such risks. And he progressively pushes out the boundaries of his audacity and pomposity to see just how far he can go, which is pretty far. But then the actress Nina Land come into the story, played by Gemma Arterton. With breath-taking audacity, McKellen believes he can make use of her in a complex blackmail plot to regain his position as critic, having just been fired for being caught with his trousers down with a chap, if you see what I mean. Remember this was all illegal then. He engages in this plot because his boss, the titled owner of a major newspaper, is romantically obsessed with the girl, despite being married to Romola Garai. (I didn't say anything!) The gloomy and obsessed owner of the paper is magnificently played by Mark Strong. Indeed, all the acting in this film is finely attuned to some invisible tuning-fork to get just the right pitch. I guess we can congratulate the director, Anand Tucker, for making all that happen, and delivering to us such a moody and atmospheric study of moral corruption in London's theatreland.

Ah, a movie about a theater critic from film producers, not hard to guess where that will lead us. The script for the most part is well conceived and it will hold your attention throughout. Sadly some of the plot devices are 1.) unnecessary and 2.) just plain old cheesy. And that is most unfortunate. The main character is venal, craven, self interested and most certainly immoral (and I am not referring to any sexual orientation) which would easily describe one half of the people in the entertainment business. Ian McKellen was just devastating in his 'deliverance' of the role of the critic and the supporting cast did him justice . My criticism is the unnecessary elements in the plot and how they don't really fit , IE you could have just as easily told the story without them. I recommend the movie without reservation ,(it isn't action or fantasy) McKellen's performance alone along with the witty dialogue from his character make the movie highly entertaining and I promise you will not be bored or impatient watching this movie.

Unlikely the movie's titular character, Jimmy Erskine, played deliciously by Ian McKellen, I am not a professional critic/judge/reviewer.

I am, however, someone who enjoys a good story. Alas, "The Critic" baffles me. On the one hand, it had the potential of good mystery, but it didn't choose to go that way. It also had the potential to be a good revenge caper. Sadly, it also didn't go that way.

Instead, we get in a quick run-time of 1 hour 40 minutes in which we don't really get good characterization, a good plot, or even a good crime story. Instead, we get a hurried and inadequate portrayal of a desperate man.

And why is he desperate? That's not really the right question. If you do decide to watch this movie, you'll know what I mean.