Old-style film making, 27 July 2015
A wealthy American couple, Chester MacFarland (Viggo Mortensen) and his much younger wife Colette (Kirsten Dunst), are enjoying the sights of Greece when, by chance, they meet Rydal (Oscar Issac). Rydal is also an American. He speaks perfect Greek and works as a guide, scamming tourists a few dollars at a time. Rydal is immediately drawn to Chester's money and Colette's beauty. But the MacFarland's aren't what they seem. They have secrets to keep much darker than stealing from unsuspecting tourists.
It took me awhile to get through The Two Faces of January. I was interrupted several times by family issues. Each time, my wife asked, "How's the movie?" - my response, "I don't know." But I knew I couldn't wait to get back to it. The Two Face of January is slow- burn, old-style film making. You really have to take in the whole thing before you can make a decision. The movie is set in 1962 and it could have easily been filmed in 1962. It's all about plot and story and not special effects and other film making trickery used (actually overused) today. Many of the other IMDb comments compare the movie to a Hitchcock thriller. And while I agree, I compare it more to a film noir of the 50s. You know, one of those stories where a woman is the cause of a man's downfall and, in the end, everyone is damaged and no one comes out looking good. That pretty well describes what happens here.
While I really do love this movie for the reasons I've written about, it's not without fault. First, the acting is inconsistent. Mortensen and Issac are fantastic, but Dunst is just good. She's nowhere near the caliber of her two co-stars. Second, there are a couple of places where the movie drags. It's never a deal-breaker for me, but I do think some scenes could have been better paced.
Finally, I want to mention the locations. Stunning is the best way to describe them. Greece, Crete, Turkey - all film exquisitely. I think my favorite might have been Crete. The remote landscape perfectly matched the isolation felt by the characters.
It took me awhile to get through The Two Faces of January. I was interrupted several times by family issues. Each time, my wife asked, "How's the movie?" - my response, "I don't know." But I knew I couldn't wait to get back to it. The Two Face of January is slow- burn, old-style film making. You really have to take in the whole thing before you can make a decision. The movie is set in 1962 and it could have easily been filmed in 1962. It's all about plot and story and not special effects and other film making trickery used (actually overused) today. Many of the other IMDb comments compare the movie to a Hitchcock thriller. And while I agree, I compare it more to a film noir of the 50s. You know, one of those stories where a woman is the cause of a man's downfall and, in the end, everyone is damaged and no one comes out looking good. That pretty well describes what happens here.
While I really do love this movie for the reasons I've written about, it's not without fault. First, the acting is inconsistent. Mortensen and Issac are fantastic, but Dunst is just good. She's nowhere near the caliber of her two co-stars. Second, there are a couple of places where the movie drags. It's never a deal-breaker for me, but I do think some scenes could have been better paced.
Finally, I want to mention the locations. Stunning is the best way to describe them. Greece, Crete, Turkey - all film exquisitely. I think my favorite might have been Crete. The remote landscape perfectly matched the isolation felt by the characters.
7/10
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.