bigvalbowski
04-25-01, 10:34 AM
I try to see a film at the cinema once a week but the last few weeks have been dry. Spy Kids and Bridget Jones Diary aren't exactly a 19 year old male's pick of the litter. This week, the new releases were The Contender and The Tailor of Panama. Seeing as the Contender was twice Oscar nominated, it was the likely choice, but I chose Panama because after both Deliverance and the General, John Boorman's stocks were very high.
I should have chosen the Contender.
Tailor of Panama concerns an unlikeable MI6 spy (you guessed it, Pierce Brosnan) desperate to find some political problems in the shaky foundations of the recently Panamian Canal. He hires Rush, a tailor, because he's married to Jamie Lee Curtis, who's got a high position in the Government. Add to this the fact that Rush's own history is hardly clean and you've got the set-up for an intriguing plot.
The Tailor of Panama is shameful considering its cast and crew. Boorman never once gets the tone right in this picture. Is it tongue in cheek? He plays with this idea for a few minutes, he should have played with it longer. Is it a political drama along the lines of Thirteen Days? No way, it isn't sharp enough. Instead it reverts to a basic adult melodrama. We've seen it all before John, way too many times.
Adapted from a semi-popular book by Le Carre, the dialogue remains interesting but obvious literary devices such as a dual personality for Rush are disappointingly translated to the screen. The editing also deserves some knocking. What a shoddy, shoddy job. Let whoever edited this never work again please.
The actors try hard but are lost in this mess. Brosnan plays completely against type as a truly atrocious bad guy. Poor casting this. While Brosnan is fine, the audience reacts indifferently to his character. James Bond shouldn't be raping people or watching porn in a seedy hotel. Jamie Lee Curtis's character is astonishingly under written. Only Rush and a spanish Brendan Gleeson allow us to feel anything for their characters.
The highlight of this movie were the wonderful surroundings. It was shot in Panama and it looks like a wonderfully seedy place. Otherwise the film is uneventful and considering its credits, it should have been a lot better.
I should have chosen the Contender.
Tailor of Panama concerns an unlikeable MI6 spy (you guessed it, Pierce Brosnan) desperate to find some political problems in the shaky foundations of the recently Panamian Canal. He hires Rush, a tailor, because he's married to Jamie Lee Curtis, who's got a high position in the Government. Add to this the fact that Rush's own history is hardly clean and you've got the set-up for an intriguing plot.
The Tailor of Panama is shameful considering its cast and crew. Boorman never once gets the tone right in this picture. Is it tongue in cheek? He plays with this idea for a few minutes, he should have played with it longer. Is it a political drama along the lines of Thirteen Days? No way, it isn't sharp enough. Instead it reverts to a basic adult melodrama. We've seen it all before John, way too many times.
Adapted from a semi-popular book by Le Carre, the dialogue remains interesting but obvious literary devices such as a dual personality for Rush are disappointingly translated to the screen. The editing also deserves some knocking. What a shoddy, shoddy job. Let whoever edited this never work again please.
The actors try hard but are lost in this mess. Brosnan plays completely against type as a truly atrocious bad guy. Poor casting this. While Brosnan is fine, the audience reacts indifferently to his character. James Bond shouldn't be raping people or watching porn in a seedy hotel. Jamie Lee Curtis's character is astonishingly under written. Only Rush and a spanish Brendan Gleeson allow us to feel anything for their characters.
The highlight of this movie were the wonderful surroundings. It was shot in Panama and it looks like a wonderfully seedy place. Otherwise the film is uneventful and considering its credits, it should have been a lot better.