Domino
The fact that this film got made at all is a testament to the fact that in Hollywood, talent is not often as important as who you know and what your previous box office track record has been.
The script is bad. If I were some newbie who presented a script like that to an agency, I'd get verbally lacerated, they'd want to know who I thought I was offering them a piece of crap like that.
Tony Scott's direction is also bad, but not as annoying as it was in Man on Fire. I don't know if this is because there were less cuts or because I just did not notice them, but since the tone of the film is vaguely psychedelic, the hyperactive edits don't seem so out of place.
If either the script or the direction had been good, it would have improved upon the other. Whatever talent any actor has here is wasted. A better director would have drawn out better performances. The script gives everyone little on which to go. Characterization is reduced to caricature-zation.
Mickey Rourke comes off as more authentic than anyone else of the main characters, but he is just playing a variation on the sleazebags he usually plays.
Edgar Ramirez reminds me of Brad Armpit circa Legends of the Fall- "filmy" and looking in perpetual need of a bath. In contrast to Keira's freshly scrubbed face, lovingly bathed in light so strong that one can see the downy peach fuzz on her cheeks in a few scenes, she and Ramirez have no explicable reason to connect other than that old standby, Because the Plot Requires It.
As for Knightley, I know she wanted to do this role to dispel her (alleged) "English Rose" image, but I think this film will have the opposite of that intended effect. She is about as intimidating as a bitchy old grandmother. Being tough is not about smacking gum and smoking cigarettes, or swearing and leering and pouting and pretending to be annoyed or angry with people. Knightley said in an interview with TeenHollywood.com and one with Rolling Stone, that the performance was not based on Harvey, but rather on her best mate, who was always getting into trouble at school, i.e., a bratty teenager, which is exactly what she comes off as. And according to an interview with her in the New York Post, Tony Scott's direction to her simply consisted of "Tony was always shouting, 'Come on, Keira. Nasty bitch! Nasty, nasty bitch!'"
She also did not get to spend the time doing the physical training and weapons training that she needed. And the evidence is on the screen.
The best film of 2005 I have seen so far is Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven. There has been criticism about its historical inaccuracies. But the film still rings true. Domino, by contrast, and in particular Knightley's performance, doesn't ring true regardless of whether it's based in fact or not.
The narration is clunky. If it were to be retained at all, it should have been cut in half. Wasn't it Clint Eastwood who said that one should never explain what one can suggest? The coin toss motif is awkward. "I am a bounty hunter" is repeated several times, assuring us that she is not in fact yet a bounty hunter. (Don't tell us, show us. If you are what you say you are, we'll know it, you don't have to keep telling us.)
There is an interesting religious aspect to the film, the business about man being created in the image of God, the impact that going to a church as a child made on her, the theophany in the desert, all of that would be interesting in a film that was better and more coherent.
Finally, there is the matter that the film is too busy to develop an iconic image, which is something every famous and successful film has. The head spin in The Exorcist. Indiana Jones running away from the giant ball. The little child standing at the doorway in Close Encounters. Think of films old and recent, and the most classic are those that have an image which sums up the spirit of the film. When I opened the entertainment section to the Houston Chronicle for October 14, there was a large color photo of Keira as Domino with a sawed off shotgun and bullets around her chest, a low-angle shot with BAIL BONDS in the background that could have easily been used in the film as some sort of definitive shot. I never ever saw a sequence that used that shot. Why not?
The script is bad. If I were some newbie who presented a script like that to an agency, I'd get verbally lacerated, they'd want to know who I thought I was offering them a piece of crap like that.
Tony Scott's direction is also bad, but not as annoying as it was in Man on Fire. I don't know if this is because there were less cuts or because I just did not notice them, but since the tone of the film is vaguely psychedelic, the hyperactive edits don't seem so out of place.
If either the script or the direction had been good, it would have improved upon the other. Whatever talent any actor has here is wasted. A better director would have drawn out better performances. The script gives everyone little on which to go. Characterization is reduced to caricature-zation.
Mickey Rourke comes off as more authentic than anyone else of the main characters, but he is just playing a variation on the sleazebags he usually plays.
Edgar Ramirez reminds me of Brad Armpit circa Legends of the Fall- "filmy" and looking in perpetual need of a bath. In contrast to Keira's freshly scrubbed face, lovingly bathed in light so strong that one can see the downy peach fuzz on her cheeks in a few scenes, she and Ramirez have no explicable reason to connect other than that old standby, Because the Plot Requires It.
As for Knightley, I know she wanted to do this role to dispel her (alleged) "English Rose" image, but I think this film will have the opposite of that intended effect. She is about as intimidating as a bitchy old grandmother. Being tough is not about smacking gum and smoking cigarettes, or swearing and leering and pouting and pretending to be annoyed or angry with people. Knightley said in an interview with TeenHollywood.com and one with Rolling Stone, that the performance was not based on Harvey, but rather on her best mate, who was always getting into trouble at school, i.e., a bratty teenager, which is exactly what she comes off as. And according to an interview with her in the New York Post, Tony Scott's direction to her simply consisted of "Tony was always shouting, 'Come on, Keira. Nasty bitch! Nasty, nasty bitch!'"
She also did not get to spend the time doing the physical training and weapons training that she needed. And the evidence is on the screen.
The best film of 2005 I have seen so far is Ridley Scott's Kingdom of Heaven. There has been criticism about its historical inaccuracies. But the film still rings true. Domino, by contrast, and in particular Knightley's performance, doesn't ring true regardless of whether it's based in fact or not.
The narration is clunky. If it were to be retained at all, it should have been cut in half. Wasn't it Clint Eastwood who said that one should never explain what one can suggest? The coin toss motif is awkward. "I am a bounty hunter" is repeated several times, assuring us that she is not in fact yet a bounty hunter. (Don't tell us, show us. If you are what you say you are, we'll know it, you don't have to keep telling us.)
There is an interesting religious aspect to the film, the business about man being created in the image of God, the impact that going to a church as a child made on her, the theophany in the desert, all of that would be interesting in a film that was better and more coherent.
Finally, there is the matter that the film is too busy to develop an iconic image, which is something every famous and successful film has. The head spin in The Exorcist. Indiana Jones running away from the giant ball. The little child standing at the doorway in Close Encounters. Think of films old and recent, and the most classic are those that have an image which sums up the spirit of the film. When I opened the entertainment section to the Houston Chronicle for October 14, there was a large color photo of Keira as Domino with a sawed off shotgun and bullets around her chest, a low-angle shot with BAIL BONDS in the background that could have easily been used in the film as some sort of definitive shot. I never ever saw a sequence that used that shot. Why not?
posted by Amateur Film Critic at 11:54 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home