NY Times review
I watched the film last night and today I read the original NY Times review (link is available through imdb) and now I'm quite confused... I didn't think I had any problem understand the plot - and it's resolution through Silien's telling and the subsequent flashbacks. Of course he's a nasty character, committed nasty actions, but in the end, it's fairly clear that what he claimed was the truth isn't it? And therefore, he's only about half as bad as he seems? The fact that the criminal and the cop (forgive me for forgetting their names) are his only true friends/allegiances? The reviewer in the Times didn't get this at all. It sort of seemed like one of those off-the-wall, missed it by a mile message posts you see on here. But, of course, the irony is that I might have been too gullible and I believed Silien too easily and therefore I'm the one with the bad aim. I guess my question is, am I right? Did I get it?
share