MovieChat Forums > The Statement (2003) Discussion > A good film, not great

A good film, not great

posted 19 years ago by tmcpherrin89
7 replies | jump to latest

Michael Caine is brilliant here, but the film is too long and the last hour or so is too muddled to be emotionally moving. Some very good performances, but the film is just too slow.

[–] Judimex 16 years ago

The acting was good but i found it pretty boring in places. I was losing interest in the story which didn´t seem to flow well enough.
I think it could have been written better.

If it harms none, do what though wilt.

[–] NellyGooch 15 years ago

Worth watching, but I agree with your comments 'judimex'.

[–] andrew-gooch-3 15 years ago

still watching movies I've never heard of, thats why it wasnt great!

[–] fanaticita 14 years ago

I absolutely loved it! But then I am a great fan of Jeremy Northam. Michael Caine was fantastic portraying a man of duplicity. In the special features part of the dvd, Caine said he loved the role but intensely disliked the character. So the role was challenging and worthwhile for him.

I thought his character was really messed up. Playing at being religious and yet treating his wife terribly. There were moments when his true colors showed through, and you knew what a evil person he really was.

[–] IceboxMovies 14 years ago

It was great to see Jewison returning to his older, sinister roots with this film. He hasn't made a thriller this awesome since In the Heat of the Night. Or as much of an explosively violent film since Rollerball.

Loved that scene where Caine pushes the car off the cliff. It just disappears in the trees. Perfectly. Proof that Jewison has a very Hitchockian sensibility along with that more romantic sensibility (if you've seen Moonstruck or Only You).

What I don't understand is how we're going to stay alive this winter.

[–] dsgoorevitch 14 years ago

Firstly, there are very few great films. But I'll give you an argument for why it was very good at least, keeping in mind the old maxim "the great is the enemy of the good." (A Frenchman, I think, said that: Voltaire)

It was a great character study of a sociopath. He knows how to get what he wants and uses every means. His only true feelings are for himself. He treats God like a personal servant: no matter how important His role is in forgiving Brossard, God still revolves round him, not the other way round. This is shown at one of the contrition scenes that ends with his kicking a defenseless dog who's in the way. The dog is, by nature, crowding round the door, wanting affection and, of course to detain any human who might give it comfort, company and love. The dog is very much like Brossard who, at this moment, is the God who can bestow on it his grace. The irony is rich. Brossard expects God to treat him, in the same relationship, differently than he has treated the dog. Many of us have a degree of this spiritual illness.

What makes it great though is that, though I hate the character as much as Caine did (which is why he did it so well), to my surprise and horror I don't want Brossard to fall off the plank and really feel for him as he kisses his pendant at his death, convinced that he has actually died in a state of grace. Thus do the evil sleep better at night than the good. Despite myself, I am able to remain human though I hate him. On the contrary, I hate myself for my weakness and foolishness. But were I not able to feel for him, his evil would not be so apparent, nor would I be able to understand the very narrow line that separates us nor how wide it also is. The same cannot be said for him. How many movies can tell us something like that about ourselves? Not great? I'm not so sure it's not the other way around: a great movie though flawed.

[–] Rena_Mahone 10 years ago

The lead actors are the only good aspect of this bore of a movie.

Boycott movies that involve real animal violence! (and their directors too)