misunderstood movie


I'm very surprised at the cool to luke warm response of reviewers and audience members to this movie. The reviewers generally praise the actors - but criticise the screenplay. Any actor will tell you that they can not do good work without a good screenplay. The scene contruction, the dialogue, the setups, the pay-offs, the character work, the pacing - in "Breaking and Entering" - were all close to perfect (I admit the ending creaked a bit). When the critics say "the screenplay was bad" they MEAN, "I didn't like the way these characters behaved; I don't want to spend time with a protagonist who loathes himself". That is entirely legitimate. But not a direct function of the quality of the screenplay. It's like criticising jazz for not being rock and roll. Personally, I loved this movie. It was smart, funny, moving, it taught me things about London, and it had Julliette Binoche it.

reply

AMEN.
Well said.

reply

I think the performances were outstanding but that the pacing was a little too slow. I was disappointed with the ending too. Although entirely plausible (because I can totally see that the characters would behave in the way they did), it was too rushed so it feels forced. The ending should have unfolded in a much more deliberate manner IMO.

I was most impressed with Law, Wright-Penn and the Gavron kid. The Law and Wright-Penn relationship felt genuine, a real couple drifting apart to breaking point. The stress in their home life felt so real I totally understood why Will would rather spend his nights staking out his office than at home. I thought Binoche was rather melodramatic, her every gesture overly emphatic, her sadness expressed like a clown's. I also have no sympathy for her because somehow everything she did was presented as though she is always a victim, and her victimhood is supposed to excuse her scheming. It just made me feel like a sucker, I guess that's just how Law's character feels too.

I think the ultra-liberalism is where the film falls down -- the immigrants are always the victims here. (There was a hint that Amira's affair with Will is partly because she wants him and not merely because of self sacrifice. That is intriguing but not explored nearly enough.) The rich white folks (esp the men) are always to blame although they are good well-intentioned people. That is simplistic. The characters are well drawn and the actors are so good they bring them to life, but the plot sets them up and sort of boxes them in, as though each of them were pieces in a puzzle, like *ideas* of people instead of being real people in themselves. This is a flaw I cannot forgive. Minghella made the same mistake in Cold Mountain too. His head is so full of metaphors and symbols I'd like to just shake him and say, sometimes the thing is just the thing; it doesn't have to stand for anything.

[On the prostitute side story, at first I thought it may have been superfluous, but no. The hooker actually knows what Will wants before he does himself. She keeps pushing it on him but she was the wrong package and he refuses. I think her part really shows how lost Will is with himself.]

About the cool to luke warm response, my guess is it's due at least in part to the film's unabashedly liberal attitude. Law's Will is a completely convincing portrait of a man caught in all sorts of conflicting threads and tries his best to work it out; but the story sets up him to be a 'typical' liberal white male. Since liberalism is a dirty word in the media these days, that in itself is cause for the media to sneer. Many of these media types should see themselves in Will.

reply

It is pretty interesting what you say. Everyone else praise Juliette Binoche character and a lot also thinks Laws and Penns characters is not at their best. You are totally opposite....

reply

But you made a great point about the prostitute.
And I have to disagree about Juliette Binoche. She was fantastic and utterly convincing.

reply

> liberalism is a dirty word in the media these days

Oh really? In what ways have you noticed this?

reply

I thought the ending was contrived as the Robin Wright character had no motive and the Jude Law character, creator of fake greenery, needed to be punished further, not rewarded for BREAKING AND ENTERING.

A poor screenplay is one where the characters fail to bring the audience along with their behaviour. A good performance can sometimes make you forgive surprises in a screenplay if the audience buys into those surprises. I didn't believe anyone in this film, including the well intentioned thief and golden hearted hookers.

I think I fully understood this poorly thought out movie.

reply


I saw this movie last December and was fascinated by it. The performances, specially that of Juliette Binoche and Jude Law were superb.

I've heard from some people that the ending should have been different. I strongly disagree. Not all movies should end how we expect or want it to end.

To break and enter into one's life, love, etc.,for any purpose, not always ends
as expected. Thieves sometimes get caught, lives are sometimes shattered, and loves are usually lost.

Jubinne

reply

I don't think the ending should have been different. It was entirely plausible and consistent with the characters. Also, it completes the (romantic) belief in second chances, and that goes for everybody.

However, I do think the ending should have been *brought about* with more care. As is, it feels too abrupt as to appear forced.

reply

I agree about the ending being forced, but I did not like this movie. To me the relationship between Law and Binoche felt forced. I suppose I shouldn't have felt this way because he was looking for anyone to connect with and she hadn't been with a man in a long time, but they essentially met because her son is robbing his place of business. Tell me how a man decides to start an affair with a woman whose son he is following because of theft. I know that anything is possible, and we can't control who we fall in love with, yada, yada. It just didn't feel real to me. Then the ending...I didn't get the sense that Law's character was actually happy. Like...how did he decide between being in the tub with her and confessing to his girlfriend that he had been wrong and was totally content?

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

"Can someone explain to me what kind of a world we live in where an intelligent grown-up film such as this one, with performances like those turned in by Law, Penn and Binoche doesn't show up on the radar, but a steaming pile of fetid dog feces like "A Night at the Museum" makes 300 million dollars?"

I think it's because the box office is ruled by 18-25 year old males. If the older folks want more films made to their taste, they have to go to the movies more often. I am an older folk myself and have no use for POTC or even the Bond movies or the superhero movies. That said, I found Breaking and Entering disorienting the first time I saw it. I thought my companion, a typical male who likes good action flicks, would be bored stiff but he actually liked it though he said it was slow. I warmed up to B&E much more the second time around and agree with much of what you say. Law and Wright-Penn were exceptional though I find Binoche's melodrama and victim role irritating.

I think this film was simply very difficult to market in North America.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]