The Greatest Trick

Those who enjoy a good conspiracy thriller are in for a treat with State of Play; an intelligent but not too serious thriller that ticks all the necessary boxes for films in this genre. Present and correct are corporate corruption, paranoia and an old-school cynical journalist who discovers, to his horror, that “this-goes-all-the-way-to-the-top”.

The plot is kicked off with an apparently drug related shooting and a suicide in suspicious circumstances. Washington Globe journalist Cal McAffrey (Russell Crowe) is contacted by his old friend and Congressman Stephen Collins (Ben Affleck), urging him to investigate, and soon links are uncovered between the deaths which lead back to a group of powerful defence contractors.

Crowe is good. In fact, I can’t help but notice he is better in roles where he has longer hair or plenty of stubble. Affleck is less good, though perfectly adequate, and there is terrific support from Helen Mirren as McAffrey’s acid tongued but long suffering editor Cameron Lynne. Elsewhere there are good bit parts for Robin Wright Penn as Collin’s distraught wife Anne and Rachel McAdams as Della Frye, who works alongside McAffrey and helps him uncover the conspiracy. Although he is initially dismissive of her talents (she is a blogger and he doesn’t conceal his disdain for online journalism), McAffrey gradually comes to respect her, and their relationship is refreshingly bereft of romantic complications. Rounding out the supporting cast are Jeff Daniels as a corrupt senator, and rather amusingly Brennan Brown (from the “Don’t let a mobile phone ruin your movie” Orange ads) has a small role which unfortunately made me want to laugh every time he appeared on screen as I expected him to say something silly like “I financed this film so I’ll do as a lizzle”.

Although I haven’t seen the BBC TV series upon which State of Play was based, I understand that it has survived the Hollywood transition surprisingly well. Tony Gilroy (Michael Clayton, Duplicity) had a hand in the screenplay, alongside Billy Ray and Matthew Michael Carnahan. In adapting Paul Abbot’s original, their version is certainly very entertaining. It’s also well directed by Kevin Macdonald (The Last King of Scotland, Touching the Void, One Day in September) who keeps things slightly rough around the edges. One or two set pieces really crank up the suspense – especially one in an underground car park (a favourite setting in this genre).

To summarise, whilst this isn’t in the same league as great 70’s conspiracy thrillers like The Parallax View or The Conversation, not to mention fact based journalistic dramas such as All the President’s Men which it is akin to, State of Play is still very enjoyable stuff.

Simon Dillon, April 2009.

Director Tony Gilroy is perhaps best known for his Oscar nominated Michael Clayton. Not a bad little film and one that featured excellent performances from George Clooney and Tom Wilkinson. For his next film Duplicity, Gilroy is on altogether lighter territory, albeit still within the world of corporate skulduggery.

The tone here is similar to Oceans 11 or Charade, although not as good as either of the aforementioned caper classics. Clive Owen and Julia Roberts play corporate spies Ray and Claire who share a steamy past. They decide to pull off an elaborate multi-million dollar con on their respective employers, but can they trust each other?

Clive Owen is good, and Julia Roberts isn’t bad either (though not up to the standard of her more interesting Erin Brockovitch type roles). The excellent Tom Wilkinson and Paul Giamatti offer good support as Claire and Ray’s feuding bosses and there are a host of interesting bit parts from the likes of David Shumbris, Oleg Shtefanko, Kathleen Chalfant and Wayne Duvall.

The screenplay feels a little forced in the first half, but it picks up a good head of steam in the second, leading to an entertaining, moderately exciting climax. There are countless betrayals, twists and turns, each of which are progressively more implausible but that’s part of the fun. However, I did have some issues with the way it was directed. The split screen technique seemed rather forced, and on a more trivial note I really don’t need four separate shots of Nelsons Column, Big Ben, Tower Bridge, a red bus and an onscreen subtitle to tell me the location we’re seeing is London.

There are also some sexual references which may irritate some Christians, but nothing too severe. In short, this is fluff, but entertaining fluff.

Simon Dillon, March 2009

“God promised Abraham he would not destroy Sodom if he could find just ten righteous people in it. I am afraid that for Germany, it may come down to one.” So says Kenneth Branagh’s Major General Henning von Tresckow in director Bryan Singer’s Valkyrie; a film that finally tells the true story one of World War II’s great unsung heroes Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg, and those like von Tresckow who conspired with him to assassinate Hitler in his bunker at the Wolf’s Lair.

As Stauffenberg, Tom Cruise is perhaps not the ideal choice, but I maintain that he is underrated as an actor, and nevertheless good in the role. He is ably supported by Branagh, Bill Nighy, Tom Wilkinson, Terence Stamp, Eddie Izzard, Tom Hollander, Thomas Kretschmann and David Bamber among others. Much has been made of their non-German accents, but I found the US and British voices generally did not detract from the story.

Singer’s film has been steeped in controversy and troubled production history. He was not allowed to shoot at various historic locations in Germany as the Germans have a particular dislike for Scientology (Tom Cruise’s religion of choice). This somewhat irrational reason for putting a spanner in the works (its not as though this film has anything to do with Scientology) meant Singer had to compromise. But that was not the end of his problems. Early test screenings were not good, and reshoots were ordered.

Typically such problems mean the finished result is garbage, but despite bad reviews, I am going to fight a rearguard action on this one. Although it has a slightly awkward first half hour, Valkyrie quickly improves once the conspiracy is underway. The audience may know the ending, but Nathan Alexander and Christopher McQuarrie’s screenplay builds up considerable suspense, and certain sequences really underscore how the coup could have gone either way. One sequence in particular, involving teletypists, shows how minor workers in the Reich held the balance of power in their hands, deciding which of the contradictory orders they were receiving to pass on. These contradictory orders had to be enacted by the officer in charge of the reservists (the brilliant Thomas Kretschmann, who deserves a special mention for his pivotal role).

On a moral, spiritual level, this is exemplary – a true story from history about bravery, conscience and when it is right to rebel against authority. One is reminded of when the apostles said they must obey God rather than man when the law of the land is immoral. Everything Stauffenberg does is for the good of Germany, because he knows the only way to truly serve its interests is to get rid of the Fuhrer. That he failed makes him no less heroic.

In final analysis, this is a flawed but tense thriller, well worth a look and certainly a lot better than critics have said.

Simon Dillon, February 2009.

Clint Eastwood has had an unprecedented run of superb films this decade, both in front of the camera, and behind it. This is all the more extraordinary given that very few directors produce such consistently fine work in their autumn years. His latest, Changeling is a remarkable story that would be unbelievable if it weren’t true.

In 1928, young mother Christine Collins (Angelina Jolie) reported to the LA police that her young son Walter had gone missing. A few months later, after an extensive search, the police told her they had found her son, but on meeting him at the railway station, she immediately claimed he was not her son, even though the boy claimed he was. Her suspicions were confirmed when she discovered the boy the police had returned was three inches shorter than Walter. However, the police refused to admit a mistake had been made or that the boy was lying.

To say anymore about the story would spoil it for those unfamiliar with the case, suffice to say Changeling is hugely gripping tale. Eastwood’s assured, deceptively simple directing proves yet again that he is one of the great masters of American cinema. The sense of time and place is impeccable, and Eastwood even opens the film with the original Universal logo from the same time period. His familiar themes of justice and revenge seem as fresh here as they are in any of his best work (Unforgiven for instance), but this is the second time in recent years that he has tackled the emotive issue of child abductions. 2003’s excellent Mystic River provides the ideal companion piece to this film.

As the film progresses, one really senses Eastwood seething with anger at the monumental injustices inflicted both on Christine Collins and the abducted children. Both the massively corrupt police department and the individual responsible for the abductions are never allowed even an iota of sympathy, and in the context of Changeling this is absolutely correct. Incidentally, I doubt Clint Eastwood cares for films that also give the killer’s side of the story like In Cold Blood or Dead Man Walking (I do, by the way).

The real star of the film is Angelina Jolie, who gives an extraordinary performance as a timid woman who, paraphrasing her own words, doesn’t start the fight, but makes sure she finishes it. When not making silly films like Wanted, Jolie has proved a remarkable actress (in last years A Mighty Heart for instance). Here she is so good she warrants an Oscar nomination at the very least.

The supporting cast are all excellent too, particularly John Malkovitch as the Reverend Gustav Briegleb who comes to the defence of Christine. It is particularly gratifying to see such a positive portrayal of a Christian in Gustav, a man who really stands up for the oppressed and directs his crusade against the corrupt LAPD with a stirring righteous anger. Jeffrey Donovan is very good as Captain Jones, who personifies the diabolical corruption in the police. Michael Kelly also provides good support as sympathetic police detective Lester Ybarra – the one good apple in a rotten barrel.

Of course, this is by nature a dark, upsetting film, and occasionally a little right wing for my taste (inevitable with Eastwood at the helm). That said it is also a riveting true story brilliantly directed and ultimately one that promotes justice and hope amid terrible tragedy. For some, this will not be enough to offset the bleakness, especially given the responsibly handled but brutal violence and strong language (all of which is contextually justified in my opinion). However, for me, Changeling is one of the best films of the year and a terrific entry in the recent Clint canon.

Simon Dillon, November 2008.

The Manchurian Candidate was originally made in 1962, and starred Frank Sinatra as Captain Ben Marco, recently returned from the Korean War and troubled by strange dreams which lead him to question what actually happened when his platoon was ambushed. It touched on interesting subjects, such as brainwashing and the anti-Communist paranoia prevalent at the time, and was an effective thriller, if not exactly the most world-shattering movie event. This remake updates the setting to the Gulf War, but loses most of the interest along the way.

Marco, played this time by Denzel Washington, is suffering from strange dreams and the general feeling that things aren’t right. This is due to the fact that Raymond Shaw, former army buddy and winner of Congressional Medal of Honour for single-handedly saving their platoon during an ambush, is about to become Vice-President (manoeuvred into position by his mother, played by a grand-standing and scenery-chewing Meryl Streep). As Marco investigates his plight, and the events surrounding the ambush, it becomes clear that what he thinks happened is not the whole truth, and that he has to get to Shaw, who seems much less aware that his past is largely fabricated.

The problem is that we just don’t care enough. There are elements of the story that are supposed to be plot twists, or at least moderately surprising, but they just aren’t because of how the plot is set up in the first 40 minutes or so. In fact, from the moment that the viewer meets the three or four central characters, it is totally obvious what has happened in Kuwait several years ago, and the steps that have been taken to get where they are today. Washington is, as ever, dependable (read: dull), and Liev Schreiber as Shaw does a perfectly good job, but doesn’t really have a great deal to get his teeth into (unlike Marco at the end of the scene where they eat and chat together - about the only spark of surprise I felt while watching!) Meryl Streep was pretty unbelievable most of the time, from the patriotic yelling to the creepily intimate scenes, and the climax of the film, which was where the original really racked up the tension, was just lame and predictable. The most interesting thing about it, especially given the events of the past few weeks, is how it showed the circus-like nature of American politics, and how showbizzy it all is.

It felt too long, and yet at the same time was too quick to get into solving the central mystery - there was not enough distress for Washington before the pieces started to come together. And frankly, there was not enough distress for the viewer either - I felt totally distanced from the action and mostly bored. By some miracle I didn’t actually fall asleep, but maybe that’s more to do with watching it at a decent time of the evening! In terms of violence, there is some - some of the characters’ brainwashing is used to assassinate others - but other than that there is little to offend. Little to recommend it with, either.

The brilliant Casino Royale, which just gets better with every viewing, was always going to be a tough act to follow. It casts a long shadow over Quantum of Solace, and it doesn’t help matters that the film is a direct sequel. This is the first time the Bond films have ever taken this approach. There is a brief mention of Dr No in From Russia with Love but both are completely self contained films, these aren’t.

Casting an equally long, and frankly unhelpful, shadow over the film is the Bourne franchise. Whilst it is fair to say the Bourne films were influential in a positive way on Casino Royale, frankly I’m not so certain in this case. The Bourne films are a distinct and unique in their own right, whereas Bond needs to be Bond and frankly, in this film, he needed to lighten up a little.

That said there are still moments of humour in this darker, tougher entry in the series. It’s not the most violent Bond film (Licence to Kill still has that dubious honour), but it’s certainly more vicious than usual. The plot concerns Bond attempting to track down those responsible for Vesper Lynd’s death, and in doing so uncovers the sinister Quantum organization. The trail leads to one of its operatives, Dominic Greene (Mathieu Almaric), an environmentalist businessman who is also being investigated by Camille (Olga Kurylenko), out for revenge for reasons of her own.

The screenplay by Paul Haggis, Neal Purvis and Robert Wade feels as though it could have done with another polish, and I wonder whether or not the writers strike affected the production of the film. It’s interesting that directly following the longest ever Bond film (Casino Royale) was the shortest (Quantum clocks in at a trim 106 minutes). Yet bizarrely it doesn’t feel short. That doesn’t mean it isn’t good, but the plot is somewhat confused. Director Marc Forster, best known for low key dramas like Monsters Ball, is a fairly solid choice of helmsman, but not all the action scenes convince. For instance, the opening car chase fails to raise the same excitement as, say, the crane chase/fight in Casino Royale. Even when the action scenes do work, they often recall the Bourne franchise too much. An exciting roof top chase keeps bringing to mind a similar chase in The Bourne Ultimatum. To be fair, that chase was over flat roofs, whereas these roofs have tiles that slip and slide dangerously. Perhaps the filmmakers felt this made it sufficiently different.

On the plus side, Daniel Craig is excellent in the role, and as far as I’m concerned he’s the best since Sean Connery. Supporting roles aren’t bad either, especially Olga Kurylenko, Judi Dench (M) Giancarlo Giannini (Mathis, reprising his role from the previous film) and Jeffrey Wright (Felix Leiter). Gemma Arterton’s part is amusing but pointless, although it does culminate in a neat Goldfinger homage.

Another brief point on the music: the Alicia Keys/Jack White title track has received a lot of flak, but after a few listens, its not quite as terrible as I first thought. The rest of David Arnold’s score is good too.

In short, this is an average Bond film, but it’s still better than the entire Pierce Brosnan era. Besides, for all its flaws, one can’t really miss a Bond film and this one still entertains.

Simon Dillon, November 2008.

After their bleak and terrifying Oscar winning masterpiece No Country for Old Men, the Coen Brothers are back in comparatively zany territory with Burn After Reading, a strange and ultimately inconsequential story. Yet being inconsequential seems to be the point and suggests they have carried over the existential pessimism of their last film.

The plot? I hope you’re paying attention. Highly strung CIA analyst Osbourne Cox (John Malkovitch) is told he cannot continue in his job on account of his drinking problem, but is offered a demotion at a lower clearance level. Angrily refusing this, he instead resigns, and tells his stuck-up domineering wife Katie (Tilda Swinton) that he plans to write his memoirs. Katie is secretly having an affair with paranoid Treasury Agent Harry Pfarrer (George Clooney) whom she is trying to bully into leaving his children’s book writer wife (who is in turn also having an affair). Harry is also having another affair with Linda Litzke (Frances McDormand), who works in a gym with spectacularly idiotic Chad Feldheimer (Brad Pitt). Linda is looking for Mr Right, and wants to improve her chances by undergoing several plastic surgery procedures, despite the fact that her boss and unnoticed admirer-from-a-distance Ted (Richard Jenkins), thinks she looks fine the way she is. Anyway, after Osbourne begins to write his memoirs, Katie secretly visits a divorce lawyer who advises her to make a copy of all the documents on their home computer to get a picture of the family finances before beginning divorce proceedings. In doing so, she inadvertently copies Osbourne’s memoirs onto a disk that include classified but not really sensitive information from his CIA days. This disk is then recopied by the divorce lawyer’s secretary who accidentally leaves a copy in the gym where Linda and Chad work. When the two of them find the disk and discover its contents, they call Osbourne to tell him he can collect it, hoping their will be a financial reward (which Linda hopes will be enough to cover the cost of the plastic surgery). However, inept communication leads to a series of misunderstandings over the telephone that ends with Linda blackmailing Osbourne and telling him to pay up if he wants the disk back. When Osbourne refuses to play ball, Linda and Chad inexplicably offer the disk to the Russians at the Russian embassy, apparently under the impression the Cold War is still on. A CIA insider at the Russian embassy reports what is going on to his superior at Langley (a hilarious and underused JK Simmons), who is so utterly baffled that he refuses to intervene. Instead, out of curiosity, he does all he can to cover up what is happening, even when people start getting murdered by mistake.

What makes Burn After Reading funny is the absurd way the plot builds around endless misunderstanding, co-incidence and outright idiocy. The ludicrously overheated plot is deliberately intended to be like an exaggerated version of a Raymond Chandler story, but as with much of the Coen’s output, the best jokes are observational moments on the absurdity of modern life rather than clever genre spoofing. For instance, one particularly delightful moment sees Linda wrestling with those monumentally awful recorded messages that ask the caller to say words aloud to get through to the correct department, making you sound like a complete idiot to anyone in the room who can only hear your side of the conversation.

Performances are all strong, especially from the imbecilic characters portrayed by Pitt and Clooney (who both have a whale of a time). That said, this spectacularly intricate pitch black comedy/tragedy of errors is a comparatively minor work for the Coen Brothers, but it’s still sufficiently dark and twisted to please those who appreciate their particular brand of offbeat, quirky cinema. As I mentioned earlier, this film shares No Country for Old Men’s despair at the futility of human endeavour – a worldview I believe to be spiritually false, not to mention at odds with their earlier output. Burn After Reading may be thematically similar to – say – Fargo, but it lacks that films warm humanity personified in the central figure of Frances McDormand’s pregnant police officer. Here, there are no characters of any redeeming moral ideology (give or take Ted). That combined with a profanity laden screenplay and occasional brutal violence makes it impossible for me to recommend this film from a Christian perspective, but its still one Coen completists will not want to miss.

Simon Dillon, October 2008.

The violence in Wanted is nigh on indefensible. Sequences where bullets fly through the heads of victims in slow motion graphic detail, then rewind, are only there for one reason: titillation. Wanted is an exercise in puerile adolescent fantasy, and therefore a film that will turn off one audience and attract another.

Based on a comic strip I’ve not read, Wanted begins with spineless protagonist Wesley Gibson (James McAvoy) trapped in a meaningless dead end job and living with an unfaithful girlfriend. He knows his life is pathetic, but can’t be bothered to do anything about it. Then when Fox (Angelina Jolie) saves his life and tells him he is destined to become a member of the Fraternity – an thousand year old elite assassination secret society – his life takes a bizarre turn. He discovers his father has recently been murdered by a rogue Fraternity agent and decides to get even. But first he must learn to curve a bullet and do other equally ridiculous things, since Fraternity members all have something akin to superpowers.

This is where any pretence the film had at a Fight Club-style serious message gets lost. The Fraternity are an organisation that gets their instructions from – wait for it – a textile loom. Apparently, this mystical loom has a code embedded in the fabric that when decoded gives names of assassination targets that need to be eliminated in order to save lives. This plot contrivance is so utterly preposterous that even allowing for suspension of disbelief, it unravels at the slightest pull of a thread. Who built the loom? How has it survived for centuries? What happens if you switch it off? Why has no-one switched it off? Who was insane enough to go looking for patterns in the fabric in the first place, and why weren’t they sent to a loony bin?

Even leaving aside the monumentally daft “loom of Fate”, Wanted is absolute nonsense from start to finish. But it’s nonsense with several extremely exciting stunts. Two in particular – one involving a train, the other involving rats, are so ludicrously implausible yet undeniably thrilling, that it’s impossible not to get a little sucked into the testosterone fuelled fantasy. Russian director Timur Bekmambetov (best know for cult vampire flick Night Watch) helms his first English language effort here, and as such emulates everyone from John Woo to Sam Peckinpah, Michael Bay and the Wachowski Brothers, but shows little of the unique visual flair he demonstrated in his Russian language work.

Performances are almost an irrelevancy in the face of such a silly script, but I doubt James McAvoy is destined to become a great action figure. Angelina Jolie, who had recently proved she could act with the likes of A Mighty Heart (also apparently excellent in Clint Eastwood’s upcoming Changeling), takes a regressive, Tomb Raider type step here. Heavyweight actors Morgan Freeman and Terence Stamp also pop up in throwaway roles.

Ultimately, this is hedonistic, nihilistic mess of a film, with pornographic levels of violence, not to mention swearing and other miscellaneous content that will no doubt put off several audience members. And as I mentioned before, it is for precisely that reason that it will also attract several others.

Simon Dillon, June 2008.

This summers cinema releases are proving to be full of hidden, underrated gems amid the usual blockbuster fluff. The Escapist is the latest addition to this trend – a stripped down, no-nonsense prison break thriller starring Brian Cox as Frank Perry, a man desperate to make amends with his daughter on the outside before she dies from a drug habit.

The audacious narrative structure cuts back and forth between the escape itself and the planning thereof, cleverly creating two nail-biting plotlines designed for maximum suspense. Not only do viewers want to know if the prisoners will escape, but how Frank overcame seemingly insurmountable obstacles prior to the break out. Most of these obstacles are not caused by the authorities but by top convict Rizza (Damian Lewis), a creepy and spectacularly nasty piece of work.

Cox is excellent in the lead and other cast members – including Joseph Fiennes, Liam Cunningham, Seu Jorge and Dominic Cooper – all provide good, albeit stereotyped, support in their various roles. Speaking of stereotypes, many of the usual prison drama clichés are present and correct, but are put to compelling use by Daniel Hardy and Rupert Wyatt’s strong screenplay.

Wyatt also makes his directional debut, and in this area is completely in control. By deliberately eschewing exterior shots and keeping the action set exclusively inside the prison and underground tunnels, he achieves a tremendous sense of claustrophobia. The prison Frank is escaping from is not a modern one (as a friend of mine who visits prisons once said, they are better than some hotels he’s stayed in), but a properly old-fashioned, grim, nasty place where guards are barely visible and do not interfere in the regime Rizza has set up.

Of course, at its heart this is B-movie nonsense, but it’s very gripping B-movie nonsense, even if it’s essentially a British version of Prison Break boiled down to a tight 102 minutes instead of dragging it out over endless weekly episodes. It also has a strangely existential twist ending which elevates it above and beyond anything Prison Break had to offer. Although it’s not quite in the same league as Midnight Express or The Shawshank Redemption, The Escapist is still a very fine piece of work and well worth a look – if you can stomach the very strong language and occasional nasty burst of bloody violence.

Simon Dillon, June 2008.

By now, Ben Affleck has been dismissed by most as an actor of limited range. However, based on the strength of his 1997 screenplay for Good Will Hunting, I had always hoped he would get back behind the camera. With Gone Baby Gone, he has crafted an extremely good film, establishing himself as a very serious director and a real talent to watch. If that means the death of his onscreen career, it is a sacrifice well worth making.

Besides, it is his brother, Casey Affleck, who really has the acting talent. Here, as Boston private investigator Patrick Kenzie, he is almost as outstanding as he was in The Assassination of Jesse James. Kenzie is hired to look into the case of missing four year old girl Amanda McCready – a case that will eventually become an obsession for him. Affleck plays the role brilliantly; at once naïve yet wise, quiet but angry, and although he doesn’t look tough, it soon becomes clear he is very capable of taking care of himself.

The entire cast is provided with fully rounded, three-dimensional characters to really get their teeth into. Michelle Monaghan is excellent as Angie, Kenzie’s partner both romantically and professionally. Kenzie’s relationship with her begins to unravel as the story progresses, and it eventually becomes clear that his obsession could cause him to lose her. Amy Ryan provides brilliant support as Amanda’s drug addict mother Helene, who at first appears a hopeless case; childish, utterly irresponsible and seemingly unconcerned with her daughter’s disappearance. However, it soon becomes clear that she is grief stricken and desperately wants to change, even though she doesn’t know if she can.

Morgan Freeman brings the expected gravitas to the part of Jack Doyle, a police captain who lost his own daughter years previously and Ed Harris also has a terrific role as tough, cynical cop, Remy Bressant. Even the smaller parts, played by John Ashton, Amy Madigan, Titus Welliver, Edi Gathegi, Madeleine O’Brien and others, are hugely memorable.

In adapting Dennis Lehane’s novel, Affleck’s technique is simple but effective. He’s not afraid to use hand-held cameras, or to stage suspenseful sequences in near darkness, whereas a more anxious director making his debut is unlikely to be as experimental. One particularly effective moment where a character has killed someone for the first time sees said character staring at their reflection in a window. The reflection is ghosted, like a bad television reception, subtly suggesting how that character will never be the same. The gritty tone of the Boston neighbourhoods feels as real and believable as it did in Clint Eastwood’s similarly themed Mystic River (which was also written by Lehane). Speaking of influences, Affleck references several previous films concerning child abduction/death, including Don’t Look Now, The Pledge and even Fritz Lang’s 1931 classic M.

There are many, many fascinating issues raised by this dark and riveting thriller. Firstly and most obviously, it taps into the vein of cultural fear currently gripping ours and other western nations regarding child safety. Yet it does not exploit that fear for lurid purposes, but instead gets the audience to think about a more profound issue: just who do children belong to? The Bible is clear that children are a reward from God and that they only belong to their parents for a season. The film seems to side with this argument, and in its own subtle way condemns the argument prevalent in our society that everyone has the right to a child. Finally, and most contentiously, it discusses what role if any outsiders should have in protecting children, and suggests that sometimes intervention is not a good idea, even when the mother is an irresponsible drug addict. Outside of child protection issues, the film touches on themes of obsession, justice and revenge, and doesn’t offer any glib easy answers. Taking the law into ones own hands is questioned, as is “positive” corruption. Depending on the views of the person watching, the viewer will either cheer or condemn Kenzie’s uncompromising actions at the end.

Gone Baby Gone has had something of a troubled history on this side of the pond. Initially slated for release over a year ago, distributors decided to delay the film because of similarities to the Madeleine McCann case (indeed, the girl in the film does bear an uncanny resemblance). I am always cynical about such moves, since distributors claim it is to be sensitive, when in truth it is because they are worried it will affect box office takings. Such was the controversy that for a time it appeared the picture might go straight to video or wouldn’t get a UK release at all.

Thankfully, common sense prevailed and the film has finally been given a cinema run. Not that I expect it to do well as it is the wrong time of year for such intelligent fare, and it will no doubt drown in an ocean of summer blockbusters. If Gone Baby Gone is destined for obscurity, then that is a crying shame, as it is easily one of the best I have seen this year, and certainly the most underrated. Based on the strength of this extraordinary, haunting film, I eagerly look forward to Ben Affleck’s next project. It only remains for me to issue the obligatory warnings about repeated use of very strong language, as well as some violence, but much of this is mitigated by the setting and subject matter. Gone Baby Gone isn’t for everyone, and some of its plot developments are predictable, but for those who like strong, serious, uncompromised cinema which grapples with difficult issues; this is emotive, gripping, thought provoking stuff.

Simon Dillon, June 2008.