Sir Ian McKellen is 80 years old; Dame Helen Mirren is 74. Individually, these veteran thespians, each with decades of work on stage and screen under the belts, are capable of out-acting, outrunning and outgunning performers one third their age. This is not disputable. They can both go big, broad, and Full Metal Bard when needed, or be very subtle and nuanced. Whether these two are in big-budget blockbusters or quaint period-piece dramas, they are respectively dynamic as hell. Put them together, and theoretically its like pairing the immovable force with the irresistible object. Youd watch McKellen and Mirren do just about anything together, much less an adaptation of a well-respected novel about a con man slowly circling his lonelyhearts mark. It appears to be the ideal vehicle for both of them. And whats that old saying about appearances being deceiving?
That particular maxim is something akin to The Good Liars mantra, so maybe it makes a warped kind of sense that what seems like a sure thing upfront ends up being a sham. It introduces both of its main characters as unreliable from the jump: We see McKellens dapper elderly gent and Mirrens elegant widow filling out online dating profiles, him dragging on a cigarette as he checks No in the smoking box and her sipping wine as she claims not to be a drinker. They meet for dinner, and after a few pleasantries, confess that neither of them have used their real names. Hes Roy Courtnay, a slow-moving man of modest means whos estranged from his son; shes Betty McLeish, a former college professor living in the burbs just outside of London and sitting on a lovely little nest egg. What isnt revealed, naturally, is that Roy is a con man. He specializes in complex financials scams he sets up with his partner Vincent (Downton Abbeys Jim Carter). But hes not above, say, charming an older woman and then liberating her of her life savings.
'Catherine the Great' Review: From Russia, With Love (and Lust)'Last Christmas' Review: When Holiday Movies Go Very, Very WrongWhy 'Planes, Trains and Automobiles' Is the Ultimate Thanksgiving MovieHow Americana Went Mainstream in the 2010s
Soon, Roy has worked his way into Bettys heart, and then right into her home. Her grandson Steven (Years and Years Russell Tovey) thinks theres something dodgy about this geezer with the gammy leg the limp, like so much with Roy, is fake worming his way into his grams life. But Betty has grown fond of this man. She may gently rebuff his advances, yet you can see how his presence and amiable demeanor warms her up. Betty doesnt even mind that her new companions financial advisor keeps popping around, advising her to combine all of their assets together into one banking account. Roy is setting a trap. Or perhaps, unbeknownst to him, hes walking into one.
Protocol suggests that this is the part where anyone describing further details of The Good Liar, especially to those who have not read Nicholas Searles 2016 novel of the same name, should begin to tread lightly. Anyone whos had the twists and turns of a con-man movie ruined by some mouthy jackanapes knows that a good deal of the fun is discovering this for yourself. By the same token, viewers familiar with these particular kinds of A-list affairs can assume that nothing should be taken at face value. Its probably safe to point out that Roy has a scar on his neck that he seems reluctant to say too much about. And to mention that Steven is a historian whos studying WWII and, in particular, the complicity of architect Albert Speer. And to note what might seem like a casual vacation may have a secondary agenda attached to it.
Youre waiting to see what the endgame is here and when director Bill Condon (Gods and Monsters, Chicago, the live-action Beauty and the Beast) and screenwriter Jeffrey Hatcher (The Duchess, Mr. Holmes) finally do lay it all out, you may find yourself picking your jaw off the floor. Not in a good way, either, since so much of the denouement feels like its simply dropped out of the sky and landed on your head. The filmmakers have been careful not to give away too many hints along the way. But you never really feel like theyve set the story up to feel like the numerous climaxes and codas there are several, all piled on top of each other make sense with whats come before them. The goal, you assume, is making people sense that a missing piece has finally been slotted into a puzzle, but the result is closer to reading aloud a Narrative 101 Mad Libs exercise. One assumes that the book makes such quick-left-turn moments seem logical. Here, sharing time with a subplot involving a Roy-engineered scam and some WTF red herrings, the entire last act just translates as ludicrous to the extreme.
The real question is: Are you willing to endure all of that random swerving for the simple pleasure of these performers company? Both actors are, unsurprisingly, bending over backwards here to sell these characters and establish enough screen chemistry to smooth over a lot of rough patches. McKellen is incredibly adept at playing cunning and slippery; hed be a perfect late-in-life Tom Ripley. (Theres also a sequence where you see Roy virtually deflate before your eyes, and that lets you observe how McKellen can turn a simple glance back into a three-act melodrama.) And Mirren, always a dependable presence, knows exactly when to underplay Bettys naive attachment to this mysterious stranger and when to suggest that theres a lot happening behind those eyes of hers. They play off each other beautifully despite the material, and they get a chance to indulge in the aforementioned range of sound and fury. Yes, you would watch these two in virtually anything. You just wish it wasnt this. They deserve something sturdier and far less head-slappingly preposterous, and thats the truth.
Posting Komentar
Posting Komentar