The one nice thing that I like about Michael Caine's acting in this film and others is that I never feel that I am watching Michael Caine but more importantly a good actor in a good role.
The film is good yet I walked away with a sense that it was more of a book read than a film view. There was something absent on at the end yet not necessarily missing, yet still missing. I don't know what I wanted to know.
I praise the use of episodic lighting / brightness / colors and their lack of intensity to set an emphasis in the story segments. I mean, this is a rare cinematic experience to see the dark of night in an eerie countryside setting, and as a viewer I cannot sense what is out there other than in slight movement that is perhaps imaginary. It is absolute dark and dank. That use of lighting was refreshing since I always get p***ed at night scenes lit by mega-candlepower lamps on wet pavement or trees or buildings in the background with typical Hollywood productions.
This is a good movie, but needs another half-hour added. But perhaps, I should just read the book.
The film is good yet I walked away with a sense that it was more of a book read than a film view. There was something absent on at the end yet not necessarily missing, yet still missing. I don't know what I wanted to know.
I praise the use of episodic lighting / brightness / colors and their lack of intensity to set an emphasis in the story segments. I mean, this is a rare cinematic experience to see the dark of night in an eerie countryside setting, and as a viewer I cannot sense what is out there other than in slight movement that is perhaps imaginary. It is absolute dark and dank. That use of lighting was refreshing since I always get p***ed at night scenes lit by mega-candlepower lamps on wet pavement or trees or buildings in the background with typical Hollywood productions.
This is a good movie, but needs another half-hour added. But perhaps, I should just read the book.