Il critico - Crimini tra le righe

If you saw Sir Ian McKellen with fellow thesp Sir Derek Jacobi in the television sitcom "Vicious" from around ten years ago, you'll be able to anticipate the gist of his characterisation of the acerbic theatre critic "Erskine" who is way more famed for distributing bile rather than bouquets. His new boss (Mark Strong) wants the newspaper to appeal to an altogether more wholesome family audience and so wants him to tone things down a bit. "Yeah, right" thinks he - and then his own behaviour gets him into trouble with the police and given one month's notice from his job. Facing looming ignominy, he determines to get the lowdown on his ostensibly pure as the driven snow aristocratic proprietor and to that end recruits aspiring actress "Nina" (Gemma Arterton) of whom he has been much less than flattering in the past. Rather gullibly, she agrees to become a pawn in his manipulate game that leads to a series of misadventures and thence to a tragedy that maybe puts the role of opinionated curmudgeon into perspective. This starts of quite entertainingly with plenty of pith and ghastliness from the star, but very quickly it descends into an entirely far-fetched and rather disappointing affair (no pun intended) that plays to just about every stereotype as it rather sadly sets out to prove that the best bits are all in the trailers. At it's best, the writing does make you smile and writhe a little uncomfortably in your cinema seat, but for the most part it's just predicable with characters that it's fairly easy not to like - except, maybe, Alfred Enoch's factotum "Tom" whom at least starts off with some shred of human decency to counter "Erskine" and his selfishness. Ben Barnes shows he is ageing well but again hasn't really enough of a part to work with developing his lovestruck character and Strong is really anything but. It does look good, but it's too reliant on a shock factor that isn't so very original and that soon peters out.

It's a period theater drama set in London, England, in 1934. Jimmy Erskine (Ian McKellen) is the elderly, acerbic drama critic for "The Chronicle," a national tabloid run by Viscount David Brooke (Mark Strong), the son of the recently deceased owner. Erskine has been writing devastating reviews about 30-something Nina Land's (Gemma Arterton) performances for 10 years. Nina has been the mistress of Ben Wyley (Ben Barnes), an artist doing a painting of 12 of the "Chronicles" stalwarts. Other crucial performances come from Erskine's secretary, Tom (Alfred Enoch), and Ben's wife, Cora (Romola Garai).

Brooke fires Erskine after learning of Erskine's homosexuality. Erskine seeks revenge by manipulating Nina with unforeseen and tragic consequences because Erskine doesn't know about critical relationships. What becomes of Erskine after it all?

"The Critic" is nicely done. Ian McKellen is blustery, unethical, manipulative, and a joy to listen to. Mark Strong is a plummy, arrogant newspaper publisher. Gemma Arterton is trying to follow her dream. The secondary characters behave appropriately. It all depends on McKellen, and I'm glad the film ends as it does. "The Critic" is a little slow at points, which drops it a point.

London, 1934 - Arch vicious theatre critic Jimmy Erskine (Ian McKellen) is a homosexual and is forever close to being arrested either with his current live in lover and secretary, Turner or when picking men up in the park. Eventually caught, he is fired from his job by his boss Viscount Brooke (Mark Strong) and so looks for revenge by getting up and coming actress Nina (Gemma Arterton) to seduce the married and famous Brooke in exchange for good reviews, so that Erskine can blackmail him into getting his job back. Complications ensue.

Very dark and occasionally wry look at the role of this powerful critic and his desperation to cling on to power and notoriety whatever it takes, which McKellen, sneering playfully throughout, obviously thoroughly enjoys playing. Overall, it is a little too relentlessly dark and the notion of Erskine convincing Nina to seduce Brooke doesn't wholly stacks up. That said it's well put together, has a nice score and McKellen is inevitably rather good.

It's 1934, you're in London. You go see a play in a theatre. You see an old man writing vigorously in a notebook. This man is a critic, somebody with the power to raise an actress's career to stardom or send it crashing down around them. This is the premise of the newly released British period drama called THE CRITIC. Jimmy Erskine (Ian McKellan) is a gay theatre critic for the Daily Chronicle, which is undergoing drastic changes since its leader passed away, giving the reigns to the son, David Brooke (Mark Strong). Worried about the old guard being fired, Jimmy does everything he can to keep his job. Actress Nina Land (Gemma Arterton) gets caught up in his schemes, forming a strange relationship. Escalation ensues! In an interview, McKellan has described his character perfectly using only one word, curdled. Jimmy has become rotten to the core, brutally mean in his critiques, manipulative and selfish to the people around him. McKellan does such a great job in the role he made me hate Ian! This movie has some pacing issues for me. It's a very slow burn, and then it rushes too fast near the end. They also don't do a good enough job in establishing the relationships between certain characters. Sometimes I didn't know who was who to who. I heard from somewhere that they had done some rewrites and reshoots, which might explain some things, I just didn't get enough payoff from the slow burn. I still highly recommend this movie simply for seeing Ian McKellan in a very interesting role and having a very fun time doing it.

Unlikely the movie's titular character, Jimmy Erskine, played deliciously by Ian McKellen, I am not a professional critic/judge/reviewer.

I am, however, someone who enjoys a good story. Alas, "The Critic" baffles me. On the one hand, it had the potential of good mystery, but it didn't choose to go that way. It also had the potential to be a good revenge caper. Sadly, it also didn't go that way.

Instead, we get in a quick run-time of 1 hour 40 minutes in which we don't really get good characterization, a good plot, or even a good crime story. Instead, we get a hurried and inadequate portrayal of a desperate man.

And why is he desperate? That's not really the right question. If you do decide to watch this movie, you'll know what I mean.