The Gingerbread Man

Robert Altman shouldn't make a movie like this, but the fact that he did- and that it turns out to be a reasonably good and tightly-wound thriller in that paperback-tradition of Grisham thrillers- shows a versatility that is commendable. In the Gingerbread Man he actually has to work with something that, unfortunately, he isn't always very successful at, or at least it's not the first thing on his checklist as director: plot. There's one of those big, juicy almost pot-boiler plots where a sleazy lawyer gets caught up with a desperate low-class woman and then a nefarious figure whom the woman is related with enters their lives in the most staggering ways, twists and plot ensues, yada yada. And it's surprising that Altman would really want to take on one of these "I saw that coming from back there!" endings, or just a such a semi-conventional thriller.

But it's a surprise that pays off because, oddly enough, Altman is able to catch some of that very fine behavior, or rather is able to unintentionally coax it out of a very well-cast ensemble, of a small-town Georgian environment. The film drips with atmosphere (if not total superlative craftsmanship, sometimes it's good and sometimes just decent for Altman), as Savannah is possibly going to be hit by a big hurricane and the swamp and marshes and rain keep things soaked and muggy and humid. So the atmosphere is really potent, but so are performances from (sometimes) hysterical Kenneth Branaugh, Embeth Davitz as the 'woman' who lawyer Branaugh gets caught up with, and Robert Downey Jr (when is he *not* good?) as the private detective in Branaugh's employ. Did I neglect Robert Duvall, who in just five minutes of screen time makes such an indelible impression to hang the bad-vibes of the picture on?

As said, some of the plot is a little weak, or just kind of standard (lawyer is divorced, bitter custody battle looms, innocent and goofy kids), but at the same time I think Altman saw something captivating in the material, something darker than some of the other Grisham works that has this standing out somehow. If it's not entirely masterful, it still works on its limited terms as a what-will-happen-next mystery-Southern-noir.

I expected more of Kenneth Branagh. It is a decent movie, on the low side of watchable. I prefer my suspense movies not to be predictable from the outset, which this was! We saw it for two reasons--Branagh and John Grisham. My final opinion was that Grisham wanted to try his hand at writing a screenplay, and he had the clout to get it produced. I hope his next screenplay will benefit from his first errors, as his subsequent novels have gotten better as his experience as an author grows.

With house architecture, gingerbread is the decorative, fluffy lace that is put on a Victorian house. Most Victorian masses are really ugly, clumsy, incompetent -- and that's why gingerbread was developed. The reason behind all this was the rise of the carpenter-designer. Victorian architecture is a product of the industrial age. Everyone wanted such a house, and with few skilled architects around, some blunt conventions were developed that any craftsman could use. And then dress up the horrendous result with gingerbread.

So it is with this film. The key problem here is that it has no master designer. The script was rather developed on the spot in Altman's famous `let's improvise' method by the rude mechanicals involved.

This film was made for one reason: Branagh had a Clinton impression he didn't want to waste. And at least his contribution is all built around his singular idea of the man, using the blunt conventions of the `thriller.' Altman is just along for the ride.

In comments on Branagh's Shakespeare (and the Shakespeare of others), I've noted the pitfalls of putting an actor in charge. Actors are very late in the dramatic food chain, and just cannot understand bigger picture dynamics. Branagh himself has escaped these limitations (when he has) only because he is adept with Shakespearian conventions. (His acting always is remarkable, but that's another issue.)

See this film. It really helps to put perspective on the very interesting adventure of Branagh's trying to grow Shakespeare from the actor's eye. And it helps one understand why his `Love's Labor's Lost' is as it is.

While it's true, as others have noted, that this movie succeeds on style (acting, direction and cinematography are all first-rate) a thriller must have a compelling plot, and that is something that Grisham's paint-by-numbers approach consistently fails to deliver. There is a bit of a zig and a zag at the end, but it remains utterly conventional and unsurprising, and while it's watchable one can't help but feel cheated. All that talent and atmosphere, and whiffs of tantalizing plot developments that never amount to much, make this movie one long tease.

I give it a solid 7. The acting was good and the story was good, to a point. Some of the actions of the criminal did not make sense, but I guess there are a lot of real criminals in prison that also ran a little short in that area . I can say the same thing for the lawyer. One minute he is brilliant and the next he does not know what is going on. Real people many times do the same. Fact is stranger than fiction. As an arm chair director I think this movie could have been better. Its worth watching.