User reviews

Hossein is the same writer of amazing films such as "Wings Of The Dove" (1999) and "Drive" (2011), but at the same time he contributed to some not so amazing ones like "Snow White and The Huntsman" (2012) and the weak "47 Ronin" (2013). So chances were quite good that the production qualities would be somewhat uncertain, even being based on Patricia Highsmith's novel, the same author of "The Talented Mr. Ripley" (1999), amazingly adapted by Anthony Minghella and one of the finest movies of his career.

After Minghella's adaptation, which was praised by everyone for its outstanding visual and technical qualities, and his skills to develop the story as a captivating and progressive dramatic thriller, also including a character that does not exist in the book that instead of negatively change the course of the story only increased the hitchcockian tone he gave to the plot, Hollywood didn't produced anything like that since then.

When people watch the trailer of "The Two Faces of January" some honorable resemblances to Minghella's adaptation of Highsmith's Ripley will pop, and strong comparisons will be inevitable. That's what I felt, so my expectations were high. The attempts to repeat the same successful formula were so evident that one of the executive producers is Max Minghella, son of the late director.

Really, the comparisons cannot be avoided, but rather to become nostalgic references or even an excellent opportunity to honor Minghella and his merits achieved by one of his greatest works, "Two Faces Of January" becomes a very frustrating experience in many aspects.

The condensed narrative, the thrilling moments involving the unknown past of each one of the characters and some key events that occur within the first half hour conducted by Alberto Iglesias music (with great references to Bernard Herrmann's in Psycho) clearly lead and prepare the viewer to a thrilling expected atmosphere. But unfortunately the robustness presented loses strength when the story achieves a shallow plateau that forgets to explore the past of each one of the characters as well as never taking truly advantage of their personal psychological conflicts as happen in the book, especially Rydal, the main character.

The title is a reference to Janus, a roman god with two faces, guardian of the transitions, doors, decisions and the beginning. One face looks to the past and the other to the future. This mythical figure represents the reckoning that Rydal is about to face and the dangerous decisions he will have to take. Also, the story take place in early January, which also means a new beginning in popular culture. In the book Highsmith makes clear those associations with the title when Rydal feels a strange and painful resemblance between Chester and his late father, and between Colette and a girl he was madly in love when a teenager. The transference he makes of these two strong figures of his life to Chester and Colette is what leads Rydal keeps himself close to them in the unconscious quest to solve his traumatic relationship with his hateful father and also try to continue an interrupted love interest he had in the past.

But in the movie, none of this fundamental matters are explored the way it should. There are only brief moments that loosely make clear Chester's resemblances to Rydal's late father but no major developments about that is given to clarify the reasons why the love-hate relationship grows so strong between them. Hossein makes it feels like all the love-hate relationship is because they share the same love interest: Colette. On the contrary of the psychological thriller that the book is, the movie makes it all a common passion crime flick, with silly police chasings, love triangle in the simplest possible way exploiting a naive Colette that does not exist, since the book makes reference to her recurring infidelity. The result is an empty movie with a trite ending that makes entire plot feels redundant rather than being Rydal's final journey in search for absolution over his most inner conflicts.

Even developing an excellent job, Viggo Mortensen has his talent wasted here because of the forgettable film that it strikingly is. Kirsten Dunst seems to not yet have learned how to be sophisticated without always look like a college student, and as always, her best moments are when her character is under pressure. Wasted are also the locations in Greece and Turkey instead of doing the same thing Minghella did when making all the exuberance within the Italian landscapes an extra mix of beauty and soft cruelty in "The Talented Mr. Ripley". Oscar Isaac has impressive moments, perhaps because he did know the original work and also that his character is much more complex than the script provided, but for the viewer that is poorly cleared thru the 96 minutes, the attitudes of his character will feel just like an empty and romantically misplaced fixation without any coherent foundation.

A very bland film. Neither terrible nor terribly good. Decent cast. Viggo Mortensen a pleasure to watch as always. Kirsten Dunst injects some moments of quality into a rather empty character. Oscar Isaac does nothing to interrupt his upward career trajectory. I doubt any of them will regret their choice of roles but equally doubtful that this film will come top of their personal favourites' list. The storyline has just enough threads and twists to engage the viewer though, with more drab settings, it might have been more of an effort. If there are winners from this film, they must include the Greek and Turkish tourist industries. The ending when it comes neatly ties off their issues, individual or collective, for all the main characters. But a bit too neatly for my money. A loose end or two left fluttering might have meant the film lived longer in the memory. As it was, the process of forgetting started as the credits rolled.

Yeah, I didn't think much of this Patricia Highsmith novel adaptation, which feels like one of those films (such as THE TOURIST) which is all about the visuals - the locations, costumes, look of actors etc. - to the detriment of the rather predictable plotting. The main characters are a couple of American tourists in Greece who become involved with a young con man when the ugly face of murder rears its head.

This should be torrid, suspenseful stuff, and yet it all plays out in the most unsatisfactory manner. Even the action scenes don't have any of the tension or excitement that should be rolling off the screen. The director is far too interested in his 'beautiful' cinematography to worry about generating the usual suspense that acts as the backbone for many a thriller. It seems that the Iranian born Hossein Amini is better known as a scriptwriter, as this was his first feature length directed movie, so perhaps he should stick to writing.

One of the most criminal things about The Two Faces of January is that it wastes a leading performance from the great Viggo Mortensen. Mortensen has a typically complex character to play, but is subdued so that you almost feel like he's wooden in places even though that can't possibly be the case. I've never liked the overly earnest Oscar Isaac much either, and Kirsten Dunst is just terrible. The resultant film is a missed opportunity more than anything else.

This movie has the elements of other good movies: a golden Greek setting, beautiful Americans abroad unable to escape the mess of their lives at home, a strong leading cast. But it fails to deliver. After an interesting start, the movie gets very slow. It stays slow and a bit painful through most of it. The last 15-20 minutes are interesting, but still not enough of a payout to make the boring middle part feel worth it. I would not recommend this movie to a friend. Go watch The Talented Mr. Ripley instead. Same aesthetic, much more interesting characters.

Tonnes of folks seem to infer "Hitchcock" for this move. This movie is way too shallow for such an exaltation. To me I would be very happy if it met the farcical fun of Poirot, but even that it did not meet.

What started out with a promise of good old-fashioned thriller/mystery (a la Poirot), soon gave way to a lazy insipid plot that doesn't work. Good acting by the three principals coupled with the old charms of Greece (and some of Istanbul) could not salvage this movie beyond nonsensical couldn't-be-bothered eye- candy.

Too many things do not make plausible sense. Motivations, decisions and actions of the main characters are a mishmash of 'huh?'.

If it could not deliver a smart thriller/mystery, then it't could have worked if it had stuck to a dramatic premise which all three key actors would have the capacity to deliver, and focused on the human strains of having to run from the law, and avoid the trite pretense of who-out-smarts-who.

What a shame … could have been pretty good.

The locales are the only interesting thing about this movie, other than Dunst looking attractive in early 1960s hairstyles and clothes. Thin plot, no action and little conflict. In fact, virtually nothing happens in the first hour and by then you don't care. Who financed thus? It wouldn't have gotten green lighted as an 80s network TV movie! It should have been titled the Two Feces of January.

The usual garrulous mixture of travelogue & murder enmeshing a pair of wealthy vacationers based upon Patricia Highsmith's 1964 novel. There's plenty of local colour and cool threads but no suspense or interest (for which Alberto Inglesias' insistent score tries hard to compensate). Kirsten Dunst as usual shows spunk, but she's onscreen least of the three leads.