CultureVulture49

You may have never heard of this 2012 film. That goes for me too until I saw it a few days ago on a premium cable TV channel. Its title is later explained near the end of the film. According to Wikipedia , a "cleanskin" is a term for an undercover operative unknown to his or her targets, or, as more commonly used in the UK following the London bombings, an extremist with no previous convictions so therefore unknown to national security." Not knowing what the title meant maybe was a turnoff at the box office besides being a low budget film without big name stars receiving little promotion if any.

A small film with well known English actors is not a bad thing as this was a suspenseful dark thriller with good performances. Sean Bean stars as an English government agent tracking terrorists who are setting off bombs in London. His boss, Charlotte Rampling,sends him secretly out to find the bad guys. There also is Ash, well played by Abhin Galeya an English actor unfamiliar to me, a young Muslim who seemed to have a good life in England. He was studying to be a lawyer and has an English girlfriend. He becomes radicalized by an extremist father figure who incites him against enemies of their faith and culture. Under his persuasive leadership, Ash leaves his lover and stops drinking alcohol, and becomes a terrorist who is not suspected at first because he is a 'cleanskin.' Bean and Ash will have a date with destiny....

Hey wait a sec. Doesn't this sound too familiar? I almost got chills making the connection with the Boston Marathon bombing on 4/15/13. I'm surprised this film doesn't get more exposure lately. Not to blow my own horn, I haven't heard or read anywhere about this film being prophetic.

This was a thought provoking film with enough surprises that hold your interest. There's plenty of nasty violence and body counts done in the name of Queen & Country as well as from the terrorists making for a blurred line between the good guys and the bad ones. Who are the real good guys is revealed at the end. My only complaint is that the English accents were harder to understand most of the time than the foreign ones so I had to turn on the subtitles to know what actors were saying. Besides the title, this might be another reason why it didn't get much play here in theaters. One good thing about cable and home video is that overlooked films for whatever reasons get a new life. In light of current events this well made one is definitely worth a look.

Herman Melville lost his readers when his later novels like 'Moby Dick' became too philosophical and he died in obscurity in 1891. There was renewed interest and a more favorable re-evaluation of his work in the 1920's with the discovery and publication of the manuscript for 'Billy Budd.' Hollywood was not far behind when Warner Brothers released a bowdlerized version of 'Moby Dick' renamed as 'The Sea Beast' with their biggest star, John Barrymore. It's probably good that Melvile wasn't around to watch the plot changes and character additions such as Ahab's brother and fiancé. In 1930 WB decided to remake the silent with Barrymore, still a big star, but whose legendary looks were beginning to fade from years of boozing which is noticeable in comparing both versions. The same plot was used but this time audiences could hear his stage-trained voice that aided his characterization in the later mad scenes. Listen for his howling when his wounded leg is treated, Besides borrowing the plot from the silent version, you can also observe ocean footage with an obviously younger Barrymore spliced into the remake since Barrymore didn't repeat the same stunts for whatever reason. Notice the difference in the projection speeds of the old and new footage. This version will appeal to Barrymore fans and as an example of an early sound film that still used silent film techniques. It's safe to say the 1930 'Moby Dick' is more of a curio than a classic. Although the Gregory Peck-John Huston version has its detractors, at least it's faithful to Melville's novel than this, I'll admit as a Barrymore fan, amusing chowder with its good production values. And 1962's 'Billy Budd' also proved that a Melville story could be done faithfully without an additional love interest and comic relief .I would love to see the German version made at the same time. Anyone know where to find it?

My wife who read Proust's works in French liked this movie. I haven't read any Proust so I was completely lost and gave up after the first hour watching the DVD. I got tired of bothering her to ask who was who and what was happening but I kept wandering back to the TV to catch parts of it. I don't recommend this film to anyone unfamiliar with the novels. Characters and events move back & forth in time and if that's not confusing enough, sometimes they appear in the past and present at the same time. She later admitted she lost interest at times and fought off dozing due to the slow pageant-like pacing. This is a demanding film that requires your absolute attention, preferably when you're not tired.

I firmly believe the French make the best costume films and this film is a perfect example. Although the handsome period sets and costumes are finely detailed, they are marred by the too dark photography during the indoor scenes. To make matters worse, the white subtitles are hard to read at times because the letters lack black borders making them impossible to read against white or light backgrounds.

The actors seemed good matches for their characters but listening to John Malkovich speak drawling phonetic French is bizarre if not funny.

Film adapted from novels should stand on their own without the viewer having to read the novel beforehand in order to follow it. 'Time Regained' is probably the best example of not being able to follow a film based on a novel, or to make it worse, several novels.

For Proust fans ONLY and those fluent in French due to the bad subtitling.