Leave a comment

Comments 2

(The comment has been removed)

fatpie42 October 18 2013, 23:24:52 UTC
Surprisingly good or not particularly impressive, which is it?

Both.

"Surprisingly good for Richard Gere" and "not particularly impressive" are not mutually exclusive unless you generally think of Gere as a great actor; which I don't.

I'm a bit tired of Gere these days but he suited this role well for me...

Yeah, I don't think he needed to be that amazing to give us what was required for the role here. He kind of suits it. But I think the main reason to remain interested is because whether he succeeds or fails has an affect on other more sympathetic characters around him.

Reply

(The comment has been removed)

fatpie42 October 19 2013, 09:57:52 UTC
Even though the role was a fit for Gere and it wasn't like some brilliant understated performance, it just worked with the way he tends to be...? If that makes sense.

That sums it up pretty well. I think that's at least as clear as anything I wrote. :)

It's a pretty good film, but I think simply by virtue of the subject matter it was going to need to be incredible for me to really rave about it. For me it was just plain 'good' and so that's how I rated it. But with Gere in the leading role I had been sceptical going in, so it was certainly better than I'd expected.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up