London, We Have a Problem

email this story
read comments (12)
post a comment

"Oddly bloodless," "coldly unilluminating," protagonists who "rarely emerge as living, breathing people," and a "doggedly linear approach to storytelling [that] only gets Ron Howard so far"? In Contention's Guy Lodge has delivered a fairly stiff slapdown to Frost/Nixon following a showing today at the BFI London Film Festival. I know how satisfying Peter Morgan's play and Frank Langella's Nixon performance are (or were on stage) so on one level it's puzzling. But it's not as if restrained or muted reactions haven't cropped up before.

Hard Feelings<< previous | next >>Fat Cut for Avi

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on October 15, 2008 at 9:30 AM

comment #1

p.Vice says ...

Puzzling? Hardly. The writer even acknowledges that Howard is a terrible choice for this material.

Posted by p.Vice at October 15, 2008 10:17 AM

comment #2

TigerUppercut says ...

Frost/Nixon is a complete and utter bore. No character development whatsoever. No conflict, right up until the last interview - which is the last ten minutes of the movie. This is a TV film, not a festival opener. Frank Langella pummels Michael Sheen in every scene... It's a shame because Sheen was great in Stephen Frears The Deal... as a matter of fact anytime an English actor is on-screen what little energy the film was generating is sucked straight out of the film. Howard's direction is as flat as Palin's ass and overall the film is devoid of any real emotion, energy or insight. A total waste of time. Go rent Nixon or Secret Honor.

Posted by TigerUppercut at October 15, 2008 10:45 AM

comment #3

Pelham123 says ...

Judging by the trailer, "coldly unilluminating" sounds just right.

Posted by Pelham123 at October 15, 2008 10:53 AM

comment #4

frankbooth says ...

Un film de Ron Howard is oddly bloodless and doggedly linear? Well, even the great auteurs have off days.

However, Frank Langella looks remarkably like an older version of that guy from John Badham's Dracula. It's uncanny.

Posted by frankbooth at October 15, 2008 11:20 AM

comment #5

Rich S. says ...

Damn. frankbooth beat me to it. A Ron Howard film, bloodless? The next thing you're going to tell me is that the sun rose in the east this morning.

Posted by Rich S. at October 15, 2008 11:41 AM

comment #6

K. Bowen says ...

What was the last play that really made a great conversion to the screen? They never do. That's why i'm not getting my hopes up for Doubt. Especially after a community theater version around here alerted me to the fact that its subtitle is "A Parable." Holy pretentious subtitles, Batman.

Posted by K. Bowen at October 15, 2008 12:14 PM

comment #7

drbob says ...

Why would I want to watch a dramatization of an event that was originally seen live on television? This is not like JFK where there is genuine mystery as to what actually happened. They're literally taking two actors and recreating the interviews. Why not watch the original interviews?

Posted by drbob at October 15, 2008 12:45 PM

comment #8

great scott says ...

Seems like Jeff is only reporting the bad notices and ignoring the good ones. Peter Bart in Variety saw it and called it "great cinema" and he said that Langella is unforgettable. Then again let's wait and see what Todd McCarthy writes about it.

Posted by great scott at October 15, 2008 2:04 PM

comment #9

Cadavra says ...

"Frank Langella pummels Michael Sheen in every scene..."

Dude, Langella pummels ANY actor he appears opposite. I saw him and Alan Bates on Broadway in FORTUNE'S FOOL, and even the legendary Bates had to constantly stay on his toes to keep Langella from stealing every scene out from under him.

Posted by Cadavra at October 15, 2008 3:03 PM

comment #10