There might be the odd mild spoiler in the next couple of paragraphs, so feel free to skip.
In it's own small way "The Bank Job" attempts the same trick that the writer James Ellroy pulled off so well in his fine novels "American Tabloid" and "The Cold Six Thousand". That is, to weave a connected narrative from matters of public record (the Baker Street Walkie-Talkie heist and subsequent D-Notice, the disgrace of certain Conservative government ministers due to sex scandals and the fall of the criminal Michael X) and public rumour (the indiscretions of Princess Margaret, the involvement of Lord Louis Mountbatten in British intelligence operations and the true extent of police corruption and involvement with certain London based porn barons of the early seventies). It works, kind of. The problem with "The Bank Job" is that it takes too long to get going.
During the first half of "The Bank Job" there is a definite whiff of seen-it-all-before ennui. The job is instigated, the team is assembled, the job is pulled. Pretty unrealistic, so-so, anaemic stuff, frankly, with variable acting. (Whoever told Saffron Burrows that she can do 'cockney'?)
Then suddenly, during the second half, writers Dick Clement and Ian La Frenais rediscover the form they had when they wrote the brilliant early 70's Richard Burton vehicle "Villain", and "The Bank Job" becomes really entertaining, gritty, seedy, violent, fast moving and complex. Shame it wasn't like that from the start.
Nice, slightly out of character performance by Jason Statham, who only has one real 'hardman' moment. Fun, extended cameos from a galaxy of jobbing British character actors. Peter Bowles, Keeley Hawes and David Suchet, amongst others. See if you can spot Colin Salmon. I didn't even realise he was in the movie until I read the credits.
In retrospect, probably a missed opportunity, and it should have been better, but "The Bank Job" is still worth seeing if you have the patience to stick with it. It does get better as it goes along.
********
I have a cold. (Coughs.)
6 comments:
I think the trailer was good in not saying who the implicated Royal was.
Thanks to the one bit of "The Richard and Judy Show" I saw, I now know the story, so won't be going to watch it at the cinema.
I think Richard and Judy should stick to their book club.
Not that I watch them all the time.
Because I don't.
I'm glad you commented on my blog...I was curious where you'd run off to, but didn't have your email address. Hope you are feeling better soon!
threelight: Richard Madeley, a true cock, but don't let it put you off the movie. As I said, disappointing first half, but the second half is really good.
j: Always intended to. It has just taken a week.
interesting - there is a review in "the new yorker" and it sounded worth seeing - they also said that an american would have a different perception of the film, not having familiarity with some of the past news/gossip that feeds the plot. but they said that it still works, just in a different way.
welcome back!
medusa: You should see it.
As I always say, never take any notice of any of my thoughts on a movie. What do I know? I know nothing.
Well, now I've seen it, and I have to say that I did feel a bit lost, not having much familiarity with the "back story" of some of these public figures. I did figure most of it out by the end, but wasn't ever really clear on who the various intelligence agencies were (M5? 6?) or how they are viewed differently or what kind of reputation they have that they bring to the film.
Otherwise, it was okay.
Post a Comment