I beg to disagree with Roger Ebert on this one. I think he is too obsessed with comparing this film to the original. Even though I didn't see the original, I can see that this film isn't supposed to be a copy, but only borrows the premise in order to develop an original, realistic and contemporary plot of its own. I can't understand Ebert when he claims that characters in a noir film should not be developed and the plot should not be realistic..?? I suppose you have to be a critic to understand that. This film "feels" like a good old movie from days past when screenplays, characterization and dialog where important, that's why I liked it, and I suppose that may not be "modern" enough for some...
I found this to be a good film, with excellent characterizations that work (finally a movie that has 'real' characters we can understand, believe in, sympathize with), a realistic plot and some very good acting (especially De Niro whom I found to be excellent once again). On a lesser note, the photography and soundtrack.
I found this to be a good film, with excellent characterizations that work (finally a movie that has 'real' characters we can understand, believe in, sympathize with), a realistic plot and some very good acting (especially De Niro whom I found to be excellent once again). On a lesser note, the photography and soundtrack.