POSITIVES<\/span><\/p>\nI’m convinced that Tom George is an alias for Wes Anderson. I don’t say that to slight the critically acclaimed British director, but rather to commend him for emulating Anderson’s style in ways that vividly and fruitfully invigorate the latest in the murder mystery rebirth that has formed since “Murder on the Orient Express” proved that whodunnits? still have a place on the silver screen. Because of such, “See How They Run” is not only an entertaining mystery through the structure of an Agatha Christie novel, but also a substantially stylish presentation, full of vibrancy and personality that cinematically gives it an edge on its opposition. From technical masteries like side-by-side or slide-by-slide transitions, to picture perfect framing, to sudden, sharp movements of the lens, one thing is certain: George has done his homework and given the story a visual circumference that matches matters on the tonal capacities of the script that are remarkable for how they work seamlessly together. Encased inside is a quirkiness that not only breeds an air of authenticity for British romps, but also brings with a consistency for effectiveness that is cleverly materialized without ever sacrificing the stakes and sorrow of the murder at the forefront of the narrative. These moments of levity spring themselves in everything from a sensational dynamic between Rockwell and Ronan that does in fact prove that opposites attract but in a professional manner, to even the eclectic nature of the various assorted personalities, which may not always be likeable, but do a remarkable job in selling the landing of these punchlines. They are most extensively felt from that aforementioned duo, with Rockwell’s curmudgeonly aged detective and Ronan’s eager rookie constable constantly coming to blows over the direction of the case. While the former’s consistency to British accents leaves slightly more to be desired, his chemistry with the latter is the exact opposite, carving a duo of performances that not only capably maintained all of the heavy lifting of the narrative’s integral focus, but also helped solidify a duo of compelling character studies that bares more than a few unsettling ironies to the motivations of their investigation. Speaking of which, the mystery itself develops early in the opening act, and from there perseveres with various twists and turns that capably and entertainingly keeps it running to the finish line of a 93-minute run time. It helps that the pacing is tremendous throughout, but even more so that the investigation is easy to comprehend, despite the magnitude of its versatility taking us through many unique relationships and internal conflicts that shed a different shade of connection every fifteen minutes. The clues are definitely scattered throughout, rewarding attention to the importance of the dialogue, and when inflicted with a measure of magnitude and subtle nuance, distorts intention in ways that wholeheartedly manipulate the expectations of an audience who may or may not have sat through a few of these films.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
NEGATIVES<\/span><\/p>\nOne aspect of the film that I fear I will be in the minority for not appreciating is a never-ending self-awareness meant to intentionally point out the ironies and checklists of an Agatha Christie novel, and how they all run together. While this sentiment is clever if used a couple times to magnify how the characters in this film fall into the same traps, its dependency with such becomes to feel tedious at the halfway point, leading to more instances of spoiled punchlines in the sight and sound gags a lot more than necessary. I can commend the material for having the kind of personality that often refuses to not take itself too seriously, however when it leads to dialogue literally echoing what transpires two seconds later, it reaches a level of annoyance in redundancy, giving me my only criticism of a screenplay that otherwise is cloaked in cleverness. Aside from this major problem, a smaller one that I experienced pertained to the big reveal during the movie’s climax, which while unpredictable compared to who I believed was the culprit, doesn’t exactly materialize with the air of shock needed to level an audience. Part of the problem certainly lends itself to the intentional ambiguity of the characters, which leaves us little opportunity to test our theories. However, for my money, the bigger problem I feel comes from a third act McGuffin that when compared to this feels twice as monumental as what we were unfortunately left with. It’s a matter of preference, and to me the reveal has to justify the means of the mystery. Without it, the film just kind of resolves without the earth-shattering magnitude needed to surpass better contemporary films of the genre, leaving it a bit shell-shocked from previous developments that carried with them a bolder sense of statement.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
OVERALL<\/span>
\n“See How They Run” charms the pants off of its audience with Wes Anderson levels of production and corresponding personality that dips its feet into comedic waters without fully saturating the meat of its mystery. Though the deconstruction of tropes in the genre does go a bit too far, and the big reveal doesn’t stimulate substantially, the warmth of Rockwell and Ronan are simply irrefutable, giving us a cheeky British throwback procedural with all of the clues of a classic Christie novel.<\/p>\nMy Grade: 7\/10 or B-<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Directed By Tom George Starring – Saorise Ronan, Sam Rockwell, Harris Dickinson The Plot – In the West End of 1950s London, plans for a movie version of a smash-hit play come to an abrupt halt after a pivotal member of the crew is murdered. When world-weary Inspector Stoppard (Rockwell) and eager rookie Constable Stalker […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[16,21,7],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7183"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=7183"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7183\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7184,"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7183\/revisions\/7184"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=7183"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=7183"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/thefilmfreak.com\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=7183"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}