MovieChat Forums > The Crying Game (1993) Discussion > Am I the only person who thought this wa...

Am I the only person who thought this was a very average film?

posted 17 years ago by Mylo_Milk
16 replies | jump to latest

I don't normally find myself in a position so far off the general consensus of reviewers and critics regarding a film. Sometimes I think a film is not quite as good as they consider it to be, and sometimes I think one is much better, but I am just at a loss to understand why this film was so widely praised - it's got a 100% fresh rating at rottentomatoes.com!!! That means not ONE SINGLE negative review!

I saw it for the first time last night. All I really knew about 'The Crying Game' was that it was a big deal in its hey-day, nominated for several awards and supposed to be pretty good. I was not aware there was a 'twist' in the plot, and nor did I pick up on it before *that* scene. The successful pulling off of that surprise, and the performance by Stephen Rea, are the only positive things I can concede to. The rest, I thought, was rubbish.

Especially Forest Whitaker's performance (was that a serious attempt at an English accent? I couldn't figure out what the hell he was supposed to be - it was only in the scenes where he'd been kidnapped by the IRA and they explicitly made that clear that I could figure out he was a British soldier), and Miranda Richardson's efforts - mainly at the end when she was donning her brown bob wig and trying in vain to look tough with that gun... it was like some low budget spy flick. I couldn't take her seriously.

Just wondering whether anyone else out there feels the same way... or whether I've just totally missed the point?

[–] kellyannekanye 9 years ago

You're not the only one. I found myself skipping through half of the movie, especially the development of his relationship with Dill. I did like Miranda Richardson's exaggerated acting, though. You weren't supposed to take her seriously.

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] boogles 8 years ago

Good points of the film :-

that it starts off as a sort of thriller/IRA kidnap story - but then veers off into a sort of adult drama.

Stephen Rea's performance as Fergus. I have sort of criticised him for this in the past - but, I admit after a recent re-watch, it's quite good. Nicely underplayed - and also good chemistry with the other actors(Davidson, Richardson, Dubar, etc.).

I sort of appreciate it's trying to do something different and not be a cookie cutter movie.

Good performance from Davidson. The "twist" is sort of a side issue as far as I'm concerned. This film is more a sort of love story - but, only Dil sort of falls for men who are heterosexual.

Bad points of the film :-

It didn't save Palace Pictures! :-(

I did sort of think that perhaps Whitaker was miscast. Okay, some of his stuff was dramatic - when he and Fergus are talking(Rea) - but other times I did think he seemed out of place in the film.

Some of the scenes were a bit pretentious(the stuff with the cricket).

Overall, whilst I'll admit the film has its moments and okay, it is interesting in places - I do sort of feel that it isn't quite the sum of all its parts. Like I said, I appreciate they tried to do something original - but I don't think it quite lives up to the hype.

I actually prefer Jordan's "Mona Lisa" to this film. I think that is the better film.

[–] mam_388 8 years ago

you are not alone , pointless movie

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 5 years ago

No, it was just meh.

😎