I certainly repeatedly enjoyed it,despite its .../daddy Hopkins is the drawback

Rating: 7/10 (10 August 2008)

Pére Hopkins looks very embarrassed with his roleone of his worst everand one of hideously bad performances, too. It's,yet,hugely funny to see him so embarrassed, and taking the wrong approach to his rolestriving to give it an inadequate depthit is _burlesquely bad! The directing, in the sense of an idea, a directorial approach, a sense of the whole, is entirely absent. The young actors are absolutely delightful to watchPitt, in an almost exquisitely playful disposition, and getting exactly the sense a fun that such a melodrama could bearvery light, playful, ambiguous touches. Hopkins wants, tries to play it straighthe understands absolutely nothing of the valences of the scripthe charges, he overdoes the role --superposing a straight but void composition on a crap script. The movie's idea is ironic, playful and of a dubious taste, somewhat underdeveloped. Hopkins brings in some Teutonic seriousness. (In fact, he looks so gentlemanly that he is perfectly fit for roles of butlers. Much less for philosophers, etc.; there's always a residuum of his butler awareness ).
Hopkins thought he was rescuing a crap fantasy, with his dignified, gloomy seriousness, a cross between ANDRONICUS and the celebrated butler --yet, it is extremely _unserious to behave like him in such a movie that stems from an entirely different principlea farcical onesit is a game, a play, Pitt got that, he acts like that, but Hopkins is sulking and will have no part in it . He spoils the movie's core. The director needed to have at least a minimal grasp of the movie's type; he has none. Hopkins needed at least a minimal understanding of his role; he has none. He is, and not only on behalf of this, a colossally bad actor. Of the De Niro league. Those unable to get the meaning of a role. Absolutely unable. Pitt,on the contrary, distinguishes himself once again as a very able actor, and extremely intuitive and, why not, even intelligent to a degree.
The script is a mess. Dare I say also a colossal one? Why would the Death give a bonus to this particular mortal? What sets him apart? Why is he not really scared by the Death's physical nearness? We were given to understand that, at 65 yrs., he still lives the emotions of a majorette ,etc., but I presume more is needed to make acceptable the idea of an old businessman taking so lightly the vicinity of Death. The old boss was, we see, tired, etc., swallowed by sloth to a degreeyet, the last man Death would need to have as guide in a journey around the world and its experiences. Frankly, Pére Hopkins looks like a boreand a deadly bore, a bore to death. None would choose him, from all, as guide.
I think the main mistake of the film is Hopkins' own mistakehe is a fabulously bad actor here . The Death needed a quick and witty oldsterthe movie is a light though melodramatic and weird comedya Lemmon, maybe, would have fit --but Hopkins ?How did they pick him? You see, Hopkins was not satisfied with a light, comic melodramahe wanted a Faustian thing, a farreaching drama, and he overplays his rolewhile everything in this movie could have been made passable only in Pitt's keyas lowbrow fun, with the degree of witty sophistication admissible in a lowbrow funny melodrama . Hopkins looks embarrassed, churning selfrighteously his scenery, and seems he believe he's in ANDRONICUS .Hey, daddy Hopkins, ever heard of light comedy (even with a grim substrate )? The substrate was supposed to be somewhat grim, not the actors' notions of their roles .And Pére Hopkins is striving towards a composition, a largescale one .
Pitt is one of the actors that I can not make my mind about yetI do not know yet if he is a good actor or not --in a sense, he seems superior to a Cruise or GereCruise, with his mechanic overplayed approachyet,he's not as immediately striking as Crowe or Spacey. It might be also that I have seen him in many fantasy rolespicturesque stuff mostly, like THE 12 MONKEYS or JOE BLACK. Or it might be also that he's better than Cruise (whose simplistic soulless mechanic overacting is misleading),but not as good as Crowe .
Like Depp, and maybe more, Pitt is an actor who's been in a lot of good or interesting or original movies; nowadays, that's quite an accomplishment. Better than Depp, Pitt has also been noticed as a reliable actor, and as a surprisingly gifted, committed and inspired performer. Besides the blockbusters and Mr. Smith crap, Pitt can be found in a quite amazing number of interesting moviesespecially of the '90s.