Yet another grossly inflated piece of directorial and actors' self-indulgence

Rating: 3/10 (30 June 2009)

So very glad not to have spent money on this film in a cinema, but watched it only on TV. I do wish that some of today's directors and actors would immerse themselves in an intense examination of some of the Hollywood and British movies of the 1940s and 1950s to see how really to make films that are crisp and tight in direction, how the actors of those times were able to speak their lines in clear and understandable English, and that self-indulgent acts (actors) like Jack Nicholson simply were not given the time of day.
As for this film, far too much of it was devoted to scene after scene of interminable length, simply so that the director and actors could show off their alleged "skills". That was, instead of the director getting hold of the central storyline - potentially, quite good - and his actors by the scruff of the neck and stating quite clearly: okay, guys, let's really get on with this and concentrate on the core essentials of the story in as tight a manner as possible.
Instead, the whole film went on and on in a cumulative exercise of screaming tedium. And, I bet, that you wouldn't see for those old films the interminable list of continuity goofs that accompany the comments on this film on the IMDb entry!