Hugely overrated

Rating: 6/10 (24 March 2003)

I despise the term overrated (partly because of its often use on IMDB) but this movie is the dictionary definition of the term. How did it win those oscars? Why it is in the top 250? I don't know.
Polanski's tribute to the holocaust is a largely pedestrian affair that suffers from a lack of style and tautness. The inclusion of many scenes in the movie is mysterious considering the fact they hold little relevance to either the holocaust or the Brody's character's story. The film therefore feels bloated and self-important. Polanski does not treat the subject matter with any opinion or style- and just shows us what happens before casually strolling onto the next scene. Polanski would argue that this is because the subject matter does not need any style or opinion added to it, which is fair enough. However the problem with this is, that it is extremely dull for the audience.
The "powerful" elements of the movie are few and far between, bluntening their impact. Also, towards the middle of the film, there seems to be a genuinely scary lack of substance and we get treated to lots of long shots contrasted with close-ups. What this is supposed to tell us, is also a mystery.
While the movie must be commended for its treatment of the subject matter and Adrien Brody's excellent performance, it feels more guided rather than directed. Its casual attitude to the violence seems mundane rather than shocking and there is nothing here that Steven Spielberg didn't do better in Schindler's List. Essentially dull, rather than powerful, only the last 45 minutes make this film memorable. 6/10