Titreenp SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

Palaest recommended

Huievest Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

Merolliv I really wanted to like this movie. I feel terribly cynical trashing it, and that's why I'm giving it a middling 5. Actually, I'm giving it a 5 because there were some superb performances.

Chrysanthepop One of the most outstanding elements about Roman Polanski's films is the tension in atmosphere and between the characters. The director has consistently succeeded in drawing the viewer by creating tension. Moreover, his use of dark themes and the lesser known add further appeal. After all, who isn't curious about the dark? Polanski also makes full use of what he's got, starting from the cast to the most basic of props. 95% of 'Death and the Maiden' was shot consecutively (in accordance with the script) which couldn't have been an easy thing to do if time and money are constraints. The film only has three actors and each one performs superbly. Ben Kingsley's disturbing and chilling portrayal of a sleazy sadistic doctor lingers in mind. Stuart Wilson is brilliant as the ambivalent lawyer torn between his beliefs. This is also a pleasant turn from the villainous characters he's more famous for. Sigourney Weaver is spellbinding as the former prisoner who finally gets the opportunity to seek her own justice. Polanski tactfully brings forth political and psychological issues without preaching to the audience.some minor flawed issues were the lighting. I felt it was too strong in places (where the only source of light was candles). It looks like there was some poor green screen filtering in a few of the outdoor scenes even though I don't think a green screen was used. However, these faults are too minor when viewing the film as a whole.'Death and the Maiden'is a simple but engaging and haunting story told through the perspective of three complex characters. It's one of Polanski's finest.

tedg Films like this generally are problematic. They are written as plays and kept as plays when carried over, so the filmmaker is limited to a preset notion of the space."Rope" was taken as a challenge in this regard, with a master visionary exploiting the confinement. It was, in effect, a learning experience for him without much reward for us, beyond what the play itself carried. Here in this film, we have something similar I believe. Polanski is a rare talent, a filmmaker that understands confinement — indeed his whole life is defined by the concept. He was approached to direct-for-hire and took the job, I believe, because he wanted a similar learning experience.So what we have here is a screenplay that was frozen before the man started his film and which he has taken unaltered. Someone else selected the actors, making what I think were bad choices. On this, Polanski designed the eye, making what I see as a whole different movie on top of the play.The play is about a woman who had been victimized by state torture. She believes she has encountered her torturer; the film is about the encounter and the extent to which you can trust her narrative or the accused. Her husband presides; he is literally a lawyer selected by the new president to sort out just these sorts of conflicting truths. The question is: will the accused confess? Well he does before the film is over, but was his confession true? Neither one of these two gives us much reason to trust them as characters. They both are liars. What Polanski does is subtly more the stance of the camera so that we alternate between who is the narrator so far as the lines compared to who is the aligned watcher and whose narrative space is tentatively trusted. It is a remarkable exercise, of just the kind that he would devour.I believe he used these skills in a similar weave of untrusted narrative in his next film, "Gate," which I think is an unappreciated masterpiece. But unless you happen to be tuned into this movie on a movie, this narrative about narrative, you will find this a pretty tame encounter.Unless you happen to live in a country that sponsors torture.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

moviesleuth2 We hear about it all the time; people have been harmed in the most unspeakable ways, causing pain that most of us cannot begin to even imagine. If this happened to you, what would you do if the person who hurt you walked into your house? This kind of moral quagmire has been approached before in films. Many times, in fact. The torture angle is new though. Unfortunately, that's all that's new about this story.But this is the situation that one woman, Paulina Escobar (Sigourney Weaver), an ex-activist who was horrifically tortured in order to give up the name of a fellow activist (who later became her husband), finds herself in, when a man (Ben Kingsley) is invited into their home after helping her husband (Stuart Wilson). She is convinced that this man, Dr. Miranda, is the one who brutalized her. He denies it, of course. And her husband, now a high-powered lawyer, is caught in the middle.This film could have gone in two opposite directions: a high-powered, claustrophobic thriller or a leadened message movie. Fortunately, it's not the latter (no one is going to mistake this movie for a UNICEF infomercial), but sadly, it's not the former either. It's somewhere in the middle. There are moments of where it works, but overall it's pretty boring.Part of the reason is that the most important part is miscast. Sigourney Weaver is a good actress, but she's not right for this role. She has moments of effectiveness (Weaver is good at being vulnerable), but when she tries to act menacing, she's awful. Ben Kingsley is terrific, though, as the may-or-may not be torturer. He keeps us on our toes, and we never know whether or not he's innocent. Noted character actor Stuart Wilson is actually able to keep up with the Oscar-winner and Oscar-nominee.The problem isn't necessarily with Roman Polanski's approach. "Death and the Maiden" is heavy on the atmosphere, although it could have used some more claustrophobia to increase the tension. The problem is that the script, based on the play, is rather bland. There's nothing that really draws us into the story, and it doesn't take any risks. Thus what could have been a powerful and provocative drama or thriller (take your pick) becomes inert.It's not a total waste; the film effectively keeps us guessing who's telling the truth. But the suspense isn't there, even though it has plenty of opportunity to build. However, the ending of the film is horrible. What happens not only doesn't make sense, it's actually more than slightly reprehensible.This isn't a bad film, just a wasted opportunity.

pwpw63 I've seen this twice and the impact was no less the second time. It's a story about power, the abuse of it, the search for justice and relationships. I'm in awe of Weaver's acting ability. Yes, it's a great role but she makes it that. She is a queen in my opinion; she mesmerizes. And the interplay between the three actors is such that even though there are moments when it is difficult to continue watching, you cannot look away.This film shows some very real glimpses into the worst of our human nature and the deepest part of who we are in our quest for peace and resolution.