Rating: 
Summary: A real paradox
Review: Contrary to many views, this is not similar to Usual Suspects. In the latter film, a man concocted a story based on information he was viewing the entire time of the police interrogation. Here, while there is, similarly, an interrogation, the man being interrogated is not viewing anything at all. A more important difference has to do with the psychological basis for the events that unfold in the two different stories.Whether or not the suspect here is concocting a story should not be revealed for fear of spoiling the premise of this work--which is a real paradox. Why? While the acting here is superior--especially Hugo Weaving in the role of the man under investigation--and the premise is gripping, ultimately the rationale for the events that unfold in the police station is shown to be too banal to support the powerful theme of the story. A critical difference between the two films is that The Usual Suspects involves a spectrum of shady characters in the criminal milieu, while The Interview focuses on just one. This is important, because the opportunity for multi-layered interaction (among the criminal bunch) in Usual Suspects is present and handled very well. Here, the interaction is strictly between the suspect and the police. With that kind of restricted focus, there would have to be a much greater emphasis on the psychology of the two sides. While that is true to some extent, because this film ultimately emphasizes procedural error, the entire psychological basis is trivialized--in essence, destroyed. The trivialization and virtual elimination of the psychological basis for the mental battle between the two sides itself makes the film much less than what it could and should have been. This is really too bad, because there are some fascinating sequences. The very last scene of the suspect alone could have been a great ending, if the focus on procedural error had been replaced by something more subtle. As it is, this is a noble and failed effort.
Rating:
Summary: A real paradox
Review: Contrary to many views, this is not similar to Usual Suspects. In the latter film, a man concocted a story based on information he was viewing the entire time of the police interrogation. Here, while there is, similarly, an interrogation, the man being interrogated is not viewing anything at all. A more important difference has to do with the psychological basis for the events that unfold in the two different stories. Whether or not the suspect here is concocting a story should not be revealed for fear of spoiling the premise of this work--which is a real paradox. Why? While the acting here is superior--especially Hugo Weaving in the role of the man under investigation--and the premise is gripping, ultimately the rationale for the events that unfold in the police station is shown to be too banal to support the powerful theme of the story. A critical difference between the two films is that The Usual Suspects involves a spectrum of shady characters in the criminal milieu, while The Interview focuses on just one. This is important, because the opportunity for multi-layered interaction (among the criminal bunch) in Usual Suspects is present and handled very well. Here, the interaction is strictly between the suspect and the police. With that kind of restricted focus, there would have to be a much greater emphasis on the psychology of the two sides. While that is true to some extent, because this film ultimately emphasizes procedural error, the entire psychological basis is trivialized--in essence, destroyed. The trivialization and virtual elimination of the psychological basis for the mental battle between the two sides itself makes the film much less than what it could and should have been. This is really too bad, because there are some fascinating sequences. The very last scene of the suspect alone could have been a great ending, if the focus on procedural error had been replaced by something more subtle. As it is, this is a noble and failed effort.
Rating: 
Summary: Very Pleasing...
Review: Great acting, great film work, good pace... A must see, and see again. Classic.
Rating:
Summary: Very Pleasing...
Review: Great acting, great film work, good pace... A must see, and see again. Classic.
Rating: 
Summary: Cat and Mouse-but which is which?
Review: I had been intending to see this film for some time because I heard it was good and I am glad I finally got around to it. To review it though is a little more difficult. This movie contains a plot that slowly unfolds, revealing several twists, which I would not want to spoil for the masses. The film opens with Eddie Fleming(Hugo Weaving) sleeping on his couch when all of a sudden some police inspectors break down his door and come charging in. Eddie is so frightened he wets himself. He is then arrested, although the police refuse to tell he what is going on. They take Eddie and a couple bags of his things(that can only be assumed are some sort of evidence) to the station. The inspectors lock Eddie in an interogation room shortly before conducting what they call a "formal interview" with him. This is all I can really say about the story. Almost the entire film is centered around the interview. What I can say, however, is that despite some slow pacing this is a very well made and entertaining movie. The cinematography is very stylized. Monahan uses lots of deep focas, fish eye lens, and Dutch tilts. The lighting in the film is dark with very high contrast. All this helps the audiences sense of confusion as to why Eddie is being detained. The editing conveys the gradual unraveling of the events that have led to Eddie's arrest masterfully.
Also I would like to make a note of the casting. The actors in this movie did a very good job. The two lead characters played by Weaving and Tony Martin(Detective Steele) were very engaging at there sort of cat and mouse game during the interview. But in particular Weaving is great. American audiences know Weaving as Agent Smith from the Matrix, but what they may not know is that he is a fine character actor(see Pracilla Queen of the Desert if you don't believe me).
This film may not be for everyone. Because of it's slow pacing and totally character driven plot I am not sure I would recommend it to people who want to see action. This being said, the director has done a fine job, with a good script, and he keeps the film interesting from start to finish. Anybody who likes films that keep you guessing will get a kick out of this.
Rating:
Summary: Subtle and gripping
Review: I'm not even going to bother comparing this to "The Usual Suspects." This is not a hard-boiled movie like the aforementioned, but it does have moments of emotional release and stylized violence. Subtlety is the modus operandi in this film. Director Craig Monahan propels the cast toward a creepy conclusion that answers all lingering questions, yet leaves many avenues of debate open long after the film ends. I found "The Interview" to be a fascinating and insightful portrayal of flawed characters to whom I could relate in many cases. Hugo Weaving delivers some chilling work that Kevin Spacey could only dream of nailing with such believability. In addition to top-notch acting, the cinematography was also excellent. The variation in camera angles and film speeds was again subtle and masterful in its creation of a dark, unsteady environment. Ultimately, in my opinion, this is a movie that stays with you long after the credits roll at the end. I highly recommend it.
Rating:
Summary: Subtle and gripping
Review: I'm not even going to bother comparing this to "The Usual Suspects." This is not a hard-boiled movie like the aforementioned, but it does have moments of emotional release and stylized violence. Subtlety is the modus operandi in this film. Director Craig Monahan propels the cast toward a creepy conclusion that answers all lingering questions, yet leaves many avenues of debate open long after the film ends. I found "The Interview" to be a fascinating and insightful portrayal of flawed characters to whom I could relate in many cases. Hugo Weaving delivers some chilling work that Kevin Spacey could only dream of nailing with such believability. In addition to top-notch acting, the cinematography was also excellent. The variation in camera angles and film speeds was again subtle and masterful in its creation of a dark, unsteady environment. Ultimately, in my opinion, this is a movie that stays with you long after the credits roll at the end. I highly recommend it.
Rating:
Summary: Solid Australian film borrows from American predecessors
Review: It is probably only right that the process work both ways. American cinema gobbles up Australian talent, from Mel Gibson and Judy Davis to Russell Crowe and Nicole Kidman, so it's fair play when Australian cinema imports elements familiar to the American crime film genre. "The Interview" stars Hugo Weaving, now known to American audiences as Agent Smith in "The Matrix" and Elrond in "The Lord of the Rings" films. The movie gets off to a jarring start, reminiscent of Franz Kafka's "The Trial", as Weaving's character Fleming is arrested, dragged into the police station, and questioned with no idea if he is being accused of something or what that crime might be. From there, the film borrows elements here and there from recent American crime movies like "Internal Affairs", "The Usual Suspects", "Seven", and "Presumed Innocent". The common thread linking these films is the omnipresent theme of "The Interview" - what is the truth and how far can or will a person go to find it. A workmanlike script benefits from a talented cast, headlined by Weaving but also complimented by Tony Martin as the lead interrogator, Aaron Jeffrey as hot-headed cop Prior, and Michael Caton as a savvy beat reporter. Although many American viewers might find "The Interview" a little too overly familiar in some spots, the solid script and the skilled acting make it a worthy and recommendable film. It's smart, and it handles its territory efficiently. One technical note - as of the day of this review, the technical details of the DVD do not list it as being widescreen. For all you widescreen fanatics like myself, take heart. The film is indeed widescreen, presented in its original aspect ratio. Enjoy.
Rating:
Summary: Great Movie
Review: Okay, I lied about having seen the DVD, but I've seen it in the theater and I thought someone should get the ball rolling with a few thoughts about the movie itself. Hugo Weaving you will either remember from "Pricilla, Queen of the Desert" or "The Matrix" depending upon whether great cinematography and acting (in the first case) or expensive special effects and editing (in the second) opens your wallet at the local cineplex. Weaving gives an amazing, better-than-Oscar quality performance in this recent take on the police interrogation movie. In the opening scene his apartment is raided by some very aggressive police... gosh, if I tell you about it, it will lose all of its impact. Better not to tell. Suffice it to say that if you liked "Glengary GlenRoss", "The Trial", "Under Suspicion" and/or "The Usual Suspects", if you like to see an actor wrap himself around a role, and if you like a nice plot twist or two, buy this film. Twice.
Rating: 
Summary: Low/No Budget ...[copy] of THE USUAL SUSPECTS
Review: There's very little other than some crackling performances from the principles to keep up the interest level of watching THE INTERVIEW. The settings are all drab; the editing is relatively dull and uninteresting; and the plot is rather hard-to-follow, at first, but quickly succumbs to a surprising level of predictability for the learned moviegoer. Still, the acting remains on par with most independent features, and it does make THE INTERVIEW worth a single viewing ... but don't expect to get a call back for a second go-round. The story, however, is a virtual knock-off of THE USUAL SUSPECTS with the five suspects weaned down to a single one from the get-go. While some may find the interesting twists and turns to only pull them further and further into the story (is he guilty of murder or is he just playing hard-to-get?), I think most savvy watchers will see the film as a copycat early on and lose interest.
| 
