The Commissioner (1998)

Plenty to Like, Plenty to Dislike

everything you have heard about this movie is true.

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

The story, direction, characters, and writing/dialogue is akin to taking a tranquilizer shot to the neck, but everything else was so well done.

Poor editing/directing, muddled scenes that go nowhere, and a long drawn out plot that doesn't really go anywhere by the end of the story ruined what could otherwise have been a good taut thriller with otherwise decent actors trying to do their best.The actors saved it from being absolutely horrible.It took far too long to establish the beginning of the plot and the middle part of the film was muddled and incoherent.The last third of the film was OK, but the film suffers from an incomplete ending.This strikes me as a TV movie of the week that suffered from either a limited budget or too short of a production period.

This film has a lot going for it - it has a good cast, an interesting director, and an offbeat theme. But the result is no better than an average TV movie, maybe slightly worse. I suspect Stanley Johnson's source novel wasn't quite so bland as this by the numbers conspiracy tale in which all the bad guys are one-dimensional, and shadowy figures are constantly bumping off inconvenient characters without the police or press having much to say. There's the usual crusading journalist, who is brought in to report some internet research he's done but nobody else thought to do to advance the plot. And what a strange plot too: the Euro industry commissioner becomes a patsy in a business war, engineering a chain of events that leads to the near destruction of the European chemical industry, with the impression given this is somehow heroic rather than an enormous error, caused it seems by his naivety. On the way to this point, there's a lot of rotten dialogue that seems the stamp of these co-productions; somebody actually says the following: "I have no doubt that recent events have proved beyond any doubt that...". It would have been good to explain somewhere what a European commissioner is and what he does, since there's no evidence the hero does anything but work on this one issue and tell his secretary to tell a phone caller that he'll call back. A somewhat ill worked out subplot regarding the hero's relationship with his wife and a sexy fellow commissioner is daffy because from early in the film Morton is portrayed as a serial womaniser. It's not really clear whether he falls in love with the other commissioner or what she sees in him, and the wife very conveniently disappears from the scene. The whole thing seems very poorly made: the camera seems to repeatedly be on the wrong person, music swelling up at the wrong times, dialogue often inaudible, clear continuity howlers, etc. It's not often you notice the costume designer, but I found the use of scarves very over the top. I also thought it was needlessly slow: at one point Morton asks someone if they want a drink, then the camera watches him disappear out the room while he makes it, brings it back and gives it to her...John Hurt is poor casting for the key role - his James Morton doesn't seem a good or creative administrator, he's not sexy, a bit old school Tory in his attitudes particularly towards women to be successful in Europe, and rather petulant when things go wrong. He only seems to come alive when he's screaming and swearing at someone - he is admittedly very good at that. He's not the only strange casting: one wonders whose idea it was to have Alice Krige pretending to be American, presumably for the US market, or Alan MacNaughton as a German - both very good actors but British. But Morton should have been a career politician who finds himself becoming committed to a cause, discovering integrity, and repairing or clarifying his relationship with his wife - without this central arc the film is lifeless, and it's not clear whether Morton is any different at the end of the film than the beginning.The whole thing was made in Britain, Germany and Belgium. It must have been a good few months work for all concerned.

This film's subject matter may be more worthwhile than average - let's face it, the institutions of the European Union need all the PR they can get - but that doesn't make up for the unlikely plot twists, unsubtle (cliched, even) characters and the feeling that this is only the first part of a bigger story. The viewer is likely to feel unsatisfied because different elements aren't connected well; for example, the film begins with a very dramatic scene but this turns out not to be the real climax, only one of a series of dramatic events. The nature of the relationships between John Hurt's character and other characters, such as his wife, his lover, the prime minister and the journalist, is not shown in a way that reveals how it is relevant to the plot.John Hurt is always watchable and it's just a shame that this partly-realized story provides the viewer with only the odd glimpse of what his character could be; a determined, morally decent (but flawed) man prepared to bring the world down around him for the sake of justice.

For me, this is one of those films that you start watching and half an hour later, wonder if you should watch or do something else. But I stuck with and found it "so-so" viewing. John Hurt played his role well as did Mueller-Stahl (he was great in "Shine"). The plot takes a few unexpected twists that I did not foresee. However, what disappointed me was the predictability of some parts of the story (e.g. the fate of some characters), the superficiality of some of the characters' interrelationships, and the generally cheap look and feel of the production. A pet hate was the stereotyped Texan businessman in a Stetson - also poorly acted. The movie lacked a certain flow and left some issues hanging unnecessarily. Anyway, see for yourself.