Back to Sam's Corner
Back to the Reviews
THE
INTERVIEW
Released:
1998
Running
Time: 103 minutes
Rating:
Unrated. Most likely R
Cast:
Hugo Weaving, Tony Martin, Aaron Jeffrey, Michael Caton
![](../_themes/gojira/citsepa.gif)
I saw this film on a clearance
rack in the movie section of a store, and seeing that it had Hugo Weaving of
Lord of the Rings and Matrix fame I was intrigued enough to buy it. The front of
the box said, “Winner of best film in
Australia
, and Best Actor Hugo
Weaving”. Naturally with a great actor in it and those kinds of credentials it
was destined to be a great film, right? RIGHT?
Wrong.
This film had no rating on
the box, but I suspected reading the story on the back that it would at least
have some language and perhaps a little violence. Well, it did, but let me first
tell the general story to better frame my disliking of this film.
Eddie Flemming (Weaving), a
middle aged man who has lost his job and his wife is suddenly snatched from his
apartment at an ungodly hour of the morning by the police, who come in with no
warrant and no respect…they beat him up, they yell at him, and without an
explanation of what he’s been accused of they take him to the station for
questioning. Upon arriving he discovers that he is being questioned in relating
to the theft of a station wagon, and is presented with unsubstantial proof that
he was the one who stole it.
Eddie denies the charges,
protests his treatment and asks for some food but the police ignore his pleas of
innocence, continue probing and asking more questions and brush aside each
request for a meal with no concern for the man. Their process of interrogation,
called an “interview” in
Australia
, lasts many hours and finally
Eddie is allowed a call to his lawyer.
As the interview continues, the Detective investigating the case,
named Steele (Martin), continually pounds on Flemming and tries to make him
sweat and confess to the crime by presenting new evidence, supposedly linking
him to the crime without a doubt. He accuses Flemming of forging papers to get
legal possession of the car, despite the fact that Flemming does not presently
own a vehicle. The detective even goes as far as to suspect Flemming based upon
a joyride with a stolen vehicle that the man stole at the age of 15.
All of this stress, the police pressing him harder, not being given food
for hours, and his desperation to get out causes Flemming to finally confess to
not only stealing the car, but of killing the man he took it from, as well as a
dozen or so other murders. He ridicules the police for always thinking that
murder is caused by some sort of motive, or purpose, when he argues that he just
killed all of those people for no reason at all…he just did it, flat and
simple.
Of course now the cops are delighted because they have the man’s
confession taped and recorded, and they think that it’s an open and shut case.
However, when the Chief detective is brought in later to question Flemming
himself, Flemming admits to making the murder story up so that the police would
give him some food, and as he put it, “I was just giving them what they
wanted! They wouldn’t be satisfied until I confessed to anything that would
make me guilty.”
This obviously infuriates the
cops, who have no leg to stand on because in the course of their investigation
they treated the man very inhumanly, everything from verbal insults to attacks
on his character and as mentioned physical violence. Flemming claims he was
forced to say something or he did not know how he would be treated, or how long
they would continue to persecute him. All of the investigators have been
recorded as well, so there is proof that they have been abusing him for
information.
With no right to hold him any longer, the police release Flemming and
Detective Steele, knowing he messed things up badly, remains convinced that they
just released a serial killer onto the streets.
This was ( from a
suspense/detective fan’s point of view) an incredible film, as far as story,
characters, plot twists, and many other factors. Hugo Weaving made the best
performance I have ever seen him in, and for that alone it was worth seeing. The
problem came in with the language and the dialogue. This film had more than 30 F
words, many Christs, and a slew of other words. That alone makes it very
unpleasant to watch. The language is so obscene sometimes that it completely
takes your mind off of the story, and that really sucks.
The story in itself was
fascinating, and being the Hitchcock fan that I am it was fun on that level,
even if it was dark. Again, this is a film that I really liked, and could have
really loved, but for the simple fact of all the language it is simply
unbearable sometimes. It’s a shame, but I can’t say I’m surprised. The
argument could be made that one hears this kind of language any given time in
your average high school, but that’s the point from my POV…I don’t WANT my
movies to sound like the average valley girl, Joe jock strap or, in this case,
the average Australian police detective.
I do not recommend this film
at all, unless you can get your hands on an edited copy more fit for the cleaner
audience. If even HALF of the language could be cut out, this would be a good
film to watch for the sake of the fascinating story and the awesome
performances, but if not, and if you have scruples, I wouldn’t waste my time.
Story:
![](images/samrate.jpg)
![](images/samrate.jpg)
![](images/samrate.jpg)
Incredibly
fascinating story, with many fun twists and turns. If you like NYPD Blue or any
TV police series this film is for you.
Acting:
![](images/samrate.jpg)
![](images/samrate.jpg)
1/2 Hugo Weaving is the man. This is his best performance I’ve
seen him do, and probably his best ever if it got him the Aussie equivalent of a
Best Actor Oscar.
Special effects:
Nothing to name, save for a flashback from Weaving
that includes images of ghostly specters.
Language:
![](images/samrate.jpg)
![](images/samrate.jpg)
![](images/samrate.jpg)
![](images/samrate.jpg)
Hoo doggy, this is the category that sends the whole film
into the crapper. Far too many words to count in a single sitting, and I
wouldn’t want to try. And while this doesn’t fall under the language
category exactly, there is also a birdie finger in one scene.
Sexual content:
![](images/samrate.jpg)
![](images/samrate.jpg)
In the form of crude references and descriptions of other
people.
Heart enlightenment factor: 0 Not a film meant in any way, shape or form
to be happy about, unless listening to murder stuff and descriptions of death
gives you a buzz. Sicko.
Soundtrack: ![](images/samrate.jpg)
![](images/samrate.jpg)
A very good element of the movie, actually. The themes were
very good for the movie.
Overall:
1/2 Despite its many bad qualities, credit must be given
for the good story and characters, but not much else. Watch at your own risk
though.