Where does this movie come from? A story by someone who had never done anything before, a script by a someone who'd only written one thing before it, a director who had made nothing noticeable but a fictional biography of a British painter
"The Jacket" deserves credit already for coming from somekind of darkness, and that's what gives the film an extra point. The film is an unexpected surprise; a flawed tale about the deepest fears of the human mind.
It's flawed because it could have known better and had all the elements for it. We meet Sergeant Jack Starks (Adrien Brody) when he tells us he has died, but we see him alive again. He walks through the snow and finds a little girl named Jackie and her mother Jane with their car stopped in the road. He helps them, then he asks for a lift and gets into a guy's car; a policeman stops them. Next thing we know, Jack is being accused of murder and charged innocent because of 'mental problems'. He's sent to a clinic, an institution, a hospital, call it whatever you want.
Maybe it's too much to take for a few minutes, but this is the way it happens. Later in the clinic one could think that Jack will go crazy, like Rambo crazy, because he's been in the war and all that. But this doesn't happen, and if you try to figure "The Jacket" out leaving its simplicity aside, you may arrive to a lot of different conclusions. I've seen crazy, you've seen crazy: the patients of "One flew over the cuckoo's nest", the girls in "Girl Interrupted". It's different here: craziness is rarely seen (specifically in a character played scarily by Daniel Craig) and in one point director John Maybury uses it merely as an instrument to get to a crucial part of the movie.
There's a jacket, and it will take Jack to the future so he can try to figure out what happened to him. If I have to be honest, this 'time-travel' approach seems to be the film's main preoccupation, and it works. But what's the problem? It's too easy, too convenient, too planned. Jack meets two fundamental individuals at the hospital: Dr. Becker (Kris Kristofferson he's great) and Dr. Beth Lorenson (the infallible Jennifer Jason Leigh); and he'll meet them again in the future, and they'll be surprised and you can try to guess what happens.
If you watch "The Jacket" taking only this approach into consideration, you will be entertained but you should be disappointed. That's why I looked at some other things and other movies came to mind. "The I Inside", with its intensive use of resources to leave the viewer clear that a man was going nuts and an also intensive dramatic feeling that sometimes was laughable; "The Butterfly Effect", daring and unstoppable, but more measured and truly worried about characters.
In both of those movies, the main characters travel through time, and everything seems quite frenetic. Not here: Maybury makes sure there's not an excessive use of the score or the musical supervision that may have introduced unnecessary songs; he respects silence and doesn't abuse of 'time-traveling' resources. The other key is Brody's performance: his humane composition of Jack never indicates someone about to explode. This guy stares, speaks quietly and with long pauses, seems confused and down to earth about the sort of gift he's been given.
I haven't even mentioned that while going back and forth in time, he falls in love with the same little girl (now older) he helped on the road before, Jackie, played by a stupendous Keira Knightley that grows slowly into love, delivering a performance that starts from a very deep bottom, morally speaking, and culminates between the clouds.
As I see it and said it (because the movie deserves the detailed analysis), "The Jacket" is a flawed tale about the deepest fears of the human mind, like death. Flawed because it wastes a tremendous ensemble that gives their best, flawed because it misleads the viewer with a story that's simpler than it appears to be. But its flaws contain a bid deal of optimism. "The Jacket" believes in love and is sure that death may not be so bad and scary. There's a moment during which the darkness the movie came from and took place, turns to light. It may make you smile.
It's flawed because it could have known better and had all the elements for it. We meet Sergeant Jack Starks (Adrien Brody) when he tells us he has died, but we see him alive again. He walks through the snow and finds a little girl named Jackie and her mother Jane with their car stopped in the road. He helps them, then he asks for a lift and gets into a guy's car; a policeman stops them. Next thing we know, Jack is being accused of murder and charged innocent because of 'mental problems'. He's sent to a clinic, an institution, a hospital, call it whatever you want.
Maybe it's too much to take for a few minutes, but this is the way it happens. Later in the clinic one could think that Jack will go crazy, like Rambo crazy, because he's been in the war and all that. But this doesn't happen, and if you try to figure "The Jacket" out leaving its simplicity aside, you may arrive to a lot of different conclusions. I've seen crazy, you've seen crazy: the patients of "One flew over the cuckoo's nest", the girls in "Girl Interrupted". It's different here: craziness is rarely seen (specifically in a character played scarily by Daniel Craig) and in one point director John Maybury uses it merely as an instrument to get to a crucial part of the movie.
There's a jacket, and it will take Jack to the future so he can try to figure out what happened to him. If I have to be honest, this 'time-travel' approach seems to be the film's main preoccupation, and it works. But what's the problem? It's too easy, too convenient, too planned. Jack meets two fundamental individuals at the hospital: Dr. Becker (Kris Kristofferson he's great) and Dr. Beth Lorenson (the infallible Jennifer Jason Leigh); and he'll meet them again in the future, and they'll be surprised and you can try to guess what happens.
If you watch "The Jacket" taking only this approach into consideration, you will be entertained but you should be disappointed. That's why I looked at some other things and other movies came to mind. "The I Inside", with its intensive use of resources to leave the viewer clear that a man was going nuts and an also intensive dramatic feeling that sometimes was laughable; "The Butterfly Effect", daring and unstoppable, but more measured and truly worried about characters.
In both of those movies, the main characters travel through time, and everything seems quite frenetic. Not here: Maybury makes sure there's not an excessive use of the score or the musical supervision that may have introduced unnecessary songs; he respects silence and doesn't abuse of 'time-traveling' resources. The other key is Brody's performance: his humane composition of Jack never indicates someone about to explode. This guy stares, speaks quietly and with long pauses, seems confused and down to earth about the sort of gift he's been given.
I haven't even mentioned that while going back and forth in time, he falls in love with the same little girl (now older) he helped on the road before, Jackie, played by a stupendous Keira Knightley that grows slowly into love, delivering a performance that starts from a very deep bottom, morally speaking, and culminates between the clouds.
As I see it and said it (because the movie deserves the detailed analysis), "The Jacket" is a flawed tale about the deepest fears of the human mind, like death. Flawed because it wastes a tremendous ensemble that gives their best, flawed because it misleads the viewer with a story that's simpler than it appears to be. But its flaws contain a bid deal of optimism. "The Jacket" believes in love and is sure that death may not be so bad and scary. There's a moment during which the darkness the movie came from and took place, turns to light. It may make you smile.