The writers have a unique opportunity to learn how to write the perfect detective. All they need is to pay attention to everything in “the Golem” was made incorrectly, and to prevent similar errors in his work. Director Juan Carlos Medina and screenwriter Jane Goldman took over the adaptation of the novel by Peter Ackroyd “the Process of Elizabeth Cree” and created, by and large, high quality “true detective” with the atmosphere of the Victorian era, appealing characters (the elderly detective and the actress is accused of poisoning her husband) and a mystery based on a series of murders in London. But, alas, it often happens that one feels a lack of imagination from the Director and screenwriter, after all, what could be ambitious and breakthrough in the format of mini-series, turned into a pile of fictional events, real historical figures, tiered layers of flashbacks and all this seasoned with a somewhat predictable denouement.
Inspector John Kerry (bill Nighy) needs to disclose high-profile series of murders in a seedy quarter of London. The detective quickly discovers that the acts of a maniac in some way connected to the case of Lizzie Cree (Olivia Cooke), a local stage actress, a suspect in the murder of her husband-playwright. John listens to the story of Lizzie, and then trying to intuitively linked her testimony with several murders that seemingly have nothing in common.
The interest of John to Lizzie immediately raises a number of questions, as he obviously no romantic feelings for her. About the biography of John nothing is known, except for some rumors about his sexuality (and what is here?). Yes, and the character, in fact, also nothing to say. Inspector Kildare is a collective image of the detective, and the collective image of the detective can conduct a typical investigation, obeying all the canons of the genre. Lizzie, as a character, much more interesting and it’s a big part of the film.
The creators of “the Golem” was not very interested in discovering characters and details the detective work. By and large, all the investigation was to drop versions and suspects, consisting of real historical persons such as Karl Marx. It is implemented in an interesting way presents a “reconstruction” of the murders, where the role of a maniac this or that character. Kind of a unique opportunity to see how the author of dialectical materialism saws off the victim’s head. Interesting approach with the Director’s point of view. But as for the scenario… first rule of detectives as soon as a participant of the theatre of crime becomes the obvious suspect, it can be safely discarded. Theory works here. Despite the list of major suspects drawn up by detective Kerry, the real culprit, the viewer is able to expose somewhere in the middle of the film.
While watching you notice that the Director relied too much on the green and blue color filters, and the lack of sunlight to give in to pessimism. But for the rest… streets of London looked familiar and neat decorations, and prostitutes/slum dwellers look like the actors. This was probably done intentionally to emphasize the theatrical theme of the story, but gets in the atmosphere. The rest (props, scenery, scenes of murder) everything is done at the level given budget constraints.
Acting. Naya continues to play a dry and cautious man, conveying the essence of his insecure character. Even more interesting, as in the role of detective Kerry would be Alan Rickman, whose memory is dedicated to “Golem”. Olivia Cooke is much more interesting. She made a very bright and interesting image. It is unfortunate that the creators have not decided what it all has to do with character or “woman in trouble”.
And yet, with all due respect to the mystery underlying the detective story, “the Golem” awful, empty film. Some ideas are at the basis of the movie, but above them do not offer counseling and the writer and his heroes declined to comment. However, the enthusiasm of Juan Carlos Medina in the genre of Thriller/detective appreciated, and Olivia Cooke with bill Nighy in the atmosphere of the slums of London do not give bored. How is it ironic that the film, which is based on obsession “of the artist” to bring his “work” to the masses, so quickly fall from memory.
6 out of 10