Visitors Review

Spaceygirl (2012-05-25 02:27)

Quietly wonderful

The Quiet American is an unassuming little film, compelling some people tothink that its boring. It is, in fact, anything but boring. It tells thetale of a woman caught between two men, which in itself is merely a plotcontrivance comparing Vietnam to a woman caught between two lovers. In fact,the script has one of the main characters explaining this veryfact.The acting is outstanding - Michael Caine is in top-form and Brendan Fraserdelivers a career-best performance. The two main leads are so believablethat the lines between "good guy" and "bad guy" are blurred. All we're leftwith are two flawed characters trying to make the best of a bad situationwhich they find themselves in. They're both such gentlemen that one finds oneself empathising with eachcharacter which is extraordinary in an age where movies clearly define the"good guy" and the villain.An outstanding film, one that I can wholeheartedly recommend.

Philby-3 (2012-05-24 10:45)

not Vietnam but Greeneland

Leaving aside the historical baggage, this is a pretty good film in its ownright. Because it is closer to Graham Greene's original novel it has more ofits defects eg the weak portrayal of some of the Vietnamese characters,particularly the doll-like Phuong, who becomes both Fowler and Pyle's lover,and the rather melodramatic plot, recycled from one of Greene's earlynovels. But Michael Caine as the cynical old English journalist Fowler andBrendan Fraser as the idealistic and ruthless American Pyle are a greatpairing and will hold your attention throughout.Michael Caine is often accused of always being the same in his movies. Here,his Fowler has a touch of the Billingsgate accent, but Caine gives us such acareful and measured performance that the man from Billingsgate really doesseem to be the Saigon correspondent of that pillar of the Englishestablishment, `The Times.' Brendan Fraser's previous record as a portrayerof buffoons (George of the Jungle etc) is cast aside, and he looks andsounds exactly right as the crusading and ultimately dangerous Pyle.Incidentally, Pyle is not based on Colonel Ed Lansdale, who had not been toVietnam by the time Greene visited. Although some characteristics are takenfrom people Greene met, Pyle is a true literary creation, and all the moreuniversal for it. If you want to understand the name, think `pain in thebum.' I also liked Tzi Ma as Fowler's assistant Hinh, he with the contactsin some pretty scary places. He has one of the best lines in the movie: `Youbecome human when you decide what side you are on.'The `end of an era' atmosphere is terrific – the House of 500 Women, thetaxi-dancing club, the twittering French and American wives in the verandahcafe of the Hotel Continental, the glistening harbour at night. Phil Noycegot full co-operation from the present Vietnamese government (and used alarge skilled Vietnamese crew) and the location shooting is all one couldwish for. The death and destruction portrayed is gut-wrenchinglyrealistic.I read somewhere that Phil Noyce claims the only book available for sale inthe Ho Chi Minh museum in Hanoi apart from Ho's autobiography is `the QuietAmerican.' The irony here is that Greene did indeed manage to interview Hofor the `Sunday Times' in the early 1950s but he also sent a full report onthe encounter to his old employers, MI6. Greene's sympathies tended to be alittle divided. If you wish to explore Greeneland a little further Irecommend Michael Shelden's `The Man Within' Heinemann 1994. If you justwant an engrossing and intriguing story this film has it.

Rockwell_Cronenberg (2012-05-23 16:55)

A solid political and romantic thriller.

Phillip Noyce's The Quiet American plays into his wheelhouse as apolitical thriller, but the more interesting aspect of it (on paper) isthe love story centered at the middle of it. It's adapted from theGraham Greene novel of the same name and it feels as though it comesfrom another era. Taking place in Saigon in 1952, on the brink of theVietnam War, the whole thing has this intriguing neo-noir tone as itboils down in the Vietnamese heat. We center on Thomas Fowler (MichaelCaine), a British reporter living in Saigon with Phuong (Do Thi HaiYen), his extramarital lover, when an American named Alden Pyle(Brendan Fraser) comes into their lives and shakes everything up. Thetwo begin a classic game of vying for Phuong's affection, with acountry falling apart in the background.It's an interesting set up and I think that Noyce was able to establishthe perfect tone for it, feeling like the kind of noir romanticthriller that would have come right out of the time period. The runningtime is brief, clocking in at almost exactly 90 minutes, and so hedoesn't waste any scenes, with each one providing something necessaryfor either plot progression or character development. It flies by at asmooth pace, never getting ahead of it's audience but never dragging orfeeling like it's pandering either.Michael Caine guides the film as someone with his skill was born to do,taking the whole thing in his grasp and commanding every moment of it.He's in almost every scene and his presence was what drove the film themost, crafting a rich and empathetic character despite his seeminglydetached emotional position when it comes to the political conflicts athand. It's ultimately a story of a lost man, lost in country and inhimself, having to look inside himself and discover the things thatmatter to him. There's a lot of development for his characterthroughout the picture and as we get into the final act it'sfascinating to watch Caine unravel and peel back the layers of thisman. It's the kind of performance from a veteran actor where you cantruly feel the decades of this man's life being worn on everyexpression he makes and the way he holds himself. A very strong workfrom him, that unfortunately isn't quite matched by Fraser or Yen.Brendan Fraser does his best but he's just not a deep enough actor tohandle the complexities of Pyle, although when the character isintroduced as a naive piece of wood he fits the part to a tee. Yen isprobably the biggest detractor of the film, because thanks to herdreadfully flat performance the whole romance angle doesn't work theway that it should have. Caine lifts the project up and Noyce does agood job of bleeding together the romantic plot with the largerpolitical scope of it, but her performance drags it down a bit andkills a lot of the romance angle. Still, definitely a quality filmoverall thanks to a tremendous performance and some fine writing anddirecting.

bobbylabonte18 (2012-05-23 07:19)

The Quiet American: A Lesson in Fine Acting by Caine and Company

When I first saw this film, two thoughts hit me, all the acting in thisfilm is masterful and the second is that these are the types ofthrillers Hollywood should make but fails to try to even find moviessuch as this a wide studio release and it way to become a hit. Some ofthe acting in this film is some of the best I have seen in a longwhile, Michael Caine gives what I think is his best performance since1971's Get Carter and this along with The Cider House Rules rank amonghis best work. For his co-stars, Brendan Fraser gives his bestperformance at this point in his career. The plot itself does play amajor part in this film but I could go for a plot less movie if it onlyhad this type of acting, if a normal thriller or even romantic moviehad this acting all the time, they could become major hits andcritically praised. Not only for it's plot and acting, along with manyother great things in this film, you must see "The Quiet American".

Duree (2012-05-22 06:23)

Not a masterpiece, but important

(Minor Spoilers)This is a very respectable adaption of Graham Greene's terrific book. Iread the book while actually in Saigon and I have to say that no film caneven begin to match the experience of reading that haunting novel whilehaving the sights, sounds, smells of Saigon all around to kick one'simaginative faculties into high gear. One gets to have the sensualexperience as well as Greene's unblunted prophetic intelligence all in onego.This film is not bad as a second choice, however. Caine's performance,while not exactly Oscar material (i.e., the calibre of great artistes suchas Halle "Big Boob Bond Babe" Barry), is still highly accomplished asacting, if anybody still cares about that rather moribund craft. BrendanFraser masterfully handles the transition from well-meaning oaf toduplicitious covert operative. While this film doesn't earn any especiallyhigh marks as cinema (I was rather disappointed by the lacklustercinematography of Chris Doyle, from whom one would expect a little bitmore), it does have the merit of being very faithful to Greene's veryimportant (now more than ever) text.I fail to understand why Miramax is so terrified of putting this film intogeneral release. They only put it into limited release (a two week run inLA and NY) because Caine put pressure on them so that he would have shot atan Oscar. It's amazing the degree to which media self-censorship hasprogressed. When Greene's book was released in the mid-fifties in theStates (the mid-fifties! Remember, that supposedly oppressive time?) itactually became a best seller, and the book is far more critical of the USthan this film is. I went to see a Wednesday night showing of the film inTimes Square in a medium-sized auditorium that was practically filled. Manypeople WANT to see this film. Harvey Weinstein says the film is"unpatriotic." Gee, why didn't he think of that when he bought it, wellbefore Sept. 11? What, did Donald Rumsfeld call and threaten to bust hiskneecaps? Right now voices like that represented by this film need to beinjected into the (currently nonexistent) public debate on US foreign policyand intervention. The only people who will hear THIS particular voice now,however, are those who live in NY or LA and have the presence of mind to runout and see it before it's unceremoniously yanked. Everyone else will haveto wait until it comes out on video (too little, too late).

grumpy-3 (2012-05-21 20:25)

doesn't quite pull it off

It is very commendable that someone should attempt this film, taken from agreat book by Graham Greene, who foresaw and warned of America's futileinvolvement in Vietnam. The book was first filmed in 1958 by the greatJoseph Mankiewicz, who much to Greene's displeasure reversed the basicpremise in the characters of the British journalist and the American dogooder. In this remake they stick to the book, which has the "quietamerican" in fact be an undercover agent supporting a despot general. Atimely film to remind people of interventionist policies. It is a shametherefore to have to say that the film is served by a poor script, not evennear the class of the 58 version, and a very miscast Michael Caine, eventhough he was made to be the baddie of the piece, Michael Redgrave'sperformance as the jaded, cynical and world weary journalist had such pathosand emotion you really did feel for him. Still by today's standard, thisfilm is to be welcomed as it does cover grown up themes, alongside thepolitical element the story follows the love triangle, between the two menand an elegant and beautiful Vietnamese woman. The very criticallyunderrated Brendan Fraser is equal to maybe even better than Audie Murphy inthe original. Ian Mcekellan would have been a better choice forFowler.

angelofvic (2012-05-19 14:07)

A Feast for the Eyes

This is a visually gorgeous movie. I liked it a lot, particularlybecause of its stunning beauty and the fact that it took me to a timeand exotic place I very rarely see: beautiful, colonial 1950'sSoutheast Asia. The art direction, cinematography, costumes, interiorsand exteriors were gorgeous, not to mention the beauty of Phuong (theVietnamese woman) and Brendan Fraser themselves. A visual feast.I didn't consider it an absolutely perfect movie while I was watchingit, but I certainly was quite happy to follow along and be mesmerizedby it.In terms of what wasn't absolutely perfection to me (you can skip thisparagraph if you haven't seen the film; these are pretty minor): I hada bit of a hard time believing that two such intensive rivals for thesame woman could be civil to each other, let alone be friends. Also,they often seemed to speak of her as if she were merely an object theycoveted -- that is, without passion or realism. I also didn't quite"buy" the Englishman Fowler's final decision regarding the American,Pyle (I'm trying not to spoil anything here); his jumble of mixedmotivations still didn't add up to a particularly realistic decision inmy mind, given what the film had given us thus far. I also personallydidn't like the fact that the opening scene gives away the end. Thisvery quiet film would have been much more suspenseful without thatinformation, in my opinion; yet others consider it valuable to theviewer's involvement while watching the film.I did like the mystery and the political intrigue. Also, the moviesheds its own quiet light on the beginnings of the Vietnam conflict, sothat's quite nice. It gives a shrewd insight into the extent of theAmerican involvement with, and instigation of, the beginnings of theconflict in Vietnam. Plus it's a movie that makes you think afterwards.Did Pyle's insinuation of himself between Phuong (who can symbolizeVietnam) and Fowler symbolize the American's insinuation into thepolitics and fate of Vietnam?In terms of Caine and Fraser, I definitely enjoyed both of them,although there was also a very tiny moment with each of them in which Ilost my credulity. I don't know if this was due to acting, or thelimits of the script, or the extremely quiet tone that the director setfor the entire movie. The final speech by Fraser is delivered in a bitof a monotone, which was odd, but maybe that was to reveal that therewere things he was hiding.But all in all, I was happy with Caine and Fraser. I really felt itwhen Caine discovers Phuong's things missing, and I really felt forFraser when he was in trouble, so they definitely both got way under myskin. But my eyes were honestly all for Phuong, who I thought stole theshow. Then again, we don't get to see many gorgeous, beautifullycostumed Southeast Asian women on film.All in all, an enjoyable cinematic experience that was fulfilling andwell worth my time. Visually stunning, enchantingly exotic, andhistorically incisive.

gromit-17 (2012-05-19 05:12)

A movie almost too quiet!

For some reasons, I consider this movie an odd movie. It's sort of out ofplace. The story, the cast (Brendan Fraser is a mid-cast), the atmosphereand the focus... and so on. I finally realized that it's just not a verygood movie to start with. Michael Caine is amazing though. To be honest,he's not much to look at, and the character he portrays is pathetic. Butwhenever he is on the screen, I can't turn my eyes away from him. His actingis so subtle, minimalist yet mesmerizing. But other than that, there's notmuch meat in this movie. All Vietnamese characters are so flat. You see thembut never understand what's on their mind.

caa821 (2012-05-17 02:02)

Disappointing and mediocre

I missed this film when it was released - probably due to a lot oftraveling then. Caught it by chance on cable, and judging from manyother of these comments, perhaps I'd better take another look sometimesoon. The setting and scenes are well-presented, and evoke the feelingfor the period when the whole Vietnam experience to erupt later wasfestering. Brendan Fraser has made many excellent films in 15 years,Michael Caine numerous outstanding ones in a period more than threetimes longer. And in a film released shortly after this one,"Secondhand Lions," Caine performed with exuberance and with the greatRobert Duval made one of the best pictures one could desire. But herefor, for heaven's sake - both he and Frazer were laconic, insipid andeven silly. They looked as if they'd overdosed on tranquilizers, andmade you wish somebody would shock both of them with a cattle prod. Thebeautiful Vietnamese actress, whom they both pursue - also in aninsipid and annoying manner, represented a desirable young woman - buthere they mooned and schlepped around with each other as if she weresome sort of blend of Mother Teresa with Sharon Stone. Even within thatturmoil occurring there, she could walk down a narrow street atmidnight and meet at random someone with more personality and vigorthan the these two. "Low-key" is often appropriate, and can beentertaining, but here it has been taken to depths few characters andfilms have known since Jolson said "You Ain't Heard Nothing' Yet."

syohanan (2012-05-16 20:43)

"Sooner or later..one has to take sides...

if one is to remain human."The faces of politics/war easily suffocate us as individuals. However, as weso often try and "run" from conflict...in the end human nature takes overand forces us to react.Phillip Noyce (director) and Christopher Hampton (screen writer) carefullycraft Graham Greene's novel, "The Quiet American", into a tremendously richfilm of love, war, politics, power and seduction. Noyce subtly uses thebeautiful landscape of Vietnam to set an enigmatic tone from the outset ofthe film. Michael Caine, one of the greatest actors of his generation, isabsolutely flawless in the lead role and Brendan Fraser is brilliant asAlden Pyle..a.k.a "The Quiet American." Fraser proves once again, that givena powerful script and a strong actor to support him ("Gods and Monsters")his talent as an actor blossoms. Fraser all too often makes poor filmchoices ("Monkeybone", "Dudley Do-Right" and "George of the Jungle"), butthen again Caine too had his faults (Jaws: The Revenge"). We must notconcentrate so much on a person's mistakes, but must admire them for theirachievements.Caine and Fraser work brilliantly together in this film set against thebackdrop of the French occupation of Vietnam, and the beginning of the U.S.interest in the area because of the threat of Communism.Michael Caine undoubtedly deserved his nomination-nod for Best Actor as hetenderly portrays a man so desperately in love, but not necessarily deep inlust. His love for a woman, a friend, a wife, a land, and a cause are all atthe focal point of the film, and all are tested on severaloccasions."The Quiet American" is one of the best films of the year!For more top-notch work from Phillip Noyce in 2002 I recommend "Rabbit-ProofFence". An epic-tale of determination, and what the heart, of even littlechildren, can accomplish.

buyjesus (2012-05-16 08:27)

a quiet, albeit gripping film

After a string of questionable popcorn flicks (including what AnthonyLane refers to as the first Hollywood film that makes absolutely nosense), Phillip Noyce returned to his native Australia for twoout-of-the-blue features in 2002. While it's hard to judge between thisfilm and Rabbit Proof Fence, it is an honor to see him dedicating hisefforts outside of tripe like the Bone Collector. The Quiet American, originally scheduled for release around the timewhen certain disasters were shaking the nation that Miramax is basedin. Fortunately, the delayed release came at an apt time- whenAfghanistan, a country in which none of the September 11th hijackerscame from, was having its civilian population decimated and littlequagmire called Iraq was causing murmurs in the press. What could be amore subversive movie then than this little innocuous thriller based on1950's Graham Greene novel in which a British Journalist declares nonational identity and, despite attempts to steer clear of involvementin the conflicts arising around him, becomes forced to choose a side.The result is like some twisted Casablanca, with no moral boundary leftunquestioned. The story flies across the screen breezily with a grace rarelyduplicated in films of this magnitude (and by that, i mean smallfilms). Noyce has used his Hollywood training well to bring amesmerizing and enticing charm to a feature that does very much withthe very understated. Michael Caine excels of course and BrandonFraser's acting screams that he, like Thomas Fowler, choose a side andeither revise his moronic encino man role in a thousand kiddie flicksor go the art-house end and showcase the genuine talent he can bring toa screen.my only real problem is that (as unfortunately tends to be the case infilms where two males vie for one female) the character of Phuong iscriminally underdeveloped. As an object of desire, she's easilyinstantly attractive and a plausible source of the two men's lust. Buther physical beauty is never outshined by any specific niceties oroverwhelming personality traits.It seems that her reserved character disallows the audience frompainting a full picture of the women to whom the men lose themselves inbehind closed doors. However, in a story that is at least partly aboutintimacy and respectful affection (and not, surprisingly enoughcompetition), this is an unforgivable sin. Not egregious enough tosuggest that you should miss this film by any means, but as a generalconcern for the diminishing leading roles available to women in thefilm industry (maybe Noyce felt he could let the strong young girls ofrabbit proof fence compensate for this).

connie (2012-05-15 14:25)

a god and the Truth

I don't know why it took me so long to realize that Michael Caine is a god. His intelligence always dominates the screen. I usually like BrendanFraser, but he is so over-shadowed by Michael Caine, even though Caine is somuch older. He still has it.Everyone should know that this film was held back by Miramax because of9/11. They thought it would be a bad idea to release a film critical ofU.S. government policy, even policy in the distant past. Maybe thegovernment had a hand in this decision. This film presents in a concisemanner the history of how the U.S. got involved in Vietnam. Other filmsthat relate the U.S. history of over-throwing foreign governments,assassinating foreign leaders, and installing puppet regimes are: "JFK"(Oliver Stone), "Bowling for Columbine" (Michael Moore, whose publishertried to withhold his book "Stupid White Men" after 9/11), and "Cover-Up" bythe Christic Institute. The latter is about the CIA being behind the importof drugs to this country, and about the Republicans making a deal with theIranians to delay the release of the hostages so that Carter wouldn't bere-elected (Carter had fired 700 CIA secret operatives, who got together tomake sure one of their supporters got in the White House). See these filmsto see the role of the CIA and other covert operations agencies' power asthe shadow government of the U.S.

(2012-05-14 19:36)

Too Quiet a Film

Philip Noyce's cinematic surfing between human relations and politics endsup dilluting itself in manichaean political concepts and lacks humanintensity to reach the soul of the character's drama.Beautifully shot, with an extraordinary performance from Brendan Frazier,which brilliantly makes the transition between a supposedly naive scientistwith a human heart, to a shrewd manipulating spy, and an apt performance byMichael Caine, the movie is narrated in a very conventional way, havingprobably too much respect for its source, the Graham Greene novel of thesame title, ending up as a cold, extremely quiet rendition of a literarytext, devoid of visual impact.

jordan brown (2012-05-14 08:31)

Disappointing

This was a disappointing film. The plot structure resembles in manyways Graham Greene's screenplay for The Third Man, but this script isnot nearly as witty or gripping. Occasional humorous lines intended tolighten the atmosphere and offer some of Greene's characteristicallydry satire fizzled and flopped, and the acting was uniformly stiff andill-at-ease. The character of Phong is a travesty, too, as the plotseems to revolve around her, and all the men in the film talk about heras an actual human being, proclaiming their love for her, but she'spresented with dialogue that makes her seem like nothing more than eyecandy. Technically, the film must have been made in a ridiculoushurry... overuse of slow-mo techniques prolong scene endings that don'tquite meet at the ends. There is a horribly saccharine coloration tothe entire film that would imply the makers wanted an epic,atmospheric, landscaped look but just didn't have the patience. Duringthe 15 minutes of rather compelling plot development, in the middle ofthe film, there is a battle scene that looks totally unbelievable...you can smell the fake smoke and feel the sound-stage plastic astroturfthey are rolling on.

James Hitchcock (2012-05-14 04:22)

Destructive Idealism

During my childhood in the 1960s there was a strip cartoon in one of mycomics called "Texas Ted; Big Hat, Big Head". The title character was aloud-mouthed, boastful Texan who always wore a Stetson hat and wasconstantly proclaiming the superiority of all things American to hismeek little bowler-hatted English cousin. The last frame of the cartoongenerally showed Ted being cut down to size in some way or another.This stereotype of Americans as loud, brash and arrogant was quite acommon one in Britain in the fifties and sixties; it appears lessfrequently today, not so much because we have changed our opinions ofAmericans but because we no longer define ourselves so much as quiet,reserved and modest. The title of Graham Greene's novel "The QuietAmerican" was probably a subtle reference to this stereotypical view.The "quiet American" of the title, Alden Pyle, is a thoughtful,soft-spoken, idealistic intellectual, yet his well-intentioned idealismis in the long run to prove destructive.When Greene's novel came out in 1955 it was widely criticised in the USas being anti-American, although in the light of what was to occurduring the Vietnam War Greene's criticism of American involvement inIndochina might today seem prescient. When the novel was filmed byJoseph Mankiewicz in 1958 he reversed its emphasis, making itanti-Communist rather than anti-American and making Pyle the hero ofthe story, with the result that Greene angrily disowned the film.The 2002 version of "The Quiet American" is closer to Greene'soriginal. The story is set in Saigon, Vietnam, in 1952, towards the endof French colonial rule. It is both a political drama and a personalone. The personal element involves a love-triangle between Pyle, aBritish journalist named Thomas Fowler and Fowler's beautifulVietnamese mistress Phuong. Fowler is unable to marry Phuong because heis already married; he is separated from his wife, who still lives inEngland, but she refuses to give him a divorce because of her Catholicreligion. (This is the only part which religion plays in the film.Unusually for a Greene story, none of the major characters is aCatholic). Unlike Fowler, Pyle can offer Phuong marriage and stability,and he succeeds in winning her affections, thus making an enemy ofFowler even though the two were once friends.The political element in the drama derives from the attempts of Pyle,who is working for American Intelligence, to set up a "Third Force" inVietnam to take on both the French colonialists and the VietnameseCommunists who had hitherto provided most of the opposition to Frenchrule. There is a sharp contrast drawn between Pyle and Fowler on both apersonal and a political level. Personally Pyle is sensitive andidealistic whereas Fowler is jaded, cynical and prepared to useunderhand methods to get what he wants. (One thing they have in commonis that both are sincerely in love with Phuong). On a political level,however, Pyle is unable to see that General Thé, the leader of theThird Force, is a ruthless megalomaniac with ambitions to become adictator, and is prepared to turn a blind eye to the terrorist methodsused by Thé's militia. Fowler, however, is clear-eyed enough to seethat American support for Thé is likely to prove disastrous.The difference between the two films lies in the difference between thepolitical climate of 1958 and that of 2002. In the fifties, during theCold War, it would have been unthinkable for Hollywood to have produceda film which was seen as pro-Communist or which criticised Americanforeign policy. Today, it would be almost equally unthinkable forHollywood to produce a film which argued that American involvement inthe Vietnam War was justified either politically or morally. Yet whatPyle is trying to do is not in principle objectionable; the Vietnamesepeople deserved more than a choice between remaining a de jure colonyof France or becoming a de facto colony of Stalinist Russia, and somesort of third force would have been needed to give democracy a chanceto work in the country. The tragedy of the war was that, the Americansnever really tried to foster Vietnamese democracy but relied too muchon authoritarian and often corrupt strongmen like Ngo Dinh Diem, towhom the 1958 film is dedicated.Sir Michael Caine clearly has an affinity with Greene's work, as hegave a very good performance in "The Honorary Consul" in 1983 and givesanother very good one here, brings out all the contradictory aspects ofFowler's character. (The film brought him the most recent of his sixOscar nominations). I did, however, think that, at 69, Caine was rathertoo old for the role, as Fowler is probably supposed to be about fiftyat the most. (The film ends with a montage of Vietnam War newspaperheadlines, all with Fowler's byline, implying that he was still workingfor his newspaper a decade and a half after the events shown in thisfilm).I was less impressed with the other performances. Phuong seemed toopassive a character, although the fault lay perhaps with thescriptwriter rather than the actress Do Thi Hai Yen, and Brendan Fraser(never my favourite actor) seemed unable to convey either Pyle'ssuspect idealism or his passion for Phuong. Overall, however, the filmworks well, on both the political and psychological levels. 7/10

m67165 (2012-05-13 10:13)

Shocking

I have seen much worse graphic violence on film, but for some reason thisone left me almost without hope of finding any meaning not only in war, butin life itself. And I do have a religious belief. I went to see the firstcomedy I found right afterwards, to shake it off. That said, this is a goodstory about a love triangle and politics during hard times, and I wouldrecommend it to anyone about to go into a war zone in a foreigncountry.

Framescourer (2012-05-12 12:17)

Cracking story, averagely filmed and poorly acted

A pretty solid, well-paced telling of a terrific story by GrahamGreene. Unfortunately, the story is all that this film really has goingfor it. The visual just seems a bit cheap, as if it's been filmed forTV.Worst of all though is the acting. With the possible exception ofCaine, whose well-modulated irascibility is well suited to thecircumstances and period of the piece the acting is truly awful. I'dreally like to like Brendan Fraser but he seems unable to fit his giftsto the requirements of the medium. The majority of the indigenousextras perform well, but their parts are necessarily mono-dimensionaland uninteresting. Do Thi Hai Yen is cardboard cutout. Inoffensive butunexciting fare. 4/10

eldonado (2012-05-12 01:59)

Mired in Quag--But Whisky and Opium Don't Help

Perhaps. Perhaps only Americans buy a map of the road to failure andfollow the curves of its route precisely to the very end. Perhaps not.American viewers above a certain age may bring passionate emotions andunwavering opinions to The Quiet American. That will be too bad. Maybeeven in spite of director Phillip Noyce's intention, this movie is notabout the war in Indochina. It gives us a glimpse into that time,condemns, it seems, the incipient American presence, and denounces,apparently, wars of colonial conquest, but all these things merelyprovide a context in which the lead characters have to make, or evade,moral decisions. Stepping carefully into Viet-Nam the way one of Fenimore Cooper'sleather stocking heroes stepped into the tracks of their enemies so asto leave no trace, the US insinuated itself into the French-Indochinawar for the purpose of . . . well, the purpose is never quite clear.Walking, almost sleepwalking, through events in Viet-Nam is Britishreporter Thomas Fowler (Michael Caine), who also lacks purpose.Besotted by whiskey, opium and a fetching young woman, Fowler has madehis own peace with war as well as with life. He is no James Bond,preferring one specific drink but many different women. In fact, he hasit the other way round. He wants one woman, Phuong (Do Hai Yen), butany drink will do. He is also no Humphrey Bogart trying to mind his ownbusiness by running a popular bar. Instead, he tries to have nobusiness at all. He has neglected, almost forgotten, his Londonnewspaper employer. An aging libertine, he only fitfully andhalf-heartedly partakes of his self-indulgences, pursuing them as ifreluctantly following doctor's orders. He has long since come to hisown terms with the war, such as they are, whose sporadic noise in thestreets of Saigon annoys him from time to time, but it is nothing moreto him than the barking of a neighbor's dog. In fact, it turns out,dogs annoy him more than the war does.Then into his complacent world steps one of those leather stockingheroes, the "quiet" American, Alden Pyle (Brendan Fraser). Young,congenial, modest, courteous, sober, knightly, even "Boy Scoutly," Pylecomes to Viet-Nam bringing medical aid and supplies for the Vietnamesepeople and a belief in freedom. He annoys the French for some reason,seems to know everybody who matters, and befriends (or is it the otherway round?) Fowler. Then, almost immediately, he falls in love withPhuong, Fowler's mistress, apparently for no other reason than thatFowler seems to love her. True to some kind of misguided Victoriancode, he requests in a peculiar way Fowler's permission to court her.Pyle does not forget his mission. Very quickly he learns to distinguishbetween the sound of the backfiring of a car and the sound of adetonation of a grenade. Old-hand Fowler grins in triumph to see himlearn the difference.The viewer of the movie must make even finer distinctions. AuthorGraham Greene did not shy away from making political or moraljudgments, nor does the movie. However, the viewer has no easy timedeciding just what judgment should be made. All we have to go on seemsto be the fact that the grand sweep of conflict depends most decisivelyon the moral decisions of individuals. From some decisions come certainresults: people will die. The question is, do you want people to die,and if you do, why? There are other questions. Do native women who shun common prostitutioncome off any better sleeping with married men? Should men who want andlove children embrace the need to kill them? Can civilized men andwomen who abandon morality be depended upon to defend humanity frombarbarity?By movie's end we are left with men and women most of whom are, howevercongenial and however civilized, too distasteful to face and toodangerous to turn our backs on. Both in the movie and beyond it, themajor powers continue to engage the rest of the world. As they must, ifonly because the rest of the world will not let them disengage. Notbeing in positions of world leadership, most of us, we the viewers mustcontent ourselves with observing the Fowlers and Pyles and Phuongsaround us and deciding what decisions we would make in their place.Would we do better? Perhaps, though what is better?

bluesdoctor (2012-05-10 22:22)

Tepid, Spineless Anachronism

THE QUIET AMERICAN is altogether too quiet, too tepid for its subjectmatter, and incompletely realized, mediocre. It fails on all levels, asfilm, as historicaldrama, as morality play. It fails to even to transport one off the movie lotto early 1950's Viet Nam, which in this day and age of hyper graphic realisminmovies is really something. The first act is so subdued, so perfunctory,that one has to try hard to imagine what the Graham Green book might haveoriginallybeen about; certainly not this drab love triangle with faint historicalovertones.Michael Caine sleepwalks as if in a fog through his role as anopium-addicted British journalist, a man past his prime who claims, rightfrom the onset, that hemerely reports on what he sees, never gets involved. His character lacks therequisite seediness and sweat, misses the desperation and suppleness of amanhiding in the interstices. When he finally does take a stand, finally acts,it seems almost flippant, done on the spur of the moment. Neither thestruggle with thedecision nor the moral ramifications of it are ever fully illumined orexamined. What is supposed to be the climactic moral moment of the film, itsepiphany, justdrops like a pebble into the muddy puddle of the rest of the film, sototally unlike two other movies based on Graham Greene novels that come tomind, "The Third Man" and "The Fallen Idol"(both highly recommended),both of which flash moral insight like lightening into previously ambiguous,deceiving appearances. Brendan Fraser and the love interest, Do Thi Hai Yen, fair no better. Thescript is a straight jacket restricting everyone. Noyce's direction lackssnap, clarity,an amazing shortcoming given the high-octane potential of the subjectmatter, setting, and cast of characters. Just as it lacks a moral spine, the film takes unconscionable anachronisticliberties with historical fact. In the film, the CIA is depicted subvertingFrenchinterests by secretly taking steps to install its own puppet dictator,General Thé (played by Quang Hai). Trouble is, this film takes place in theearly 1950's, atime when the French were very much running their own show, mired in theirown colonial mischief, with American involvement consisting merely oflimitedintelligence and military advisors brought in strictly at their behest. TheAmericans did not deceitfully usurp French interests. On the contrary, theFrance usedAmerica to take over its own lost cause, concurrent with the general declineof its colonial empire (e.g., Algeria). Further, the ideas of setting up apuppetregime and Communist containment were not implemented by the US until theearly to mid 1960's.At a time when European anti-Americanism is all too fashionable, especiallyamong the French, I resent this twisting of history to make it seem that theUSwas the villain, when it was initially more of an unwitting accomplice, agenerous friend taken advantage of by the French. (One should also recallthat whenshortly after the end of WWII Ho Chi Minh personally approached Truman toask for help in setting up a socialist democracy--the Vietnamese then sawtheUS as its liberator--Truman decided instead to support our "ally," France,going so far as to use the Japanese military police, with its intimateknowledge ofthe Vietnamese resistance acquired during its brutal occupation, to reassertFrench colonial domination over the country.) The very title of this film isanunderhanded anti-American slap, being a not too subtle reference to theLederer and Burdick novel, "The Ugly American,"made into a film starring Marlon Brando (dir. Englund, 1963). That film, notcoincidentally, also dealt critically with American intervention in thestruggle forself-rule of an underdeveloped Southeast Asian nation. This film addsnothing to the historical legacy of Viet Nam, nor does justice to its themesof indecisivemoral laxity and love amid the ruins.

Theo Robertson (2012-05-10 13:51)

Well Made But Too Complex To Be Entirely Cinematic

The story starts with the body of American Adrien Pyle , a medicalspecialist , being found in a river in Saigon . He has been stabbed todeath and London Times journalist Thomas Fowler recounts to theauthorities how he knew the man TQE is a very strange film to comment on simply because I get thefeeling that it is based on a very complex political novel by GrahamGreene and it's interesting to note how many people on this page havecommentated on how well or how badly it has been adapted to screen .It's also interesting to note that it was filmed in the spring of 2001when George Bush's " war on terrorism " had not happened which cloudsthe issue more . People on the message boards have written manypolitical threads to tie in with this but it's very interesting thatGreene's original novel was written several years before Lyndon BJohnson sent combat troops to South East Asia , so Greene is criticisngAmerican foreign policy in general and an intelligent , cogent way ,not so much jumping on the fashionable bandwagon with Michael Moore ,John Pilger and George Monbiot so I guess for that he deserves somecredit As a film what makes it so successful is with the casting . MichaelCaine as we all know is a living legend and the fact that he hasappeared in so many awful movies simply for the money while stillretaining prestigious star quality speaks volumes for his talent and asyou might expect in this type of role he's superb . What is even moreamazing than Caine's performance is that of Brendan Fraser's as AdrienPyle . I've just remembered how good he was in GODS AND MONSTERS andhe's equally as good here as a man who's not what he seems to be . Onecan't help thinking how well he'd be regarded as an actor if he'ddecided to skip THE MUMMY films which unfortunately seems to haveprematurely killed his career . Certainly I wasn't reminded of RickO'Connel while watching this Where the film falters is - Again - where it shows its literary roots .There's no way you can confuse a Graham Greene novel with a HaroldRobbins one , but there's maybe too much of a romantic subplot whichgets in the way of the real story and you find your self questioning asto what the main story . Is it the political one or the love triangle ?