Such a frustrating disappointment

A movie that not only functions as a solid scarefest but a razor-sharp satire.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

This is great visually, but the story doesn't hold up as well as the visual style. I am not very familiar with the real life story of the painter that this movie is based on, but I never really got a sense of who he really was. Which is a shame because it feels like you are supposed to understand him and his art. What makes the movie work is the nightmarish tone throughout.There are some strange and frightening images which are worth a look. You could say this movie is a bit experimental. But, again, the main character did unfortunately not work too well for me. He felt rude and selfish and his inner monologues felt like a different character in my opinion. In the end it seemed like the secondary character was the more sympathetic one. I don't know if that was the point, but I'm sure the painter had an interesting life. This is just not the movie to showcase it. Don't get me wrong, it's not the actors fault. They do a good job with what they are given.There are some interesting things here. Colors are great and some locations feel claustrophobic, which help give the sense that you can't escape this dream. I just wish the main character could be more like-able and that it had a story you could get more invested in. Watching it is still surreal, dark and will take you on a unique dream like experience.So, the visual outshine the characters in my opinion. It is worth watching for the nightmare/dream scenes. Everything to do with that reminds me of something out of a David Lynch or Stanley Kubrick film. Hey, maybe the main character will work better for you. Maybe this movie could grow on you over time, it feels like it's one of those type of films that need a bit of time digest.

Rarely seen English film from 1998 about which I can can only say I don't know much about art films, but I know what I like. This one is is set in a drab and austere not very swinging 1960s London where crook George Dyer (Daniel Craig) goes from burglary to buggery with artist Francis Bacon (a wonderful Derek Jacobi). No real drama here, just consistently imaginative camera-work (blurred around the edges when the characters are getting drunk at the colony club), or the odd standout moment such as Bacon brushing his teeth with Vim (a white powdery bath cleaner). I like his line: "We all have nightmares, but they can't be as horrific as life". It's the sort of drama the late Derek Jarman used to make - only more watchable.

The film looks like it was intended as a stage play. It portrays Bacon's life in an unremitting darkness and ignores the past which is very important to understanding Bacon as a person as shown in documentaries about him. The Francis Bacon Estate refused permission to show Bacon's paintings on film. A Radio 4 documentary described the aggression of Dyer to Bacon towards the end of the relationship and that Bacon had to stay with friends away from his home where Dyer was. None of that is explored in the film instead its presented as all Bacon's fault as a cold, callous towards George Dyer. Biographies including Tom Baker's who drank with Bacon show's that he had a sense of humour and warmth that the film doesn't present. The director prefers Bacon as the remorseless dark figure which is suited better to a theatre. Film's ability is the presentation of a grimy, depressing London of the 60's.

I'll admit it. I rented this film to explore the past works of Daniel Craig. He's great in it and so is the legendary Derek Jacobi. The movie itself is presented in what I'm assuming is the same vein as Francis Bacon's works. There are lots of dramatic flashes of what are supposed to be disturbing imagery, etc. However, these effects take away from the story of what happened between these two people. Instead these two great actors are forced to tell a story as best they can in "moments". This movie did spur me to do some light research into Francis Bacon, which helped me fill in the story. Knowing more about what happened gave the performances more meaning but I think it could have been better. Still, full frontal nudity from Daniel Craig made it more than worth the price of admission. License to thrill: confirmed.