Victory

This could have been something really fine. Dafoe, Jacob, and Neil are wasted.

The script seems like a half-hearted attempt to "do" a Joseph Conrad. The director seems lost. Odd, considering he wrote the screenplay--somehow, you would have expected more. It feels more like a project for his resume.

Read the book instead--it's wonderful.

This seems to have been a European-financed project. I don't remember hearing of it back in 1995. Was it even released in North America? I discovered it through an IMDB search.

I hope the book reads better than this film plays, because the screenplay seems pretty weak. Willem Dafoe in a restrained performance, would be the only reason to endure 99 tedious minutes of this. While the 1913 period south seas locations are reproduced satisfactorily, the constant narration and wooden performances sink it. There is some nice tropical island scenery, but the entire cat and mouse game played by Dafoe, Sam Neill, Rufus Sewell, and Irene Jacob, is never believable. Very talky at times, everything just sort of drifts along to an extremely underwhelming conclusion. Very forgettable, and not recommended, even for Willem Dafoe fans. - MERK

I've loved most Willem Dafoe films. Sam Neill was a joy in "Reilly, Ace of Spies" and "The Hunt for Red October". Irene Jacob is one of the most alluring and talented women in movies, magnificent in Kieslowski's film "Trois Colours-Red"--and good in "US Marshalls". Simon Callow was hilarious as the "Master of the Revels" in "Shakespeare in Love".

Alas, in "Victory", the four leads don't have the the screenplays and directors from their better movies. They become too wooden, one-dimensional, and more like caricatures rather than fleshed out characters.

The story may be based on the work of the late, great Joseph Conrad, but he was unavailable to improve the movie's dialog and pacing. Had Shakespeare been alive, he'd have loved "Shakespeare in Love". Would Conrd have loved "Victory"? I doubt it--except for the Java Sea scenery.

If you watch, ask yourself why it is called "Victory". Except for a minor line of dialog, does the title have anything to do with the movie?

My wife and I finally got around to watching this R1 purchase we made a couple of years back of an ambitious film that sank without trace in both cinemas and on DVD.

Has anyone seen it? It really is worth seeking out. My better half thought it was excellent, and while I'm just too much of a fan of Conrad in general and this novel in particular to share her view, I definitely enjoyed it.

Willem Dafoe and Irene Jacob are actors who always leave me cold, but Sam Neill and Rufus Sewell (whom I cannot abide normally) are both great as the villains. The production detail is flawless in conveying Indonesia just before the First World War, and the scenery and photography is beautiful. particularly effective is the island where Dafoe's character lives as a recluse with its tropical villa and abandoned wharf and coal mine. The score, too, is very strong.

There's rather too much narration (from the always excellent Bill Paterson, though) and Simon Callow gives a performance that is hammy even by his standards, but, mercifully, is hardly in it.

Richard Lester and Harold Pinter were developing a version of this in the 1980s, which was never made.

I love Joseph Conrad but the films never seem to work. "The Duellists" was too thin, "The Secret Agent" terrible. "Lord Jim"s the best of a bad bunch so far.

This doesn't up the score much, but it's an honest try. The locations are good and it has the feel of the time and place. Casting is arse over face, with pudgy Sam Neill as the novel's skeletal Mr Jones (hammy, mannered, ineffective) and Willem Dafoe as the novel's pudgy Heyst (very good indeed). Irene Jacob's a blank sheet, but at least she's better here than in "U.S. Marshalls." Best of the bunch is Rufus Sewell, who has Jones' 'private secretary' to perfection, and he's an actor I've no time for in anything else.

Biggest drawback is the narration. Bill Patterson may be great, but he barely keeps his trap shut for more than two minutes. He's always telling us back story, what Heyst thinks, what Schomberg thinks. It's as if Mark Peploe can't let go of the novel or as if the producers didn't think the audience would get it. Considering it sat on the shelf for years, probably the last.

The end is under effective because you never get any feel that the lovers bring each other to life. Dafoe does well, but Jacob is like Isabelle Adjani at her weakest here, doing too little. Good stuff along the way, and Neill does redeem himself with the great line "We are the world, Mr Heyst, come to pay you a visit." Now that's Conrad.