But that's it, isn't it? This is a story not necessarily driven by plot but by characters. It wasn't the MacGuffin that was the diary of the dead girl that drew me in, but rather the contrast between London midwife Anna (Naomi Watts) and Russian mob driver and "undertaker" Nikolai (Mortensen). Each of the supporting characetrs had their own sense of self, which was great, Armin Mueller-Stahl and Vincent Cassel were superb as the mob boss and his son, with their constant bickering heightening simmering tensions within the mafia. Similarly, the mother of our midwife, played by Sinead Cusack and her eccentric Russian Uncle Stepan, played by Jerzy Skolimowski also provided essential motivation for the actions of our female protagonist.So far I've just rambled around the film, but now a succinct plot summary: a 14 year old Russian girl dies whilst giving birth in a London hospital, yet her baby survives. In her pocket was a diary, having been found by Anna, a midwife. Anna searches for the family of the girl by trying to get the diary translated, yet ends up getting tangled with the Russian mob in London, specifically Nikolai, a mysterious driver for the mob family. As she uncovers the clues found in the diary she finds herself deeper into the seedy underworld of crime, putting herself and her family at risk.
There we go, a plot summary. Now onto some finely tuned analysis. So, besides characterisation, what made this film? I think it was a film defined in moments. I don't think every scene in the film was necessary or necessarily good, there were some scenes I thought were useless and others poorly done, but in some way these grievances were undone with some very vital scenes within the story. Perhaps the most noted is the fight scenes involving a naked Viggo Mortensen, two henchmen and knives. That scene defines both his character's determination and resilience but also finally shows some active directing and cutting from Cronenberg. I say active because the film's direction didn't really do much for me. There was nothing spectacular about it, it was just, for lack of a better word, mundane. Maybe I have some prejudice because the only other Cronenberg I have seen is A History of Violence, which I saw a few years ago and did not like in the slightest. I think that the direction is passable, but in some scenes excellent.
The reason I don't go into greater depth on certain moments is that a lot of them occur in the last third of the film. This was one of those films that built up over the duration, starting off slow and, at times, boring, it kicked into overdrive near the end, with the last 15min or so being some stunning work from all involved. That is one of the film's flaws. That it doesn't really have a strong sense of pacing, and whilst I enjoyed the rush of information nearing the film's conclusion, the lack of information in the previous 2/3rds didn't help. Also, stylistically the film wasn't always spot-on. The narration form the diary? That was annoying, especially in the beginning when no one had actually translated the diary yet, making the audience unaware of what certain characters do and don't know.
As I said before, it is a tad simplistic for a gangster film. Everything seems to be enclosed in little enclaves. And whilst some may argue that this only heightens the notion of secrecy, the fact is that everywhere was secluded. The hospital was near empty, there was no mad rush with any of the staff and there was hardly any activity in or around the building. Now this could be nitpicking but since when is a hospital ever empty? Also, the opening was wrong. The first 5min left me very diappointed. Not the barber scene but the hospital scene was too quick and everyone was so cavalier about what was happening. Also, a few moments in the film felt a bit too convenient. Like her bike just so happened to break down at that moment, and a few coincidences I won't go into seeing as they are very close to the end and could potentially be spoilers. Sorry.
Ok, well, in the last few paragraphs, I have been a bit negative. I can see that. But honest, the film wasn't bad by any means. It was a good film. Not a great film but a pretty good film. I guess to sort of compromise for the negative I'll take a closer look at the positives. The acting, as I already mentioned, is what held this film together. Viggo Mortensen was so consumed in his role that you forget who Aragorn is and just focus on this dark Russian gangster. Naomi Watts! She didn't do a breathy American accent as per usual (although that's perfect in Mulholland Dr.) and was English! Ok, enough patronising, Watts was excellent in her role, bringing the audience along with a sense of emotion that contrasted the brutality of some of the other parts of the film. Another plus? The little twists near then end. I knew something was up with a certain character but couldn't put my finger on it. When the reveal occurred I was pleased to say the least. That ending revitalised the film, with my attention now devoted to the plot more so than in the first half of the film.
So, this looks like a negative review. I don't know why this keeps happening. I write a 4 1/2 star review for Watchmen and it comes across as a tad negative. This one does too, however it will not receive as great a praise as that superhero masterpiece. Essentially, Eastern Promises felt too simple to be seen as a deep, though-provoking gangster film. Sure it analysed the nature of power and corruption, linking it with family, but isn't that what The Godfather did 30 years ago, and better? But overbearing comparisons aside, this wasn't "the greatest film ever", as a friend told me. It was good. But my small grievances aren't going away. 3 1/2 stars.
