The Statement (2003) User Reviews

divided loyalties, divided feelings

[chetley · 7/10 · 13 May 2004]

I rated this film a 7/10 - with some mixed feelings, because in many ways it was a downbeat film without any kind of neat "message" that would make me feel "a better person" for having seen it. But on second thought I realized that the finished film rather neatly reflects the moral complexity of Brian Moore's novel which it is based upon - and which Ronald Harwood's screenplay follows remarkably closely.

Brian Moore is one of my favorite late 20th century authors, whose work has provided the basis for several other memorable films, most notably "Black Robe." He writes in a Graham Greene-esque mode, his characters often anguished or guilty Catholics or ex-Catholics who struggle to live morally in a degraded and corrupt world. Moore himself appears to have known much about divided loyalties and twentieth century alienation. Although identified as a Canadian author, Moore was born in Ulster - and actually lived most of his later life in California and the South of France. He was clearly fascinated by questions of faith, of good and evil - and he boldly tackled these themes in "The Statement."

In France in the late 1980s and early 1990s there were several prominent cases of Vichy-era collaborators who were belatedly brought to justice by the French court system. Moore was clearly fascinated by the way in which leading members of the French governmental and bureaucratic system continued to hide unpleasant truths about their own pasts - and by the role of the Catholic Church in France in providing refuge and assistance to some individuals who had been involved in the persecution and round-up of Jews.

Michael Caine deserves a great deal of credit for taking on the role of a reprehensible character who nonetheless retains his full humanity. There's never any question in the film about his guilt - he clearly took part in the brutal murder of Jews during wartime. (He's also quite mean to dogs.) And yet he is not without a sympathetic side. It's clear that he's manipulative, but it's also easy to see why many intelligent and devout people of faith would be willing to assist him in his attempt to live "underground" hiding from justice. Caine isn't a caricatured film villain - not like Ralph Fiennes in "Schindler's List" or John Malkovich in "Ripley's Game." But in a real sense, it's all the more disturbing that he seems like "just another innocuous old man."

It was disappointing to me to see that fine performers Jeremy Northam and Tilda Swinton with so little to do in the film - other than looking bewildered as Caine's character continues to elude their grasp. On the other hand, it is quite enjoyable to watch their flirtatious glances with one another. There were many nice touches in the film showing the pleasures of French life - gourmet business lunches, for example, and the beautiful scenery of Provence. Even the supposedly seedy cafes look like they belong in a tourist brochure.

Intriguing TV movie with all star cast who makes memorable performances

[ma-cortes · 6/10 · 2 July 2010]

After France fell to Germany in 1940 , the Vichy regime was set up under Marshal Petain . In 1943 , the Vichy government created a military force called Milice to carry out the Nazi occupiers . When the war was over many of those involved were prosecuted for war crimes . Some get away . A few rose to power . Pierre Brossard ( Michael Caine ) committed crimes against humanity and collaborated with Nazis in WWII . Today Pierre follows hidden by priests of Catholic Church that sheltered him during fifty years and is being protected by a strange sect called The Chevaliers of St. Marie . But a judge ( Tilda Swinton ) and a colonel ( Jeremy Northam ) are investigating his past . Meanwhile , a mysterious murderous ( Matt Craven) is pursuing Pierre to kill him .

This TV movie produced by Canadian television in association with BBC packs suspense , mystery , thrills , action and is quite entertaining . Jewison cast some largely known actors as Michael Caine , his wife well played by Charlote Rampling , the starring duo as Tilda Swinton and Jeremy Northam , and a remarkable support cast as Ciaran Hinds as Inspector Pochon , Alan Bates as Bertier , Frank Finlay as the Comissaire and several others . Atmospheric musical score by Norman Corbeil and appropriate cinematography by Kevin Jewison , director's son . The motion picture is professionally produced and directed by Norman Jewison . He is a prestigious and veteran filmmaker, his greatest film is of course Jesus Christ Superstar . He considers The Hurricane (1999) the last in a trilogy of racial bigotry movies he's realized, the first two being In the Heat of the Night (1967) and A Soldier's Story (1984).

The film terminates with an epilogue based on real events , that says the following : ¨At 5:00 am , on June 29, 1944, in Rilleux -La-Pape, France, seven Jews were executed ¨. The movie is dedicated to those seven men and the 77.000 other French Jews who perished under German occupation and the Vichy regime .

All Caine

[=G= · 7/10 · 1 May 2004]

Michael Caine carries "The Statement" on his back. In spite of an elegant cast, without him as the central character, this convoluted mess of a film wouldn't be worth watching. Telling of an aging French-Nazi war criminal who finds himself on the run and squeezed in the jaws of subterfuge, "The Statement" is too vague in its historical flashbacks, gives poor depth into its sundry characters, breaches realism with a bunch of Brits in France, never makes its agenda clear, and doesn't sort itself out well in the end...to mention just a few of the flaws. The result is a film with a lukewarm reception by critics and the public at large and little reason to watch save another excellent performance by Caine. In spite of all that, I quite enjoyed this flick. Go figure. (B-)

A note about the (lack of) accents

[big pooh · 3 February 2004]

In looking through the other comments here and listening to responses as I left the theater after watching 'The Statement,' I've noticed a lot of criticism about the use of English actors using English accents in a movie set in France.

I won't venture to discuss the merit of this choice, but I wanted to point out, in case anyone is that interested, that this is an old stage tradition. The same thing came up when 'Enemy at the Gates' came out, where English actors played Russian characters without affecting Russian accents. It's not uncommon to assign, across the board, English actors/accents to the linguistic majority of a production. I don't know if this stems from the historical preeminence of the London stage or because English accents are thought to be less problematic for American audiences or what, but I do know that this is something that happens quite often and originated in live theatre.

An Old Man in a Dry Month.

[rmax304823 · 6/10 · 16 November 2004]

Michael Caine plays a pathetic wretch who, 40 years ago, participated in the murder of seven Jews in France. Certain rogue elements within the Catholic Church have been hiding him, shuffling him from place to place, and another organization has been sending him money from time to time. I'm a little confused about the other organization. I think it may have been founded by his fellow executioners, also war criminals, but it wasn't easy to follow.

Caine is a marvelous actor, but this thoroughly dramatic role of a devout Frenchman, suffering from heart failure, tortured by guilt and constantly praying, is almost beyond him. He is forced to shoot two assassins sent after him by his fellow war criminals, and at those points the movie comes to life, so to speak.

So there are two conflicting interests in pursuit of him -- the police who want to put him in jail, and the assassins who want to kill him before he is caught and makes a deal with the gendarmes. The assassins get there first.

Caine is such a pitiful figure, stumbling about and asking for help when cornered, that one is reminded at times of much better films like "Odd Man Out" and "M". We more or less know from the beginning that no Vichy war criminal is going to escape and live happily ever after, so watching Caine huffing and puffing around on rooftops and constantly asking priests for absolution is painful. And repetitive too. Halfway through I began wishing the cops would get him -- or the assassins for that matter -- or that he would expire from an acute infraction of the myoculinary -- just to get it over with.

The Catholic church comes off pretty badly. The Vatican wants nothing to do with him. The monks who are his old friends are told to stop helping him. Except for his demons, no one is interested in him. His patron saint, he claims, is St. Christopher, whom I thought had been kicked out of the Pantheon years ago. If I'm right, then he's praying to a discredited saint. (Is this supposed to be symbolism?) It would have been spot on if he'd chosen St. Jude, the patron saint of lost causes, whose medallion I have so aptly clipped to the visor of my Ford.

At any rate, we don't see him do anything that could be construed as a reflection of his Nazi-tainted past. He's weak, old, and scared to death. (Come to think of it, he looks a little like Max von Sydow with his gray hair.) It's true that he threatens to kill his wife's dog if she doesn't put him up. And it's true that he offhandedly boots the dog out of the way when he gets underfoot. I hope that's not a crime worth being executed for.

Caine's performance is so weary and ridden with Angst that I kind of wished he'd get away to Quebec or somewhere. He was involved in those seven murders and should pay for it. At the same time his soul has been in jail for more than 40 years. His best bet, of course, would have been to give himself up to the police, confess openly to his crimes, and spend the rest of his life in jail. It's too easy for a priest to listen to him and say "Ego te absolvo, now go away." You commit a sin, you do penance for it.

I don't want to get into the moral implications any further because they're pretty muddled. I'm not really sure what the film's point of view is. Is it that the Catholic church is corrupt and anti-Semitic? Is it that repentant sinners deserve to be shot to death by criminals?

It's one of the lesser works by director Jewison, Michael Caine, and most of the other involved. The photography, of Provence, is nice. And the shrike-like woman detective is good too, all angular and sharp eyes. But it's a slow slog overall.

Very good.

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 16 December 2020]

Pierre (Michael Caine) is a Nazi collaborator who has been in hiding for years. He was going to be executed for his deeds but had help escaping decades ago. Now, a judge and colonel are looking for him....as well as some Nazi hunters. But there are two things standing in their way...Pierre is a pretty deadly man and keeps killing Nazi hunters AND Pierre is still getting help from both members of the Catholic church AND government officials. Can they capture the man? And, can the judge and colonel get him to tell them WHO has been helping him?

Although Michael Caine is the star and he's good in the film, he's actually NOT featured all that prominently in the movie. Instead, it shows the various folks coming after him and explaining why...why folks would help a monster like him. Overall, it's a very interesting movie....with a tory that is quite satsifying. One complaint, however, is the lack of French actors in the film...and everyone is supposed to be French. Another is that the film is supposed to be set in the present day (2003) but I think it would have worked better having been set in the 1960s-80s. It's just hard to imagine a man as old a Pierre being such a tough character who's able to kill various Nazi hunters...it just didn't seem realistic as the crimes he committed occurred in 1944...and that would make his character about 80 (more or less) and I cannot imagine any 80 year-old being that dangerous when cornered.

The ghosts of the past come out to haunt

[jotix100 · 7/10 · 17 February 2005]

Brian Moore's novel was an excellent novel. The story takes us back to a past that remains unresolved because the criminals who were responsible for a lot of atrocities during WWII, either became part of the establishment, or are no longer around to be judged by their sins.

The adaptation of the Moore's novel is by the distinguished writer, Ronald Harwood, one of the best in the business. Norman Jewison takes the story to France, where the story takes place. The adaptation stays close to the original story.

Some comments to this forum have criticized the fact that this is basically an English cast playing French people. In a way, it's naive to think that if an American or English company decided to film the novel, it would have to cast French actors. Frankly, it's based on an English book, written by an English speaking writer, were we supposed to read the novel in French just because it happens in France? I don't think so.

That said, if you haven't seen the film, you would like to stop reading at this point.

Pierre Brossard has led an easy life in the years after the end of the war. He enjoyed the patronage of the French clergy, who took pains in keeping him out of the inquiring eye of groups trying to bring into justice the war criminals. Brossard was a collaborator of a higher up in the Vichy regime that did the dirty work for the invading Germans.

Right after the war, most of these wanted criminals fled to South America, others found a way to reintegrate the establishment in their own countries and since they had power and money, no one called them to justice. How many of those are still around, living in relative peace and quiet and enjoying protection? One's guess is that many are still unaccounted for.

The best thing that could have happened to Brossard was to have been sent to a French speaking country to get rid of his presence in France, where he is clearly a dangerous proposition. It is not until a judge decides to look into that horrible massacre in the small town during the war, that everything comes into play. Suddenly, Brossard is a problem that has to be dealt with, perhaps, eliminating him is the best thing that can happen.

Thus, we find an aged Pierre Brossard, who's still good with a gun, confronting the ones that are sent to eliminate him from his own former benefactors. The thing is that his death must appear to be the work of perhaps a Jewish group operating in France. Who will get to him first, is the question. Will judge Livi and her colleague, Colonel Roux, or the secretive operatives paid by his former Vichy higher ups?

Michael Caine, as Pierre Brossard, does some of his finest work. His Brossard is a man in his seventies with a heart problem. Mr. Caine makes this criminal come alive; he will not be taken without a struggle. In fact, he surprises in the way he can disappear into the monasteries where Brossard feels welcome.

The rest of the cast is just as good. Tilda Swinton shows a tremendous courage being the judge that wants to bring Brossard to justice. She leaves no stones unturned in her quest to do the right thing. Jeremy Notham is equally effective as the military man that is helping with the investigation.

In smaller roles we see a lot of excellent English actors. Ciaran Hands, Frank Finlay, Charlotte Rampling, Alan Bates, among others, help make this thriller look real.

A Good Adaptation of a Thriller

[lawprof · 6/10 · 13 December 2003]

Your comments will be displayed as follows: A good adaptation of Brian Moore's thriller novel, director Norman Jewison's "The Statement" has its ups and downs.

Michael Caine, who has played many English roles as well as being an American abortion providing doctor, now takes on elderly Frenchman Pierre Brossard, once a shining star of the toady Vichy police force without which the Nazis could never have murdered some 77,000 French Jews. A small percentage of the Holocaust toll but not an unimportant one. Among other acts he participated in the roundup and murder of seven Jews. Such an incident was the basis for the novel.

A man who may belong to a Jewish revanchist organization is killed by Brossard before he can shoot the wheezing, cardiac condition-afflicted former right-hand helpmate for the SS. He's been sheltered for forty years by members of the Catholic clergy.

Tilda Swinton is Judge Levy assigned along with Jeremy Northam, a French army colonel, to find and bring Brossard to trial based on a new law reviving prosecutions against those who committed crimes against humanity. Actually, every important actor in this film except for Charlotte Rampling, who has a small role as Brossard's wife, is English. I'm surprised the French actors' union didn't raise a stink.

This is a chase film with Judge Levy and her colonel either warm or hot on the trail of Brossard who goes from monastery to monastery receiving food, money and help. (In France a judge has vast investigative authority and can and does direct inquiries so the director could credibly have Swinton going from city to city. Imagine Judge Judy flitting about in a chopper ferreting out facts.) At times I thought I was watching a travelogue about the abbeys of Gaul.

There are, of course, hints of a dark conspiracy reaching beyond the Church that I won't reveal.

Caine's peripatetic suspect is deeply religious in the formulaic sense that absolution and ritual salve his conscience but in no way mediate his actions. Caine plays a dirtbag to perfection.

Possibly to avoid charges that the film is unfairly anti-Catholic we're told that

1) the Church is vast, has many subordinate bodies, and those at the top just can't know all that is happening (this defense comes from a gentle librarian-Jesuit priest who also happens to be black, the predominant racial group in the French church).

2) responsibility for aiding genocide by clerics was individual so don't trot out any revisionist Hochhuth/Cornwell/Goldenhagen theories arraigning the Church's leadership.

3) we can't forget that the Resistance was largely communist so maybe there's a rational justification for Vichy's supine collaboration and the very real clerical support for the Nazis if not for every French assisted atrocity.

I despise the mindless Francophobic reaction to France's lack of support for U.S. policy on Iraq. But for too long Vichy and its spineless leaders, Petain and Laval, never mentioned in the film, have gotten a bit of a free ride. So I was happy to see Brossard made frightened as his pursuers close in.

Enjoyable, some nice scenery. Not much more except that Michael Caine is always terrific. And so is Tilda Swinton who brings focused intensity to Judge Levy's unyielding crusade for justice, for that it is.

6/10.

Interesting, but ultimately disappointing

[erin-fox · 5/10 · 28 August 2003]

Please keep in mind that the film I saw was a work in progress: I was part of a test audience who previewed the film in its post-production form. What reaches theatres eventually may be quite different. We can only hope.

What could be an enlightening look at the circles of Nazi sympathy that existed and continue to exist in every level of French society is instead muddled and uncertain. Weak, terribly awkward dialogue and characters who make no sense distract from the core story. The usually splendid Michael Caine comes off as not only unsympathetic (which was perhaps the intent), but actually annoying: a bumbling, puffy old man begging for atonement for his sins without showing any willingness to pay for them. That this is being marketed as a "political thriller" is most distressing: though I can see that an aura of suspense was intended, it fails to materialise. The audience knows what will happen from beginning to end.

I look forward to seeing the final product - I think there may be hope here, but the film needs *work*. Badly. Especially for the sake of all the respected names involved (Norman Jewison, Caine, Tilda Swinton, Jeremy Northam).

A bit of a flop

[neil_mc · 6/10 · 17 December 2005]

I dare say this film would have been much better received had it cast the film logically rather than have 'everybody's favourite Cockney' Michael Caine playing somebody called Pierre Boussard - I mean, Caine has never struck me as a "Pierre" somehow. And we can say for sure, that it couldn't have done any worse, a $22m financial loss is testament to that.

Of course I realise the book is in English, but there is a big difference between the two mediums and very rarely does a film pull off a stunt like this, see 'The Hunt For Red October' or Jude Law's Russian misfortune in 'Enemy At The Gates'. At least The Statement didn't slip into having Caine and co. adopt Gallic accents - that would have been too much to bare.

As for the film itself, it seemed a complete waste of police time to have half of the French PD chasing round after an OAP with a heart condition who'd been *ordered* to kill seven people 50 years earlier during German occupation. And for the film to set itself up as some sort of chase thriller, it very rarely gets past a stroll and the tension never really reaches the levels it should do.

All that said though, there are far worse films out there and this isn't an altogether bad way to spend 2 hours. 6/10

Crap, only for those who want their anti-French prejudices confirmed

[sfviewer123 · 3/10 · 6 January 2006]

Pure rubbish, ridden through with stereotypical Anglo-Saxon anti-Catholic and anti-Continental bigotries and biases. Having said that, some nice scenery but that was about it. I can't believe Michael Caine made something this poor at this point in his career.

And now adding more content to satisfy IMDb's requirements: Michael Caine plays an ex-Nazi French collaborator; he "acts" exceedingly nervous throughout the film helped no doubt by the liberal application of some oil-based lubricant to his face; Church officials are of course portrayed as deeply corrupt and dishonest, protecting their pro-fascist sympathies until the heat gets turned on them when naturally they sell out their own man, and so on. Again, the only reason to watch are some nice scenes of the French countryside, one could even let it run with the sound off as a kind of background living-room panoramic.

Better than Critics Say

[[e-mail] · 10/10 · 5 August 2004]

"The Statement" deserves far better ratings than critics have given it. In the first place, it's NOT about an ex-Nazi in flight. It's about a French collaborator, the Vichy Government, France's failure to confront the role its officials -- some still in power -- played in the Holocaust, and the efforts of right wingers in the Catholic Church to shelter the collaborator. Michael Caine is superb in the leading role, and Tilda Swinton and Jeremy Northam are excellent as the judge and army colonel who are trying to bring him to justice while those who formerly hid him seek to execute him, blaming a non-existent group of Jewish vigilantes. The supporting cast, which includes the wonderful Charlotte Rampling in a minor role as the collaborator's undivorced wife, is also quite good. I don't see how anyone can complain that this movie "drags." While there are legitimate criticisms that could be made about unexplained motives, the action moves at the appropriate pace given the complexity of the story it is telling.

Good cinema...

[rainking_es · 7/10 · 15 February 2006]

Norman Jewison, he's an sly old fox, you cannot expect him to make an avant- garde/revolutionary movie at this stage, he won't... but his name is synonymous with "quality", and that ain't to be sniffed at.

"The Statement" is such a good suspense movie about an former french soldier which served in Vichy's army and committed some "crimes against the humanity". 50 years after the WWII is over there are a lot of people who want his head: some are afraid of what he may tell to the authorities, some just want to arrest him. There's sort of a critique of Catholic Church's attitude during the Holocaust (how they turned a blind eye to it), and after it (sheltering some Nazis that had a warrant for arrest).

The movie has kind of a classic style, it's been brilliantly filmed and the presence of Michael Caine is nothing but a nice present for all those who love cinema.

*My rate: 7/10

Second Opinion, identical to the first

[grafspee2 · 5/10 · 5 August 2004]

Not to condemn a film or a people outright, but English folk don't make for the best French folk. This glaring problem is for a casting director or producer to avoid so people like I, uneducated in such things, don't find such loose openings to attack in this lacking, empty and emotionless film about an event that should have been given more depth and clarity than usual modern politically savvy approach.

Collaborators in the war for the most got their due justice when the Allies liberated the defeated nations. Those in league with Axis forces were tarred and feathered, beaten up, lynched and brought to trial and execution before and after the Cold War. Its easy to judge those that helped the Germans, Italians, Japanese or Soviets before 22 June 1941, but they thought that the enemy was there to stay and it was best to do what they wanted or it would be summary executions or off to the concentration and death camps. The neutral nations that avoided the fight knew their fate under occupation and should not be blanketed as inherently evil. The avoidance of war is no easy endeavour.

There is a human side to atrocity, we are the only species capable of such horrific things. The Statement misses any and all humanity to the investigating judges, the catholic church (a bleeding and reeling target) the Vichy France of Petain, the rapine and genocidal policies of the Third Reich. I was expecting far too much out of this film . . .

That is not to say that it didn't have its positives. The English actors gave strong performances, despite my needless diatribes, especially Michael Caine as the Nazi collaborator and Tilda Swinton as the French War Crimes Prosecutor, well as Colin Salmon and various characters that I know only by face.

I wanted it to be more like Boys from Brazil, Marathon Man, Shindlers List or Judgment at Nuremburg, but it falls short into the realm of Charlotte Gray or a Bosworth movie (Brian or Kate)even with the breadth of talent involved in this fact/book based film. Which won't be listed, there's no need to brown-nose about this failed attempt of a film.

Far too basic on all levels – not bad but just rather disappointing throughout

[bob the moo · 27 December 2005]

After the Nazi's were driven out of France, those who had collaborated were mostly rounded up and punished – many by death. However some escaped and were hidden, while others rose in power within the new regime. Pierre Brossard is one of the former and continues to live in fear, protected from those that would avenge his victims by his friends within the Catholic Church. However a close encounter shows that some group is closing in on him, meanwhile political pressure from Judge Livi and Colonel Roux's investigation into his whereabouts mean that he is quickly running out of friends willing to shelter him.

It is difficult to know how to approach this film because it itself doesn't seem too sure of what it is trying to do. Is it a drama looking at the idea of fleeing war criminals? Is it a chase movie? Is it a character piece looking at Brossard? It is never clear because it does do some elements of each but it doesn't really do anything that well and I, as a viewer, was a bit confused about what I was supposed to feel or think during it. The story itself is OK, reasonably engaging but not having anything of interest to it. As a chase film I was interested and the themes helped it seem more than the sum of its parts but not in reality. The motivations of the characters are never that well developed; the Livi/Roux parts are dull and quite routine although the sections with Brossard are more interesting.

It is a shame then that the film cannot decide what it wants to do with him – do we feel for him, hate him or just watch him? The film doesn't let us decide this in a good way representing the complex nature of the character, but rather just doesn't push out any ideas one way or another. Caine does well despite this and gives a good character a bit of depth. He is where the film is although he probably benefits from the fact that everyone else is quite ordinary. Swinton and Northam are quite ordinary and their parts of the film just seem put of place and half-cooked. Support from Neville, Bates, Rampling and others just about do the job but add little.

Overall this is an OK film but nothing at all more than that. Despite the interesting and complex potential the film just delivers an ordinary chase movie and fails to do anything with the ideas and concepts inherent in it. Caine does well to produce quite a convincing character but he is alone in that, with the material and the rest of the cast failing to do anything that interesting. Not bad but not worth trying to find because it is nowhere near as good as one would have hoped.

What it means to be Catholic

[dallanor-1 · 7/10 · 13 January 2005]

I am afraid that Catholic believers are better entitled to understand the true essence of The Statement. Protestants and agnostics are admittedly individualists, but a Catholic believes that sin is collective and pardon is collective, too. When a Catholic says "The Church" he is meaning the body of believers, and not only the organization with headquarters in Rome. All those who submitted comments on this film have forgotten that Brossard was NOT a criminal before the passing of the law on crimes against humanity, so the Church was giving him shelter against outlaws who wanted to eliminate him, not against the State. The Catholic Church has always given protection to the persecuted, as we Brazilians do know from the times of our not-really-entirely-gone military dictatorship. During World War II, the French clergy helped the communists and the partisans, and priests have always given their life in the defense of the persecuted. So, Brossard believes that he can receive remission, because remission is never denied to anyone, but he sees his world coming down around him - the true criminals being those who are now in power and KEEP killing to maintain power. And Brossard is a touching portrait of a man like me and you who only wants to put and end to his paying his debts.

Disappointing

[rjc739 · 6/10 · 30 December 2004]

This is a weak movie which could have turned into something better. . It's surprising that this movie won awards for directing and cinematography. The story and the relationships between a few of the characters are somewhat interesting but the way it's told is boring and non-suspenseful. I think there was no chemistry in this movie whatsoever except for the scene 1/4 of the way through with Michael Caine and his ex-wife (Charlotte Rampling). This is when the movie started to come alive. The two seemed to have real good interaction but unfortunately she was never to be seen in the movie again. I'm surprised that Michael Caine took this movie. You're not going to get the Caine from The Eagle Has Landed, Hannah and Her Sisters or Educating Rita in this flick. I can think of a handful of other Caine suspense films that are 300% better than this one. The duty he had in this movie was to act feeble and act obsessed with religion which he did. Other than that there was nothing for him. His weeping and pleading for forgiveness in front of priests wasn't even believable. He has aged a lot and I don't know if his skills have diminished or not. Caine's character (one who was forced by Nazi's to execute jews) was chased from town to town and was never confronted face-to-face by his enemies. There was a lot of phone tag and no confrontation. The story doesn't do a good job explaining why these specific people are hunting him down. And the main thing I wanted to know was: Why have these people waited until he was 75 before they started hunting him down? That was never answered. I was also waiting for Caine's character to get real clever and outwit someone (which Caine is really good at) but there was nothing in the script resembling that. Caine's character was an extremely average man who depended only on some praying, a beer or some wine and that was it. The other characters were lost I thought. I thought they were acting like they were just reading the script for the first time especially the aged judges which took every bit of suspense out of this film. The judges and the clergy were the main keys in the movie and watching them was like watching dying whales on a beach. The young woman judge (who was one of the other main characters) spent every scene trying to get her image across as a tough, liberated, chain-smoking woman. The trouble lay in the fact that her script was completely hollow and her character never took any shape. When the camera was on her I spent my time staring at the smoke she blew out of her mouth instead of listening to what she had to say. The ending was a real let down, too. I thought there was going to be lots of struggling when Caine met his enemies face-to-face. Instead, when they finally caught up with him someone posing as a friend lured him into an alley and popped him point blank with a couple bullets with no struggle or exchange of words and that was it! Then I waited for a few last syllables from Caine but nothing happened! It seems that this movie was made for the sole purpose of honoring some french jews that were executed In WWII and nothing more. The best thing in this movie was the French scenery.

Good story, but....

[byron-116 · 6/10 · 22 October 2021]

....it was awkward to watch British actors play French citizens. Certainly Michael Caine was superb, as are TIlda Swindon, Alan Bates, and Charlotte Rampling, whereas the story is captivating.

The potential for this film is great, but the screenplay does not fulfill the possibilities

[steiner-sam · 6/10 · 22 September 2021]

It's set in early 1990s France, and tells the story of a Nazi collaborator in Vichy France trying to avoid capture by authorities and murder by supposed Jewish commandos.

Pierre Brossard (Michael Caine) is the Nazi collaborator, who in 1944 oversaw the execution of seven Jewish men. He was sentenced to death, but escaped. In the 1970s he was pardoned by the French government to great controversy, and was later charged again with crimes against humanity. In the film, Judge Annemarie Livi (Tilda Swinton) leads a new investigation with the assistance of Colonel Roux (Jeremy Northam). The military assist because the police are believed to be helping Brossard.

In the film we meet many Catholic Church clerics who assist in hiding Brossard for over 40 years. For fans of the Stratford Festival in Ontario, Canada, they include a Father Le Moyne (William Hutt), part of a secret Catholic "Chevalier" society that protects former Vichy France collaborators. Another short appearance is made by Brossard's estranged wife, Nicole (Charlotte Rampling).

The plot also include assassins trying to kill Brossard while leaving a statement that he was executed for the killing of the seven Jews in 1944. It is initially thought the assassins are Jews seeking revenge, but the plot takes a turn by the end.

The potential for this film is great, but the screenplay does not fulfill the possibilities. It is very didactic at points, detracting from the dramatic potential. Caine is strong in the role of Brossard, Northam and Swinton have less material with which to work. Nonetheless, I enjoyed the film overall.

Problematic Movie to be Avoided

[FilmLabRat · 2/10 · 4 December 2003]

While this is an interesting thrill ride (and Caine is a marvelous actor), the problems associated with the movie detract too much to make it worth watching.

The basic story involves a former Nazi affiliate being hunted down after avoiding execution for over 40 years. In short, the Catholic Church has been hiding and supporting the fugitive, because they have also been guilty of anti-semitism, and they believe that he just obeyed orders when he killed 7 Jews and later repented. He now has constant nightmares about the whole thing, and they sympathize, having granted him absolution. They turn out to be as corrupt as mafia.

The half-Jewish now agnostic judge who pursues Caine is a moderately interesting character, but the audience never can truly sympathize with her because she's rude, arrogant and impulsive most of the time - a young, annoying idealist. The Caine character is interesting because he has touching moments (like when he leaves money and a penitant, caring, thankful note for his estranged wife) and seems genuinely emotional, open and desperate at times. Clearly, he's not simply a hard-hearted man, yet he does despicable things like kick an innocent dog. Perhaps this is meant to mimic the Sopranos? Although the movie may be trying to say something about justice and corruption, it's hard to engage, because there is no real protagonist [it's not Caine simply because he's a fugitive although the audience roots for Caine at times because the camera follows him]. The viewer needs a little more affinity with the young female judge or one of the people pursuing the murderer for his crimes against humanity if we are to engage this film beyond its action-adventure.

Secondly, the story is set entirely in France with all French characters, yet NO ONE speaks French! Personne. No restaurant owners, no one conversing on the bus with friends, aucun. It makes the dialog about Caine's character receiving his passport to Canada especially humorous: "Oh good - They speak French there, don't they?" Do they speak French in France too? [see by way of contrast "Last Samurai" where Cruise's character learns Japanese, and most of the movie is subtitled, as Cruise actually speaks Japanese!] To be fair, there is a little nod to France with the occasional French accent, when pronouncing French names. [no I'm not French but how about a touch of cultural sensitivity]

There are a number of similar shortcomings with the writing/directing, but perhaps the most serious detraction in my opinion is that, in an interview, the writer spoke a great deal about conservative Catholicism, saying that it's an important time to expose the history of their anti-semitism. He explained their opposition to Vatican II, their practices and their retention of the Latin mass.... Is this another cheap "guilty by association" slam against Mel Gibson? Wow. The media and entertainment community have stooped to some low levels before, but an entire high-budget movie? Why didn't they just cast Gibson in the Caine role as scary religious hypocrite and anti-semite? I actually liked Norman Jewison (and loved Ronald Harwood's "Piano Player"), but now that I realize the ironic persecution of the Church (or Mel) that drove them to make this movie, I'm repulsed. [and no, I'm not Catholic or a particular Gibson fan!] This movie is loosely based on historical events and yes the truth should be told. But will people conclude that all conservative Catholics - or all Christians - are hateful, anti-semitic liars, hypocrites and moblike villians? Such ridiculous conclusions are the sort that seem to be in the air. The whole hateful idea - the hypocritical motivation behind this movie - should be avoided. Stand clear.

Very interesting true story

[rheaton-94697 · 7/10 · 10 May 2021]

Caine does another great job in this one. He is very convincing in a true story that is almost hard to believe. The fact that former French collaborators, the church and the mafia operated in cahoots for decades is somewhat mind boggling to me. Caines character keeps moving and so does the story complete with a plot twist at the end. Highly recommended.

Somehow it just doesn't catch fire

[MOscarbradley · 5/10 · 11 December 2005]

Norman Jewison's film version of a little-known Brian Moore novel posits a few interesting ideas - the role that the Catholic Church has played in sheltering Nazi collaborators from justice and whether it is right to pursue an otherwise penitent man for crimes committed fifty years earlier. Given the subject matter, a director with a record for top-notch entertainments, a first-rate cast and a script by the redoubtable Ronald Harwood, the film itself never catches fire, at best passing the time rather than actively engaging the emotions.

One fault may be in accepting the high-toned, plummy British cast as French, (Tilda Swinton gives a terrible performance as the judge on the trail of Michael Caine's war criminal). On the plus side, Caine himself, Cockney accent notwithstanding, gives a superlative performance as the hunted criminal, casually out-classing everyone around him.

A Faithful Adaption!

[griffic-2 · 10/10 · 5 December 2003]

I've read some people comment about how the characters in THE STATEMENT film should speak with French accents as the film is set in France. I have to tell you that nothing would be more distracting that a bunch of English actors using phony French accents for 2 hrs. The film would be ripped apart by the critics far worse than to go without the accents. That's why other French-set films like QUILLS and THE THREE MUSKETEERS have decided to use English accents. Intelligent movie-going audiences are supposed to be able to suspend their disbelief and assume early on that the characters are French, because the fact that they are French is, frankly, unimportant...The idea is for English speaking audiences to follow the plot and identify somewhat with the characters, and it's far easier to do that without the use of distractingly bad foreign accents. Besides, in reality the French don't speak English with French accents...they speak the French language! So unless you commit to allowing the actors to speak the actual language, the next best thing is to have them go with the actors' native language, especially since the filmakers are trying to appeal to English speaking audiences!

I've also noticed a couple of people being quite critical of the moment when Caine's character kicks a dog. In fact, someone on this forum claims it was inspired by THE SOPRANOS. These people should understand that this film is based upon a novel written by Brian Moore and that dog-kicking scene is straight from the novel, written before that TV show. Frankly, I myself am stunned that they kept that in, but it shows you how committed screenwriter Ronald Harwood and director Norman Jewison were in staying faithful to the novel, and not trying to soften Caine's character too much, which impresses me tremendously! This brings me to another, more important point. Like the novel, nothing is black and white, but shades of gray. No character represents this like Pierre Brossard! He is a war criminal guilty of terrible atrocities, and still capable of vicious behavior, yet he's a human being with complex emotions like fear, sorrow and even warmth. Brossard behaves in ways that many of us would under the same circumstances, which separates him from such over-the-top, almost inhuman characters as Hannible Lecter or Bill the Butcher. He is, instead, one of life's true villains. The story probably won't end the way most will hope, and the characters won't behave the way most will expect. This is what makes the story so unique. And this is why I believe THE STATEMENT will be a film that will stand the test of time...much like Michael Caine's 1971 film GET CARTER, which received mixed reviews upon it's first release but has become a celebrated classic over the years! We should all be thankful that there are filmakers out there still willing to make intelligent films! I know I am!

Excellent, dramatic

[mfsor · 7/10 · 16 February 2006]

the best acting was between Charlotte Rampling and Michael Caine, but Tilda Swinton does quiet well also.Perfectly paced, tense throughout, full of no-sympathy for Michael Caine nor all the priests who are helping him. Tilda's role is too stereotyped, but she acts so well it doesn't matter. Northam is something of a throw-in just to have another good character, same as Alan Bates. Caine is superb as the man with the twisted Catholic conscience who thinks he can do immense evil and then confess away hell. There was somewhat too much of the everybody-finds-everybody stuff, and the guys who were killed by Caine were too stupid for words, and that was the only false part of the movie.

My brief review of the film

[sol- · 5/10 · 27 April 2005]

A rather ordinarily made chase thriller, it is not too good, but neither is it too bad - just very much in-between. Although his distinctly British accent subtracts from his performance, Michael Caine is given quite a good character too work with, even if the film does seem a tad ambiguous as to whether or not we are meant to side with him. The other characters are not worked on too carefully and really just appear to be flat stereotypes, and they are equally mundanely acted. The film received a few awards for its sound recording, and as trivial as it may seem, the sound quality is noticeably good. It is hard to make any definite statement (no pun intended there) about the film. It is mostly a mix of small vices and small virtues, which produces a film that simply is not really bad, but neither really good.