Film

What's on at the cinema plus reviews of the latest movie and DVD releases

Incendiary (2008)

Director: Sharon Maguire

Time Out rating

Average user rating

6 reviews

Movie review

From Time Out London

There are so many things wrong with writer-director Sharon Maguire’s first film since ‘Bridget Jones’ Diary’ in 2001 that it’s hard to know where to start, but the fatal problem is that this is a film with an identity crisis. Storywise, Maguire’s adaptation of a novel by Chris Cleave tells of a nervy young British mother on a London council estate (played by American Michelle Williams, no joke) who’s enjoying a dose of extra-marital how’s-your-father with her neighbour, a rich (!) Daily Express journalist (Ewan McGregor, weak) when her husband, a bomb disposal expert and her five-year-old son are killed during a terrorist attack on a London football stadium.

A study of guilt and grief, then, against the backdrop of modern London? Partly – only Maguire’s script wanders down all sorts of narrative dead-ends. It flirts with being a conspiracy thriller when the woman begins a relationship with the boss of her dead husband, a high-ranking police officer (Matthew MacFadyen), but bottles it to explore revenge and forgiveness instead when the woman ridiculously chances upon the son of the bomber. Lest Maguire miss the chance to reflect every hot-button event and issue going, she then tastelessly borrows from the De Menezes tragedy for another needless red herring.

The whole enterprise is show, show, show (witness the digitally rendered World War II-style barrage balloons floating above the Thames in honour of terror victims or the scene of carnage at the stadium), when what’s needed is much more subtlety and focus. It ends up being a compendium of bizarre diversions, most of which are utterly surplus to the film’s half-cocked desire to stick with the experience and emotions of its main character.

Author: Dave Calhoun

Time Out London Issue 1992: October 23-29, 2008

Email Tweet Share

User reviews of this film

Lauren said...

Posted on Dec 07 2010 06:18 Excellent film! A realistic and compelling drama that is well-acted and left me reflecting on it for days.
It's pretty obvious that this "Critic" -Dave Calhoun is venting a personal vendetta against the director of the film, Sharon Maguire, and not giving an honest review. What a shame that anyone would print his baseless drivel.

Report as inappropriate
AllahsFlower said...

Posted on Feb 11 2010 23:12 I rarely ever take a film's critic's opinion on a film, CANT WRITE...CRITIQUE! This film was excellent, Michelle Williams' accent was a bit muddled but im American, what do i know? I watch British TV with people who portray themselves as Americans all the time and most times the accent is laughable. But when the material has bones who cares??? I won't spend too many thoughts on critiquing the critic...Back to the film; I connected with the characters and i most certainly was drawn in by the mother's grief, so much so, that i wanted it to all be a big mistake in hopes the director pulled a soap opera move...it was all a dream. This is an excellent film and i am glad i watched it despite the horrible reviews.

Report as inappropriate
Laura said...

Posted on Dec 18 2009 17:14 I didn't know she was American! I thought her accent was good, I certainly thought it was real. I thought this was a good film and I cried at the bit where she thinks her son in back. It showed a lot of emotion about loss and grief. Would recommend watching it.

Report as inappropriate
SoundAvarice said...

Posted on Dec 09 2009 08:57 Mr. Calhoun has decided here that he doesn't like the film, exaggerating and misrepresenting in order to make his point - it's like bad science. 1. Criticism is made of the casting of an American in the role of an East Londoner. Perhaps Ms. Williams didn't nail the accent in every moment, but her effort is admirable none-the-less (coming from an ex-Londoner). Perhaps Mr. Calhoun doesn't like Americans, as is the fashion these days. No one forces you to drink Coca-cola, Mr. Calhoun. 2. The main character flings with her husband's boss AFTER pursuing the terrorist's son, so there's no bottling to be done. In fact, one of the most explosive scenes involves those characters (near the end, I might add). The so-called "conspiracy" sub-plot merely provides character fodder - one looks for nothing more, and nothing more is promised. 3. Revenge and forgiveness (alongside grief and guilt) are key points in the film - that hardly represents a dead-end. 4. As the previous reviewer states, the character's pursuit of the terrorist's son has nothing to do with chance, nor is it portrayed as such. 5. The alleged De Menezes scene is realistic - a fair expectation given such circumstances. 6. What other choice exists than to digitally render the balloons? They did a good job - you criticize it only to reinforce your position, and because you know they could not be real balloons.
In a nut-shell, you are a sorry excuse for a journalist and film critic, Mr. Calhoun. I suggest you do something else. But, please, let it not involve writing.

Report as inappropriate
monkeyboy said...

Posted on Jun 22 2009 16:56 or rather the person below. i'm obviously a twat as well.

Report as inappropriate
MelancholicAlcoholic said...

Posted on Mar 06 2009 20:36 My father always told me to be wary of reviewers who label their subject as one which is multi layered ("the fatal problem is that this is a film with an identity crisis."). It tells you one thing: That these reviewers have problems with understanding complex issues. Phrases like "doesn't know what it wants to be" etc., might've sounded 'phat!' ten years ago, but are sooooooo nineties.
Especially if said reviewers get essential details wrong, one should be mistrustful about their skills, and whether they'd actually SEEN the film in question.
I'm referring of course, to the mother's meeting with the bombers son, which was of course the completely logical conclusion of the journalists' actions, which themselves were borne out of a desire to win the mother back, which was totally understandable because of his guilt and her being highly attractive AND a damsel in distress, too.
This is clearly a film about guilt, both hers and his, and dealing with grief and death of loved ones. The fact that there is some sort of institutional misdeeds is not there to show conspiracy, but to show that we all f up, sometimes. The references to the shooting/execution of the innocent Brazilian in the subway in 2007, are clear and intentional.
This is a great film, I really dunno what everybody is on about. Aside from the whole accent thing (we know that Williams' accent is fake, it is not perfect, but adequate. If we hadn't known that she was an American, most of us would've never guessed.) This is a near flawless film, storywise. Williams again, delivers on the acting skills. She has been since childhood a talented actress, whose talent can be obscured, at times by her beauty. It can be more of an obstacle to her work, than an asset. Sometimes. Even she, can't have it all ....

Report as inappropriate