I think I'm safe to say that any film that goes straight to DVD without any sort of theatrical release can be considered a failure. "Peacock" is an ambitious film but it is very flawed. Lionsgate did the right thing by sending this film straight to DVD.
***************SPOILERS*********************************************
"Peacock" is the story of a schizophrenic transvestite named John, who lives in a small town that has kept his alter ego, Emma, a secret for a year. Then there is an incident that brings the alter ego out into the public. Surprisingly, nobody recognizes that Emma is the same person as John and they assume that she is John's secret wife.
Probably the biggest flaw of the film is that nobody recognizes that John and Emma are the same person. Emma looks like a man in drag. Unfortunately, the whole movie revolves around the premise that nobody recognizes John, so the filmmakers had to use some creative license. For me, it was not believable.
**************END SPOILERS***********************************
The second biggest problem is that it is slow and dreary. The film clocks in at 90 minutes but it feels a lot longer. There is not much that happens, there is no memorable dialog, and the supporting characters have no depth.
The main reason to see "Peacock" is Cillian Murphy, who plays John and Emma. He is in every scene and almost every shot and does a fine job in a difficult role.
The rest of the big name actors are good but wasted. Ellen Page is horribly miscast as a prostitute and single mom. Her character is never really fleshed out. The only reason we know that she is a prostitute is that somebody offers her money in one scene. Other than that, we would never have guessed. It's like the screenwriter couldn't decide if she was just some girl who works in a diner or a prostitute, so they left it ambiguous. This is a really small role and Ellen Page is only on screen for about 15 minutes. I wish she had picked a better movie and a better role for trying to transition from comedy to drama.
Susan Sarandon, Josh Lucas, and Keith Carradine are all good in their small roles but I don't know what Bill Pullman was doing in this film. He plays John's overbearing boss almost like a comedic role while the rest of the film is dreary and depressing.
Also, the time period is ambiguous. I think it takes place in the 50's or 60's but it might be later. The cinematography is dark and burnished, adding to the dreary mood. The music is sometimes overbearing and is one of the worst soundtracks I can remember hearing. Music in movies should add to the atmosphere or create a mood. In this film, it calls too much attention to itself.
"Peacock" has some obvious nods to "Psycho," (some of the people involved in the production even mention it in the "making of" feature) but you cannot even to begin to compare the two. "Peacock" is a film that takes a lot of chances but should have been a lot better. I'm sure everyone involved will move on to make better films in the future.
***************SPOILERS*********************************************
"Peacock" is the story of a schizophrenic transvestite named John, who lives in a small town that has kept his alter ego, Emma, a secret for a year. Then there is an incident that brings the alter ego out into the public. Surprisingly, nobody recognizes that Emma is the same person as John and they assume that she is John's secret wife.
Probably the biggest flaw of the film is that nobody recognizes that John and Emma are the same person. Emma looks like a man in drag. Unfortunately, the whole movie revolves around the premise that nobody recognizes John, so the filmmakers had to use some creative license. For me, it was not believable.
**************END SPOILERS***********************************
The second biggest problem is that it is slow and dreary. The film clocks in at 90 minutes but it feels a lot longer. There is not much that happens, there is no memorable dialog, and the supporting characters have no depth.
The main reason to see "Peacock" is Cillian Murphy, who plays John and Emma. He is in every scene and almost every shot and does a fine job in a difficult role.
The rest of the big name actors are good but wasted. Ellen Page is horribly miscast as a prostitute and single mom. Her character is never really fleshed out. The only reason we know that she is a prostitute is that somebody offers her money in one scene. Other than that, we would never have guessed. It's like the screenwriter couldn't decide if she was just some girl who works in a diner or a prostitute, so they left it ambiguous. This is a really small role and Ellen Page is only on screen for about 15 minutes. I wish she had picked a better movie and a better role for trying to transition from comedy to drama.
Susan Sarandon, Josh Lucas, and Keith Carradine are all good in their small roles but I don't know what Bill Pullman was doing in this film. He plays John's overbearing boss almost like a comedic role while the rest of the film is dreary and depressing.
Also, the time period is ambiguous. I think it takes place in the 50's or 60's but it might be later. The cinematography is dark and burnished, adding to the dreary mood. The music is sometimes overbearing and is one of the worst soundtracks I can remember hearing. Music in movies should add to the atmosphere or create a mood. In this film, it calls too much attention to itself.
"Peacock" has some obvious nods to "Psycho," (some of the people involved in the production even mention it in the "making of" feature) but you cannot even to begin to compare the two. "Peacock" is a film that takes a lot of chances but should have been a lot better. I'm sure everyone involved will move on to make better films in the future.