Movie Review - Cracks

Director: Jordan Scott 
Starring: Eva Green, Juno Temple, Maria Valverde 
Year: 2009

The problem with amateur directors is that they create amateur films. The problem with directors' children who become directors themselves is that they don't consider themselves to be amateurs. They create beautiful films that seem wonderfully rich and deep, but then fail to deliver, puttering out and losing steam. Such is the case with Sofia Coppola (The Virgin Suicides, Lost in Translation), daughter of Francis Ford Coppola, and also Jordan Scott, daughter of Ridley Scott. Cracks may not seem like an amateur film at first, but give it half a chance and it will prove to you that it is.

Set in an English all-girl boarding school in the 1930s, this dramatic period piece is one part thrilling, one part creepy. Eva Green (Casino Royale, Camelot) is an extremely involved teacher who creates a diving club for a select group of girls. As these girl form a tight clique, they begin to love their teacher in an almost god-like fashion. When a foreign beauty joins their group and begins to steal attention away from the leader of the club, jealousy and greed begin to infiltrate the team, creating divisions that could shatter the serene life the girls once knew.

As far as the scenery, lighting, music, and mood went, the film was excellent. Taking it a step further, however, it lacked a driving force, a depth, a climax; something intangible that it's hard to pin down. Yes, the film was beautiful, and yes, it was suspenseful, but there was a touch of finesse missing that kept it from being great. Perhaps a little too similar to the first half of Atonement, the plot began strong but failed to finish the same way. The acting by Green was mesmerizing, but seemed almost too good when compared to her costars, leaving the film, again, feeling a little empty.

For an amateur film, Cracks was fairly excellent. But for a film that promised so much more and didn't deliver, it was just alright. Most films are either good or bad, but this one may be neither, as is failed to leave much of an impression one way or the other. I wouldn't call it a waste of time, because there were positives, just not enough of them.

My rating: ✰ ✰ ✰