Trauma (2004)

Load of rubbish!!

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

I am a big fan of the genre "Trauma" belongs to (the psychological / what-the-hell-is-really-happening? thriller), but I found this movie to be mostly a slog. It's slow-moving, dreary, and entirely humorless. There is A LOT of footage of Colin Firth moping around, and A LOT of information concerning a parallel plot line about the murder of a female singer / pop star; the twists of the plot near the end render most of the time devoted to those things above wasted! Speaking of twists, some of them (the wife....) are unbelievable, some of them (the psychiatrist....) are predictable. Colin Firth's strong performance is "Trauma"'s main - some would say only - asset. ** out of 4.

Trauma (2004)The creepy, mind-bending aura of this very British contemporary film, starring a lonely and confused man named Ben striving most of all to find reality itself, has so many really interesting aspects you can't help but wonder why it doesn't quite sweep you away. Or worse, why it's downright bad by the end, all the building up and forced drama being affectations built on sand.And leading man Colin Firth is one of our masters of brooding, interior acting, which he does extremely well once again, against the odds set up by director Marc Evans. Firth's portrayal of Ben actually makes the most of all the ambiguity of the clichéd plot, and we try to follow his mind as it keeps slipping from one point of view to another. It sounds great, on paper. But this is no Coen Brothers film, nor a David Lynch or David Fincher film, even if there are shades of each of these styles and intentions throughout. The sets are gloomy if sometimes too obvious--Ben decides to live in a nearly abandoned former mental hospital, for example. And the background crime which pins together the various facts, the death of a beloved and lovely celebrity, leads to the usual hardboiled detective (Brit style) and to newspaper clippings and flashbacks and glimpses on crude surveillance monitors.If you are curious about the approach, check it out. I think the first twenty minutes gives a great idea of the whole movie. It just isn't smartly made or cleverly written, and this kind of card game with possible realities, which the viewer is made to play as much as Ben, requires smartness and cleverness, for sure.Ben may actually be insane, may actually have murdered the person we are led to believe he did, and may actually belong in the institution he is shown, or not shown, inhabiting. Yes, it's willfully confusing. He wrestles with where he lives, where he walks. He wonders about the darks stairs leading to the gloomy underground rooms. The camera whirls or blurs, many times, almost as if they run out of motivation and need to switch to a camera effect right when maybe, through some actual writing and thinking, we could piece together some of the implied complexity (the way they do in, say, "Memento"). In the end, we are given the police investigator giving it all a knowing eye.Besides the faltering writing, there are secondary actors who are not at their best (and whose best isn't always inspired, at that). For one, Mena Suvari, who I know from "American Beauty" in a kind of odd role where her blankness works well, is just far to lifeless and wooden to make her mysterious presence across the hall either scary or provocative. And so, heads up on this one. It's not what it seems, or could have been.

It appears as if audiences either love or hate this film. For those people who hate it, the major complaint seems to be that they found the movie confusing and disjointed - and this is a completely understandable statement, given that the main aim of this film is to present a story as seen through the eyes of someone who has a fractured mind.A very brief synopsis: The movie opens with a series of flashbacks, introducing us to the main character, Ben (Colin Firth). Ben awakens from a week-long coma only to discover he has lost his wife in the very same car crash that put him in the hospital in the first place. Whilst recovering in hospital, he also learns that an R'n'B diva has been brutally murdered, and he soon finds himself obsessed with the details of her grisly murder. He moves into an apartment complex -- an old hospital currently undergoing renovations -- and meets his landlord, the sweetly innocent Charlotte (Mina Suvari). Soon after, Ben's grip on reality begins to loosen as he tries to piece together what happened to his wife and uncover the suspicious reasons behind his obsession with the murdered diva.I own this movie on DVD, & have watched it multiple times. It never ceases to mesmerise, even though I know how the story plays out. The acting is quite good, although Mina Suvari's character can come across as a little wooden at times. Colin Firth is such a quality actor, and he does a brilliant job here convincing us of his tortured-soul status, in a role quite different from his usual 'just-a-normal-guy' routine. In fact, I think his 'just-a-normal-guy' reputation is actually part of what makes this film so creepy - because his character is clearly not 'normal'.When watching this movie viewers should keep in mind that this story is told *entirely* through the viewpoint of a man whose own view of the world is fractured. We, the audience, are given no "life raft" points of view from the other characters in the story. And this is one of the reasons why this movie is so brilliant: the story-telling is disjointed, because the main character's own thought processes are disjointed and non-linear. The editing and cinematography are an important part of the story-telling, featuring jump-cuts, unique camera angles & the use of reflections to depict a shattered perspective on reality. Metaphors & red herrings abound and soon the audience - like Ben - is left wondering what is real and what is all in Ben's mind.

Well, first off, I ***STRONGLY*** disagree with MWhittaker's high-minded dismissive view of this film (Sorry Mate... : ) GEEZ, it's like if a film is not WILDLY original in the extreme or with 'Vivacious Ingenuity' (as stated) so many seem to be just OH so bored and jaded that they dismiss it...Reference was made to 'JACOB'S LADDER'. Okay, so how many people have payed homage to or incorporated such a successfully disorienting mood with such a powerful psychological force even remotely similar to that great film...? Like, NOBODY... Okay, 'SESSION 9', one of my ALL TIME favorites along this line of psychological horror does a GREAT job and probably next to the more abstract nature of 'JACOB'S LADDER' is one of the very best of it's kind. Well, this one was not quite THAT good, but it didn't fall too terribly far short of it.Being an EXTREMELY devoted fan of David Lynch I would have to say that the director of this film captured at least some of the essence of the abstract and psychologically disorienting feeling of say Lynch's 'MUHOLLAND DRIVE', but without all the delightful and idiosyncratic trappings of course : ) So, let's give the guy credit for creating a VERY visually and mentally unsettling film that does it's job well. Not a masterpiece, true..., but FAR, FAR, friggin' ***FAR*** better than all these 'Cheap British Horror' films that our dear Mr. / Ms. Whittaker is alluding to. And you think '28 DAYS LATER' is Artsy...??? I think that that is a strong indicator of your point of view and taste there; not to be disparaging in any way at all, but I personally found that film, although very good, NOT ***NEARLY*** as 'Artsy' as this film in any way, shape, or form. That was perhaps 'Technique' or 'Style' my British friend, but not really any way near the artistic approach that this director used in this film, in my lowly and wretched opinion.Now, I have NOT seen 'MY LITTLE EYE', so perhaps in comparison this one may be disappointing, but please let's give credit for what this film is by itself. I ask, how many films can even come CLOSE to pulling off the mood, suspense, etc. that the visuals in this film do? MOST films that even bl00dy TRY usually fall flat on their little cinematic faces. [***EDIT (2014-10-27) I HAVE seen it now, and it is a frigg'n DISTURBING film! One of the first kind of Proto-Torture Porn movies, thus not really my kind of thing]And, YES, I love AMICUS, HAMMER, GIALLO, and some Grindhouse films too... However, to me this is comparing apples to oranges my friend. Since when have you seen a HAMMER film with this level of psychological complexity...??? I think honestly what it boils down to is a matter of preference; this film simply didn't 'Do It' for you, that's all. Perhaps you tire of all the weird visuals and gimmicks as you see them such as using the video monitors. Okay, fair enough... But, to all you lovers of PSYCHOLOGICAL Horror / Thrillers out there, let me tell you, I have rarely seen a film with such a sense of unease and psychological disorientation as this one for quite a while... Now, as I mentioned before, 'SESSION 9' is one of my utmost, favorite films; but, while watching that one I had more of a sense of 'DAMN! This is friggin' awesome!' whereas with this film I had more of a sense of deeper unease because of the disorienting force of the story making me feel like 'What the HELL is gonna happen next!!???...' So, in conclusion (if you all haven't already hanged yourselves by now... :) I would say that if you really want a good but somewhat ambiguous psychological thriller that will DEFINITELY keep you on the edge, and if you happen to like films similar to 'JACOB'S LADDER' or 'SESSION 9', then you should enjoy this film...