Persistence (1999) Poster

(1999)

User Reviews

Review this title
1 Review
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
Good till the end...
HonestReviews23 June 2014
Warning: Spoilers
This film is actually not at all bad. It's one of those short films from the 90's with an intriguing story that will keep you on the edge of your seat. The film starts well, with the protagonist (David Dunn) finding a gun in a house and then the rest is told through a flashback to the previous day. The story is interesting and the acting is very good. I thought the lead character played by Joe Rice was really good, as was Owen, Strickland and the assassin. Good acting and a good story (up to a certain point). Owen I thought was particularly good as the comic relief. He has some funny and cleverly written lines of dialogue such as the lawn mowing and Back to the Future reference. The music is also really good and fits the genre of the film.

The story in itself is about an ordinary man who see's his old boss at a train station one day, a man whom he thought was dead in an accident several years back. Our protagonist then finds himself in a deadly conspiracy where a female assassin tries to kill him and then the incident is covered up when he manages to escape. The pacing of the story is good and keeps you guessing. You'll wonder whether each character is involved in the conspiracy or not, and the film cleverly makes it unclear as to whether David is starting to lose his mind or not. The story is fine right up to around the twenty minute mark, and that's where it sadly goes right downhill.

Spoilers incoming. It was a mistake in my opinion killing Owen. That character was the comic relief to the film and a good character. His off-screen death was a bit of a shock and disappointment. Then David does things that are a little stupid, such as lying to Strickland on the phone in front of someone involved in the conspiracy. It would have been better maybe if he had actually found Strickland's newspaper at the station. Then the ending falls flat, when he meets Strickland in the bar. Anyone with any common sense would never agree a meeting point arranged by someone trying to kill them. So David basically dies...and the film tries to justify it by making out the bad guys aren't really bad guys. But these people killed two innocent men. David didn't do anything wrong other than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. A film where killing off the main character at the end in my opinion is a bad ending and thus makes a bad film and storytelling, which is really unfortunate in this case because I really liked the story up to that point. A better ending would have been if they let David go because he could prove Strickland was still alive somehow. It was kind of a cop out ending and I wonder whether the director just ran out of ideas and decided this ending was perhaps the easiest. That being said, I did like Strickland's end speech where he explains everything and the whole conspiracy, but this could have still been said with David surviving the outcome.

Overall a sad disappointment as I liked the film up till that point and the ending is just too easy. When you look at the story it makes little sense that they'd try and kill him. David could have told anyone about Strickland being alive up to the point of his death. It's also mentioned that Strickland's death was in all the newspapers, so wouldn't that make it highly likely he would be recognised wherever he went? What if he kept seeing people he knew from his past, would they have to take them out as well? A little too simple of a story let down by the unfortunate ending. It's worth a watch, just maybe stop at the point when David returns from the station after trying to find the video cameras, then skip to Strickland's speech and stop, because after this point it sadly goes right downhill.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed