Peacock (2010)

"Peacock" is a turmoil of a film. It is from 2010 and is currently available on NetFlix Instant Download Streaming. It is directed by Michael Lander. And it is written by Michael Lander and Ryan O Roy. It is a drama and an independent film that is deep in thought and content. The cast includes Cillian Murphy, Ellen Page, Susan Sarandan, Josh Lucas, Bill Pullman, Graham Beckel, Keith Carradine, Eden Boodnar,, Chris Carlson, Flynn Milligan, Virginia Newcomb, Jaimi Paige, Nathan Christopher, Richard Latch, Tate Hustedt, Tory Schaefer, Craig Michael, Scott Schulte, Peter Gregory Thoomson, Michael Rosner, Paul Cram, Erin Stover, Bethany Larson, Emily Dooley, John Paul Gamoke and Bridget de vos Vaudt. Peacock is the name of the very small town and the story is of a troubled young man who was abused at some time in his youth. The majority of the story revolves around his current disorganized state of mind. I gave it 5 stars. Dale Haufrect

This is a surprisingly good movie that's well worth your time to watch. The story is OK, could've used a little fleshing out & judging by some of the negative reviews - maybe it needed to explain itself more. Although I think sometimes it's good to have movies that don't make it easy for the audience. The problem is, the audience don't support movies that are difficult so a perfectly good production often gets shoved aside (as this one did) in favor of more conventional straight-forward brain-candy.The characters needed a little more development and it lacked a lot of suspense that could have been introduced. BUT the direction was generally good, there was some lovely camera work & thoughtful framing throughout which resulted in a great evocation of mood and vaguely sinister under-tones (just wish they'd gone somewhere more sinister!!). The back-story was intriguing but they rushed through that when it might have been better to expand on it - certainly it would have introduced more thrills & creepiness. But even so, the story works well enough and is thought-provoking and even heart-warming at times.BUT the stand out in this movie is the acting, particularly by Cillian Murphy. Many people have already mentioned it was Oscar worthy and I'll add my voice to that opinion. I've never seen anything quite like it. I wish he'd been given a more gritty story to apply that amazing talent to in this movie. It was so close to getting there but just missed getting the edge it needed to make it a great movie. I was totally in love with Emma. She was portrayed so beautifully I was in her corner no matter what!! :)I also agree with many others that a lot of viewers missed the point and nuances of this movie so they thought - incorrectly - that there was nothing to it. There's too much reliance these days on a movie having some awesome "twist" and if it doesn't deliver said "awesome twist" it's "pointless" or boring. I'm not sure when "twists" became a prerequisite to being an interesting flick. Peacock has it's share of twists (more than one) but they are small and do not define the movie. They are there to move the story along not to be clever. Peacock is better thought of as a character study revolving around what happens when a perfectly & obsessively ordered (right down to the minute) but pretty much insane lifestyle suddenly has the rug pulled out from under it. Despite it's flaws this movie is a lot better than a large percentage of the stuff that ends up in wide theatre release and it's a crying shame this was just dumped to DVD without so much as a whisper.Watch it - if only to see the awesome performance of Cillian Murphy. Even most of the negative reviews acknowledge how amazing he was. Most of the points I've given this movie are there because of him.

If you've seen Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho, heard about it, talked to somebody who saw it or basically just been alive for any length of time since the movie was first released, you don't need to see Peacock. That's because as well acted as this film is, and as adorable as Ellen Page always is, this is a story about what Norman Bates would be like if he didn't kill people. So, it's like Psycho but without any danger, mystery or purpose. I glanced at the "making of" feature on the DVD and co-writer/director Michael Lander seemed proud that he made a movie that doesn't do anything you expect. That's true, but only because Peacock doesn't do much of anything at all. It hints at this and it alludes to that and it references the other, without ever delving deep into any of its chosen subject matter. This is a well crafted nothing.John Skillpa (Cillian Murphy) is crazy. Most of the time he's himself, an awkward, brittle, almost autistic man who works at a bank and can barely communicate with other human beings. In the mornings, however, he's Emma and she cooks John's breakfast, washes his clothes and peeps through the curtains at the children across the street. And no, John's not a transvestite living in the 1950s small town of Peacock, Nebraska, though I couldn't help thinking that would have made a much more interesting story. John's a full on split personality like Psycho or Sybill or Raising Cain. And it's clear before the opening credits are over that it's because John was abused by his mother.It's unclear how long John has been existing this way but when a railroad accident deposits a train car in his back yard and the whole town of Peacock suddenly learns of John's "wife", that existence starts to change. Emma begins to take over more and more of John's time and becomes a functional person, even as John becomes more frazzled and anguished. Eventually, Emma and John face off over small town whore Maggie (Ellen Page) and her son by John. Co-writer/director Lander apparently thought he could fake out the audience by first making John appear to be the unstable one and Emma the normal personality and then pull the ol' switcheroo, but he only fakes out himself.Peacock is wonderfully performed. Cillian Murphy isn't exactly doing anything you haven't seen before, but his John and Emma are quite well conceived and executed roles. Susan Sarandon as the proto-feminist wife of the town's mayor and Page as the girl from the wrong side of the tracks are really good. Graham Beckel as an avuncular political operative who wants to stage a rally at the train in John's backyard and Bill Pullman as a shifty bank manager are great living scenery. The problem is that at the end of the film, you've seen some nice acting and that's about it.You can sympathize or empathize with the insane but it's awfully hard to identify with a nut job, especially when you're expected to just assume all the reasons why the person is crazy. There are no flashbacks to explain John. There are no digressions to explain Emma. The viewer is simply presented with this loon and is supposed to care about him. Since it's difficult to identify with a whacko, you can try to connect to him through his relationships with normal people. However, Peacock is overstuffed with supporting characters who never interact with John or Emma in more than superficial ways. There's a local cop, the bank manager, a neighbor, the Mayor and even Sarandon and Page's characters never get below the surface of either personality. Maybe if it had only been the triangle of Emma, John and Maggie or if the central conflict was the liberated-for-the-1950s mayor's wife drawing the Emma personality out of John's orbit or if the story's focus had been on the local cop as the closest thing John has to a friend trying to figure out where his never before seen wife came from, maybe that would have given some direction and edge to this motion picture. There's none of that, though. All Peacock has is the twist of trying to make you think John is the bad guy and Emma the heroine, only to flip it around. But he's crazy and she's a delusion. The real twist would have been playing it straight and arguing that madness is sometimes the healthiest and sanest reaction to this world.If you're a fan of actors or don't know what the words "Alfred", "Hitchcock" or "Psycho" mean, you might like Peacock. For the rest of us, it's a waste of time.

What a waste of talented actors. I'd probably only watch this movie again if i was intoxicated and felt like laughing at a man dressed as a woman for two hours. No wonder this went straight to video. thinking it would be interesting and it is not. it's just a man dressed as a woman in 1950. That's what the whole movie is about! my and my friend were cracking up at it. In the beginning there is a train wreck that looks totally fake, It is hilarious. In general however, it has no story and really wasn't about anything. Susan Sarandon just seems like she does not want to be there. It's very boring as wellI'd be curious to see if the filmmakers on this make anything else.