THE CHRISTOPHERS is an exercise in style, with a half-baked script by Ed Solomon (MEN IN BLACK, CHARLIE’S ANGELS, The BILL AND TED films ) with under-developed themes on aging, celebrity culture, art, the relationship to one’s past, and a moral reckoning with one’s actions. None of these are satisfyingly dramatised. The story concerns a once famous painter and acerbic television critic, Julian Sklar (Ian McKellen), who exhibited two sets of paintings of Christopher, his then lover, to great acclaim. There’s another set, half-finished, in the attic. His greedy worthless children (Jessica Gunning and James Corden, beautifully cast) plot to have Lori Butler (Michaela Cole) a victim of Sklar’s judgment and already known to have forged one of his paintings, to be hired as his assistant, and finish off the third set of Christophers so they can be sold for a fortune after his death. The camera dollies in and out, constantly mobile as Sklar monologues, uninterested in the views of Butler, who glowers at him impassively and judges. The whole drama revolves around how the relationship between the two artists, young and old, successful and not, develops. The issue of race is not explored, rather mystifyingly, as it’s another, obvious, antinomy. One can understand why it’s good for Soderbergh to keep active, try new things, and keep directing these exercises. Why the audience should go watch them is less clear. McKellen and Cole would be part of an answer; and it is funny in spots. It has been getting very good reviews but I didn’t find it worth going to a cinema for. The print I saw it in was overly dark, grey and washed out. I’m not sure if that’s the film itself or the projection. Soderbergh did the cinematography (under the name of Peter Andrews). I didn’t actively dislike this. McKellen and Cole make it worth seeing. i just didn’t see the point of it. And I’m not surprised at the lack of business. I’m sure it will all look better on TV.