From the trailers, “Duplicity” seems like “Ocean’s Two,” where Clive Owen and Julia Roberts replace Danny Ocean and his crew in swindling some titan of industry. The first five minutes of the film would lead you to believe the same, with moving split screens, a pseudo-electronic soundtrack and the presence of a sultry Julia Roberts.
Then the opening credits roll, and you get a sense that this movie might be something different. Two jowly men (Paul Giamatti and Tom Wilkinson) spend the entire six-minute sequence wrestling, and the ridiculousness of it all opens up the film right away.
What follows is a movie that shifts between romantic comedy and spy film almost effortlessly, and the star-studded cast of Roberts, Giamatti, Wilkinson and Clive Owen (“Inside Man,” “The International”) pull it off quite nicely.
Owen and Roberts, who meet in the opening scene that takes place a few years before the main action, seem to have an attraction for each other beyond their mutual love of good champagne. The questions of whether or not this attraction is merely a means to accomplishing their mission is what the entire movie hinges upon.
Owen is working for Giamatti’s company, trying to steal a miracle product from Wilkinson’s rival company. And did I mention that Roberts is the head of security for Wilkinson’s company?
It is very interesting to observe two people who are in the business of not trusting anyone, try their hands at a real relationship, and the trust that becomes necessary when you’re in one. Their relationship can be summed up by one of Roberts’ quotes in the movie, “Admit it. You don’t trust me either.”
One of the interesting themes of the movie is how the distrust that comes with espionage is so close to the distrust that relationships can breed. By the end, it has almost become a staring contest between the two, the only question is who will blink first.
Roberts and Owen have a very good give-and-take throughout the film, as it takes almost half an hour for the viewer to know the exact nature of their relationship. As they move forward in the present, flashbacks clue us in, one step at a time, just how these two people got to where they are and what they are doing.
“Duplicity” is one of those films where the viewer doesn’t see everything, plot elements are carefully portioned out when necessary. This can at times be jarring, sometimes it seems as though when the plot is finally picking up, there is another flashback. At first it seems to derail the building suspense, but as we learn more about the characters’ past, we can begin to guess as to where it is going.
The cinematography of the film is different than a standard spy flick. Offices can be as vast as canyons, and cityscapes can feel as claustrophobic as a plastic bag. Many of the more intense scenes are visually striking, whether is it the play of shadows, the view outside of a window or
There are some genuinely funny moments, some painfully awkward moments and moments when everyone but the characters can see what’s about to happen.
On one hand, by combining a romantic comedy with a spy film, one could say the movie tries to do too much, that it spreads itself too thin. On the other hand, it could be seen as an interesting take on the nature of relationships and trust in the most trying of circumstances.
Either way, it keeps you guessing until the last cork is popped, literally. The ending might not satisfy everyone, but the ride is more than worth it.
Rating - $9.00
Showing posts with label crime. Show all posts
Showing posts with label crime. Show all posts
Friday, March 27, 2009
Sunday, February 22, 2009
The International
Action-thriller movies have taken an interesting turn in the last decade or so. The action is always plentiful, but often the ‘thriller’ aspect is nothing more than a loose end that gets tied up by the end, but its purpose is to give a brief respite from the gunfire and fistfights.
The Bond franchise and even the Bourne movies have crossed that line. They used to be plot driven, with the occasional gunfight or car chase thrown in to show the audience that movies can still make magic.
Now the only break in action is to re-load and slap some bandages on, then it’s right back into the fray. While action seems to always bring in the big bucks, there is something to be said for the old model, where the plot sucks you in, and the action is just icing on the cake.
“The International” follows an older school of action movies, the school that gave us classics such as “Bullitt.” This type of movie doesn’t bludgeon you with over-the-top shootouts or car chases that destroy entire city blocks. Instead, it is like a volcano, slowly building pressure, erupting then the pressure starts building again.
The film is structured around these release points, and it provides a glimpse back to a simpler kind of movie, not the Jerry Bruckheimer explosion-fests, but a true action-thriller, with an emphasis on the thriller.
The premise is simple enough. Clive Owen (“Sin City,” “Inside Man”), an Interpol agent with a checkered past, and Naomi Watts (“King Kong,” “21 Grams”), a New York District Attorney with everything to lose, team up to bring down an international bank that is suspected of brokering conflicts around the world and profiting off them.
The bank is the classic shadow organization, with people everywhere, and you never know who might be working for them. A quick assassination at the beginning of the film, and the subsequent response by the authorities shows everything you need to know about how far this bank’s reach is.
Owen seems to be at his best when he plays someone that needs to act rather than mull options. His character’s shady past is hinted at, and that’s really all you need to find his motivation. He does a good job as the “wild card,” a role that has been missing from movies since Clint Eastwood’s Dirty Harry.
Rather than constant explosions, the movie features terse, intense conversations where everyone is lying, and everyone else in the room knows that. It is a remarkable way to ratchet up the tension without being overwhelming. There are also plenty of good, but slightly trite, one-liners, which add nicely to the vintage feel of the movie.
Parts of the plot are predictable, as they are in any action movie. There are subtle references to classics such as “The Godfather” and “Reservoir Dogs” that don’t leap of the screen, but they are there. The combination of cliché and intrigue make the film familiar yet fresh in an interesting way.
And then there is the shootout. A good shootout can make a bad movie better, and conversely, make a good movie worse. In this case, the seven-minute apocalypse that takes place in New York’s Guggenheim Musuem, it’s one for the ages.
What makes it better is that you don’t see it coming. What is supposed to be an eavesdrop on a meeting turns into a full fledged masterpiece of a shootout. The architecture of the museum lets the action breathe, as well as provide many different props for the characters to shoot at.
The movie’s problem becomes apparent as it starts winding down. Without spoiling anything, the film just kind of trails off in a whimper. It’s as if the producers had a few plot points and the idea for the shootout, and decided that it was enough.
Which begs the age-old question: is it about the destination or the journey? While the journey is very satisfying, by the time you get to the destination, you can’t help but look back and wonder, as The Strokes did in 2001,“Is this it?”
Rating - $8.50
The Bond franchise and even the Bourne movies have crossed that line. They used to be plot driven, with the occasional gunfight or car chase thrown in to show the audience that movies can still make magic.
Now the only break in action is to re-load and slap some bandages on, then it’s right back into the fray. While action seems to always bring in the big bucks, there is something to be said for the old model, where the plot sucks you in, and the action is just icing on the cake.
“The International” follows an older school of action movies, the school that gave us classics such as “Bullitt.” This type of movie doesn’t bludgeon you with over-the-top shootouts or car chases that destroy entire city blocks. Instead, it is like a volcano, slowly building pressure, erupting then the pressure starts building again.
The film is structured around these release points, and it provides a glimpse back to a simpler kind of movie, not the Jerry Bruckheimer explosion-fests, but a true action-thriller, with an emphasis on the thriller.
The premise is simple enough. Clive Owen (“Sin City,” “Inside Man”), an Interpol agent with a checkered past, and Naomi Watts (“King Kong,” “21 Grams”), a New York District Attorney with everything to lose, team up to bring down an international bank that is suspected of brokering conflicts around the world and profiting off them.
The bank is the classic shadow organization, with people everywhere, and you never know who might be working for them. A quick assassination at the beginning of the film, and the subsequent response by the authorities shows everything you need to know about how far this bank’s reach is.
Owen seems to be at his best when he plays someone that needs to act rather than mull options. His character’s shady past is hinted at, and that’s really all you need to find his motivation. He does a good job as the “wild card,” a role that has been missing from movies since Clint Eastwood’s Dirty Harry.
Rather than constant explosions, the movie features terse, intense conversations where everyone is lying, and everyone else in the room knows that. It is a remarkable way to ratchet up the tension without being overwhelming. There are also plenty of good, but slightly trite, one-liners, which add nicely to the vintage feel of the movie.
Parts of the plot are predictable, as they are in any action movie. There are subtle references to classics such as “The Godfather” and “Reservoir Dogs” that don’t leap of the screen, but they are there. The combination of cliché and intrigue make the film familiar yet fresh in an interesting way.
And then there is the shootout. A good shootout can make a bad movie better, and conversely, make a good movie worse. In this case, the seven-minute apocalypse that takes place in New York’s Guggenheim Musuem, it’s one for the ages.
What makes it better is that you don’t see it coming. What is supposed to be an eavesdrop on a meeting turns into a full fledged masterpiece of a shootout. The architecture of the museum lets the action breathe, as well as provide many different props for the characters to shoot at.
The movie’s problem becomes apparent as it starts winding down. Without spoiling anything, the film just kind of trails off in a whimper. It’s as if the producers had a few plot points and the idea for the shootout, and decided that it was enough.
Which begs the age-old question: is it about the destination or the journey? While the journey is very satisfying, by the time you get to the destination, you can’t help but look back and wonder, as The Strokes did in 2001,“Is this it?”
Rating - $8.50
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)