Movie Roundup- Fictional spies, fictionalized spies, and no spies
First, a note that is completely unrelated to the rest of this post. Putting pecans into cheesecake is a brilliant idea. Especially when cinnamon is also involved.
But now! Onto and extremely overdue round of "Orlando inflicts you with her increasing levels of film geekness."
Okay, the icon makes it pretty clear that I liked Duplicity. I, in fact, encourage you all to run out and see it while it's still in theatres (I've seen it twice now). Spies team up to defraud major corporations! And have to deal with the fact they just might be in love! If you imagine mixing movies like To Catch a Thief with strong elements of Charade, giving them a modern look and a somewhat more modern sensibility, and throwing parts of Michael Clayton into the bargain, you should get an idea of what Duplicity is like. ...Oh, but with both the leads being skilled like Cary Grant's character in Charade.
First, Duplicity is a very well made film. Gilroy has now firmly marked himself out as an excellent director as well as writer. He gives the film something of a retro-cool feel with excellent use of split screens, and continues to display a lovely flare for framing a shot in a way that can be dynamic in and of itself. As in Clayton, he's great at overlaying sound, using the sound of one scene over another. He's also just great at cutting between things that are very contrasting in both look and sound in order to create tension. Once again, James Newton Howard does the soundtrack honors, with a score that at points matches up perfectly to on-screen actions, something I admit I love.
And again, the cast is excellent. Clive Owen is clearly having fun, but his performance is actually more nuanced than you might think. You think you've pinned down what kind of guy Ray is, until some little thing in the dialogue or on Owen's face makes you think again. Though, admittedly, the man's Southern accent needs work. Roberts is nicely cool in her role, which is a perfect choice. But special mention must go to the supporting cast here, who are all wonderful. Especially Paul Giamatti, whose performance as one of the CEOs comes close to stealing the movie. Giamatti creates a wonderfully believably quirky charismatic jerk. It's a joy to watch. Tom Wilkinson, once again, is excellent, in a role that demands he be long-winded and somewhat enigmatic at once. And a special shout-out goes to Dennis O'Hare, who looks like he may also become a Gilroy regular. His character is a little similar to his one in Clayton, but his attitude is so different that he almost caused me to do a double-take.
As far as writing goes, yes, there is a certain point where you realize how it's going to end. But for me, at least, that was quite close to the end. In general, Gilroy mixes the cliche, the cynical, and the just plain good. He gives each character a distinctive voice, and so much of the movie is clever and sharp so that when he does sneak in the sappy, it's hard to mind. The final tracking shot before the credits, and the conversation in it which manages to take a romantic cliche and bring it firmly to the ground, is priceless.
Incidentally, whenever Gilroy names someone Pam, they are bound to be awesome. In this we get a Pam who is an extremely competent older woman!
tl;dr - Duplicity is a very fun, very well-made movie about the love of the game.
Now, in a very different look at spying, we have Breach, one of the most undeservedly overlooked movies of 2007. Breach is the fictionalized account of how the worst spy in U.S. history, Robert Hanssen, was taken down, in no small part due to the help of someone who wasn't even an FBI agent yet, Eric O'Neill.
Having seen it a second time now, I am even firmer in my belief that Chris Cooper was robbed. He deserved much more recognition for his portrayal of Hanssen. It's difficult to remember that Hanssen is technically a supporting character, Cooper dominates things so much (which is only appropriate). Hanssen had a lot of strange and conflicting personality elements, but with Cooper they feel less like contradictions and more like facets. That said, one must give recognition to Ryan Phillipe's O'Neill. Phillipe is really very good, nailing all the stages that O'Neill has to go through.
Breach features pretty straightforward direction, a choice I think Billy Ray was wise to make. In a sense, the film really showcases the contradictions inherent in the story. People who are engaged in very complex actions directed rather matter-of-factly. A FBI which is a stagnant bureaucracy but at the same time is extremely important and even dangerous. And the way the film is so grounded for so long makes the final surreal bit much more effective than it would otherwise be, like a sudden glimpse into a nightmare.
The fact that the movie is able to completely absorb you in the tension actually says a great deal for how well it's done. Because it assumes that you know about the Hanssen case going in (...which I actually did. I followed it in Time for Kids back in 6th grade), and as a result actually puts the news footage which would generally be saved for the end at the beginning, as an introduction to what you're about to see.
I am glad to own this movie.
And now, a confession. Before about two months ago (I told you this post is overdue), I had never seen more than one scene of Good Will Hunting. Specifically, we watched the scene in the bar where Will demonstrates his superior knowledge of books on American history in American History AP (have I mentioned lately that I loved that teacher?). Having now seen the entire movie, that scene is still one of my two favorites. It got tied by Will providing his own defense.
I...actually have mixed feelings about this movie. It's good, I'm not going to argue that. The script has flaws, but it's also got some excellent parts, and overall is quite good. Van Sant's direction is sound, and I actually really like the bits where he cuts between things, most notably the part where he cuts between footage of a baseball game and the characters talking about it. Lovely work there. The cast is strong. This also reminded me that I really need to see more of Robin William's dramatic work, because damn that man is good. And the scenes that needed to be painful to watch, were. I appreciate that.
But I'm not sure I liked it. I actually think I want it to have been longer, to go into more detail of what was going on during the time period covered. Will is a very interesting character, and I like that he's not just treated as a result of his issues, he's treated as a person who happens to have issues. But at the same time, I feel like we saw so much of him deflecting that his becoming able to deal with his issues didn't have all that much resonance, because we don't quite understand what they are. Interestingly, I also think there should have been more math. I realize that the movie is in large part about the conflict between the place he feels at home and what he's capable of becoming, but the conflict could have been more evident? He really wants to be intellectually challenged, in addition to wanting to hang out with his friends, but I feel the later parts of the movie lost sight of that first part. Also, I thought Elfman's score was flat-out distracting some of the time, and did not go with the film. Mr. Elfman, I am disappointed.
Really, I think I need to see a few more times. I think I could come to love it. We'll see.
But now! Onto and extremely overdue round of "Orlando inflicts you with her increasing levels of film geekness."
Okay, the icon makes it pretty clear that I liked Duplicity. I, in fact, encourage you all to run out and see it while it's still in theatres (I've seen it twice now). Spies team up to defraud major corporations! And have to deal with the fact they just might be in love! If you imagine mixing movies like To Catch a Thief with strong elements of Charade, giving them a modern look and a somewhat more modern sensibility, and throwing parts of Michael Clayton into the bargain, you should get an idea of what Duplicity is like. ...Oh, but with both the leads being skilled like Cary Grant's character in Charade.
First, Duplicity is a very well made film. Gilroy has now firmly marked himself out as an excellent director as well as writer. He gives the film something of a retro-cool feel with excellent use of split screens, and continues to display a lovely flare for framing a shot in a way that can be dynamic in and of itself. As in Clayton, he's great at overlaying sound, using the sound of one scene over another. He's also just great at cutting between things that are very contrasting in both look and sound in order to create tension. Once again, James Newton Howard does the soundtrack honors, with a score that at points matches up perfectly to on-screen actions, something I admit I love.
And again, the cast is excellent. Clive Owen is clearly having fun, but his performance is actually more nuanced than you might think. You think you've pinned down what kind of guy Ray is, until some little thing in the dialogue or on Owen's face makes you think again. Though, admittedly, the man's Southern accent needs work. Roberts is nicely cool in her role, which is a perfect choice. But special mention must go to the supporting cast here, who are all wonderful. Especially Paul Giamatti, whose performance as one of the CEOs comes close to stealing the movie. Giamatti creates a wonderfully believably quirky charismatic jerk. It's a joy to watch. Tom Wilkinson, once again, is excellent, in a role that demands he be long-winded and somewhat enigmatic at once. And a special shout-out goes to Dennis O'Hare, who looks like he may also become a Gilroy regular. His character is a little similar to his one in Clayton, but his attitude is so different that he almost caused me to do a double-take.
As far as writing goes, yes, there is a certain point where you realize how it's going to end. But for me, at least, that was quite close to the end. In general, Gilroy mixes the cliche, the cynical, and the just plain good. He gives each character a distinctive voice, and so much of the movie is clever and sharp so that when he does sneak in the sappy, it's hard to mind. The final tracking shot before the credits, and the conversation in it which manages to take a romantic cliche and bring it firmly to the ground, is priceless.
Incidentally, whenever Gilroy names someone Pam, they are bound to be awesome. In this we get a Pam who is an extremely competent older woman!
tl;dr - Duplicity is a very fun, very well-made movie about the love of the game.
Now, in a very different look at spying, we have Breach, one of the most undeservedly overlooked movies of 2007. Breach is the fictionalized account of how the worst spy in U.S. history, Robert Hanssen, was taken down, in no small part due to the help of someone who wasn't even an FBI agent yet, Eric O'Neill.
Having seen it a second time now, I am even firmer in my belief that Chris Cooper was robbed. He deserved much more recognition for his portrayal of Hanssen. It's difficult to remember that Hanssen is technically a supporting character, Cooper dominates things so much (which is only appropriate). Hanssen had a lot of strange and conflicting personality elements, but with Cooper they feel less like contradictions and more like facets. That said, one must give recognition to Ryan Phillipe's O'Neill. Phillipe is really very good, nailing all the stages that O'Neill has to go through.
Breach features pretty straightforward direction, a choice I think Billy Ray was wise to make. In a sense, the film really showcases the contradictions inherent in the story. People who are engaged in very complex actions directed rather matter-of-factly. A FBI which is a stagnant bureaucracy but at the same time is extremely important and even dangerous. And the way the film is so grounded for so long makes the final surreal bit much more effective than it would otherwise be, like a sudden glimpse into a nightmare.
The fact that the movie is able to completely absorb you in the tension actually says a great deal for how well it's done. Because it assumes that you know about the Hanssen case going in (...which I actually did. I followed it in Time for Kids back in 6th grade), and as a result actually puts the news footage which would generally be saved for the end at the beginning, as an introduction to what you're about to see.
I am glad to own this movie.
And now, a confession. Before about two months ago (I told you this post is overdue), I had never seen more than one scene of Good Will Hunting. Specifically, we watched the scene in the bar where Will demonstrates his superior knowledge of books on American history in American History AP (have I mentioned lately that I loved that teacher?). Having now seen the entire movie, that scene is still one of my two favorites. It got tied by Will providing his own defense.
I...actually have mixed feelings about this movie. It's good, I'm not going to argue that. The script has flaws, but it's also got some excellent parts, and overall is quite good. Van Sant's direction is sound, and I actually really like the bits where he cuts between things, most notably the part where he cuts between footage of a baseball game and the characters talking about it. Lovely work there. The cast is strong. This also reminded me that I really need to see more of Robin William's dramatic work, because damn that man is good. And the scenes that needed to be painful to watch, were. I appreciate that.
But I'm not sure I liked it. I actually think I want it to have been longer, to go into more detail of what was going on during the time period covered. Will is a very interesting character, and I like that he's not just treated as a result of his issues, he's treated as a person who happens to have issues. But at the same time, I feel like we saw so much of him deflecting that his becoming able to deal with his issues didn't have all that much resonance, because we don't quite understand what they are. Interestingly, I also think there should have been more math. I realize that the movie is in large part about the conflict between the place he feels at home and what he's capable of becoming, but the conflict could have been more evident? He really wants to be intellectually challenged, in addition to wanting to hang out with his friends, but I feel the later parts of the movie lost sight of that first part. Also, I thought Elfman's score was flat-out distracting some of the time, and did not go with the film. Mr. Elfman, I am disappointed.
Really, I think I need to see a few more times. I think I could come to love it. We'll see.