|
Directed by: Robert De Niro Starring: Matt Damon, Angelina Jolie, William Hurt, Alec Baldwin, Robert De Niro Damon plays Edward Wilson, a Yale grad recruited to form a foreign counter intelligence unit during World War II. Based (very) loosely on the life of James Angleton, the film jumps back and forth between the film's primary plot of a security breach that causes the Bay of Pigs invasion to fail and Wilson's younger life as he worked his way up through the intelligence community. The spycraft stuff is mildly entertaining, though there's nothing you haven't seen before in better movies. As played by Damon, Wilson is a virtual blank. He rarely shows emotion of any kind and the film gives us virtually no reason to sympathize with him when his single-minded focus on his work brings the predictable consequences. The film's time switching structure could have illuminated what made him the way he was, but instead we get essentially the exact same person existing in different eras with more or less aging makeup. A childhood tragedy described early in the film does little to tell us what made him the way he is. There is no detectable character arc; the guy you see at the beginning of the movie is for all practical purposes the same man you see at the end. Jolie is fine with what she's given, but her part is relatively minor. In fact, the entire family life subplot, even when it ties into the spy stuff, feels tacked on and a waste of time. The other performances are good; standouts include Michael Gambon as a mentor to Wilson, Alec Baldwin (who can't seem to do anything but be good these days) as an FBI agent, and William Hurt. All of them however are betrayed by a script that too often relies on seemingly clever one-liners intended to show off the world beaten wisdom of the characters. I got an Akiva Goldsman vibe from some of it (at least Akiva Goldsman with a jump in IQ of about 20 points). De Niro shows that he can be a fine director in terms of visual style. There are many beautifully done transitions between grainy photos of historical places that then seamlessly turn live action. There are lots of mysterious people in shadow and the requisite cigarette smoke of the era. He never gets carried away though. As I mentioned, the acting is good, so points to him there. The movie is long (2:45), but it's problems couldn't have been fixed by merely editing what was already there. The script and ineffective narrative structure are to blame, and cutting the fat can't fix that. What ends up as a boring mess is all the more saddening when you read up a bit on the real life man that inspired it. Angleton led nothing short of a "holy loving poo poo" life, and virtually none of that is here. RATING: 2 PROS: Well crafted, solid to good performances CONS: Poorly structured, unfocused ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://imdb.com/title/tt0343737/
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2006 19:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 20:29 |
|
|
This movie was beyond boring, I went into it expecting something really good but what I got was half an hour of sleep waking up and walking out midway. Voted 1.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2006 09:46
|
|
|
Too long for the quality it delivers. It's a good film but for 3 hours long it should be great. So little time is spent learning about Edward's wife and son, obviously to show how little he spent with them, that when they suffer you just don't care about them. This renders all of that subplot, which is probably about an hour in total, pointless. It's sad because everything else in the film is great. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2006 10:11
|
|
|
Extremely boring. I was expecting a very interesting movie, not an action film, but at least an interesting one. Robotic acting, too many closure points, and only 3 minutes of Joe Pesci. God drat waste of money. 2/5, for good shots.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2006 01:55
|
|
|
There was never really any tension or danger throughout the whole movie so it was very hard to get drawn in. On top of that, Damons incredibly stoic character threatened to put me to sleep more than once. 2/5.
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2006 08:09
|
|
|
The biggest thing that bothered me about this was that I couldn't empathize with any of the characters, except maybe Laura. At one point or another, I wanted to kick every other character in the teeth. As everyone else has said, it's very very slow, and there are a lot of subplots that either don't go anywhere or should have just been left out. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2006 17:31
|
|
|
While the movie is long, I wasn't bored at any point, as there is more than enough intrigue to fill the time. There are many characters, everyone is double-timing everyone else, and the plot jumps around within a 40-year timeline, so the film can be confusing in some parts. However, given that it is a movie about spies spying on spies and their lies, the sense of confusion and suspicion fits very well. I was very suspicious of every character in the movie, and much like the protagonist, I had no idea who to trust. All the performances handed in were excellent, even Matt Damon, who played an appropriately stone-faced proto-CIA spook. He very rarely smiles or makes any kind of personal comment or gesture, giving a good deal of gravity to the few times that he does. De Niro does a good job overall, as someone metionned, and the movie features some very nice shots in places. I would very much like to see this movie again, knowing more about who is lying to whom, to get a better understanding of all the characters and motives. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2006 07:51
|
|
|
I enjoyed this movie alot. The feel of the movie was very appropriate throughout. Given that it was a spy movie, there was all sorts of "huh?" moments. But I dont think those took away from the film like others have said. I wish the bigger actors had bigger roles, but they all did very well with the roles they were given. My only real complaint was that the movie could have been shortened because there were a few scenes that didn't really add to the plot for me. The acting was superb, and the story was intriguing. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2006 03:12
|
|
|
I liked it a lot. Initially the family stuff bugged me (like everyone else), but the more I thought about it that whole subplot was to the movie as Edward's family was to him: took up more time than he'd like, doesn't really hold his interest, and gets in the way of the cool spy life he wants to be living. Probably reading too much into that, but it adds an interesting element, and turns a negative into a positive. Overall, it was involving and interesting, and I'm glad I saw it. Needed more Pesci, though. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2007 06:51
|
|
|
I thought it was rather dull as well. I guess i wanted some more action and CIA backstory and what I got was something in the lines of Ron Howards latest movies, which are all way to long and boring. The acting is okey, but overall the movie seemed to unclear and messy. 2/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2007 19:40
|
|
|
I've seen a lot of movies at the theater. Never before had I seriously contemplated getting up and leaving. There was absolutely no "excitement" to this movie whatsoever. There was nothing keeping me interested or drawing me back in. I seriously thought I was in a Politics lecture. I think that may have been more exciting to be honest. Damon did well with what he was given but I have no idea how he even enjoyed doing a movie like that. I enjoy the occasional political drama but this just had nothing compelling about it. It was also about an hour too long. I can honestly say I would have found more excitement in cleaning my apartment with those near 3 hours. 2/5 Git Mah Belt Son fucked around with this message at 05:05 on Jan 8, 2007 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2007 05:01
|
|
|
I liked and hated Damon at the same time. On one end, I saw him play the same emotion for 2 and a half hours. On the other, well, he was an emotionless bastard, what else could he do? The plot was pretty lame, honestly; I was hoping for more focus on the formation of the CIA, not for the movie to be focused on some guy's life. He wasn't even a founder for Christ's sake, just some agent who did what he had to do. 2/5, not recommended for the time spent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2007 08:16
|
|
|
The story was very good in my opinion, but the main character was completely uninteresting. It's also very difficult to becomed immersed in the reality of a movie when Matt Damon is playing the father of a 21-year-old without significant aging makeup. Also, as everyone has said, this is a LONG movie. 2.5/5
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2007 01:13
|
|
|
0.5/5. The most boring film I've seen ... well, ever. Way too long for the content within it. Slow pace, lack of any techniques used to stimulate the viewer (fast or flashy visuals, change in pace, etc). Not that explosions make a good movie, but this was just painfully boring. Definitely should *not* be categorized as a Thriller. I heard some reviews say it was the best espionage movie ever made, and I wonder if they've ever seen a James Bond movie. The characters were poorly developed or introduced. 99% of the time I saw a character on screen, I had to ask myself "who the hell is that? what is he talking about?" I had no idea which were the good guys or bad. The dialog sucked. There were 5 or 6 "sex" scenes consisting of this: (him, straight faced) her: do you want to stay / get a hotel / etc him: do you want me to? her: very much so (brief humping scene) when the stuff happens at the end with his son and the son's fiance, I really just didn't care because the characters were poorly developed and I just wanted the thing to end. edit: during the film I realized that it felt like it was suited to a 60-70 year old. I estimated this because it didn't cater to my ~20's generation's addiction to fast action, flashy lights, etc. It also did a good job of portraying the "golden years" of the US, when we fought and won WWII and began our spat with the USSR. When I left the theater, I noticed 90% of the patrons were elderly. ahawks fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Jan 12, 2007 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2007 00:18
|
|
|
1.0 And that's an extra half point for de Niro's brilliant portrayal of FDR.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2007 08:17
|
|
|
FruMoogle posted:1.0 you do know that he wasn't playing FDR, right? he was supposed to be a major/head figure in the military. i can't remember which. i'll be honest .. i had to take a couple of smoke breaks during this behemoth so i missed a couple of scenes, but was filled in nicely by my friends and the ever-so-helpful wikipedia. overall i liked the movie but, like most here in the thread, it was just too drat long and didn't really have any clear purpose. at the end all i could think was, "wow, that's it"? 2.5/5 greg_graffin fucked around with this message at 00:16 on Jan 17, 2007 |
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2007 00:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 20:29 |
|
|
greg_graffin posted:you do know that he wasn't playing FDR, right? he was supposed to be a major/head figure in the military. i can't remember which. I got that, but he looked nearly identical to FDR, right down to the wheelchair.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2007 11:26
|
|