Originally written September 7, 2009
"DUPLICITY" Written and Directed by Tony Gilroy
*1/2 (one and a half stars)
By the time “Duplicity” finally reached its merciful and much needed conclusion, I felt as if someone had handed me a shiny present after which I removed all of the tissue paper, garnishes and glitter, all that remained was absolutely nothing at the bottom of the box. I felt bamboozled. Tricked. Hoodwinked. And not in an enjoyable way where I could appreciate and marvel at the storytelling artistry on display. Nope. I had simply been had and two hours and five minutes of my life had been taken from me, never to return and all in the service of a film that had no point whatsoever.
Writer/Director Tony Gilroy’s “Duplicity” is a hybrid of romantic comedy and corporate espionage starring Clive Owen and Julia Roberts as two former Government spies who become private corporate spies/moles in order to scam a large fortune out from under the noses of two mighty CEOs (well played by Paul Giamatti and Tom Wilkinson) in order to fund their life of love in Rome together. This would have been well and good if it were handled in the breezy, stylish, and energetic fashion of Steven Soderberg’s “Ocean’s Eleven” remake. But, no. What we are given is an endless parade of repetitive sequences of Owen looking slack jawed and opened mouthed at Roberts’ latest deceit and ultimate renewal of trust. Every single time he just could not believe that he could’ve been deceived once again by Roberts, I wanted to reach through the screen, grab him by the collar and shake him! It grew more painful each time it occurred and if you do watch this film, be prepared to sit through scenes of that nature again and again. In addition, we are also treated to a needlessly over-written and executed fractured time narrative that doesn’t enhance the plot in any way, new revelations that grow more ridiculous and a collection of shady characters whose allegiances consistently shift or you were never certain of in the first place. It was as if Gilroy was desperately trying to find or create purpose in a story that simply had none to begin with.
When I first saw Gilroy's previous film, the corporate thriller "Michael Clayton," I had the feeling that I was sitting at the kid's table. While I deeply appreciated the fact that Gilroy had made an adult film for an adult audience in an adult fashion, I felt so lost throughout the proceedings. I was confused with character's motivations, desires, and schemes and once it was over, I didn't much care. Then, I happened upon a second viewing and everything clicked. The writing became so elegant and I became so involved with the collection of characters who were either losing, selling or regaining their souls. It was a compelling and provocative piece of filmmaking that truly rewarded me on the second try.
Unfortunately, I already know that no second viewing will enhance what I have already experienced, and no amount of flashy split-screen cinematography and splashy rom-com dialogue can change the fact that I was left with as much of nothing as some of the characters in the film. Yes, Owen and Roberts give fine performances and have chemistry with each other. Yes, the production values are top notch throughout and there are some good sequences here and there. But, this is a film of which there is not even one, solitary point to write home about or come away with and what is the purpose of sitting through something like that?
Originally written November 29, 2009
“ANGELS & DEMONS” Directed by Ron Howard
*1/2 (one and a half stars)
I was not a fan of “The DaVinci Code.” My dislike had nothing to do with the controversial themes contained within that story. The book just left me cold with author Dan Brown’s turgid writing style (My God, would Langdon ever get out of the Louvre?!). As for the film version, with the story it was attempting to tell, it had a shocking lack of dramatic tension and urgency. It was a sluggishly paced movie that once it limped and crawled to its conclusion, I found myself limping and crawling my way out of the theatre. While “Angels & Demons,” Director Ron Howard’s follow-up to “The DaVinci Code,” certainly had a faster pace, I still found myself completely, entirely and brutally bored for the entire two hour twenty minute running time. It struck me as a story so ridiculous (and possessing a lead so insufferable), that I could not buy into the fantasy for even a moment.
The plot is essentially Bill Maher’s greatest Christmas gift. What we have is a race against time as Symbiologist Professor Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks sans the questionable hairstyle from the previous film) attempts to cease the fiendish plan of the Illuminati, an ancient secret society intent on murdering four cardinals in four subsequent hours leading up to the midnight destruction of Rome-and Religion itself in the name of Science-via a scientifically designed anti-matter substance.
Sounds good and exciting enough, doesn’t it? Well, it’s funny but these films, like the “National Treasure” films, feel like Indiana Jones movies but without any true effort. When following our beloved archaeologist from one hair-raising adventure to another, we can relish in his intelligence and bravery but we also are able follow the clues along with him. Indy has to struggle despite his knowledge and we discover key information when HE discovers it. That very ingredient brings the audience along and makes the entire enterprise the enormous fun that it is.
The heroes of “National Treasure” and the Prof. Langdon stories know absolutely EVERYTHING there is to know about their subject matter and they are able to recall information at the precise second the script requires them to. In the case of “Angels & Demons,” early on in the film, Langdon, in probably the first or second of possibly 300 monologues (more on that in a bit), effortlessly describes the entire plot which means we have to wait for the movie to get there. Yes, he does some digging here and there but again, at the second he has to know something, he’s figured it out and the wheels of the plot just keep grinding along exhaustively. There are no real obstacles to overcome, the film’s key villain is SCREAMINGLY OBVIOUS, so there’s no tension on that front either.
Worst of all, Prof. Langdon is an insufferably flawless character so he ends up being paper-thin as well. Back to those aforementioned monologues, Langdon never even registers as a human being as he is completely incapable of having any conversations that do not become mountains of exposition and information. (No one could even say “Hello” to him without having to endure the historical origins of the word.) He is like the smartest kid is class that keeps informing you that he is indeed the smartest kid in the class and you just want to pummel him for it. Langdon was no one I wanted to follow. I just wanted to shut him up and just get on with it because again, this is a race against time and all he does is talk, talk, talk and talk some more.
Perhaps, in all fairness, this is not the fault of Howard and Hanks, who are respectively one of Hollywood’s most talented and versatile Directors and one of Hollywood’s most serviceable actors. Maybe the Dan Brown books are just not that filmable and do not easily lend themselves to visualization. Maybe Howard and Hanks made the best films that COULD be made from those books.
But then again, Scooby-Doo mysteries are more compelling.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment