Is it in order for me to comment on a film that I've only seen in part? Well, yes, since this journal is posted primarily for my own benefit and since the number of readers seems to be diminishing. La de dah! At least I shall be able to look back and find out what absorbed me (or otherwise) in earlier times. Or something! The truth is that I only saw about two-thirds of this movie and had all I could do to stay awake and pay attention. Sometimes when this happens, I then go back and watch the end of the film in question, but in this instance I have no desire to do so. Instead I have read the plot outline to cover the missed portion and will try to explain why this movie shall forever remain half-seen.
I'm not the greatest fan of non-linear storytelling, although sometimes it serves a purpose. In this instance it only seemed to blur the action and to take away from any potential dramatic suspense. It's a recreation of how the Office of Strategic Services evolved into the CIA, as embodied by a fictional operative played by Matt Damon. Starting with the Bay of Pigs fiasco, it weaves forward and back to Damon's days at Yale and his recruitment into a basically WASP circle through to the unlikely denouement when the traitor within is exposed. While I am not saying that Damon was bad in his role, his character was largely such an unemotional cypher that it was difficult to feel any involvement with a man for whom 'patriotism' was all and who would sacrifice just about everything in its cause.
Directed by Robert DeNiro, who also appears in a small role, the film seems to me over-ambitious with its many sub-plots (not all resolved) and large but generally able cast, including Angelina Jolie as Damon's wife in a fairly thankless role. I seem to be running against the herd in saying that this film did not work for me; I crave intelligent cinema as much as the next guy, but I like to feel that a film has either entertained or enlightened or challenged me. This one failed on all counts.
3 comments:
Oh dear deniro, maybe he should just stick to the acting - he is one of the only Hollywood types worth watching in my little opinion.
I've been the silent reader recently. You have to watch the silent ones.
I gave up on Julien Donkey Boy the other day - a little bit too much, and I never give up, thinking there's quality in everything, but life's only so long......
The Michael Haneke trilogy meanwhile..... well. What genius. I guess he'll never be main stream - filming in french and leaving the viewer to decide what it's all about & put the pieces together, but maybe that's a good thing!
'At least I shall be able to look back and find out what absorbed me (or otherwise) in earlier times. Or something!'
I've been culling bits of my old journals and rewriting them into the book - everything's done for a purpose. I think.
Can Matt Damon act? Here he is a deliberate unemotional cipher but perhaps
there are hidden depths - without naming names, think of the woodentops of
the 30s and 40s remembered now as the 'greats' (or 'near greats') of the time.
A muddled film which seemed to be scripted to increase the muddle rather than
resolve it
Post a Comment