Duplicity

Director: Tony Gilroy
Starring: Clive Owen, Julia Roberts, Tom Wilkinson, Paul Giamatti
Rating: PG-13
Running Time: 125 min.

★★ (out of ★★★★)

Considering the talent involved in the making of it, Duplicity is a shockingly dumb film. And it's the worst kind of dumb film in that it delusionally thinks it's intelligent. Worse yet, it conveys an attitude of smug self-importance. Almost as if we should be honored to watch two big stars play unlikable characters bickering endlessly about the same issue for over two hours in a needlessly convoluted plot. The movie just spins its wheels telling two converging stories (one personal the other professional) ineffectively. As if that's not bad enough, writer/director Tony Gilroy, in his highly anticipated follow-up to 2008 Best Picture nominee Michael Clayton, actually has the nerve to not deliver on anything he promises, defeating the purpose of the entire film.

Usually, when a movie doesn't work there are at least some things in it that make me feel like I at least haven't totally wasted my time. This is different. Here, there are so many pointless (and often predictable) red herrings that the film seems to be setting itself up to fail unless it can deliver on any of it. That would be tolerable if Gilroy presented this as what it should be (a slick 90-minute crime caper). Instead, he attempts to merge an old fashioned Hollywood screwball comedy, an espionage thriller and an epic romance.

The result is a bloated, self-indulgent vanity project made so its writer can pat himself on the back for writing cool, slick dialogue and to remind us what wonderful stars (notice I said "stars," not "actors") Clive Owen and Julia Roberts are. The sad thing is that they are exceptional actors, but this isn't designed to take advantage of that. It feels like one of those Ocean's movies and if you replaced Owen with Clooney it would be. Is it December yet? This is the kind of film that usually rolls into theaters during Awards season so voters over the age of 70 can cast their votes for safe, inoffensive material starring big names. At least Michael Clayton was exciting...and didn't have a stick up its ass.

The movie opens five years ago in Rome when MI-6 agent Ray Koval (Owen) has a one-night stand with CIA operative Claire Stenwick (Roberts) in which he wakes up the next morning having been drugged and outplayed. Their paths cross again as we cut to present-day New York and both are now working as spies for two rival pharmaceutical companies. Ray is a corporate spy for Equikrom, led by its unpredictable CEO Dick Garsik (Paul Giamatti), while Claire is the head of security for Burkett & Randle, whose CEO Howard Tully (Tom Wilkinson), is sitting on a huge secret that could change lives. Despite their opposing allegiances and a complete mistrust of one another, Ray and Claire make a pact to go into business together in the private sector, a decision primarily based on mutual physical attraction and the potential monetary benefits. What unfolds next is a series of double-crosses, fake double-crosses and twists all built around whether Ray and Claire can trust one other and which side each is actually on. Are their feelings for each other real or is it part of the con? That question grows tiresome when its repeated in scene after scene and situation after situation for 125 minutes. Anyone expecting a big payoff to this elaborate, overwritten and labor-filled set-up will be greatly disappointed.

Owen and Roberts are charismatic and likable leads who share a breezy chemistry. So the movie coasts on it, offering little more. We know from the beginning that Ray and Claire can't trust each other and there's no reason why they should considering both are spies. It's up to Gilroy to sell us on their potential romance, which is difficult because the two characters can't stand one another and continuously throw cranky fits. When they're not doing that they're busy congratulating themselves for delivering cleverly written dialogue that feels and sounds like cleverly written dialogue. Their exchanges are too snappy and movie-like, to the point that they draw more attention to the writer than the actors actually delivering the lines. And it always seems like lines are literally being "delivered." As are the all-too complicated details of the plot, which at times are impossible to follow, even though the story is as simple as can be.

It's tough to pick what Gilroy falters worse with; his tale of corporate espionage in which he can't decide whether this is a farce (Duplicity!) or a dead-serious Hitchcockian thriller or the would-be romance between two lying spies who hate each other which means they really love each other. My vote goes to the espionage portion if only because he makes the screenwriting mistake of introducing a huge SECRET (the contents of which the two companies are battling over), only to reveal it as a huge letdown. It was supposed to be humorous...I think. You can never tell with the film's uneven tone. Gilroy was trying to make about three movies at once and his "twist ending" wasn't just obvious, it was pointless and if you think back on the whole thing, at the end every character is essentially exactly where they started off. Nothing happened.

I don't know what's going on with Owen. After a promising career start he's really found himself in a rut, also starring in this year's equally awful espionage thriller, The International. Here he's playing the familiar role he seems to have mastered lately...himself. Roberts fares much better if only because she's at least cast against type (as she was opposite Owen in 2004's Closer), even if her character is too bitchy and uninteresting for us to care much at all what happens to her. To Roberts' credit though, as she pushes past forty she's much more believable now as a sexy spy than she would have been in her supposed prime. Unlike Owen, she escapes this disaster completely unscathed and reminds us that she's capable of more than she's often given credit for. Wilkinson and Giamatti unsurprisingly impress with what limited screen time they have as the movie definitely could have used more of them. Wilkinson, such an integral part of Clayton's success, is criminally underutilized, hardly appearing at all. The entire film would have been better off if it were just about those two.

Gas is expensive. Movie tickets are expensive. So is soda and popcorn. Paying actors' salaries and promoting a movie is even more expensive. Too much of everyone's money is at stake to deliver a film that accomplishes nothing other than entertaining the director and actors who made it. The leads are appealing, the scenic locales look good and I'm glad everyone seemed to have had a nice time. Now they all should get back to business. Luckily, audiences knew enough to stay away from this and it was released at a time when intelligent adult dramas are bombing left and right. The biggest trick Duplicity attempts is trying to convince us it is one.

Michael Clayton

Director: Tony Gilroy
Starring: George Clooney, Tom Wilkinson, Tilda Swinton, Sydney Pollack, Michael O' Keefe, Ken Howard
Running Time: 120 min.
Rating: R

***1/2 (out of ****)

Finally, the curse has been lifted. For years I've been telling everyone that George Clooney hasn't starred in a single movie I liked since 1996. And yes, I saw Syriana. It's a shame too because I actually like Clooney as an actor and he's made some smart choices recently, but I just haven't liked his films. So when people would rave about a Clooney movie or performance all I could do is just shrug and say, "Well, I enjoyed his work on E.R." Now, with the legal thriller Michael Clayton he finally has a winner. The film, which is up for 7 Academy Awards (including one for Clooney as Best Actor) and marks the directorial debut for Bourne trilogy screenwriter Tony Gilroy is a slowed-paced thriller that doesn't exactly bring anything new to the table from a story perspective but still packs an incredibly powerful punch.

You could sum up the movie in one sentence, revealing key plot details and none of them would surprise. There isn't a single twist or turn in the film that's revelatory and the plot is one we've seen before. It moves methodically toward its predestined conclusion. And yet, it succeeds by executing its premise with laser-like precision and uncommon intelligence. Gilroy knows what he has to do and does it expertly, not getting bogged down in silly sub-plots or unrealistic situations. It also features the best performance of George Clooney's career and two more supporting performances of nearly equal value. It's a cold, distant picture and one I'm surprised Oscar voters selected as one of this year's Best Picture nominee, but it's deserving nonetheless. It's a film to be respected, but not necessarily enjoyed or embraced by everyone.

The job description of attorney Michael Clayton (Clooney) at his prestigious New York City law firm headed by Marty Bach (Sydney Pollack) would read as one word: "fixer." Whenever there's a legal mess Michael is usually the first one called upon to clean it up, like a janitor. He's described as the absolute best at what he does but that's a difficult notion to swallow watching him. He doesn't even seem to believe it himself and looks tired and spent, as if after 15 years he's done enough cleaning up for a while When the firm's top defense attorney Arthur Edens (Best Supporting Actor nominee Tom Wilkinson) has an apparent mental breakdown and strips naked during an important deposition involving a lawsuit against the firm's biggest client, Michael is called to Milwaukee to rectify the situation.

That client is U-North, an agricultural company whose products allegedly caused serious illness, resulting in a class action lawsuit that's dragged on for the past six years. U-North's chief legal council, the steely and determined Karen Crowder (Best Supporting Actress Oscar nominee Tilda Swinton) is none too happy about Eden's episode and even less happy with what she believes is Michael's mishandling of it. Accompanying Arthur's breakdown is a sudden attack of conscience, which makes him determined to blow the lid off this case and in the process unintentionally endanger the lives of everyone involved in it.

If you've seen any of the trailers or commercials for this film you may be led to believe it's a non-stop thrill ride full of and shocking twists and revelations that will keep you on the edge of your seat. It's not. The pacing of the film more closely resembles those intellectual legal thrillers from the '70's or early '80's like Sidney Lumet's The Verdict and there's more exposition than excitement. I remember taking a screenwriting course a while ago and The Verdict was the study film and I'm convinced a major reason why was because its script was so simple and basic. Michael Clayton could easily be substituted for it because it attempts nothing new, instead focusing on executing a tried and true formula perfectly.

The movie is very straightforward and veers from the course only once by employing what's becoming a popular non-linear storytelling device in which the opening scenes generally reveal where the story ends up, but the film then flashes back to let us know how we got there. It's kind of humorous that Gilroy would show his hand so early and use that technique in a film that's otherwise very matter-of-fact but then again, this isn't a story entirely built on surprises.

When the film ended I was quick to check the credits and see who provided the original score. Not because I thought it was fantastic but because I could swear that this movie contained no music at all, or if it did, I definitely didn't notice. It's kind of funny imagining Gilroy (who directs this flawlessly) being so focused on the story that he just didn't have time for music because it could possibly distract from the task at hand. Much to my surprise, I found out that not only does the film have a score, but it was provided by James Newton Howard and is one of those seven Oscar nominations. It's often said that the most brilliant scores in motion pictures should blend in so seamlessly with what you're watching you don't realize it exists. If that's true then this is among the best scores I've never remembered hearing.

I've always had a little bit of a problem with legal potboilers, mostly because it's been hard to take them all that seriously, yet I do enjoy them. Big lawsuits against evil, greedy companies. Fancy cars and expensive suits. Honest, crusading lawyer struggling with addiction (here it happens to be gambling but feel free to substitute drugs or alcohol). They always seem to contain big, showy scenes also. But I will say it isn't too often you see a mentally ill defense attorney streaking naked, declaring his love for the plaintiff, then preparing his case AGAINST his own client. It should be hysterical but isn't because Wilkinson is so realistic and emotionally invested in the role. We're used to seeing him play more subdued, implosive characters so this walk on the wild side was an interesting departure that justifiably earned him a nomination. I thought the other legal thriller from this year, Fracture was hilarious, mostly because it didn't take itself seriously and delivered its ludicrous plot with tongue planted firmly in cheek. This takes itself very seriously, and while that should make the film less effective it doesn't mainly because it's so technically sound.

Whereas something like Fracture stretched credibility to the maximum this doesn't at all and I think that's why Gilroy's script, despite the absence of unpredictability, has garnered such praise. It's airtight without a hole to be found. That's a rare accomplishment for a movie in this normally ridiculous genre. It seems odd praising a script simply for not doing anything stupid but it's true in this instance. What really elevates it though are the performances, all three of which you could argue are better than the movie itself. After years of hits and misses this is finally the role Clooney was born to play and it wouldn't surprise me if years down the line this ends up being the part he's most associated with.

Usually he's an actor with very distinctive mannerisms, but here they disappear and he just inhabits this isolated character with low-key, assured intensity. His reputation as "Mr. Cool" has never served him better than here. He has an incredible scene (actually the same scene twice that bookends the film) in a field where his character feels and we feel he knows something but neither of us are completely sure. He doesn't have a word of dialogue. He doesn't need it. It may be one of my favorite scenes this year and if they were to show one clip from the film on Oscar night that should be it.

This movie has been heralded as the big breakthrough for British actress Tilda Swinton who first became known to American audiences in 2001 with her memorable turn in The Deep End but whose underrated work has always seemed to fly under the radar. What she brings to this role is special and there's no way it was something that was just merely translated from page to screen. As cold as her ambitious character seems there's this feeling of desperation Swinton invests her with. It's almost as if Karen knows her company's guilty and knows what's she's doing is wrong but has no choice in the matter. She's come this far and there's no turning back now. The only way she can deal with that is to completely cut herself off emotionally from the situation and for a woman like Karen that isn't difficult. Her and Michael are on a collision course and while the film prefers to draw its suspense out slowly and subtlely there is one notable explosive exception. The final scene will get your heart racing.

This is a film that can be watched and analyzed again and again because how it attains such great success is somewhat of a head scratcher. When it ended I was on the fence about how good I thought it was just because it's so basic, but another viewing cleared that up. We're used to praising films that give us something fresh we haven't seen before, but what about those that don't necessarily bring anything knew, yet delivers what it has with nearly flawless precision?

Michael Clayton has been labeled the underdog in this year's Best Picture race, but I could see many wanting to throw their hands up in the air when it's over and ask, "THAT WAS IT?" I can see their point but I would also say to look much closer. It may not succeed how you expect it to, but it succeeds nonetheless. Seamlessly executing a story that's been told so poorly by just about every other film puts Michael Clayton in a class of its own.