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.

Shoot 'Em Up

Director: Michael Davis
Starring: Clive Owen, Paul Giamatti, Monica Belucci, Stephen McHattie
Running Time: 86 min.
Rating: R

**** (out of ****)

Whenever I review a film I ask myself one question first: DOES IT SUCCEED IN WHAT IT'S TRYING TO DO? For those perplexed by the star rating you see above I'd like to refer you back to that question. I am aware that Shoot 'Em Up is the most polarizing film of 2007 and I'm sure there are more than quite a few readers who would like to reach their hands through the computer screen and strangle me right now. But even those who absolutely despise the film can't argue that for what it is it's flawless. You may hate it, but you know it really gets the job done. It's the most appropriately titled film of the year and just seeing the title you probably know whether you're the type of person who would enjoy it. Who says there's no truth in advertising?

This is an overindulgent exercise in fearless, guerilla cinema and a glimpse into what happens when a studio takes off the handcuffs and removes any obstacles that could possibly make a movie not work. Everyone has free reigns and you almost feel guilty watching two actors of this high a caliber having so much damn fun. It's as if someone took Clive Owen's character from Children of Men and inserted him into Smokin' Aces, turning up the volume to the maximum degree.

The film is 86 minutes but it feels more like 6. It's so slickly edited and masterfully directed that excitement engulfs the screen in every single frame and not a moment drags. It may be the quickest movie I ever sat through and cinematic equivalent of injecting yourself with pure sugar. It's a crying shame that most actually took the film at face value and missed the funniest spoof of the action genre in years. Only it's smarter and more exciting than any of the John Woo films it's spoofing and could work not only as the best action movie of the year, but the best comedy. I was laughing so hard I was literally crying. It's pure joy from start to finish.

Opponents of this film have argued that if you took away the spectacular action sequences and the ballet of bullets that fill its running time you'd be left with nothing. Of course you would. That's the point. Let's be honest here: You don't go into a movie called Shoot 'Em Up expecting a deep meditation on life. But you know what? The plot is actually very good, the dialogue is sharp and there are some surprises. The movie opens with the mysterious and grumpy Mr. Smith (Owen) sitting on a park bench sipping his coffee and eating his carrot when he's unwillingly thrust into a dangerous situation involving a hitman known as Hertz (Paul Giamatti) and the pregnant woman he's after.

The movie gets down to business right away without pausing so much as a second to introduce any characters or take a breather. The level of forward moving momentum the story has is unmatched, which is well established in just the opening seconds. After delivering the woman's baby amidst a hail of bullets Smith is left to care for the infant that Hertz so desperately wants to get his hands on for a reason that will soon become very clear. The loner Smith calls upon the only help he knows, a lactating hooker (Monica Belucci) who he hopes can look after the child. With the determined Hertz and his henchmen on their tale things don't exactly work out as planned and what unfolds are some of the craziest, hilarious and memorable shoot-outs you'll ever see.

I love it when a movie shows me things I've never seen before and the action scenes in this film had me jumping up and down on my couch screaming. This Smith guy sure knows how to handle a firearm as he's able to shoot anything and anyone from some absolutely insane angles. I've actually heard some criticize this movie because the action is "implausible." Again... that's the point. Smith pulls a brilliant trick out of his hat involving a car windshield that just left me with my mouth wide open. Just when you think this guy can't possibly get out of a situation he'll pull off something else you haven't seen before.

It's really sick how many endlessly creative and inventive ways he finds to shoot people and director Michael Davis films it as if it's poetry in motion. And I haven't even mentioned the baby. He does most of this while carrying "it," as he so lovingly refers to the little one. As if the scenes weren't hilarious enough already. And the movie is smart too. Smart enough to cut to reaction shots of the baby as all this is happening. Smart enough to have the characters make little life observations like Smith complaining about how rich people drive or Hertz lamenting about his marital problems. Hertz's interaction and ribbing of his henchmen is classic. As clever as Smith is, Hertz is always right there along with him being the rare villain in this kind of movie who makes smart decisions. The cat-and-mouse game between them feels epic and losing isn't an option. It's just not in their nature. The movie doesn't let up even in its final minutes, ending in a parade of gunfire.

Usually after an actor is nominated for or wins an Academy Award their career can go in one of two directions. It can go the way of someone like Cate Blanchett, who's used it as a springboard to even more prestigious, Oscar-worthy roles, or it can go the direction of Nicolas Cage, who's used it to earn bigger paydays with mainstream blockbusters. But then I remembered… Clive Owen and Paul Giamatti have never won Academy Awards. Both have been nominated in the supporting actor category (for Closer and Cinderella Man, respectively) but lost. But it does sure seem like, based on their resumes, both should have Oscars by now.

Their names on the movie poster mean you're almost always getting something of high-class quality. Watching both of them together in this is a rare treat and is the equivalent of Tom Hanks and Phillip Seymour Hoffman headlining Saw V. It's ironic then that while they're supposedly "lowering" themselves in mainstream fare, Owen and Giamatti deliver two of their most entertaining performances. For some reason Owen gets some flack for playing the same role (that of Clive Owen) over and over again, but why complain when he does it so well? There's a scene in the film where we finally find out details of Mr. Smith's past and when we hear them it isn't anything we didn't already know. That's because we could read those details ON OWEN'S FACE AND THEY WERE PRESENT IN THE PERFORMANCE from the very beginning.

Giamatti doesn't look at all like your typical hitman, but that just enhances the mesmerizing, scene-devouring power of the performance. But the real joy of it is how despite being a sick, sadistic bastard he still gives off the vibe that this character would be a cool guy to go out and have a beer with. I was always a fan of Giamatti but this performance only increases my appreciation of his skills ten-fold. Who knew he had this in him? It was so much fun watching him let go, having such a good of a time. Forget about Sideways, he deserves a nomination... FOR THIS! I wouldn't mind seeing him tackle similar roles in the future provided he doesn't start abusing the privilege like Cage has. Monica Belucci plays the least important role in the film, but she does a fine job. She has a massive, drooling fan base and even they're given a special treat in this film. The movie has it all: Sex, violence, and, in one memorable instance, both simultaneously in the same scene. And it isn't hiding behind fancy airs or pretending to be something it's not. This is just balls-to-the-wall non-stop excitement.

Having never heard of the film's director, I looked him up and discovered that Michael Davis did direct another movie I liked, 2000's little-seen romantic comedy 100 Girls. This is about as far from that film as you can get. You may as well call this 100,000 Bullets. But I do think it says something that he's a director capable of making two such radically disparate films. How many filmmakers can claim to have two good titles in complete opposite genres on their resume? This guy is definitely someone to watch. I'm aware that I may take some heat for praising this when I bashed 300 but that film actually had the nerve to pretend it was something of substance when it was just a robotic videogame of killings. This is inventive, purposeful filmmaking. I'm not mystified why such a risk-taking film would show up on a lot of lists of the years worst. It'll probably be showing up on a list of mine too, just not that one.

Anyone who hates it owes me no explanation. I get it. It isn't for everyone. But so many movies these days are afraid to go all the way. This one pushes the envelope and just when you think it can't push it any more it goes even further. My only regret about the film was that I had a free pass to see it in theaters, but didn't. I'm sure it would have been twice as enjoyable on the big screen. It joins Crank as one of the best adrenaline fueled action rushes of recent years. If you loved that movie, you'll love this. Even if I'm afraid to know what it says about me that I enjoyed it this much.

Children of Men

Director: Alfonso Cuaron
Starring: Clive Owen, Julianne Moore, Michael Caine, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Claire-Hope Ashitey, Charlie Hunnam
Running Time: 110 min.
Rating: R

*** (out of ****)

Alfonso Cuaron's Children of Men, adapted from P.D. James' 1992 novel, is the latest in a long line of films depicting dystopian futures on the brink of self-destruction (think 12 Monkeys, Blade Runner, or 1984). What Cuaron's film has, however, that those other titles don't is that it presents a dark future that's actually somewhat plausible and realistic. It looks like present day... except worse. That's the way it should be. Whether the story is the better for it is up for debate, but there's no doubt that it makes it very interesting to look at and a serious technical achievement.

The right decisions were made for the look and feel of the picture, which is a rare occurance in today's Hollywood system. This is first class filmmaking, yet its brevity prevents it from fully tackling the lofty issues it wishes to address in its sparse running time. While it may not stay with you long after it's over, Clive Owen's performance definitely will. It's one of his very best and anyone familiar with his resume will know how much that's saying.

It's November 16, 2027 and Owen is Theo Faron, a former political activist currently residing in London. The London we see here is one ravaged by terrorism, overpopulation, and environmental destruction. For nearly two decades women have been infertile (although the movie never makes it precisely clear how) and the oldest living human on the planet, an eighteen-year-old named "Baby Diego" has just been murdered, sending the entire country into a further tailspin.

Theo is kidnapped by his ex-wife Julian (an effective Julianne Moore in a smaller role than you'd assume) and she needs a favor. A big one. She needs a travel permit for an African refugee named Kee (Claire-Hope Ashitey) so her and her band of revolutionaries (known as "Fishes") can get her to something known as the "Human Project." a secret group dedicated to saving the human species. Theo obtains the permit from his cousin, which stipulates he must accompany her. The catch: she's pregnant. How she could possibly be pregnant is somewhat of a miracle the movie never really explains, but doesn't have to since miracles don't need to be. Her pregnancy is now the last hope for the human race and it's up to Theo to protect it. What happens in their journey to find the "Human Project" I won't reveal but lets just say it involves the firing of a lot of rounds of ammunition, deaths, and a pot smoking Michael Caine.

What works about Children of Men has more to do with what it doesn't do than what it does. For example, I can't tell you how relieved I was to finally see a movie set in the future where the cars weren't flying and people weren't wearing ridiculous Jetsons style clothes. In a film where the world is coming to an end one would figure the filmmaker would be smart enough to make the right choices, but I bet few would. Director and co-writer Cuaron (Y tu mama tambien and Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban) is smart enough to do very little to let us know we're in "the future." He realizes it's much more terrifying to give us our world as we see it now, but ravaged by decay, war and neglect. With the direction we're going in these days some of the images and ideas in this film don't seem too far-fetched, and that may be the scariest thing. What we're witnessing in this film doesn't feel that off the mark.

The way Cuaron shoots it is also a lot smarter than you would expect. There seem to be many long uninterrupted takes that give the movie a documentary type feel like every thing is unfolding in real time. That was a very wise choice that gives the film a real sense of urgency and dread I don't think another director could have had the foresight to accomplish. There's a scene late in the film where Theo is on a bus and gunfire erupts. You see blood on the camera lens. Theo gets off the bus and starts running through the streets with the same camera tracking him, blood still dripping from it. If that doesn't make you feel like you're there I don't know what will.

Watching, I was reminded of the original Star Wars trilogy and how George Lucas' attention to detail was such that you could see specs of dirt on the light switch plate in the background of the shot. It's that same kind of detail Cuaron brings to this picture. He took the time to make sure everything was right and realistic given the situation, but that it never causes a distraction or draws attention to itself. It takes a very skilled filmmaker to do that and isn't the kind of work that's immediately noticeable. It shouldn't be because it's so masterfully subtle.

It's getting to the point that whenever I see Clive Owen's name attached to a project I know it's guaranteed to deliver. He's a chameleon who can slip into any role but lately he seems to be specializing in playing ordinary guys thrust into extraordinary situations. A lot of actors do it, but few do it better than he. I don't think anyone he's played has been more ordinary than Theo. He and his ex-wife haven't spoken in 20 years and he's still grieving over the death of their son. How Owen tackles it is interesting because he wisely underplays him. This is a man who's basically dead to the world and walks around in a self induced haze. He could care less about anything and when his character is forced to step into the uncomfortable position of hero we feel like we're right there along with him. He's just a regular guy trying to get through the day hiding his pain with the small bottle of whiskey in his pocket. He never asked for any of this, yet when it happens he does the only thing he knows how to do: help.

Moore, as usual does great work, this time in a small role. While I would have liked to see more of her, the limited involvement makes perfect sense in the broad spectrum of the story. In fact, it's a necessity. Michael Caine is entertainingly loopy as Jasper, an old friend of Theo's and now the only person he can trust to help protect this girl. As Kee, newcomer Ashitey is basically the heart and soul of the film as she conveys the girl's conflicting emotions of anger and hope perfectly. It's actually a very brave performance.

If there's a problem with the picture it's that it settles into a routine of hide-and-seek, making it feel at times like just another action movie, while the story behind it suggests anything but. While it's incredibly exciting (especially the last half hour) I kept waiting for it to take that next step and become something truly special and unforgettable. It never really gets there. Perhaps the film could have used more time to explore all the issues it brought up, but as is it's a very focused and compressed motion picture that doesn't slow down for a second.

I haven't read James' novel on which this film is based but I heard it's a very loose adaptation with many changes. What we're seeing is nearly exclusively the director's vision. I can't say Children of Men breaks any new ground as far as storytelling in this genre, but it is smart and an impressive technical achievement that confirms Cuaron is a filmmaker to keep an eye on.

From The Vault: Closer

Director: Mike Nichols
Starring: Natalie Portman, Jude Law, Julia Roberts, Clive Owen, Running Time: 104 min.
Rating: R
Release Date: 2004

*** (out of ****)

"A heart is a fist covered in blood!"
- Larry

"Lying is the most fun a girl can have without taking her clothes off, but its better if you do."
-Alice

Released in December, 2004 Mike Nichols' Closer (based on Patrick Marber's acclaimed stage play) is likely one of the angriest films about sex and relationships you'll ever witness. It unfolds like a chess game, with each character carefully making their move to inflict pain on one other and, in an interesting twist, using the truth instead of lies to do it. The film, which garnered supporting acting Oscar nominations for Natalie Portman and Clive Owen, also has some of the most insanely quotable dialogue in recent memory. The first quote you see above is actually one of the tamer lines in the film, but merely transcribing can do no justice to the ferocity with which Clive Owen's character delivers it. Anyone familar with the band Panic at the Disco! will probably recognize the second quote above (which was spoken by Natalie Portman in the most memorable scene in the film) because they took it as names for two of their songs.

It's a powerful film, yet when it was over I couldn't help thinking the whole didn't quite equal the sum of its parts. It checks in at a brisk but emotionally draining 104 minutes, which actually works in its favor because I'm not too sure how much more of it I could have taken. If nothing else, it's worth seeing as an actor's showcase as there are some really interesting performances amidst some admiteddly bizarre casting decisions. You'll see some actors in roles unlike anything you've ever witnessed them in before. For all you Natalie Portman fans out there (and I know there are many), you'll be happy to know that you can tell anyone if they watch one starring her, this should be it. But they'll have to wipe the drool off themselves when it's over.

"Hello, stranger." Those are the first words to open Closer as a magenta-haired Alice (Natalie Portman) lies on a London street after being struck by a taxi cab. She looks up at Dan (a whiny, annoying Jude Law), an obituary writer comes to her rescue and accompanies her to the hospital. It's the beginning of a beautiful romance. Well, no actually it isn't. It's the beginning of an emotional nightmare for this couple and one other, as well as for the audience.

Flash forward a year later and Dan has written a book based on Alice's previous life as a stripper in New York called (ridiculously as one character points out), "The Aquarium." He goes to the loft of photographer Anna (Julia Roberts) to get his shot taken for the book jacket and not so innocent flirtation soon turns into something more. Maybe the best moment in the entire film occurs when Alice arrives at Anna's loft to meet Dan. I'm not going to spoil what happens in the scene, but the way it plays out is nothing like what you'd expect and Portman is amazing in it. However Anna, who spends most of this movie falsely believing she's on a moral ground higher than the rest of these characters, puts the skids on the relationship.

An angry Dan decides to play a little prank on her. He poses as Anna in a dirty internet chat room and sets up a meeting with Larry (Clive Owen), a horny dermatologist who's in for the embarassment of his life when he shows up and the real Anna is there. The joke's on Dan however as Anna and Dr. Larry's mutual amusement at the situation leads to a relationship and eventually marriage. We flash forward again a little further to Anna's photo exhibit and the affair between Anna and Dan suddenly seems to be on again, in no small part due to Dan's needy, obsessive, stalkerish infatuation with her. It's here where the story becomes emotionally brutal and the characters hurt each other rather senselessly and pathetically. They hurt only with words, but those words are like a knife to the heart as Marber's dialogue jumps off the page and out of the mouths of these talented actors.

We're used to romantic dramas, especially those involving infidelity to follow the same general formula. A man or woman cheats and then spends most of the rest of the film lying about it or trying to cover it up. Then the significant other somehow finds out and everything explodes at the end. This screenplay does something very interesting by having the characters being completely open and honest about their heinous behavior, thus resulting in nearly every scene in the film exploding with conflict. The movie is extemely talky (as most adaptations of stage plays are) but it holds your interest because of the power of the dialogue and the conviction of the performances. It also raises the question that if you tell the truth, does that make what you've done any less worse? Sure, these characters are being honest with one another but they're doing it just to hurt one another and ease their guilty conscience.

You'll have fun ranking them on their levels of deplorability as you watch the film. Many consider Clive Owen's Dr. Larry to be the worst of the bunch because he seems to take way too much delight in hurling his hurtful but witty one-liners and, like Anna, has a false belief he's acting more responsibly than everyone else. I actually thought he was the most likable because unlike the rest of the chracters he at least had the self-respect to fight back even if his methods were questionable. Owen (who actually played Dan in the stage version) is known for playing dark, brooding characters, but here he starts out as kind of a hapless sap, who due to circumstances beyond his control is turned dark and brooding. It's a huge transformation but Owen pulls it off and it's no surprise to me he was also able to play the role of Dan on stage and Larry on screen. He's that versatile.

2004 was the year Jude Law was in just about every other movie and he's the weak link in this as he mopes from scene to scene adding nothing to the role of Dan. I realize this guy is supposed to be a loser and a coward, but Jonathan Rhys Meyers played nearly the exact same role a year later in Woody Allen's Match Point to far greater effect. Law just seemed to sleep walk through this. Julia Roberts is actually really, really good as Anna. That I believed Law's character would cheat on Alice with her (when on paper it would seem unfathomable) is a high compliment to Julia as an actress. There's also something really funny and exciting seeing an actress who's been known as "America's sweetheart" having to deliver the dirty, graphic lines she does in this movie. Here's an example of casting against type that actually works.

The most sympathy to be had is for Alice, in no small part due to the fact that Portman is playing her, which I'm sure Nichols knew. She gives a great performance , made all the more brave and admirable by the fact that, like Roberts, she is completely miscast. By the end though, our sympathy dwindles for her as we're given a hint she not only hasn't been straight with the other characters, but with us.

What's strange about the film is that it presents itself as a no holds barred look at sex, infidelity and relationships but there's absolutely no sex or nudity in the picture. The closest we get is the now relatively infamous scene at the strip club with Alice and Dr. Larry. This encounter should give Portman fans a heart attack and joins the list of reasons the pause button on a remote control was invented. It comes dangerously close to being offensive and expoitive but Portman's performance reigns it in. I read an interview with her saying she took this role to overcome her fears and prove to herself she could do something different like this. She did, but I'm not sure at what cost or whether that's the right reason to ever take a role. Supposedly a nude scene was filmed then taken out at her insistence. but trust me she comes close enough that it didn't really make a difference either way. From what we know about her and her previous film choices, this had to be an ordeal for her to shoot and I commend her bravery in doing it.

Since the movie was filmed by Mike Nichols (The Graduate, Who's Afraid of Virgina Woolf?) we know at least an adequate job was done visually to make it look like it's an important film. I have to be honest though and say that by the end I'm not too sure what we accomplished. Everything seemed to go back to where it started off originally, despite Nichols' attempt to visually convey an amazing transformation of sorts (for Alice at least) at the end. That attempt, which really bookends the entire story, is set to Damien Rice's haunting and hypnotic song "The Blower's Daughter." I mention that not only because it's an integral part of the story because the music video for that song is the only special feature available on the DVD release of this film.

You'd figure if any film deserved an in depth analysis complete with commentaries and interviews it was this. How did Portman feel about doing that strip club scene and how did she approach it? What would director Nichols have to say about the deeper themes of the story and how he tried to convey them? You could go on all day. A film exploring as many issues as this deserved a double disc set. The movie may not be as important as Nichols intended it to be but there is a certain cruel irony in the film's title. When the story's over we feel no closer to the main characters than they do to one another, which is probably for the better.

Inside Man

Director: Spike Lee
Starring: Denzel Washington, Clive Owen, Jodie Foster, Christopher Plummer, Willem Dafoe
Running Time: 129 min.
Rating: R

*** (out of ****)

Spike Lee's Inside Man is a good thriller that could have been great if not for a big surprise that doesn't deliver and an overlong ending in which the movie congratulates itself for a briliant heist. Actually, considering the talent involved, this should have been much, much better. The movie does, however, feature commanding performances from Washington and Owen plus one neat trick never used (at least as far as I've seen) in a heist caper that ends up being the movie's saving grace.

Clive Owen plays Dalton Russell, who has concocted a master plan for robbing Case Bank in Manhattan. He's gathered a group of four masked men dressed as painters and they'll lock down the bank, taking hostages. The big catch is once the they're in, they'll dress all the hostages just like them so the authorities don't have a chance of ever capturing them. Detective Keith Frazier (Washington) is in charge of the hostage negotiations and we are intermittedly shown clips throughout the movie of him and his partner Mitchell (Chiwetel Ejiofor) interrogating all the hostages in the bank when it's over, attempting to discover which of them were part of the master plot. This would be fantastic, except for the fact they make it very clear early who those people are, draining the film of suspense.

Meanwhile, the founder of Case Bank (Christopher Plummer in basically the same villianous role he plays in every movie) has very important interests laying in a safe deposit box inside that must to be protected. In other words, he's hiding a "huge secret." To protect it he calls in Madeliene White (Jodie Foster, great as ever) as his personal fixer. Of course she clashes with Frazier. I'll give you a wild guess if Frazier is eventually taken off the case. If not for the jarring, nauseating camera work you would never know this is a Spike Lee movie. No serious social commentary or big issues here, which I think is a relief for a change.

Lee seems to be aiming to make his own Dog Day Afternoon (that movie's even blatantly mentioned in the film), but this doesn't come anywhere close to reaching those heights. Part of the problem is that the hostages act like complete morons disobeying their crooks left and right so it's hard to feel much sympathy for any of them. Then there's the mystery of the safe deposit box and screenwriter Russell Gewirtz really traps himself in a hole with this one. With all the hype, what's ever inside better live up to it. Needless to say, it doesn't. I think it would have been wiser to not reveal the contents at all, like the briefcase in Pulp Fiction.

As for the ending, there was a perfect point to close, but Lee continues on needlessly, making sure we understand every detail of the plan even though it's plainly obvious. He's also hell bent on making sure we know Detective Frazier "knows what's going on" and he's "going to do what's right." Thanks. I got it. The movie also spends a ridiculous amount of time in the final minutes exploring the possible consequences of Plumer's character's secret being exposed, which was far more interesting to the filmakers than me.

You may be wonder why I'm even recommending this movie and giving it three stars. Well, for one, Washington is excellent as usual when given a role where he's in charge and this is no exception. Clive Owen proves he has the suave charm to alternate between playing the heavy and the hero in any given film. Making his performance here all the more impressive is that he's forced to mumble through a mask the entire movie, yet he somehow still gives us a clear picture of his motivations. Not to mention he's also scary as hell in the hostage scenes. How this movie uses the hostages and makes them suspects is ingenious and all the ingredients were set in place for Inside Man to be a great crime caper. It's too bad the film runs out of gas before it can reach the finish line.

Derailed

Director: Mikael Hafstrom
Starring: Clive Owen, Jennifer Aniston, Vincent Cassel, Melissa
George,  Giancarlo Esposito, Alvin "Xzbit," Joiner, RZA, Addison Timlin
Running Time: 106 min.
Rating: R

★★★ (out of ★★★★) 

Derailed is a movie about what happens when an ordinary event spirals out of control, producing extraordinary results. Anyone who's considered writing a screenplay should probably study it since writing a script like this is within the grasp of everyone. I say that not as a knock on the film, which is well-executed and clever, but because it takes one event and shows how someone reacts in a way that makes sense. Not once did I think the main character reacted in an unbelievable way or in a manner that any of us wouldn't have. One decision leads to another as it should while the protagonist digs himself deeper and deeper, all the while making what seems like logical decisions at the time.

Charles Schine (Clive Owen) is miserable. His daughter's (Addison Timlin) dying. His wife (Melissa George) hates him. He lost a big account at work. One day on the commuter train he meets financial advisor Lucinda Harris (Jennifer Aniston) who's nice enough to pay his way when he realizes he has no money. This leads to a conversation, which leads to lunch, which leads to drinks. Pretty soon they're at a cheap hotel ready to have sex. This is where the movie really begins. Before they know it, a crook (Vincent Cassel) has a gun to Lucinda's head. He takes their money, pistol whips Charles and rapes Lucinda. Charles thinks he's seen the last of him. He hasn't. He's put in a position where he can't go to the police initially and that's really what causes all of his problems for the rest of the film. This crook wants more money and Charles is put in a position where he has to give it to him. It may seem like I've given away too much but I haven't at all. Nothing is what it appears to be at the beginning. The crook, who initially comes off as just two-bit bully ends up being far more than that and Cassel does a great job portraying the nuances of the character. His best scene is when he manages to squirm his way into Charles' house to talk to his wife and daughter because if you didn't know better (which they don't) he'd  seem like a great guy.

There's a big twist that I didn't exactly see coming, but it holds up logically and I was kicking myself for not spotting it earlier. We believe all of this could happen and the movie never stretches credibility until the very end where there's a few too many far-fetched action scenes. Clive Owen owns this movie as someone who seems strong, but is believable as a regular guy in way over his head and while the casting of Aniston seems questionable at first, it fits given the eventual direction of the the story. You want to someone who can play average and ordinary and she's is as good a choice as any for that. Her part isn't as large as you think, but the role is huge in importance. If she wants a real movie career she has to do more movies like this, that challenge her in interesting, serious roles that go completely against type. Rapper RZA provides nice comic relief as Charles' co-worker and I really liked how the police detective (Giancarlo Esposito) kind of knows whats going on, but doesn't act like an obvious goof about it, popping in and out at the story's convenience. Derailed isn't the kind of thriller that leaves you thinking about much after it's over, but it's a realistic, well-made effort that makes sense and keeps you guessing.