"The Tourist"

The Tourist - Directed by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, written by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck, Christopher McQuarrie, and Julian Fellowes (based on a film by Jérôme Salle, starring Johnny Depp, Angelina Jolie, and Paul Bettany - Rated PG-13

Much like Bruce Banner's dad, this film just couldn't figure out what it was supposed to be.

The Tourist, the latest from Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp, is a film that never figures out what it wants to be and ultimately becomes a boring, forgettable film. The film is about Frank Tupelo (Depp), an American tourist who gets stuck in the middle of an elaborate international sting operation. Elise (Jolie) is the ex-lover of the criminal the sting is after. She is watched constantly, so the criminal tells her to find someone who matches his height and build so the cops (and the mobster he stole money from) think that the stranger is him. This all seems fine and just complicated enough to be slightly interesting, but it’s only interesting on the surface.

The Tourist never really takes off and this is due to a lack of chemistry and interesting dialogue. There is supposed to be this immediate fire between Depp and Jolie, but it simply is not there. Because of this, the film contains many quiet moments of these two actors staring awkwardly into space or at each other. When they do talk, it is almost never interesting. Frank asks bland questions that Elise never answers. A lot of the film consists of Depp and Jolie riding boats in silence in Venice. Speaking of Venice, the locations end up being one of the only interesting parts of the film.

The lack of chemistry would be forgivable if the film made up for it with style, but the filmmaking is quite boring as well. Co-writer and director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck shows none of the promise from 2006’s The Lives of Others. Aside from one moment near the end of the film, the look of The Tourist is as forgettable as its content. Perhaps von Donnersmarck was held up because this was a big budget studio remake of a 2005 French film. Here’s hoping he does something more original for his follow-up.

The stars themselves are some of the only redeeming qualities to this film. Depp and Jolie may not have much in the way of chemistry, but they are still decent actors. Jolie is outshined by Depp here, though. Jolie is forced to play this heartbroken, depressed woman and that is not cinematically interesting in a movie that is meant to be more entertaining than heartfelt.

Jolie doesn’t fit into the action movie aspect of the film, but The Tourist isn’t an action movie. Is it a comedy, though? Depp’s character seems to point in that direction. Depp gets the only funny things to do in the film: be slightly bumbling, speak Spanish to Italians, get chased in his pajamas, etc. Some of this stuff works and is amusing at times, but then the movie changes pace again.

Just when it seemed like the film was some kind of light action comedy there would be a scene that made it seem like the film was a serious drama about Depp and Jolie’s relationship. Then the mobster stuff was thrown in and the film became a bit dark and serious as people started getting murdered. But there was never a true sense of danger. Then there’s the whole mystery of who Elise’s criminal boyfriend really is. That mystery may be what the film tries to focus on, but it never gained my true interest.

The mystery aspect could potentially make The Tourist one of those films that requires you to watch it again to look for clues, but it is all so boring and the stakes of the film are so unbelievable that it never works. Who cares if Frank or Elise ever find true love? Who cares if the cliché mobster gets his revenge? Who cares if the bitter Scotland Yard inspector (a wasted Paul Bettany, who does his best to make the role worthwhile) finds the criminal? Who cares? If a film can’t hook you into slightly caring about its characters, then it can’t keep your interest.

Normally a film devoid of emotion like this could at least keep you happy with a bit of visual flair, but The Tourist fails in that regard as well. It’s possible that the star quality of Depp and Jolie will be enough for some, but if you’re looking for true substance and interesting filmmaking, you won’t find it with The Tourist.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

I just have to say that I was honestly expecting this to be a good film considering all who were involved. A true missed opportunity.

The revelation that Depp is actually the criminal the whole time should have been a payoff that made me want to watch the film at least once more to look for clues, but I really did not care. I was just happy the film was over. Maybe the whole twist thing will work for some, though.

I enjoyed Timothy Dalton in his few scenes.

That one visual flair, when all the mobsters get hit with sniper fire in slow motion, was pretty great. If only there were more moments like that.

"Salt"

Salt - Directed by Phillip Noyce, written by Kurt Wimmer, starring Angelina Jolie, Liev Schreiber, and Chiwetel Ejiofor - Rated PG-13

Jolie is slightly badass in this, but the Kurgan could take her.

When you watch as many movies as I do, you start to see patterns in every genre and things get very boring. I went into Salt, the latest Angelina Jolie spy film, expecting a typical, safe movie that would be completely forgettable. I was pleasantly surprised to see an exciting action film that does not play it safe, but rather goes all out. Salt is not a great film or anything, but it is a film that takes risks and usually succeeds.

The title alone set up my negative expectations to the film. I could already imagine the cheesy jokes about the possible sequel: Pepper. I still don’t care for the title, but don’t let it keep you from checking out the film. The title is Jolie’s character: Evelyn Salt. Salt is a CIA agent about to take a desk job so she can enjoy a calm life with her husband. Things go awry when a Russian defector shows up claiming that an agent named Evelyn Salt is actually a Russian spy and will attempt to kill the Russian president. Salt doesn’t stick around to get questioned and the chase is on.

Up to that point, I felt the film was in “safe” territory. Going with Russian villains (that’s never been done in a spy movie!), a relatively weak threat (sorry, Russia, in movie land, your president is a bland target), and a typical chase film involving an accused spy. And that is what the first twenty minutes of Salt is, a typical movie, but thankfully that quickly changes. The stakes are raised, the action is competent, and the formula is played with.

The formula I’m referring to concerns the accused spy. Normally, in a film like this, the accused spy is definitely innocent. In Salt, I honestly didn’t know if she was with the CIA or the Russians. That really kept the film interesting to me. I felt like I was watching something truly new. This is not a groundbreaking ploy or anything, but the possibility that Salt is actually the villain of the film made it much more entertaining.

The action, the story, and the formula works, but this film also hinges on whether or not you buy into Angelina Jolie as a tough CIA field agent. This isn’t her first action movie or anything, but I think some people still have doubts about her believability in these roles. I actually prefer Jolie in action films over dramas. I like watching her take down multiple enemies with ease. I completely buy into her as an action star and if you’re just looking for a movie that features a lady who can kick the crap out of dudes, then look no further.

Jolie is fine, but the supporting cast really makes this film solid. Chiwetel Ejiofor (2012, Children of Men) and Liev Schreiber (Wolverine, The Manchurian Candidate) are two of the best actors working today and they add credibility to any film they are in. I definitely see some Academy Awards in their future. I like that these guys are not going for the award-bait films lately, but rather have lent their services to big budget and B-movie fare. I’m not saying good actors should only go for the money; it’s just nice to see great actors in less artistic-type films.

I want to get back into the whole Russian spy angle of this film. The plot of the film concerns a Russian agent who trains orphans from a very young age to act like Americans, and then place them in American society and government until the day they are asked to serve the motherland. This might’ve seemed a little on the goofy side if not for the fact that it has sort of happened. Recently, a number of Russian spies who had lived in America for years were discovered. It felt like the Cold War was still going on. It’s amusing how this film’s release nearly coincided with that discovery and it certainly adds a little believability to the story.

Credibility and seriousness aside, this is a very fun movie. A few actions scenes are over the top in a good way. I particularly enjoyed the scene in which Salt controls a vehicle by jolting the driver with a taser. There a few enjoyable spy moments as well, the most notable is a disguise moment late in the film that has a borderline goofy feel, but still worked.

This is not a film without faults, though. The story has some definite plot holes that take a lot of assuming and disbelief to explain away. I forgive the film its problems, though, because the rest of it works so well. Fair warning, though, this movie seems dumber the more you look into it. I suggest you take the film at face value. Save the microscope for guys like Kubrick.

Enjoy Salt for what it is: a spy film in which Angelina Jolie beats up multitudes of enemies with ease and that includes a few twists and some fine acting. I wish it had a different title, because I honestly think this film deserves a sequel…in the future I just don’t want to tell a theatre worker, “One for Pepper.”

Random notes (SPOILERS) - This may become a regular thing...

I have to comment on the ending of this film (note the SPOILER warning above...). I mentioned plot holes in the regular review and I wanted to point out the biggest one, in my opinion. So Salt is captured, Liev Schreiber is assumed to be some kind of hero, and the President is unconscious. Umm...okay. The President witnessed Schreiber kill an entire room full of people before he was knocked out. Are we assuming that the President would forget all of that? Otherwise, Salt would indeed look like the hero since she wasn't the one who killed everyone AND she stopped the nuclear launch. I know this can all be explained away a bit, but I don't buy any explanations that I've read so far. It's asking too much to assume that the President would just think Schreiber is in cahoots with Salt. Schreiber's plan just makes no sense. Why didn't he just kill the President? It would take care of the whole witness problem. There was no need to keep him alive. There was no way that the President would have taken credit for the nuclear launch had it gone through, so killing him would be good to just tie up loose ends. I don't know, it all just bothered me a bit. Like I said in the review, though, this didn't ruin the film for me or anything, it just left me scratching my head a bit as I walked out.

Why was Andre Braugher in this? He may not be an A-lister (though he did get nominated for an Emmy), but he's certainly a recognizable actor who deserves more than one line of dialogue. His part could have been played by a nobody. It's damn near a role an extra could fill. It just surprised me to see him in this.

I know it's cheesy as hell, but I loved this part:

"But I'm the National Security Advisor!"

Schreiber, after putting what seems like a whole clip in the guy: "Not anymore."

"Doubt" / "Changeling" / "Frozen River"

You probably noticed already that I have changed the name of the blog. I bought the domain name for http://www.canneltoncritic.com/ and that address will now direct you to this blog. The old way still works, I just thought this new name made more sense and made it easier to get to the site. In hindsight, Middle of Nowhere seems a bit more cynical that I wanted it to be and it was a spur of the moment title anyway. Also, even if Cannelton Critic comes across as a little pretentious, I still like the sound of it, and I paid for two years for the domain name, so I'm keeping it. Now onto my reviews, which could be considered my Best Actress roundup, since all three films featured nominees.

"Doubt" is the story of Sister Aloysius Beauvier (Meryl Streep) and her doubts about Father Flynn (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and his relationship with a boy in their Catholic school during the mid 1960s. This is a movie that hinges on strong performances and it delivers. Of course you cannot go wrong with Streep and Hoffman, and Amy Adams turns in a strong performance as well. But this is Streep's show. I've never seen an actress so capable of insighting my anger so easily. She is so strict and so sure of herself and it is so infuriating. But it can be a bit funny, too. Her obsession with the use of ball-point pens and a debate on the deeper meaning of Frosty the Snowman help to lighten the mood of an otherwise serious film.

Streep smacks kids in the back of the head, yells at them, and just has a general look of disgust and suspicion molded onto her face. This is in keeping with certain nuns from that time, I am told. So this film could be a bit nostalgic (or horrorific) for certain audience members. I didn't go through that form of school, so it all seemed a bit comedic to me, especially from a teaching standpoint. But Streep embodies this character and even though she's won before, I think she deserved the Oscar (though I haven't seen Anne Hathaway's performance yet). Hoffman turns in yet another impressive performance, though it might just seem impressive because he held his own against Streep.

The performances are so important because this film is truly about doubt. Do you believe Streep or Hoffman? Do you side with Hoffman simply because Streep is so mean? Do you side with Streep because of your preconceptions of the Church these days? This film is about what you bring into it, which makes it very interesting. It's always great when a film can be entertaining while it makes you question your beliefs and forces you to make a decision. The performances are so important because the actors need to try to sway your belief but you also have to be able to doubt them. I may have mentioned my hate for Streep's character, but her certainty is infecting and I found myself seeing eye to eye with her a few times. That may be the most important part of her performance; you might hate her, but she makes sense.

The performances do make this film (which is adapted from a play, which would explain why the acting is so important) but the writer/director, John Patrick Shanley, does try to make it visually appealing. There isn't anything amazing about the style, but it works. Shanley tilts the camera a few times to create the feeling of uncertainty and that works, but the subject matter doesn't really need any help.

"Changeling" is about a single mother, Angelina Jolie, who loses her son, only to have a fake replacement son brought to her from the L.A. Police Department. She then gets embroiled in a political situation spurred on by a local priest, John Malkovich, in which corruption is dealt with. Oh, and Angelina Jolie screams that she wants "MY SON!" about a hundred times throughout all this. I can't say that she does a great job. She cries a lot and yells about her son, but she just annoyed me more than anything. It might have had something to do with those stupid hats she wears in nearly every scene. I guess women wore hats like that 70 years ago? Accuracy is fine and all, but those stupid hats got on my nerves...not sure why.

The film is directed by Clint Eastwood (who seems to be obsessed with misery in his old age) and he creates a nice feel for this period piece. But I just don't usually care for period pieces that take place in L.A. Not sure why, I just don't like the way that city and its people are portrayed when dealing with the past. It has its interesting moments, though. Jolie's sanity is questioned a bit, but it isn't focused on enough to make this film entertaining. It becomes an overlong (140+ minutes) story that cannot decide whether it wants to be a kidnapping, political, pyschological, or a mystery story. I would've liked at least one of those elements fleshed out, but instead they took a quantity over quality approach and, for me, it failed.

"Frozen River" is also about a single mother, Melissa Leo, in miserable conditions. She is trying to buy a new double wide for her two sons, but her husband has stolen the money and ran off to gamble with it. She ends up getting involved in human trafficking across the U.S./Canada border (she drives them across the frozen river from the title). Does this sound miserable yet? It is, but it surprised me by being interesting and compelling when I expected it to be one of those films that just piles one horrible situation on top of another and another until you feel so awful that you want to turn the movie off. But it isn't one of those films. The characters are too well developed. You want Leo and her unlikely partner in crime, Lila, to succeed. You want their lives to improve, even if they have to do some questionable things to make it work.

I suppose I'm focusing on the possibility of the film being depressing, but the moments Leo has with her children and the friendship she develops with Lila really bring this movie out of the darkness. It's actually pretty hopeful in the long run. So check this one out. Melissa Leo was nominated and she is very convincing in her role (this woman looks rough) and without her the movie could have failed. But she turned in a great performance and made this into a pleasant surprise.

Next: I think I've seen enough to give a Top Ten this Sunday. Might add a review of "Choke" as well.