The one thing I liked about this film is Ben Affleck's performance as Tony Mendez. However, overall I hated this film so much that I was forced to give it zero stars.
This film is introduced as a political thriller, it does not achieve this. It feels as if the film can’t decide whether to be silly or serious. And fails at both.
A storytelling decision is made to avoid qualifying as a good film of a certain type and to focus on the six victims. However we don’t spend enough time getting to know these shallowly written characters, for that approach to be effective. Affleck’s character, though less important to the story, is a better performance.
The opening scene is relevant, informative and emotive. The uprising in Iran of a justifiably angry, and violent mob – due to the US government’s manipulation of their distraught political system and the asylum of their ex-tyrant, results in an overthrow of the American Embassy.
The film, Shooter (2007) comes to mind as a more effective political thriller on the topic of being frustrated by the red tape that strangles a first world government in its attempt to provide justice.
Clerks working at the embassy are trapped in a political war zone. They decide to flee. They take their time, but they do eventually escape. This is all great concept so far, the escape is dramatic, there is an effective setup for a political thriller/spy film like perhaps Spy Game (2001).
The army are playing it safe, deciding not to shoot anyone, so they lose to the mob. Probably they would have lost either way. The innocent clerks are sufficiently scared and as a viewer, I sympathise with them.
Their indecisive panic could have been played up more or been more fluid and relevant/raw/realistic.
While the movie is probably the most effective story about the topic, it doesn’t work as a film. Affleck is believable and charming as the bearded CIA agent Mendez. He's the one who comes up with the brilliant plan.
The film could have worked as a black comedy/political thriller if it had been effective emotionally and intellectually in both genres. This I think may have been its intention, unfortunately it misfired. Perhaps too ambitious.
No attempt was made to design its form, content or structure with a story that could have been suspenseful, surprising and cerebral – which are the goals of a good political thriller.
As well as the goals of a good black comedy – sadistically funny.
The humour was neither dark, nor persistent.
I understand the political reasons for liking it, lauding it. But even the politics of the situation were such a small part of the movie.
This movie has no core, except Affleck, whose performance, I’ll admit was spot on.
But I disagree with a voice that says this is a good film.
So the six escapees hide at the Canadian Ambassador’s house. Nobody knows that they were at the embassy. Unfortunately, one of the agents at the embassy was keeping a file on all who worked there. It was shredded, but the rebels have sweatshop kids putting the shredded pieces back together. Soon they will know who worked there – specifically that six escaped and what they look like. The rebel motive is to trade the six for the ex-tyrant.
The US government stance is that they must honour their agreement so that their credibility remains intact. They have a relationship with the ex-tyrant, so they are stuck with him. They can't make the deal.
CIA plans to rescue the six. The plan is to make a fake movie and get the six out of the country as film crew. The other failing of this film is that it doesn’t work very hard at selling the process of being an unskilled, untalented filmmaker which is supposed to be the humorous part of the story.
0 stars
No comments:
Post a Comment