Maybe being a French guy named “Louis” was punishment enough. 
“Shallow” is exactly the word I used after I saw it, but I had (and still have) a really hard time articulating why I thought it was shallow. Overall, I thought it was a much better movie than many Spielberg has made, and not overtly preachy, but pretty predictable. (Not just predictable in the sense that it’s based on – excuse me, inspired by – real events, but predictable in the sense that there were stock characters and stock situations.
For example, when Avner has that touching heart to heart with the Palestinian guy in the safe house, you know that Avner’s going to end up seeing him again, and maybe having to kill him.I also agree that there were several logic problems with the movie.
But overall, I enjoyed it. It’s never going to be in my top ten movies of all time, but it wasn’t a wasted afternoon.
Nor did we ever see any repercussions from:
The raid in Beruit obviously linking Avner to Israel. This is after Louis told Avner many times they don’t work with governments and that if Avner was working for a government Louis would become very hard to find and very angry. I guess he or his father just changed his mind.
How about a failure? How about using different sources or any sort of rudimentary spying?
The concept for the film was simply a mistake. By trying to focus on the actual killing of 4-5 terrorists and the development of the assassination team as people they bite off way more then they could chew. I would have picked one thing to focus on. Perhaps having the team go after one target and make the movie into more of an action/spy thriller movie. Focus on the team as people and their development through many of the killings. Go the spy/counterspy route and involve the KGB and CIA more. Focus on the eye for an eye thing between Israel and Black September. The movie tried to do all of those and there simply wasn’t enough time to pull it off.
And like I said thats an extremely shallow arc. A spy leaves his family, kills a few terrorists and loses some team members. He misses his family and becomes paranoid about being killed himself. Color me unimpressed.
If you want to focus on Avner’s transformation then show me Avner before the mission. Becuase frankly I couldn’t have cared less about him becuase there was no charecter development before he got his mission. What was done was simply cliched and again, shallow.
Oh by all means enlighten me of what I missed out on oh wise one.
Um, in the real world, unlike movies about Special Operations teams staring Steven Seagal, things get fucked up. Hitting a real moving target in the dark, under fear and confusion is difficult at best; ditto for setting up booby traps and the like. And you have to bear in mind that these guys weren’t professionals; they were selected because they had the minimal skills to do the job and were not high profile enough to be missed within the Mossad; they were essentially amateurs.
First of all, the Mossad team (they were techincally freelancers, all having been officially disavowed by Mossad) were for the most part a strike force. This is what real counterterrorism and counterinsurgency work is like; you use local resources to identify targets and “wet assets” to execute an operation. Although the members of the team portrayed in the movie are largely fictional composites, the bulk of the actual operations followed the historical record, as far as public knowledge goes.
Methinks you didn’t pay close enough attention: The munitions expert was deliberately blown up; Hanns was stabbed, and the other older member was killed by the freelance woman assassin. While the authority behind those attacks wasn’t named, it was implied to be the KGB or one of their satellite agencies (likely the Bulgarians who were typically employed to do wet work in Europe) as retribution for the attack that killed the Russians. The drunk men who accosted the team in London were clearly CIA. It is strongly implied that Louis and his father sold out Avner and the team to both agencies, each of which had an agenda to stop them from assassinating other Palestinian planners.
It certainly isn’t a Point A to Point C via Point B plotting, owing in no small part to its relatively strong adherence to actual events, and it certainly isn’t either a fantastical Bond movie nor a jingoistic Tom Clancy adaptation. That may be a thematical weakness in terms of conventional plotting (though as Campion notes, the film does pull some very predictable plot twists out of the hat) but it speaks to some willingness of Spielberg to diverge from the sort of simplistic, one-sided, linear storytelling which has marred many of his other dramatic efforts.
I’m a little split on the film; I was suprised at not only how dark, but how ambiguous the themes were. It’s definitely a departure for Spielberg in that regard. The scene where the woman assassin is shot was startlingly brutal for a Spielberg film, more on the order of Scorsese (in his prime) than Spielberg. On the other hand, his actual treatment of how the conflict (both internal to Avner and the external political issues) is pretty heavy-handed and overly dependent on simplistic symbolism. Yes, Stevie, we see the Twin Towers and how they portend future escallation. Yes, we see the mother figure as an analog to Israel.
Some of the analogies work pretty well, though; the comparison between Avner’s group and the PLO group which share the safehouse–that they’re both “safe” there because they’re both “the same”, i.e. outlaws/fanatics/terrorists, nicely indicates not only their legal but moral status.It did seem to run a little long to me; although I’m not sure what I’d have cut out, it did have a bit of the Return of the King false ending syndrome, and while I resisted checking my watch I was drawn away from the story several times; I’m not sure the material justified the 152 minute run time. I did love the inclusion of Michel Lonsdale (Louis’ father, also seen as the retired operative in Ronin, and a former Bond villian); the way he invited Avner to the house to have dinner with his family, and then when leaving indicated to Avner that “you could have been my son, but you aren’t”, i.e. he has no loyalty to Avner’s group beyond business, is a very poignent reminder that Avner’s group, and indeed, the Mossad, is lowering itself to deal with the same people and in the same way as the terrorists.
Good movie, but not great. I have never found Eric Bana to be a particularly accessible actor and the same is true here; he’s too much of an enigma to make the change of heart he displays really play true. But the film itself was much different than I expected from the likes of Spielberg, so I tend to give it more benefit than I might otherwise. It’s certainly a better film than War of the Worlds, and vastly better than the MI:3 trailer in the teaser reel would indicate. (Is there going to be anything in that film other than big, loud explosions? I had to sigh at that trailer; who keeps greenlighting these things?)
One cool point of note about the teaser reel; there was another trailer–I think the film was called American Dreamz or somesuch, with Dennis Quaid as the President–in which the exterior of the very theater we were watching the movie at was featured. It’s not the first time that has happened–the same thing was true with Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (you can see the Arclight briefly off to the side as Val Kilmer is driving down Sunset)–but it always kind of freaks me out in a Kaufmanesque way when that happens, like reality is intruding into the film.
Stranger
Did the bomb guy blow himself up? It seems like he would notice one of his machines used as the timer to a bomb.
It’s ambiguous, butI believe he was killed. Given that he was a bomb dismantler rather than a bomb builder, I think he is very unlikely to have blown himself up. One of the toys was running, a ferris wheel, and when the little toy person on it reached a certain spot in the wheel, there was a click, then the building blew up. So I think the reasonable assumption is that he was killed. He had so many toys in that room, I don’t know that he’d notice if one of them had been tampered with.
Please, please tell me that was the only part of that preview you liked. I know I’m rather free with saying I’ll lose all respect for you, but seriously, this time I mean it.
American Dreamz is by the guy who did About a Boy, which may be my all-time favorite movie (it’s that or O Brother). I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I can’t wait to see it. It does certainly have the potential to be absolutely awful, though.
Well, I did get a modest chuckle out of the President, played by Dennis Quaid, having to read the newspaper to figure out that there were three different major factions in Iraq, but on the whole I’d rather shove red-hot aluminum knitting needles through my ears than go see that film. Looking it up on IMDb.com, I note that it is written and directed by Paul Weitz, the same bloke who wrote and directed In Good Company, which I believe tells you all you need to know about the originality, humor, and wit of the film. I think I’ll avoid that one the way Tom Cruise dodges shrapnel in a Mission Impossible movie.
Come to think of it, were there any good trailers in that reel? Someone please tell me 2006 isn’t going to suck for decent movies the way this year did.
Stranger
coughAbout A Boycough Originality, humor, and wit in spades.
Well, there was … no, that was Tom Cruise. But then they showed … but that looked awful. Sorry, Stranger, I think you’re SOL in 2006. (I did notice an audience-wide snicker when the Mission Impossible 3 trailer showed. Good taste, that crowd.)
Haven’t seen it (I know! the horror!), but I’ll take your word for it. It’s a shame, though, that he apparently has used all his originality, humor and wit on that one flick. Nothing left for American Dreamz. Oh, even the name makes me cringe.
Dunno, I never saw it. Hugh Grant irritates me with his smarmy on-screen persona, though I think he’d be a cool cat to hang out with in real life. He sure knows which escort services to patronize.
What?
Stranger
His performance in that movie – and I say this knowing the ridicule it will rain down upon my head – was Oscar-worthy. Really.
…And I’ll stop pimping that movie now. No pun intended.
To Treis-
I think Stranger really hit it on the head…
You seem to have wanted either a Seagal flick or some sort of 2 hour treatise on mid east relations (which you seem pretty murky about what that would have been in the first place)
One moment you are calling for it to be more strictly a spy/action thriller and then calling the level of analysis of the issues it brings up to be “high school level”. Can’t have it both ways.
And your point about there being no fall out to the team’s involvment in Lebannon and Louis… you apparently missed the scene where this is directly discussed. Louis raises the rates even after Avener swears they had nothing to do with it. And since Louis and his father’s sole interest appears to be financial, that is the fall out.
About a Boy was adapted from a novel by Nick Hornsby.
Thanks, I realize that. So was Fever Pitch.
Paul Weitz did a superlative job adapting the film, down to changing the ending to make it leeeeeeagues better. And hitting all the right notes, cinematically. It’s overall wonderful.
Saw it today. I liked it but I didn’t love it. There were a lot of places that could have used the editing scissors.
I really liked Louis and his father. I could have watched a movie about them!
Bana was solid as usual. I enjoy his work.
A good flick, but if it wins Best Picture, I would consider it a weak year.
I couldn’t see them as anything save opportunistic mercenaries. How can you begin fighting Nazis and end up serving anyone who pays you to help kill folks?
Interesting they were, but likeable I found them not.
Is “intrigued” a better word for it?
I also was impressed by the future James Bond. They are definitely going back to the connery mold with him. He sure isn’t a pretty boy. I hope they pull a Batman Returns and make the film edgier.
I don’t want to see another 2 hour cookie cutter, formulaic thriller cum BMW commerical.
I likened them to the Corleones in The Godfather. Amoral to be certain, but living and doing business by their own code. And Michael Lonsdale is, IMHO, every bit the equal of Marlon Brando in that type of role. (His spare minutes of interaction with DeNiro in Ronin when he explains about the 47 Samurai elevated that film immensely.)
Stranger