Save your time and money and don’t go.
I expected an interesting movie. Instead, we get 3+ hours of incredibly bad script. I fell asleep about 15 minutes into it and SWMBO had to elbow me repeatedly.
I thought it was one of the best films of the year, fascinating and mesmerizing. Don’t go if you’re tired or sleepy, because it’s a veeery sloooow and very hypnotic movie. It’s NOT an action film. It’s a quiet psychological drama. The lead character hardly says two words during the whole thing. Ok, he talks a bit more than that, but he’s a cyper. He has to be. Most of his reactions have to be shown in his eyes.
I knew Matt Damon was a good actor, but I had no idea that Robert DeNiro could be such a good director.
I was shocked at my own reactions to some of the events in the film. Here I am, a die-hard liberal, and I’m supposed to be all hateful toward and wary of the CIA, but maybe Valerie Plame got me to open my mind just a bit, because, while I still hate the dirty dealings the CIA has been involved in through the years, I still was on the edge of my seat, wondering what was going to happen next and fearing for the safety of the, uh, “good guy” spies. And no, it’s not as clear cut as “good guys” and “bad guys” in the movie. You like some of “our” guys and you hate some of “our” guys. You like some of “their” guys and you hate some of “their” guys. Mostly you hate that so many people had to die or be destroyed by the Cold War.
Most surprising of all, and I hated myself a little bit for it…
I thought it was probably a good idea that Son’s girlfriend got pushed out of the plane, and thought that maybe Son should have been holding her hand on the way down. Dad was not a spy. Dad was a spook with, I think, the best of intentions. Girlfriend was not a spook, she was an out and out spy. Son was just fucking stupid and annoying.
I enjoyed it. Equipoise sums it up well in the first paragraph of her post. It was a very interesting story and the acting was nuanced and very well done. Plus an appearence by Joe Pesci who hasn’t been in a movie in like eight years.
I enjoyed it too. I do have one question about one of the plot points, which I’ll put in a spoiler box:
Was the half-deaf German translator girl (she was the translator, right?) really a spy, or was she just killed because Damon’s charactor felt guilty for sleeping with her? As best I can recall, her right ear was her bad ear, but when her hearing aid was on the night stand, and Damon called out to her, she turned over her left shoulder, suggesting that her good ear was facing Damon and she wouldn’t have had trouble hearing him if she were hearing impaired. Anyone have any thoughts on this?
I didn’t like it, either. I thought that Matt Damons’ character was completely unlikeable, and I don’t think that the film adequately fleshed out his motives early on. It was a little hard to keep track of who were the good guys and who were the bad guys, but I think that was, to some extent, the point.
The hearing aide was a recording or transmitting device. That’s why it was submerged in the tea pot when she was killed.
I don’t think he was supposed to be likable and I found that refreshing. Why do we have to always like the main character in a movie? There are stories to be told about people who aren’t likable too. He wasn’t evil or a born bastard, though he was very tough. He was taciturn, smart, patriotic, very (rightfully) worried about the country, and was in a position, socially, economically and academically, to be chosen for this elite (by exclusion unfortunately) group. He’s probably very typical of his real-life generation of FBI-turned-CIA agents. I didn’t like or much admire him, but I was fascinated by him.
I agree with this.
I thought it was sent back to the Russians in a tea pot as a warning/“Gotcha!” message (‘your spy sleeps with the fishes, not with our boy anymore’). Dr. Love is correct, that the transmitter was in her right ear, but her left ear was to Damon when he softly called out her name. She could have been killed out of paranoia, but I’d imagine they would have checked the hearing aid for bugs before killing her and sending it back to the Russians. Well, you’d think so. I hope so.
I have to see this again. There are so many characters, and so many curves and turns, and so many subtleties that I know I’ll pick up on a lot more the second time.
And bytw, The Good German is ALSO an excellent film! They make a great double-feature.
I thought it was very unrealistic when Robert De Niro’s character was telling Wilson about his intention to recruit young intelligence operatives and said, “I’m looking for men from the right background. No Jews or Negroes.”
Come ON. It was a given back then that Jews, and especially blacks, were not from “the right background.” A high-ranking general talking to a Yale Skull and Bones member would not have needed to emphasize that minorities would be excluded in their private conversation. It was already understood by both parties.
Maybe that was more for the audience’s benefit, to remind them what it used to be like.
I’m sure that’s exactly why it’s there. But it came off as preachy and forced to me.
I enjoyed it as well. Yeah, the institutionalized racism is going to be destracting, such as when Damon’s character tells Joe Pesci that America belongs to his people (the WASPS), that everyone else is just visiting. But that’s kind of the point: in overthrowing elected governments in central and south America, Iran (not depicted in the movie), and the Bay of Pigs, they are “keeping the wars small,” and showing that destroying the lives of people in the 3rd world is inconsequential…
DeNiro’s general says early on that he wants the CIA to be America’s eyes and ears, not its heart and soul. But in the end it is America’s heart and soul and frontal lobe and central nervous system. An agency that can identify, from a fuzzy still photo and a low-quality audio tape, the 3-5 cities in the entire world a room might be located in, but didn’t recognise the fall of the eastern block until they saw it on CNN.
I also liked it, even though I wish it would have been possible to age Matt Damon a little more. I felt like I got to see more of his depth as an actor, something that I’d enjoyed in The Talented Mr. Ripley. That aside, and not to get off-track, I adored Michael Gambon’s performance. John Turturro also really stood out for me, especially the torture scene with him and the Russian.
Anyway, the movie made me want to read up more on the CIA (or, “CIA”) and its history. Any recommendations?
I agree with everything you say. Matt Damon hardly looked any older at the end than at the beginning, even though he had a grown son by the end, but that wasn’t too distracting. I too would like to read more about the CIA.
I thought it was telling at the end, when they state that Damon’s Character
is the heart and soul of the CIA - yet he doesn’t really seem to have one himself.
I also thoroughly enjoyed the movie, and strongly recommend it as an intruiging character study. I also enjoyed the non-linear narrative, which is common enough these days that it really shouldn’t be a controversy. Most of all, I appcreciated it’s sober, non gadget-absorbed, de-romanticized look at intelligence and counter-intelligence as national institutions.
Really, the films provides great fodder for discussion and thought, especially in this post-“everyone knew there where WMDs!!!” era. Among other things, it shows clearly why analysis and multiple viewpoints are so critical: giving laypeople in government un-analyzed intel can be a huge mistake, as well as allowing a single prejudical viewpoint to predominate.
I was disappointed. It all seemed familiar ground, and some major historical elements were used as plot points in ways that almost seemed to trivialize them. It seemed silly to imply that the Bay of Pigs only failed because somebody leaked the location of the invasion, not because it was a bad plan to begin with.
An excellent cast, good production values, and what should be a fascinating subject – but the whole thing seemed lifeless to me.
I have two and a half questions about a (relatively) minor detail:
Was Margaret (Jolie) having an affair with Allen (Hurt)? And was Allen dressed up as Santa Claus at the Christmas party, and is that why Edward Jr. wet himself? Because he recognized Santa as the guy his mother was having an affair with?
The people I watched the movie with answered “yes” to questions, but I didn’t pick up on that at all.
I saw it today and really enjoyed it. I thought Matt Damon’s character was fascinating, and I loved that you didn’t trust any of the characters, but that mistrust coursed through the film as almost something to be taken for granted…there was just a generalized air of vigilance from start to finish that you almost got used to (much the way, one would imagine, a spy would). Robert DeNiro did a great job.