Thank you superfly TNT! You stopped me from ripping into the original poster. However, you're right, it would have been out of spite. You're a wise poster, and putting people down doesn't go anywhere.
IF I MAY:
Here's how the original poster made me feel when I read his post. "NO DEPTH??" What, is this guy high? This movie has nothing other than depth. "BAD ACTING!?" What?? It is so far removed from what people -who took the time to view the movie with an open mind and really discover what the movie was about.. and why- that it just SEEMS (ok? only 'seems') like the original poster must only like "popcorners". This movie had a low budget, and that often turns people off. If anything, the only money spent on this film was for good acting talent. The rest is all story and dialog and very genuine situations and character. In fact, if you want to critisize this movie, it'd be more understandable to say that the special effects sucked, or the music score (which was fine, btw) wasn't full of pizzazz. But to make a post that blatantly rips apart this movie for the great things it actually had going for it just seems surreal. Therefore, one can only assume that it's from someone who is used to Spiderman, or the Fantastic Four (two movies I also loved, btw). Anyway... that's the reason that some people attack others for not liking this great film.
YOU ARE RIGHT:
However, it's wrong to say one person's tastes are wrong. However, it also doesn't seem wrong to say to a person that likes "popcorners" that they like "popcorners". If that, indeed, is their taste. If not, then I apologize. They just didn't like this film, but are into films that don't have all the eye-popping effects, and other eye and ear candy.
Unlike the original poster (I will say this about him or her, they didn't stick around on this board and troll, at least. They said what they felt and didn't keep trying to tell others that their taste sucks). I will give my reasons why I thought the things that were attacked, were actually this films strengths.
There are several SPOILERS ahead!!!!!!!
1) Acting:
Northam essentially plays two distinctly different characters with different accents and mannerisms (as well as any transitional gray area in between, as the film progresses).
Lucy Liu goes from cold and removed from this character, even though she's in love with him. Several scenes, she's stone-faced and very 'just the facts ma'am'. However, as the movie progresses, Liu is able to portray, little by little, that she has feelings for Northam. Watching it, you think she's falling for him, when in reality she's actually unable to keep her barriers up to protect her lover.
Other talent in this film all seemed to fill-the-bill for what their characters required and never did I feel like the performances weren't convincing.
2) Camera work:
Several shots reel the viewer in. Close-ups of several of Rook's vices, showing that the character really has more going on than just a corporate stooge. Although, we are meant to believe that he's a geek who actually has the chance to 'act' like someone else. Someone adventurous and daring and 'cool'. When in reality, it's the character's (Rook's) real personality coming out, bit by bit. Cigarettes. Scotch. Lucy. Golf. It's all there and you feel like the character is becoming someone else, when really he's becoming himself, all by these camera close-ups, showing his desires and vices.
3) Plot:
Much of the plot is explained in the camera work section. Simply because the camera work almost tells the whole story (well, actually it does). But there are many twists in the plot and I think this turns some people off. Some people (not necessarily on this thread) like to either turn off their brain when they see a movie, or never really use their brain to begin with. Still, I am fascinated by plot twists. I hate to figure out a plot and I often do just that. So twists keep me on my toes. I just like that. However, this story has one main plot. Love. Call me sappy, but this movie was all about love. What a man would go through to protect and/or save the woman he loves. And, to help him, what she'd do to protect him. It all comes together in the end. It was all just about love. All the twists and turns in the plot were fun and mind-bending, though. Greed, too, was an integral part of the plot. Greed destroys / love saves.
So, to those that didn't like this great film, I say I'm sorry you didn't and therefore hopefully you'll find something you like. I guess you just have to be patient with this movie and maybe watch it more than once to get it and to appreciate it.
Jules echoes, "Royale with cheese."
reply
share
wsheit
19 years ago
I just watched this and I have very mixed feelings. In terms of score, plotting, acting....etc....I have to give it near perfect marks. The atmosphere and suspense amounted to some of the best film-making I've seen in a while....and I watch a lot of movies. While I was watching, I would flicker between A) puzzling over the plot, B) wondering why the hell Jeremy Northram wasn't a bigger name, and C) savoring the rare but beautiful pieces of piano score.
On the other hand, they gave away too many clues 20-30 minutes before the ending. With at least 15 minutes to go, I knew that SPOILER!!!! Sullivan was Rooks.............END SPOILER!!!!! If the scene where SPOILER Sullivan and Rita are kissing END SPOILER!!!! had been removed, I probably wouldn't have figured it out. I find the greatest value in these movies to be the oh-so-rare moment where the hair rises from your skin and you utter an involuntary "oh my gosh" as a revelation hits home. This movie shot itself in the foot by failing to deliver a truly unexpected revelation...and one other movie in particular has pulled off this exact twist before. SPOILER A shadowy figure that ends up being the main character END SPOILER
In conclusion, this movie has my affections split right down the middle. The filmcraft aspect was flawless...especially considering the budget. Up until the end, I truly enjoyed every second of it. However, the movie failed to deliver what these types of movies promise at the onset....a surprise. I would probably give it an 8 of 10.
And people complain about this being confusing? I don't understand that at all. If you want confusing (in a good way), go watch Basic or Primer.
reply
share
damian3383
17 years ago
[POSSIBLE SPOILERS]
Why do so many people think this plot was so complex? This is basic espionage 101. Two sides fighting, agent seems like a tool for both, agent turns out to be victorious over both.
In fact from the line "this is who I am" at the very beginning you know he is *NOT* this. That you should be looking for who he really is. We never get to know who he really is. In fact, you could note from the total lack of character building at the start that you should look for an alternate identity. Some mysterious Mr. Rooks is mentioned? HELLOOOO WHO COULD THIS BE??! *G* I WONDER.
So you know exactly halfway into it how everything will play out. That could be fine. You could strike it up to suspense. However, because you don't know the character, have zero emotional involvement with him because of this, there is no suspense. You could care less about what is going to happen to him. In fact, there is no real threat. Nobody is killed, nobody got seriously injured, what about raising the stakes? THERE IS NO STAKE. And what about the boon? Total McGuffin. Pointless. They wanted to kill her? Oh dear! With that sort of massive incompetence they would have been a real threat to her! In fact, lets put her right in their lap all throughout the mission so she'll be extra safe! Lets lead them the *beep* to her right at the end!
This movie is not "clever". It's woefully braindead. Which would be good if it had character but it forfeits most character building opportunities for the sake of the mystery. It forfeits all mystery through glaring cliches where it would have to be hairtight to pull it off.
So is it all bad? No, the cinematography is wonderful and there are some great scenes (the brainwashing sequence was very good and the scene in the vault was exciting). The bad cgi that you'd have to forgive due to the low budget. The acting was quite good. Especially Lucy Liu. Northam does a wonderful job aswell.
All in all it was somewhat laughable though. You know you're watching a bad movie when you can predict the exact dialogue before it is said (same applies to THE INVISIBLE which is also bloody awful).
4/10
reply
share
khu
19 years ago
1) Acting. Not terrible, but not great. In fact, Northam's acting, pretending to be a nerdy businessman is what tipped me off to the 'dramatic twist' at the end of the movie. By the time Rita has rescued him, I had already assumed that the big twist was that the oh-so-mysterious Rooks was Sullivan himself. I simply don't see what's so good here; two characters? He's the same character most of the time. He's bewildered almost constantly until the very end, when he then reverts to his real Brtish accent. Acting bewildered while doing an American accent, then reverting to his normal accent is great acting?
2) Uhhhhhh. Close-ups of cigarettes and scotch drew you in?
3) Much of the plot is pointless and unemotional. Sullivan is never seen as very sympathetic. One never cares for him in the first place -- even when we think he's just a businessman, we see him lie easily to his wife, almost immediately betray his first employer, etc. He doesn't do much to show his self as a person.
I don't mind a 'puzzle' movie. But puzzle movies that act very clever but turn out to be grindingly obvious are no good for me. Since the film gave me NO OTHER puzzles than Rook's true identity by the second half, all you had to think about was Rook's identity. And all through the 'climax' at Rook's place, I pretty much knew what was going to happen. I don't say this as if I'm bragging, because it doesn't take much to figure out this kind of thing. I am faulting the movie for having not enough depth to sustain the intellectual puzzle of who people are and what their motivations are such that the climax becomes obvious.
All in all, a waste of time, I'm afraid.
And who dares call this movie 'minimalist'? Minimalist movies usually try to keep out the pointless CGI. That scene with the giant phallic elevator rising out of the ground was a POSTER CHILD of pointless CGI. So a hole opened. How about a stepladder down into the elevator, instead of a big production where it rises up, flashes its lights, and tiny steps come down?
reply
share
wsheit
19 years ago
that's not really what minimalist refers to. Minimalist refers to an atmosphere. extended moments of silence, a quiet score, fewer cuts, AND a lack of CG are all possible source of minimalist film-making. A scene or two of CGI does not make a movie non-minimalist.
I do agree, however, that the movie failed to hide the twist in any capacity. There are FAR better movies in this genre.
reply
share
superturbo4
18 years ago
B!tch b!tch b!tch, whats the matter with you people?
Fantastic movie with class and all you can do is compare it to existing films thinking that'll justify your crap opinions!
Thats too bad cos you really missed out on a great film here that was more than the sum of its parts! Maybe it was too sophisticated for you lot thats why you lash out at it so much with bitter venom. Cypher was a great intelligent film that challenged the viewer, pity that the ones who were most challenged by it were turned off by it from the get go thinking it wasn't any good cos you missed out on one hell of a film that yes stands head and shoulders next to the likes of Usual Suspects and Fight Club on the twisty level of a great mind bending and spy-thriller flick!
ST4
"He is one, we are three, it is the strength of three that will defeat him...together. General Zod"
reply
share
lessurjj10
18 years ago
Maybe for me I had no expectations when I watched this being that I never heard of it nor did the name of the director mean anything to me but I realy enjoyed this movie. Main character wants to be a corporate spy for a corporation but instead gets brainwashed to be someone else to go get a job at another corporation to spy on them without even realizing it. Sounds very simple but the movie brought out the story in a very refreshing way. It had style and yes it had substance. And yes the twist became obvious on the who the main character was but the reasons behind it which was revealed in the last few seconds never crossed my mind and it made the movie that much better.
reply
share
jack-upland
18 years ago
I suspect the problem that people have with this movie is the style. The colours are dull; most of the actors look sick or tired; the pace - at least at the start - is slow. After all the key early scenes involve people going to business conferences. This was a deliberate choice on the part of the film-makers obviously. It's almost like they wanted to make an arthouse film using a thriller plot. The outcome is frequently surreal and the dreamlike - almost nightmarish - atmosphere fits the subject of the film. But does it work? Not really, because the conclusion is a typical thriller twist, and neither it nor anything else in the movie has the power or originality to carry the artistic style. I think the film could have been improved by adding a satirical element and toning down the surrealism.
reply
share
roell29
10 years ago
"typical" - How can anyone call this movie typical? Natali is probably the most original filmmaker of his generation but because people who've been inundated by so much junky cinema for so long can no longer recognize true quality, even the great Natali is now forced to make cookie cutter films written by hacks. Ugh, it's disgusting! Beam me up, Scottie - this planet sucks.
Leave the gun, take the cannoli...
reply
share