Plan on FireI don't know what Tony Gilroy's personal and political views are like, but I'm starting to wonder why he seems to have such a resentment to corporate America. With this and his previous outing, Michael Clayton, the big businesses of the world that are particularly centered in New York City are not really painted in the brightest of colors. They are organizations that are sneaky, greedy, corrupt, and always doing dirty deals in order to eliminate the problems that others are causing. Even the CIA in the Jason Bourne films, which Gilroy has written, seem to be a model of a company trying to get silence a disgruntled employee with valuable insider information. This film isn't meant to be quite as serious but I still found it to contain a lot of smart and quick energy.
Mega stars Julia Roberts and Clive Owen play two former spies, one who was with the CIA and one with MI-6 (can you guess which one?). They both have been hired by rival conglomerate companies that are in the business of making anything. Tom Wilkinson is in one corner that employs Roberts and Paul Giamatti is in the other with Owen. The zigzagging plot centers around the different sides trying to get their hands on a revolutionary product and the question of who's conning who is one that comes up very frequently.
I wasn't a huge fan of Michael Clayton when it came out, and one of the reasons was I didn't believe Gilroy was good enough to direct it. The film had a great script, but Gilroy could never move the action in scenes well enough for me to get totally invested. On his second try, the efforts seem a little more comfortable, and the sleek presentation from Gilroy feels more natural and the visuals are able to develop along with the story. The film is directed with a much more composed hand this time, and I believe Gilroy will only get better as a director as time goes on. Of course, his script is superb, occasionally needing a suspension of disbelief, but always smart and sophisticated, forcing an audience to constantly observe its ins and outs.
Owen and Roberts are two great actors, and their relationship feels really genuine, probably because they worked so wonderfully together in Mike Nichols's adaption of Closer. Both of them appear comfortable in their roles and they each know the right tones to strike. Owen delivers that great balance of sternness and charm, once again providing evidence that he would have been my 007. Roberts has been an actor that I've never fallen in love with, but it was fun watching her enthusiasm in the role and especially how she plays off of Owen. Giamatti is always great in anything he does as he can bring that everyman quality even to an enormously wealthy CEO. However, I though Wilkinson wasn't given that much to do, given his caliber as an actor. I saw his talents wasted in Michael Clayton and I'm still hoping that one day Gilroy will realize what a great actor he's got and give him room to shine.
The film's complicated plot structure might be a bit much for some. For me, it was a welcomed breath of fresh air, particularly from a writer/director that left me feeling cold after his first time out. The movie is fun and smart, the latter being the most important attractor even if the premise isn't always believable. Owen and Roberts shine, and the supporting cast excels as well, even if Wilkinson is again wasted here. Add to it the smooth score from James Newton Howard, and Tony Gilroy delivers another solid effort. At this point, I think he's still proving to me that he's a better writer than director, but his achievements behind the camera are gradually catching up. ***1/2 / ****; GRADE: A-
3 comments:
Wow! I disagree with you almost entirely. The acting was good, but complicated plot structure? Every time they flashed back I thought it might get complicated but instead its stuff we've already learned, for example when we find out Clive Owen has to quit the pizza business to go to that corporation, what a useless flashback! The ending, which could have been great and revelatory(e.g. Michael Clayton, which I know you didn't like) was by the end so simple and almost forced, their was no clues or things that the audience could look back on and say "so thats what that was all about." Anyways, I think you should forget about this one and give Michael Clayton another shot.
Also the cinematography was AWESOME!
I have given Michael Clayton plenty of shots and still feel like it's a movie that is too removed for me to completly enjoy. Clayton doesn't have a clear sense of direction and despite a great script, forces me to not really care about what the plot is. Also, with the exception of Swinton, I felt nearly all the talent was wasted.
Here, I get what the movie is trying to be and Gilroy's direction for it is much more precise. The content may be different, but the motive is a lot clearer (it's an entertaining romp, not a gloomy drama). I was entertained and enlightened by how much better Gilroy was able to direct the film more rigidly. That's why I say it's better a better piece of filmmaking than Michael Clayton.
And yes, the cinematography as well as the score were the best parts of the entire film.
Post a Comment