Spy (2015)

First, there was the solid Bridesmaids in 2011. Then a couple years later The Heat in 2013. Following the every two-year formula, director Paul Feig and star Melissa McCarthy have teamed up again for another winner, hitting theaters this past weekend to very solid reviews and a very solid box office showing. Here's 2015's Spy.

For most of 10 years, Susan Cooper (McCarthy) has been an excellent analyst for the CIA, helping agents with her focus on details and all the little things. For years, she's worked with a suave, smooth and efficient agent, Bradley Fine (Jude Law), and has even developed some unanswered feelings for him. Now though, the CIA is in trouble. The daughter of a crime boss with ties to terrorists, Rayna Boyanov (Rose Byrne), has come into possession of a small-yield nuclear device and placed it out there for the highest bidder. An additional problem for the CIA? Boyanov knows the identity of all its field agents so anyone who would be sent to track her would be in even more danger. There's only one option, and that would be Susan. With no field experience and working all those years stashed away in a basement starting at a computer screen, Susan is tasked with tracking and identifying Rayna before she can sell the nuclear device. Heading into the real world of espionage with so much on the line, can Susan pull it off?

Give credit where it's due. When Feig and McCarthy team up, they've had nothing but solid results. More impressive than that though is how they do it. Comedies can be pretty run of the mill, a reason I don't always check new comedies out in theaters. This duo and their talented crews and casts look for familiar angles/stories and try to put a fresh, unique spin on those tried and true techniques. Bridesmaids had the girlish rom-com, Heat the buddy cop relationship and here with Spy, a deftly-handled almost-spoof of espionage flicks like the James Bond and Jason Bourne series. They find what makes those angles work and tweak them here and there for something familiar with something that usually catches you by surprise. Of the three, I'd put Spy right behind The Heat, but this new comedy was excellent. Go out and see it. You shan't be disappointed.

Not everybody seems to like her -- blame Identity Thief and Tammy -- but I'm a big Melissa McCarthy fan. I really, really disliked Identity Thief a few years back, but you had to admire her energy. She commits and goes hard for the laughs. So what about when the movie is good and she's on-board with that energy? As an audience, we're in for some fun. Yes, she's funny, but it's because she's able to switch back and forth effortlessly between impeccable line deliveries and perfect physical humor. There aren't a ton of actresses out there right now who are genuinely funny, but McCarthy is at or near the top of that list. Feig's script gives her plenty of chances for laughs, and she doesn't miss too many. Her Susan Cooper is a quiet, polite, detail-oriented systems analyst...until she isn't. Thrust into a hazardous mission after years of being desk-bound, Susan finds a hard edge that she puts to good use to bring things together. An excellent performance from the very funny McCarthy.

The script certainly has its fun with McCarthy's Cooper, sometimes too much. At times, I thought it went too far beating her down, cutting her out at the knees. When it works though, those moments are very funny. Case in point? Susan doesn't get a glamorous cover...far from it. She gets the chance to pose as a cat lady, a middle-aged mom, and all sorts of other embarrassing covers. Through it all, McCarthy goes for it, smoothing over some of the rough spots.

The movie's strongest moments are in its spoof-like qualities. I should say this clearly isn't a spoof of the spy genre. It just knows the genre, plays it seriously while having some serious fun with all the familiar genre touches. The opening credits play like a James Bond credits song, the opening action sequence has been in countless 007 flicks, and you feel like you're actually watching a Bond flick. The laughs though, my goodness, they're G-O-O-D. Jason Statham absolutely steals every scene he's in as Rick Ford, a grizzled CIA agent and a spy who is ALL that is man. He's seen everything and will let you know he's seen and survived everything the world can throw at him. His character consists of countless line deliveries explaining the harrowing experiences he's made it through, one more ridiculous than the other. I had two favorites. One, explaining how one of his arms was ripped off, but the other arm was able to put reattach it. Two, Ford offering to go into the Face/Off machine...as in the one used in the 1997 action movie Face/Off. Priceless stuff.

Some very talented people clearly enjoy working with Feig as a director, especially McCarthy. The cast is so good here, much of it the script but also worth mentioning is that they look to be having a ridiculous amount of fun. Statham is a scream, and Law as his co-worker but still rival agent goes for the more suave James Bond angle. As Statham's Ford explains it, a rivalry of MEN. Byrne hams it up just the right amount as the dastardly evil villain (with a giant hair-do) and has some great scenes with McCarthy as they go toe-to-toe. Along with McCarthy and Statham, my favorite part was Peter Serafinowicz as Aldo, Susan's Italian guide, a ladies man, constantly horny, and rather handsy. Too many good laughs to mention. Also worth mentioning is Miranda Hart as Nancy, Susan's work friend who's similarly bookish, a little mousey and looking for some fun In other supporting parts, look for Allison Janney, Morena Baccarin, Bobby Cannavale, and even 50 Cent making an appearance as himself.

This is a really easy movie to like, even love for some viewers no doubt. There aren't many comedies that are both really smart and really dumb at the same time, but this one qualifies. An extremely talented cast, a good script and unique ideas with people willing to think outside the box a little. Hard to beat that. Definitely go see this one.

Spy (2015): ***/****

Bang! Bang! You're Dead!

B-movies can be really good when handled right. Now the counter, they can be really, really bad when handled wrong. Whole studios between the 1940s and 1960s were devoted to B-movies, like American International Pictures with its horror, thriller and westerns. How about a spy spoof that has some fun with the James Bond formula, the mistaken identity genre like North by Northwest and a generally fun attitude? That would be 1966's Bang! Bang! You're Dead, released in Europe as Our Man in Marrakesh.

On vacation from his job with an oil company, Andrew Jessel (Tony Randall) is spending his time away from work in northern Africa in Morocco. He boards a bus headed to Marrakesh with five other passengers, not knowing that one of them is carrying two million dollars intended for Mr. Casimir (Herbert Lom), a powerful man with his hand in everything underworld. Where's that money heading? Paid here and there to help fix an upcoming vote at the United Nations. Casimir is trying to find out who, Jessep finding himself mixed up in it all when he finds a dead body in his hotel room closet. One of the other passengers, Kyra Stanovy (Senta Berger), stumbles into the room and sees the dead body, stunned even more when she recognizes who it is. Now, Andrew is very much involved, trapped in a foreign country and trying to hide a corpse. Mr. Casimir is right with him, watching his every step.

I don't hide my feelings about spoofs. I'm usually not a fan. It's the rare spoof I like -- Blazing Saddles, Young Frankenstein, Spinal Tap -- with most of them trying too hard to...well, be a spoof. From director Don Sharp, 'Bang' isn't a literal spoof as I think of a spoof, instead having some fun with a typically pretty serious topic, international intrigue. In the end, I liked it but didn't love it. It's pretty light, fun at times, obnoxious at others, and a decent enough waste of time for 90 minutes or so. The on-location shooting in Marrakesh, Morocco is a definite plus, even if some scenes are undone by some really obvious green-screen shots. Still, Marrakesh in the 1960s sure looked cool, the time capsule effect a big positive.

Leading the way in the Mistaken Identity department is Tony Randall, Mr. Felix Unger himself. Doesn't Randall scream tough guy hero in a spy flick with international intrigue? Yeah, I guess not. He has some fun with the Everyman part, the normal guy thrust into a crazy situation full of conniving crooks, beautiful, mysterious women, wishy-washy motives, lots of enforcers, hit men and car chases, and life and death opportunities around every corner. Randall shows off his impeccable comedic timing throughout, questioning all the craziness that's going on but mostly going along with it. Would you question too much if you got to hang out with Senta Berger? Okay, maybe once a dead body showed up, but I'd still debate it. One of the more unlikely action heroes, Randall throws himself into the mix in the chase and action scenes, his goofiness and lighter tone playing well with the kooky story.

Across the board, the cast is the biggest selling point for this spy spoof. As the sexy sidekick, Berger is just that, pretty sexy. Skimpy and/or tight outfits, sexy Euro accent, how can you lose? Playing the slimy, slick villain, there weren't many better than Herbert Lom, an oiliness to his impeccably smooth and suave Mr. Casimir. Klaus Kinski makes the most of a small(ish) but intimidating part as Jonquil, Casimir's brutally effective enforcer while Margaret Lee sex kittens it up as Casimir's young lady friend/lover who's always asking him to "come lay down with him." Oh, scandalous! As for the other suspects on the bus to Marrakesh, look for Wilfrid Hyde-White as Fairbrother, a Brit working with a septic company (maybeeeeeee) and John Le Mesurier as Lillywhite, another Brith looking to expand his own business. Who is the courier with all that cash? What's everyone up to? There's also some fun parts for Terry-Thomas as El Caid, the son of a former crook trying to go straight...well, sorta, and Gregoire Aslan as Achmed, a truck driver who sides with Andrew and Kyra as things escalate.

My typical issue with movies with a twist, stories with some mystery, is that they try to be too cute in keeping that mystery under wraps. Without going back and rewatching 'Bang,' I'd wager Berger's Kyra tell Randall's Andrew "I'll tell you everything that's going on tomorrow!" Or.....or, just sit down and tell us now. Whatever works. Don't be too cute. Don't leave audiences on the hook for the sake of that cuteness. Thankfully, the last 30-40 minutes pick up the pace once we figure everything out. The finale is pretty fun as everything comes together, one extended chase and action sequence. It's a fun movie, easily digested and onto the next movie!

Bang! Bang! You're Dead! (1966): ** 1/2 /****

Fathom

James Bond, Derek Flint, Matt Helms, even the more straight-laced British spy Harry Palmer played by Michael Caine. The 1960s had countless spy and espionage movies for audiences that ate them up. A whole lot of testosterone, huh? How about a female secret agent navigating some international intrigue? I've long been aware of this one and was finally able to catch up with it, 1967's Fathom.

An American skydiver touring Europe with a U.S. parachuting team, Fathom Harvill (Raquel Welch) has become quite the attraction for audiences. Well, now she's getting some attention for another reason. After one successful jump, Fathom is approached by a mysterious security officer, Colonel Douglas Campbell (Ronald Fraser), who enlists her help in a matter of worldwide peace. A trigger/detonator -- dubbed the Fire Dragon -- that can set off a nuclear device has gone missing. The trail has led Campbell to a countryside Spanish villa where an agent working for the Chinese, Peter Merriwether (Tony Franciosa), is staying. With no other alternative to getting into the villa, Fathom will have to parachute in, pretending to have gone off course and accidentally landing at the villa. Find the Fire Dragon, get out and return it. Simple, right? Not everyone is telling her all she needs to know.

This is a fun movie. That's all, and that's not a bad thing so deal with it. From director Leslie H. Martinson, 'Fathom' has that 1960s style that can be so fun to watch now, look back and appreciate. The 1960s are my favorite decade for movies, and while this isn't an all-time classic (far from it), it's what can be so fun about the decade as a whole. It's goal is to be fun, to entertain, to put pretty people in pretty places with some witty repartee (and some subtle sexual innuendos. Scandalous!). 'Fathom' was filmed on location in the Spanish coast and countryside in and around Cartama, Mijas, Malaga, Torremolinos, and Nerja in Andalucia. It is a gorgeous-looking movie, Spain providing quite the visual backdrop....in addition to other things to come. There's also a dreamy theme song, listen and more importantly watch it HERE, with a good score from John Dankworth. The message is simple. This isn't a hard-hitting spy movie. It's not quite a spoof, just somewhere fun in between.

Blah blah blah, let's talk about Raquel Welch! One of the biggest sex symbols of the 1960s (and in Hollywood history in general), Welch was coming off the immensely successful One Million Years, B.C. that really put her and her fur bikini on the map. This is Miss Welch at her best. With the right part in a more dramatic movie, she did have some acting chops she could show off. This is more suited to her comedic ability, a lighter, more fun role that doesn't strain any acting muscles. Welch was a better comedic actress than she's given credit for, and this is a good follow-up rule to her speech-limited part in 'Million.' This movie was one of three female spy movies from Warner Bros. in 1967, and it's not a mystery why this one was remembered better than Caprice (starring Doris Day) and Come Spy With Me (starring Andrea Dromm). It's Raquel Welch.

Let's not misconstrue this, and yes, it's time to be a shallow dude. Raquel Welch is sexy, beautiful and taking her status as a 1960s sex symbol quite, quite seriously. Yes, there's a twisting story with a whuddunnit mystery, but let's get down to basics. This movie exists to get Welch into as many skimpy outfits as humanly possible. We're talking bikinis, short skirts, tight jumpsuits, plunging necklines, any and all. I've long had a crush on Raquel Welch, but I don't know if she ever looked as downright good-looking as she did here. And so ends a rant from this shallow guy. If you're a Welch fan, you'll like this movie.

But onto actual movie analysis! The cast supporting Welch is having some fun, none of the characters telling the complete truth and all of them having a secret or two. Actually the top-billed star here, Franciosa does what he does best, a roguish charming renegade, here as Merriwether, an agent working for the Chinese. He has a great chemistry with Welch, calling her 'Poppet' for some reason. He also gets some help from Greta Chi's Major Jo-May Soon, a real-life Chinese agent. Having some fun as the security officer who sends Fathom on her mission, Fraser does a good job as the equally mysterious Col. Douglas, Richard Briers playing his assistant, Lt. Timothy Webb, who has an interest in Welch's Fathom. Also hamming it up in Bond villain-esque mode is Clive Revill as Serapkin, the monocle-wearing Russian black market dealer with a low body temperature, forcing him to...."seek warmth" with Fathom at basically all times. Also look for Tom Adams (a supporting player in The Great Escape) as Mike, a hotel owner with an interest in everything going on.

In a 99-minute movie, 'Fathom' packs one surprise/twist on top of each other in waves. We're never sure who's working with who, which side is trying to scam Fathom out of the Fire Dragon (it ain't what it seems), and who will end up with it in the end. Getting there? Basically nonstop action, lots of fun, some cool stunts that force Welch to run, jump and fly across Spain. A very entertaining movie throughout.

Fathom (1967): ***/****

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit

I think the first 14 years of the 21st Century have earned a new nickname, a new era. We are residents of the Reboot Era!!! Basically any successful franchise series from the past, from any decade with any potential for earning money is going to get a reboot. Young audiences can't be trusted to actually look to the past, can they? Some are good, some are worthy, and some are clearly ploys to make boatloads of money. Enter 2014's Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit because there was audiences knocking down doors for a reboot of the famous Tom Clancy character.

Studying in London when the 9/11 attacks occur in New York, Jack Ryan (Chris Pine) decides to put his academics on hold, joining the Marines and becoming a hero in Afghanistan in a helicopter accident, saving two fellow Marines. The accident almost cripples him, but as he goes through extreme rehab, Ryan is approached by Thomas Harper (Kevin Costner), a C.I.A. official interested in recruiting Ryan as an agent. His hope? Harper wants Jack to work as a compliance officer at a brokerage house on Wall Street, looking for patterns and algorithms in the sales and deals. Ryan heads back to school, gets his degree, gets a job and goes to work for the C.I.A. deep undercover. Ten years pass, Ryan staying in touch with Harper, especially when he starts to find hidden accounts from Russian organizations that are doing the exact opposite of what the market suggests. This is enough money to cripple the United States, its government and its economy. Looking to get some answers, Jack heads to Moscow to investigate.

Before his surprising passing in October 2013, Tom Clancy was a go-to author for anyone interested in espionage and military science and technology. His most iconic character? That would be Jack Ryan who has been played by Alec Baldwin, Harrison Ford and Ben Affleck in four Ryan movies. All four movies are good in their own right, but it's been since 12 years since 2002's The Sum of All Fears. Did we really need a reboot? Were audiences clamoring for a new movie? For me, it seems like a ploy to make money, pure and simple. Naive of me? Probably, but here we sit. Still, there was a lot of talent assembled here, and as a Jack Ryan fan, I wanted to give it a shot even if I wasn't dying to see this new espionage thriller from director and co-star Kenneth Branagh.

So is it worth it? Yes and no. I've got some issues with it. This is the first Ryan movie not to be based off a Clancy novel, and I think it shows. We're re-introduced to the character, tweaking his backstory to make it more modern, more appropriate for the 2010s, not the 1980s/1990s. For starters, the movie clocks in at just 105 minutes. Take away a seven or eight minute credit sequence at the end, and we're talking a movie just over 90 minutes long (about the length of your average screwball comedy). From the opening 10-15 minutes, things are far too rush. Ten-plus years of Jack's backstory are jammed into that first 15 minutes. We go from London to Afghanistan to Walter Reed in a flash, and then we're off to international intrigue as Jack really delves into things in the financial world. The character is too cool for it not to be at least remotely interesting. While it has its moments though, it feels like James Bond meets Jason Bourne meets the Mission Impossible series. Not unique enough to really stand out. Still entertaining? Yes, but nowhere near as good as it could have been.

There are positives, starting with the cast. A star of another successful franchise reboot with the Star Trek movies, Pine is a strong choice to play Jack. He's likable, funny, and more than capable of handling himself in an action scene (but more on that little thing later). Too much time is spent on his relationship with his fiance, Cathy (Kiera Knightley, rocking an American accent), as they try to figure out what their future holds. Oh, by the way, he can't tell her he's a C.I.A. agent, Cathy a young, successful doctor relegated to paranoid girlfriend mode. The human element is one thing, a good thing, but focus on the espionage more! Costner has officially become that Actor, the older actor who isn't the A-list star who carries a movie. Instead, he has become that great actor who now plays the key supporting part, stealing scenes left and right. His Thomas Harper is a great supporting part. As for the villain, Branagh plays Viktor Cherevin with relish, a fun bad guy who's smart and sinister and extremist. A fun part, up there with Costner as the best characters.

Rushed though the story may be, it has some really cool set pieces. Upon arriving in Moscow, Ryan must face off with a hired killer (Nonso Anozie), a brutal, knock down fight in a high-class hotel room. The fallout and payoff is just as good, a CIA team coming in to remove any traces of the fight, including the body. Later in a scene reminiscent of 1996's Mission: Impossible, Ryan must sneak into Cherevin's highly-guarded office with every sort of security imaginable. Knightley's Cathy helps distract Cherevin while Costner's Harper looks on as security from the building across the street. It is a perfectly tense extended sequence that shows you don't need huge special effects or explosions or gimmicks to work. Definitely the high point of the movie.

Where are the gimmicks then? In the immediate follow-up, and that's where the rushed feeling of the entire movie becomes an issue. It's the type of scene that drives me nuts. With time running out, Jack figures out in about 37 seconds what Cherevin's plan is, how he'll execute it, where he'll do it, when, how his sleeper agent (Alec Utgoff) will accomplish it, how he created the bomb, blah blah blah. It's an almost painful scene, agents sitting around a command post and plane while Ryan rattles off numbers and names and questions, clues coming together at an alarming rate. Yeah, I get it. He's a brilliant analyst, but he's able to do in minutes what the C.I.A. and all the government agents couldn't do in years? Come on, man! I'm not buying it. The one actual action sequence in the movie follows it up, a sequence with a complete lack of a payoff. It counts far too much on coincidence to work, characters doing things that need to happen for the story to continue, not because it makes any sense.

I realize I'm really ripping this one. I can't help it. When it is bad, it is really bad, but I still found myself liking it. I walked away disappointed because the finale is so dumb, but the build-up was entertaining. 'Shadow' does have the feel of a throwback spy movie where the Russians are evil, the Americans angelically good, and dammit, we've gotta save the world. Definitely a mixed bag, but just enough to recommend in the mindless entertainment department. I just expect more from a Jack Ryan movie.

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit (2014): ** 1/2 /****

Red 2

A good if not great success released back in 2010, Red was a good if not great summer-type blockbuster that earned almost $200 million worldwide. I liked it, a movie that was familiar but also really fun and action-packed. I can say I was pretty surprised to hear it was getting a sequel, but with all the duds out there, I wanted to give it a try, even if it was an unnecessary sequel. Here we go with 2013's Red 2.

Having survived the shady branches of the government trying to burn him (i.e. kill him), former C.I.A. operative Frank Moses (Bruce Willis) has moved onto a quieter life, moving in with his girlfriend and former customer service operator, Sarah (Mary-Louise Parker). Well, it was a quieter life. Friend, fellow former agent and all-around kook Marvin Boggins (John Malkovich) has tracked Frank down and is seeking his help. Dating back to a mission they accomplished in the early 1980s, an internet leak (hello, WikiLeak!) links them to placing a nuclear bomb somewhere in Moscow. There's a catch. Supposedly, it's still there, and a rogue government agency that's "interested in national security" wants to not only find the bomb, but kill Frank, Marvin and anyone with any knowledge of the bomb. Bringing Sarah along to protect her -- even though she's excited to come along -- Frank and Marvin (and some other friends along the way) hit the road looking to save millions and exonerate themselves.

Above all else, this sequel and its predecessor are what movies supposed to be. They're not great, they don't rewrite the genre, and at times, they're too schizophrenic for its own good. What are they then? They're a whole lot of fun, whole lot of action and a whole lot of talent assembled in the cast. Director Dean Parisot follows the same formula as the original, giving his retired agents (RED stands for Retired, Extremely Dangerous) an impossible mission to accomplish and letting them do so in multiple exotic locations around the world. Originally based on a graphic novel, some scene transitions reflect its background, the characters and action turning to animation with a quick blur to the next location. Even though it's a little long at 116 minutes, things never slow down long enough for it to actually be boring.

The biggest reason for the success here is that the cast is clearly having a lot of fun. That doesn't always translate, but in here it is definitely a positive. We're talking a talented cast here, Willis, Louise-Parker, Malkovich and Helen Mirren all returning from the first movie. There is an easy-going, friendly charm that brings the movie past its familiar, action-packed roots, another layer to appreciate. Willis as the very capable Moses is his usual action hero, but with a spin, a quasi-nerdy homebody who is the polar opposite of what you'd think a cold-blooded C.I.A. agent would be. Malkovich and Mirren are the best parts of the movie, legitimizing the movie just by being there, but also committing to their parts and having some fun. Malkovich's possibly unhinged Marvin is a scene-stealer, always ranting about conspiracies and plots for evil....except he's usually right. Mirren too is perfectly cast as Victoria, a very ladylike older woman who's also capable of pulling out the big guns to get the job done, doing her job and doing it well. It's a great, fun trio to lead the way.

What I noticed with this sequel is its got some touches of Sylverster Stallone's Expendables movies. You have your core cast, but then you fill out the rest of the parts with as much talent as humanly possible, and in this case with a lot of fun parts. Also returning briefly from the first Red is Brian Cox as Ivan, a former and now current love of Mirren's Victoria, with newcomers Anthony Hopkins, Catherine Zeta-Jones, David Thewlis and Neal McDonough all joining the story. I don't want to give too much away about the characters, each of them holding some good twists as the story develops. My favorite supporting part went to alum of the G.I. Joe series Byung-hun Lee, playing the Han Cho Bai, the world's best hired killer, this time hired to take out Moses and crew. It's a really entertaining part that is both dark and fun, his past history with Frank Moses and the ever-evolving killer/victim relationship developing with some fun jokes.

If there's a weakness in the cast, it's Mary-Louise Parker as Sarah, Frank's thrill-seeking girlfriend. She loves Frank, but she's also bored to tears with their new quiet home life. I saw a lot of movies this year, and I don't know if there was a more annoying movie character out there. The script really tries to involve her in the action, her oddball personality blending "well" with the group, but it tries too hard. She's supposed to be cute and quirky and adorable, but any dialogue involving her relationship (and its problems) with Frank can be painful to watch. It provides some good moments as Malkovich and Mirren offer solutions, but it's just window dressing on some painful moments.

The action is another thing here that surprises me. Red 2 is pretty violent, but because it's PG-13, it isn't as effective as it could be. I'm not always a proponent of graphic violence for the sake of the violence, but the on-screen killings, gunfire and explosions are pretty hardcore at times, making me question if a harsher, blood-splattered version wouldn't be a tad bit better. The action manages to blend that schizo, over the top stylish action with the harder, grittier shootouts, never going too long between sequences. It does give the cast some funny moments during these hellacious firefights, Frank at one point asking Marvin "Is that dynamite in your pocket?" to which Marvin answers "Yeah, I was saving it for an emergency." It's that type of goofiness that plays well in this action comedy.

Long story short....if you liked the original, you'll enjoy this follow-up. Not a classic, but very watchable and a good popcorn movie.

Red 2 (2013): ***/****

Our Man Flint

By 1966, the James Bond series was up and running, international hit one after another with Dr. No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger and Thunderball already hits with audiences. Where there's success, comes knockoffs though, and the spoofs weren't far behind. One of the first to follow in Bond's footsteps was 1966's Our Man Flint.

All around the world, horrific weather catastrophes are wreaking havoc. What's the cause? Three scientists working for international criminal organization Galaxy have created a weather machine that can cause thunderstorms, hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions. Galaxy demands that all the world's nations capitulate to them, but a N.A.T.O.-like organization, Z.O.W.I.E. (Zonal Organization for World Intelligence and Espionage) has one last solution; get super-spy Derek Flint (James Coburn) out of retirement and let him try to take out Galaxy and its weather weapon. Flint is a hard sell, but he takes the job eventually. There is little in the way of clues and no idea where Galaxy's base is. Flint pursues the one piece of evidence he does have, but Galaxy and its henchmen are waiting for him.

As a huge fan of the 007 series, I'll give any spoof a shot. I'd seen In Like Flint (the sequel to this 1966 original) and liked it if I didn't love it, the same for Dean Martin in the Matt Helm series. From director Daniel Mann, 'Our' is a solid if unspectacular entry into the spy spoof genre. It pokes fun at James Bond, even mentioning a rival and fellow agent of 007, his code name Triple-O 8. At one point, Flint even brings up Spectre, Bond's main rival, and calls 007's Walther PPK, booby-trapped briefcase 'crude.' It knows where it's coming from and has some fun with it while still paying tribute, not like the goofier but still funny Austin Powers series.

The biggest thing going for both movies is the casting of James Coburn as Flint. Already a star thanks to his parts in The Magnificent Seven, The Great Escape and Charade (among others), Coburn wouldn't seem like an obvious choice to play Flint, but he makes it is own. Up until this point, he was more of a stoic anti-hero and man of few words. It's a showier part here but never an obvious one. Coburn's Flint is an epically successful ladies man, knowledgeable about anything and everything, and a specialist in karate and hand-to-hand combat, disliking the brutality of guns. His lankiness, that charming smile, that ever-calm demeanor, it all adds up to make a great character. At one point, he pursues a lead because he knows the ingredients to bouillabaisse, visiting every restaurant in Paris until he can find it, just knowing how it would taste. There's some pressure playing the American James Bond, but Coburn kills the part.

What's lacking though beyond Coburn is any more memorable characters behind him. Lee J. Cobb is a scene-stealer as Cramden, the Z.O.W.I.E. commander and Flint's former commanding officer, always trying to keep tabs on his agent but usually just going along for the ride. Gila Golan is the gorgeous Flint girl, playing Gila (original name, huh?), a Galaxy member tasked with bringing in Flint, preferably alive and before he can complete his mission. The main villain is Malcolm Rodney, played by Edward Mulhare, but he lacks any real charisma, any punch in terms of an intimidating Bond villain. He never really poses a threat to Flint, too bad because his henchman, Gruber (Michael St. Clair) is dispatched far too quickly. The three quasi-evil doctors are played by Benson Fong, Rhys Williams and Peter Brocco. As for Flint's harem of beautiful, scantily clad women, look for Shelby Grant, Sigrid Valdis, Gianna Serra and Helen Funai, around as eye candy without more than 10 words said among the four.

The rebellious, roguish super spy, the sexy women around every corner, the impregnable island fortress, the power-hungry villain, the impossible situation that screams suicide. This spoof has all the touches of a good Bond film, but just in the laugh department it is missing that special something that could bring it up a notch or two. It only runs 107 minutes, but it drags, especially in the second half. One episodic set piece to another, they don't always add up to a really good final product. Through it all, Coburn's laconic, smart-assed Flint makes it worthwhile, but it's not a classic. Just an enjoyable movie that's good for a couple laughs.

Our Man Flint (1966): ** 1/2 /****

Topaz

As a director, Alfred Hitchcock had a ridiculously successful run, consistently good throughout his career. Of a career though that spanned six decades, he had his best string of films over the late 1940s and basically throughout the 1950s (for me at least). For all his good ones though, there were some duds, including one film often cited as his worst, 1969's Topaz.

It's early 1962 and American intelligence agents, including Michael Nordstrom (John Forsythe), has managed to convince and arrange for the defection of a high-ranking KGB official (Per-Axel Arosenius). Debriefing him after a tense escape in Copenhagen, Nordstrom and his fellow agents discover that the KGB officer knows the vague details of the Russians sending nuclear ballistic missiles to Cuba. Needing answers as to where and how many missiles, Nordstrom seeks out a French agent, Andre Devereaux (Frederick Stafford), with who he has worked in the past. He enlists him to investigate the missiles, knowing that any American involvement could lead to a nuclear war. Following what little leads he has, Andre pursues the case, even traveling to Cuba to investigate. What and where will the trail lead though? Countless lives hang in the balance.

I was surprised to find out that one of Hitchcock's last films was a story about a little known chapter that ultimately led to the Cuban Missile Crisis, 'Topaz' based closely on the Sapphire Affair, the story of French involvement with the intelligence movement. I'll get more into my specific issues/compliments with the story later, but the real historical basis seems like an odd choice for a director who specialized in making films with unique, original stories. In the meantime, something doesn't translate. The finished product is a film that aspires to do and be a lot, but it never quite makes it. There is something missing as if Hitchcock couldn't decide what type of film to make, what tone to take, what story to focus on. Instead, we get a 143-minute film that drifts along, mixing up some beautifully shot, high tension scenes with long, dull scenes that go nowhere.

In casting his film, Hitchcock made a point of casting relatively unknown Stafford in a lead part. By 1969, he had been in a couple Euro-WWII movies, a couple spy flicks, but he was not a known commodity for audiences. It works well. I thought Stafford was a strength, his part as Devereaux a solid, layered character. As a favor to a friend (Forsythe's Nordstrom), he gets involved in an international incident that is bigger than him. He sees what's at risk and continues on even when his life is at danger (and of those around him). We also see his interactions with his wife (Dany Robin) and their troubled marriage, his journalist son-in-law (Michel Subor), and a former contact and lover in Cuba, Juanita de Cordoba (Karin Dor). It's not a flashy James Bond-esque spy, just an intelligence agent who's human and follows the clues and leads as presented.

While the eventual focus here is on the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Russians supplying the Cubans with nuclear missiles, it is more of a MacGuffin that gets the story moving. It moves in episodic fashion, first the Russian defection, then the Americans, and then Devereaux's involvement and all the people he meets and places he goes to. Some work better than others. His recruitment of Roscoe Lee Browne's Caribbean agent is a highlight as he poses as a journalist to infiltrate a Cuban diplomatic party visiting New York. His venture to Cuba where he meets Dor's Juanita and an oddly cast John Vernon as a Cuban officer and Castro supporter is more hit or miss. Too much time is spent on Andre and Juanita's passionate affair, not enough on the actual mission and Vernon's officer's suspicions.

That's the entire movie. It's good for a stretch and then.........it's just there. 'Topaz' lacks any real urgency or energy. It drifts from episode to episode and takes too much time actually getting to the crux of the mission or investigation. There are parts that work extremely well, especially the conclusion to the Cuba venture with a simple, artsy and very effective single shot. Those moments that work so well are fewer and far between as the story develops. By the time a double agent is revealed in the French intelligence field, it lacks any punch. As things should be raring up to an uncomfortable level, the movie is limping to the finish line. Michel Piccoli and Philippe Noiret co-star as Devereax's fellow agents, Claude Jade as his daughter, and Edmon Ryan as McKittreck, a high-level American agent leading the defection charge.

I don't know. I hate just saying a movie was boring as a reason I didn't enjoy it. That's it though. This is a dull, slow-moving flick that has lots of potential and some really cool individual moments. All combined though, it never quite adds up to anything you would expect from a Hitchcock film. Sorry to say I came away disappointed with this one.

Topaz (1969): **/****

The Whistle Blower

Espionage flicks typically go one of two ways. One, the James Bond route; lots of action, explosions, beautiful women, gunfights, that sort of thing. Two, the more realistic way, films like Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and Argo. They both have their positives to take away, and sometimes it just depends what you're in the mood for. Where does 1987's The Whistle Blower fall? Oh so serious.

A veteran of the British Navy who served as a pilot during the Korean War, Frank Jones (Michael Caine) has moved on with his life and now has a mildly successful sales company. More and more, Frank finds himself talking his idealistic young son, Bob (Nigel Havers), down off the ledge about the nature of his job. Bob is a Russian linguist working for British intelligence, but he's become disillusioned about how the nature of the espionage is handled. Frank tries to convince him that with a struggling economy, any job is a good job, especially for a language specialist in Russian. Frank is stunned then when he receives the news that his son died in an accident, falling off the roof of his apartment building. Everyone from the police to the coroner believes it was an accident, but having talked to his son, Frank knows his son was investigating some deep, dark things. Was it an accident or part of a cover-up of something far more sinister?

Thank you, Netflix, for this one. I found it while looking through Caine's filmography/listing, and after months of procrastinating and avoiding it, I gave it a shot this week. There's no question what type of espionage flick this one is. It is the most serious of serious. No deadpan humor, no sexy secret agents, no guns a' blazing with explosions and fireballs. This is a gentlemanly espionage....well, mostly. From director Simon Langton, 'Whistle' manages to be both highly unsettling and low key in its delivery. You don't hear that often, do you? It can be a tad on the slow side, a little dull at times, but for the most part, I liked this one.

No surprises here, but Michael Caine will be my first, second and third reasons for watching this movie. Even when a movie is lousy, Caine is eternally watchable. When a movie is halfway decent, like 'Whistle' is, his performance can help bring it up a notch or two. Reflecting the solemn and serious tone of the story, it is a mostly understated, underplayed part for the screen veteran. He loves his son while also being frustrated by him. When Bob dies under suspicious circumstances, Frank is the only one who believes there could be more to the story. The portions of the story that follow are the movie at its best; an angry, confused and curious father searching for answers about his offspring. He even gets a few chances at some rabid outbursts, and let me tell you, I wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of a Caine outburst.

On top of Caine's performance, I liked the subtle nature of the story. At 104 minutes, it is never in a rush to get anywhere. Early on, it's not even in a rush to lay everything out. It's like as an audience we're dropped into a story that already had a prologue. Names, situations, backgrounds, reputations, they're all thrown at us, and we're forced to figure it out on the fly as it comes at us. Much of it surrounds British intelligence's effort to monitor Russian messages electronically. One agent Dodgson (Bill Wallis) has been pitting the Brits/Americans vs. the Russians, and those crafty Brits intend on figuring out what's going on. Their investigation leads to a traitor (John Gielgud) who's lived in England for over 20 years. As he continues to look for answers concerning his son, Frank finds out what his son was involved with, but also how far those intelligence agencies will go to produce effective results.

Like 2011's Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, 'Whistle' delves into the inner workings of the intelligence agencies. It isn't just them looking out for the country's well-being, but seeing how far they can push it to test the limits of their power.  It's a pretty frightening thought. Is one life expendable if it could lead to a huge payoff intelligence-wise? James Fox has an unsettling part as Lord, a British higher-up who calmly lays out a brutally sadistic plan, Barry Foster plays Charlie Greig, an old Army buddy of Frank's now working in Intelligence, and Gordon Jackson plays Bruce, the agent in the field putting plans into effect. Also watch for Felicity Dean as Cynthia, Bob's new girlfriend, a soon-to-be divorced woman with a kid, and Kenneth Colley as Pickett, a leftist crusading journalist desperately searching for a deeply hidden story.

I wish I had liked this movie more. For all the positives, it is slow, and it lacks a certain energy. Understated is one thing, but the story is so underplayed that I never really felt any sense of worry. The ending is disappointing although the final scene is moving, featuring some very cool on-location shooting at the Cenotaph in Whitehall, London.

The Whistle Blower (1987): ** 1/2 /****

Zero Dark Thirty

With her 2008 film The Hurt Locker, director Kathryn Bigelow created a film that was timely, moving, unsettling and in the end, especially memorable. She would have been hard-pressed to duplicate or improve on that formula, but her follow-up film tackled an even bigger topic, the decade-long hunt for terrorist Osama bin Laden, and tackled it well. Gaining the early buzz for a handful of Oscars is 2012's Zero Dark Thirty.

In the months following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the CIA takes a new mission on; tracking down and capturing Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda terrorist behind the attacks. Among the agents and operatives in the process is Maya (Jessica Chastain), a young agent who while highly intelligent is rightfully a little stunned and taken aback by the hunting process. Days to weeks, weeks to months and months to years, Maya and countless other agents work toward capturing bin Laden, but it is a tedious, monotonous process that entails pursuing countless leads and rumors. The terrorist seems to have receded back into the Earth, disappeared like he never existed. Maya continues the hunt, following a lead involving a possible courier, Abu Ahmed, who may have a link to bin Laden. Will the never-ending hunt amount to anything? Will Maya be pushed beyond the brink as the hunt becomes an obsession to her?

Tackling a movie detailing the decade-long hunt for Osama bin Laden is a mammoth, gargantuan task that had to be at least a tad bit intimidating for Bigelow in the director's chair. Somehow, she didn't even manage an Oscar nomination for her work. I didn't love the movie -- I don't think you're supposed to love it -- but Bigelow deserves credit where it's due. 'Zero' is far from conventional, and that's most definitely a huge positive. In a story that spans 10 full years, a ridiculous amount of information, names, places and people are thrown at the viewers. The development is linear, but it's almost episodic in execution. We see the developing hunt through ups and downs, theories, doubts and conspiracy theories, clues that result in nothing, others that lead to a dead end, and that one perfect little tidbit that will produce an actual lead.

Along with Bigelow's directing, the best thing going for 'Zero' is Jessica Chastain as Maya, a role that's earned her a Best Actress nomination (one I think she'll win). We're introduced to her as she arrives at a CIA Black Site as a veteran agent/interrogator, Dan (scene-stealing Jason Clarke), as he starts the long process of breaking down a detainee. Trained and intelligent, she's nonetheless surprised at first at what she sees. As her investigation continues though, we see Maya develop as a character, a driven, frustrated, even obsessed agent who will stop at nothing to catch bin Laden, even when everything and everyone around her doubts the effort. Chastain creates a great lead character, one that comes into her own as the hunt continues and the years pass. When she finally finds a clue, she's the only one who believes it will lead anywhere. Another impressive performance from an actress who keeps climbing onward and upward.

Chastain is the constant in the movie as the story moves from year to year and location to location. Bigelow's storytelling technique is almost documentary-like in its execution. We're taken from CIA Black Sites to CIA headquarters in Langley, isolated locales to crowded markets in countless Middle Eastern cities. The story highlights further terrorist attacks following 9/11, and it all leads to an ending that we all know, but is sickeningly interesting to watch develop. Through all the clues, leads and informants, Bigelow's best decision is a complete lack of opinion. It's a perfect choice. She presents the hunt, the name and the background, and that's it, reflecting that documentary-like storytelling. 'Zero' doesn't vilify bin Laden (it doesn't need to) or try to create a bigger picture of what's going on in the world. This is the hunt. This is what we need to see, and that's all Bigelow's film is trying to do.

The documentary/episodic story allows for some solid supporting parts around Maya's ever-continuing hunt and obsession. I especially liked Clarke as Dan, the underplayed CIA agent who shows in such subtle fasion how to interrogate/torture someone, always keeping them guessing and unsettled in a horrific way. Kyle Chandler plays the U.S. station chief in Pakistan, needing to complete objectives but the odds are against him with Jennifer Ehle and Harold Perrineau as two fellow in-country agents. Along with Clarke as a field agent, Edgar Ramirez is excellent as Larry, a CIA operative working to pursue a lead Maya has found while Mark Strong is also a scene-stealer as George, a CIA supervisor who has to work down the middle, working with his agents while also appeasing his own superiors. Also look for James Gandolfini as the CIA director and Stephen Dillane as the National Security Advisor.

If there is an issue with 'Zero,' I would say that at 157 minutes it feels long at times, especially early as the groundwork is set up for the second half of the story. Not dull, not boring, but a little sluggish maybe. Things pick up in a quick way when Maya's investigations lead to a heavily fortified compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The whole hunt is transfixing to watch, but upon the arrival of Seal Team 6 into the story (headlined by Joel Edgerton and Chris Pratt) goes up a notch or two. We don't see their training, just the night of the raid on the fortified compound that supposedly hides bin Laden inside. It is an incredible extended sequence as the SEALs fly into Pakistan, land near the compound (with one major issue) and then efficiently move into the compound. Intense doesn't begin to describe this true-to-life sequence. The nighttime raid is filmed with both night vision and shadowy, foggy darkness. You know where the scene is going, and it's still almost unbearable to watch.

'Zero' has its fair share of moments like that. It is a movie to watch and appreciate more than one you love and watch once or twice a year. It has taken some flak for any number of things -- a pro-torture stance, possible help from the Obama administration on some details -- but none of the issues are enough to detour an otherwise excellent movie. We get an excellent look into the intelligence underworld that feels authentic from beginning to end. Definitely worth checking out as award season goes into full swing.

Zero Dark Thirty (2012): ***/****

The Assignment

An international terrorist who took countless lives and wounded that many more during his infamous career, Ilich Ramirez Sanchez earned a nickname over the years. He was simply dubbed Carlos the Jackal. His name became synonymous with fear and terror, and his terrorist actions have become a part of pop culture lore, including 1997's The Assignment, a generally forgotten but very well done thriller.

Having searched and tracked for terrorist Carlos the Jackal (Aidan Quinn), longtime CIA agent Jack Shaw (Donald Sutherland) has become obsessed with bringing the fugitive to justice. For him, it's even become personal after a chance encounter with the man. Jack concocts a plan though when he meets Annibal Ramirez (also played by Quinn), a U.S. Naval officer, who is a dead-on physical lookalike for Carlos. With help from a Mossad agent, Amos (Ben Kingsley), with similar intentions, Jack goes about convincing Annibal to help take out Carlos. They start at the bottom though, teaching him everything they can so he's ready. Their training is too good though. As he prepares to help set up an ambush of the real Carlos, Annibal realizes he has become everything he hates about the man he's supposed to kill.

Here's another case of some movie detective work paying off in the end. First released in 1997, 'Assignment' did little to no business in theaters and never gained much of a following. From director Christian Duguay though, it certainly deserves better recognition than its got since then. I'd never stumbled upon it, heard it mentioned, absolutely nothing over the years, and with the cast involved, there should have been some mention -- box office struggles or not. Where the movie succeeds is its brutal honesty (to me at least) in its portrayal of some all-around nasty characters. It's a dog-eat-dog world where some innocent lives are expendable if the end result is valuable enough. Dark, brutal, cynical and never pulling a punch, this is a criminally underrated flick.

Much of that brutality and cynicism comes from Irish actor Aidan Quinn. An immensely talented actor, Quinn nonetheless just hasn't appeared in many big, mainstream feature films so it's always good to see him. His dual role is both good and bad. In general, he doesn't seem like an obvious choice to play a Naval officer with Cuban blood, physically at least. His Carlos part -- limited though it is -- comes across as stereotypically cartoonish. It made me think of Tony Montana; heavy accent, hot-headed, callously ruthless. Thankfully, much of the story's focus is on his lookalike counter. The Carlos character is a means to the end and simply gets the ball rolling.

Where Quinn especially stands out is his portrayal of Annibal Ramirez, the Naval officer with a beautiful wife, Maura (Claudia Ferri), and family thrust into this most unlikely, dangerous and even suicidal mission for his country's best interest. To say the least, it is an intense, uncomfortable performance. We see a strong-willed man crumble in front of us and then build himself back up into a completely different person. Quinn does a great job as Annibal as he we see his demons and anguish rip him apart. Sutherland as the driven, even obsessed Shaw has a sinister edge that keeps you guessing. Just how far is he willing to go to get the job done? In a smaller part (read: underused), Kingsley is a scene-stealer as Amos, the Mossad agent with a human side who bonds with Annibal and his trials and tribulations. Three very well done and above average performances from three actors who dominate the screen throughout.

Certain scenes especially stand out from the rest here. Shaw and Amos' brutal training sessions put a twist on the same old, same old training montage sequence. Once Annibal's mission is put into play, the pace ratchets up with one extended chase sequence (on foot and by car) setting the bar high in terms of action. The finale too is especially memorable, and with a well-hidden twist or two waiting. Filmed in Canada, Israel and Hungary, 'Assignment' does have a low-budget look at times with some pretty cheap CGI at other times, but in the end, the personal, human element makes a better, far more positive effect than any negatives. Well worth a watch. Highly recommended.

The Assignment <---trailer (1997): ***/****

This Means War

Just try. Do something a little different. If it fails, at least you made an attempt and didn't go for the same old, same old formula. Here we are again at the romantic comedy where humor and schmaltzy love stories go to die in mediocrity. If you try, and it's a little goofy, even dumb at times, at least the effort was made. Take 2012's This Means War. Goofy? Yes. Dumb? At times. But it's fun, and it's different. I'm a cheap date. That's all I'm looking for.

Working on a case in Hong Kong, C.I.A. field agents F.D.R. (Chris Pine) and Tuck (Tom Hardy) are best friends and have been for years to the point where they're like family. FDR is a bit of a ladies man while Tuck is divorced/separated from his wife and their 7-year old son. Tuck though decides he wants more, a meaningful relationship and hits it off immediately with product tester Lauren (Reese Witherspoon) on a date set up by an online dating site. Saying goodbye to Tuck, Lauren meets FDR down the street coincidentally at a video store, and they too hit it off. It isn't long before the two CIA agents figure out they're dating the same girl. Who will get Lauren? It's spy vs. spy.

Because a last name is unnecessary, director McG (of Charlie's Angels, Terminator Salvation fame) certainly has some fun with this one. As I mentioned earlier, 'War' is goofy, dumb and even a little stupid at times, but it commits to being all those things. This is no hardcore story of CIA agents looking for love, the opening over-the-top action scene on a Hong Kong skyscraper's roof points to that. This is a world where well-trained, world class secret agents use all sorts of government software to track each other down, track a pretty girl down, monitor each others' dates. It is goofy, dumb and a little stupid at times, and that's not a bad thing. It owns up to that. No message here, no bigger picture about secret agents in love. Just two old friends going toe to toe for a girl....oh, and they're epically talented government killing machines. How can that not be enjoyable?

So as a romantic comedy on steroids, 'War' works in a lot of ways. Two of the bright young stars in Hollywood, Pine and Hardy are perfectly cast alongside each other. Their friendship of many years -- not to mention working as partners in the field -- seems genuine. They jab and mock and ridicule each other like only close friends can. They compete at everything so when they meet a girl like Witherspoon's Lauren, it's game on. The biggest laughs come from this competition, each agent trying to sabotage the other. FDR sets the sprinklers off in Tuck's loft at a romantic dinner. Tuck drills FDR with a knock-out dart from across a street as he makes a move on Lauren. Pine and Hardy are perfect together, and Witherspoon is about as adorably cute as you'd expect. She has some funny scenes with Chelsea Handler as Trish, Lauren's sister(?)/friend, confidant and adviser in love.

As for the CIA agent storyline, we get a pretty straightforward, nuts and bolts type story. FDR and Tuck are after one bad German dude, Heinrich (Til Schweiger), who is up to no good. What exactly? It's enough to know that's he up to no good, and now he's looking for revenge against these two CIA agents. Any more information would just be wasted. The action sequences are ridiculously over the top and ultra-choreographed, slow motion galore. They're the type of scenes where a car explodes when it flips because....well, cars look cool when they explode on impact. The scenes are action-packed but funny too, Tuck always needing to use FDR's pistol clips in the midst of a chaotic gun battle. The focus is obviously on the love triangle, but that whole secret agent thing is pretty cool too.

Through all the goofiness that ensues, I found myself really liking this movie. It sounds simple, but I liked the characters, and too often in rom-coms, that's left by the wayside. Characters become cliches, stereotypes or something nasty in between. I liked all the characters here. FDR realizes he genuinely likes Lauren and doesn't intend to play her. Lauren is the same, looking for a good normal guy, and Tuck's looking for love. I'm a huge Tom Hardy fan, and he was my favorite here, especially his background with his ex-wife (Abigail Spencer) and son, Joe (John Paul Ruttan). Nothing groundbreaking, but it is different from the usual romantic comedy. It is a good, old-fashioned popcorn movie. Easily digestible and fun from start to finish.

This Means War <---trailer (2012): ***/****

The Bourne Legacy

With three movies over a five year span, the Bourne trilogy starring Matt Damon was a spy series with its own personal style, a James Bond for a new, younger movie-going audience. There was an odd perfection in those movies and all their frenetic, generally crazy pacing. But following the last movie in the trilogy, 2007's The Bourne Ultimatum, Damon said he wanted out. Never one to give up on a successful series, Hollywood did...well....um....uh...they basically remade The Bourne Identity. Anyways, here's 2012's The Bourne Legacy.

Working with a top secret program funded out of the C.I.A. called 'Outcome,' secret agent and killer Aaron Cross (Jeremy Renner) tests off the charts compared to the agency's other agents. A product of some medical advancements, Aaron is smarter, quicker and stronger. His superiors (Stacy Keach and Edward Norton among others) though are in some serious trouble, their operations possibly coming into the limelight because of Jason Bourne's "treacherous" actions. Rather than face serious legal repercussions if their own actions are revealed, they torch Outcome, killing everyone involved. Aaron is among the targets but escapes. Now he's looking for some answers, starting with another survivor of the burn, Dr. Marta Shearing (Rachel Weisz).

I'm not sure where to start with this quasi-Bourne movie. I went in with some expectations if not especially high ones. The Damon trilogy is the rare trilogy that I thought improved with each passing movie. 'Identity' is pretty damn good on its own so that's saying something. Once Damon wanted out though, the series/franchise has to take a twist. I can't help but wonder how director Tony Gilroy's film would have done without the 'Bourne' moniker floating over its head. Knowledge of the first three movies will certainly help, but it's not essential going into this 2012 sequel. Sorry to say though I came away highly disappointed with this newest venture. Building off the Bourne name and success, sure, there's potential, but it ends up being one big, boring, repetitive mess.

Clocking in at a very long 135 minutes, 'Legacy' is 16 minutes longer than any of the previous three movies.....and that IS NOT a good thing. This is a story that needed tightening up. The first hour is sluggish even as we bounce all over the world in a convoluted circle of information, worried looks, and menacing stares. I suppose somewhere in there was an explanation for the story, but I missed it. Long story short? Treadstone, Blackbriar and now Outcome all top each other, one agency becoming more efficient and effective than its predecessor. On the whole, the issue is simple. This is a movie that drifts far too much. The three Damon ventures are frenetically paced to the point where you feel like running home after seeing them. Not here. I was bored, legitimately bored, and counting down the minutes until it was over.

So there's the issue. It seems that Gilroy (who also co-wrote the script) wanted to use the Bourne moniker to get people in the door but from there on in was going to distance itself from those previous films. Unfortunately, the story is basically a rehash of The Bourne Identity. Everything...everything feels like we've seen this before right down to the government war rooms, action scenes, and never-ending chases. In the process somewhere, there must have been an ending too, but it didn't make the final cut. Impressive action scene ends, Cross is semi-happy and cue Moby's Extreme Ways. Oh, oops, my bad. I guess the movie is over. There is no resolution, and not even a huge jumping off point for a sequel. The movie just ends. That's all.

Continuing to springboard off his success from The Hurt Locker, Renner is a very solid lead as Aaron Cross. First off and most important, he doesn't try to be Jason Bourne. He's his own man/character. Aaron's background seems wasted though. There's a layer in there about how he came to be an agent and why he's so driven now that is highly interesting, but nothing much comes of it. Either way, Renner is the best thing going for her. Weisz is a fine actress, but she's nearly unbearable here; shrill, loud and in full-on damsel in distress mode. Norton is the biggest waste here, given NOTHING to do, as Outcome's director while Keach has to look mean and growl. Previous Bourne actors Scott Glenn, Joan Allen, Albert Finney and David Straithairn are around for brief, blink and you'll miss parts. Louis Ozawa Changchien is very cool as Larx 3, an assassin without the glitches of previous agents while Oscar Isaac is memorable as paranoid Outcome Agent No. 3 who a curious Aaron meets early on.

The action for the most part is disappointingly and surprisingly kept in the background, much of it saved for the finale, a foot-turned-motorcycle chase in the crowded streets of Manila. While the stunts are impressive, they still have that rehashed feel to them. That's the movie. There are some very cool moments -- Aaron manipulating a tracker in a unique way via an animal, Aaron's explanation of his past -- but they never amount to anything. Very sorry to give this a low rating if for nothing else than the original three movies set the bar so high. Renner is a good choice to take the reins, but that's about it here.

The Bourne Legacy <---trailer (2012): **/****

The Double

As a movie fan, I think one of the biggest joys you can find is stumbling across a new movie that instantly gets your attention. For a lot of us, that means movie trailers and previews. The threat of course is simple....that trailer ruins the entire movie. 'Hey, that looks good!' is quickly followed by 'Wait, did I just see the entire movie?' That's what I took away from the trailer for 2011's The Double.

Having retired from the CIA some 20 years ago, Paul Shepherdson (Richard Gere) is sought out to help solve one more crime, a murder of a U.S. Senator. The killing has links to a former case of Paul's, one that haunted him for years. It is believed the murderer is a believed dead Russian spy, Cassius, who Paul spent years hunting down. He believes he is in fact dead, but still agrees to help a young FBI agent, Ben Geary (Topher Grace), in the investigation. Geary is obsessed with Cassius, even writing a college thesis on him, so combined with Paul's experience and expertise, can they somehow track the deep undercover Russian agent down?

At some point last fall in 2011, I stumbled across the trailer for this straight-to-DVD spy flick. It started off positive enough, and I was mildly intrigued. It looked decent enough, rising above its straight to DVD roots. About halfway through though, a bombshell gets dropped, a rather revealing and key plot twist. It's not a trick or a ruse to confuse you. The trailer "twist" is actually a major turning point in the story, and it appears just as you will see it in the movie. Just a forewarning because I'll post the link below at the end of the review. Buzzkill much? Any mystery or suspense is ripped away from us. To be fair, the movie doesn't wait long to "reveal" the twist. Still, what's the point if everything is spoiled going into the movie?

So yes, the story is pretty dumb, the script not doing anyone any favors. But as is so often the case, the straight to DVD issue is in my head. Sure, some money was clearly spent on the production, but there's that special something missing. It's that one thing that screams "I'm good enough for theaters!" as a movie. The action feels forced, cliched and hokey. The musical score is ridiculous, sounding like someone just picked shuffle on ITunes and took a nap. It doesn't help either that the movie is based in Washington D.C. but not filmed there. We get lots....lots....of establishing shots (the White House, the FBI, the Jefferson Memorial among others), and then the camera clearly moves to a random city, in this case...Detroit. Beyond the predictable script, the little things end up shooting 'Double' in the foot, limiting director Michael Brandt's chances.

Ah, the old grizzled veteran and the young, perky newbie trying to prove himself. Yeah for cliches, stereotypes and stock characters! Richard Gere is an interesting character to watch, but it feels like he's phoning this performance in. He has two looks. One, bemused boredom. He coldly stares at his co-stars, possibly questioning what he's doing in this movie. Two, bemused boredom with some anger thrown in (however little). Some revelations late make the character a little interesting, but not enough. And for Topher Grace, I think That 70s Show is going to be an issue going ahead. I see him as Eric Forman. Playing a FBI agent? Totally not buying that. When scenes require genuine dramatic presence, he sounds ridiculous, screaming in a high-pitched voice that wouldn't scare a toddler. Oh, and in the random department, Martin Sheen cashes a check as Highland, the head of the CIA.

So what else to say? Not much. A second twist in the final act makes a desperate attempt at making things interesting by throwing a curveball, but I wasn't buying it. The twist comes out of left field, and like so much of the movie, it reeks of being forced and jammed into the story for sake of being "clever." I wasn't expecting much out of this spy flick, but I didn't get much out of it either. Steer clear of it. Remember now, don't watch the trailer if you want the movie spoiled for you. SPOILERS

The Double <---SPOILERS trailer (2011): */****

Crossplot

Before Roger Moore became universally known as James Bond, the British actor put his dues in. For seven successful years, he starred in TV's The Saint, making a name for himself. But after the show's run? Several years of a more hit-or-miss nature, including 1969's Crossplot, a major swing and a miss.

As a highly successful advertising executive, Gary Fenn (Moore) has stepped in it in a big way. With a major client breathing down his neck, Gary has committed to a model he's never seen before, much less heard of her. The model's name is Marla Kugash (Claudie Lange), a beautiful young Hungarian woman about to be deported because she hasn't been working enough. Gary manages to track her down only to step in it even more. Marla is on the run, assassins hunting her down after she accidentally overheard a secret plot. Now he not only has to save his job, but his neck and the girl too.

This is the type of story that sounds appealing just hearing about the plot. Accidental spies and secret agents have provided some solid movies over the years. But in the age of the spy movies -- the 1960s and 1970s -- this one is just bizarre. There are moments of actual drama and action with intensity and adrenaline. Mostly though, there are far too many moments of half-assed laughs, pitiful, overdone attempts at those laughs involving physical humor, and a general feeling of campiness that would have been more at home in an hour-long TV show. Physical humor has to be very precise to work and executed well. Crossplot has none of that. At one point, Moore and Lange are driving an old-timey car (dressed time appropriate) by a machine-gunning helicopter. How could that not be funny? The Keystone Cops would be pissed.

Instead, we get a 96-minute movie that feels much longer and does have the distinct feel of a TV show. Translated? It's cheap, and it doesn't hide the cheapness well. The sets appear very stagey and look like they were made for about $10 or so. Almost the entire movie was shot on indoor sets, although the ventures outside -- few that they are -- into 1969 London are pretty cool. Think the real life Austin Powers. That would be tolerable, but the use of greenscreens (inserting Moore and the cast "into" the action) looks about as ridiculous as you'd expect. The late 1960s lifestyle of drugs, psychedelic clothes, and grooviness in general adds to the camp factor. 'Crossplot' just doesn't have much going for it in any department.

Despite the almost uniformly negative reviews I read prior to watching, I forged on because I'm a Roger Moore fan. Even in his truly bad Bond movies (I'm looking at you Moonraker), he's a likable, entertaining star. Unfortunately here, the source material pulls him down in a big way. Moore got laughs by being smooth, by being suave and throwing one-liner one after another. Physical humor ain't his thing, especially forced, truly awkward physical humor. As for co-star Claudie Lange.....she sure is pretty. Acting? Eh, but she sure is nice to look at, and that's what the story runs with. She appears in various stages of undress, usually something draped over her chest. Lange does have a unnecessary but pleasant surprise of a nude scene late, randomly sitting in a tub and standing up. It is clearly an essential scene for development.

None of the cast manages to stand out, but there are some other recognizable faces around. Martha Hyer is Jo, Marla's supposedly sweet aunt looking out for her niece. She ends up being the bad guy, but it's such a stupid gimmick it makes no impact. Alexis Kanner is a relative bright spot as Tarquin, a hippie protester and friend of Marla's. In a cool link to the Connery and Moore 007 flicks, also look for Bernard Lee in a few scenes. Lee would co-star with Moore in four Bond movies. A movie that falls short on basically every level imaginable. Even Moore and Lange's.....talents? couldn't save this one.

Crossplot <---trailer (1969): */****

Duplicity

How far can charm take a movie? A story, an actor, a soundtrack, they can all have charm, but to what point? Usually it's a jumping off point to at least liking a movie, and hopefully somewhere in the process, you like something more. Thanks to a misleading trailer, I watched 2009's Duplicity, thinking I was getting a light espionage mystery relying on the charm and star power of two bankable stars. Even charm -- or lack of -- could save this one.

Two former intelligence agents, Ray (Clive Owen) from MI6 and Claire (Julia Roberts) from the CIA, have a bit of a history together...a checkered one at that. Several years ago in Dubai, Claire drugged Ray and took some valuable information he had hidden away. Now they're meeting up again but under different circumstances and different emotions. For one, they've fallen for each other, well, sort of, if they can trust each other. Wanting to retire to a life of luxury, they've decided to go into corporate espionage, working from the inside as two warring corporations (run by rivals Paul Giamatti and Tom Wilkinson) do battle over a new product that could revolutionize the market with billions of dollars at stake.

For starters, the trailer for this flick definitely made it look like a light, even romantic comedy a la Spy vs. Spy with Owen and Roberts going toe to toe. Yeah, about that...not quite. It's not like that at all, and it's not even close. Instead, director Tony Gilroy (of the Bourne movies, Michael Clayton) has crafted a twisting, weaving and generally pretty dark story about a corporate espionage where everything is not what it seems. I'm not claiming the movie isn't any good because the trailer was misleading. I'm claiming the movie isn't any good because it's dull and drifting with characters who aren't even close to sympathetic territory and a story that wraps itself up in its own cleverness.

Not surprisingly, the message boards are divided as to the quality of the movie. Some claim it's stupid and boring because the story isn't linear. Then there's the posters who blindly defend it because it's smart. Can both sides be wrong and right at the same time? I resent it when holier-than-thou moviegoers claim someone doesn't like a movie because they "didn't get it." It's also mindblowingly dumb to claim a movie is dumb because you simply didn't understand it. The odd thing about Duplicity is that nothing really works, and both sides are in fact very right. The story is flashback heavy, bringing us up to date (as much as possible) with how the characters got into this spot. Then, there's the current story, Ray and Claire working from the inside. None of it is particularly interesting, and it doesn't change much over the course of a slow-moving 125 minutes.

As far as bankable stars go, it's hard to top Julia Roberts and Clive Owen. Their parts in Duplicity are lacking in so many ways, and neither looks that interested in the story or their characters. Like the story, they look bored with the proceedings. And charm? Chemistry? Yeah, I'm still looking for that. The two stars never click, their scenes lacking any real passion. Their relationship gets repetitive almost immediately, two intelligence agents who struggle with trust issues because their job requires it of them. Roberts questions Owen, Owen flips, Roberts reveals she's joking and trying to pull a fast one on them. Repeat to your desire three or four more times, the joke falling short over and over. As for Giamatti and Wilkinson, it's about what you'd expect. They're playing themselves in extended cameos, neither given a chance to do anything.

More than a few times during the slowly developing story I was close to bailing, but I stuck with it and was at least partially rewarded with the ending. It features a twist that works in terms of the story and characters, but also is surprisingly entertaining and unique. It is far from a happy twist either, adding a dark element to the already pretty dark proceedings. Not enough to recommend the movie, but enough to say 'stick with it' if you're struggling mightily to make it through like I did.

Duplicity <---trailer (2009): */****

The Double Man

The movie world of secret agents, espionage and government conspiracies is a tricky one. Thanks to wave after wave of movies set in that world, as a viewer, we've seen everything. With that genre more than most, a movie has to tread that ever so thin line between hard-edged, goofy and plain old spoof. That's 1967's The Double Man, an espionage movie that tries to be hard-edged but ends up falling far short.

Working as a high-up CIA analyst, Dan Slater (Yul Brynner) receives some startling news. His son has been killed in a skiing accident in the Swiss Alps. Dropping everything, Slater heads to Switzerland to investigate, not quite believing that his son -- an accomplished skier -- would die in the way described. He finds that the police have basically shrugged it off, claiming accident, but even a quick look shows Slater that something else was going on. He tries to find one of the witnesses, Gina (Britt Ekland), who saw his son moments before his death, but Slater has no idea what's in store for him.

Airing on Turner Classic Movies recently as part of a Brynner tribute night, I recorded 'Double' mostly because I'd never heard a thing about it. Some 40-plus years later, this is an almost completely forgotten 1960s spy thriller. It's easy to see why....it just isn't very good. The twist is that Russian agents (Anton Diffring, George Mikell <----both looking odd without their German uniforms, and Brandon Brady) have exact body doubles ready for Slater and several other high-up CIA agents. Intelligence security in the U.S. will be a joke after this infiltration. Could it happen? Not the point. In execution, it comes across as a big joke, bordering on the spoof aspect.

So we're off to a good start. The premise -- while at least remotely possible -- is flawed because there's never a sense of urgency. It's revealed in the opening scene about the Russians' plan to infiltrate American intelligence, but then it takes over an hour for the attempts at the switches to actually come about. In the meantime, Slater skis around Switzerland, pursuing Ekland's Gina for questions, drinking, flirting with Moira Lister, and dodging the inept agents following him. Nothing screams out 'SPOOF!' but it nonetheless has that feel. Lloyd Nolan as Edwards, Slater's supervisor, screams all his lines and then disappears at the halfway point. Also worthy of some pokes and prods is a bizarre jazzy, big band score to the spy thriller. What aids a chase across the Swiss Alps? Not a club band of horns and trombones in a score reminiscent of a bad 1970s TV cop show.

Any positives to take away from this one? Yes, and not surprisingly, it's star Yul Brynner. It's not a great performance -- maybe not even a really good one -- but Brynner always was watchable on-screen. It is a more subdued part than I would think with a secret agent father seemingly not too pissed about his son's death. Curious? Yes, but I wanted some rage...something else. Still, it's Yul Brynner, I like him, and he's playing a secret agent. Thumbs up. Just 25 years old and still somewhat new to movies, Ekland is....well....she's gorgeous. Her character is eye candy and really nothing else. It is a serviceable part, one necessary to keep the story going. On the positive, Ekland was perfectly cast as eye candy even if a possible relationship with Slater seems forced. The Russian agents are all right, Diffring and Mikell both familiar faces as Nazis/Germans in countless 1960s WWII movies. Clive Revill is good as Wheatley, the on-location agent who comes under Slater's wrath.

Spy/espionage thrillers are right in my wheelhouse. I'll give them all a try. This one is just too dull to be even remotely interesting. Long, extended shots of people skiing or chasing each other across Switzerland does in fact look good (it's a beautiful country), but in terms of entertainment it falls short. The finale over the last 30 minutes or so makes up for it to a point, but the ending tries too hard. A twist gets thrown our way in this Franklin J. Schaffner directed thriller -- which I think I kept up with -- that allows/forces us to make our own conclusions. On the whole, it falls short despite Brynner's efforts, Ekland's looks and an exciting finale.

The Double Man <---TCM clips (1967): **/****