The film could have been made more interesting if
the character played by Jessica Chastain had been interesting, but she was not.
During the course of the film, from her initiation into “enhanced interrogation”,
through her experience of a terrorist bomb, the death of her friend through lax
security and naiveté, to a gun attack, and finally to stationing at Langley and
participation in the bureaucratic politics, she doesn’t seem to change. (A tear
in the final scene in the hollows of a C-130 doesn’t really reveal much.)
Chastain’s character was to serve as the thread of the film, but she appears
inert to the world around her, so how was her character (and by necessity) the
film to prove interesting beyond the details of the attack and killing of OBL?
Compare her character to Claire Dane’s character in Homeland (Season
1). While I wouldn’t want Dane’s character working for the CIA, she is an interesting
character (well portrayed by Danes). Thus, in reality, give me Chastain’s rather
bland character working for the CIA, but for drama, Danes’s Carrie Mathison
proves by for more interesting vehicle for driving a story.
On the other hand, it doesn’t break new ground.
IG, who, despite her prejudices against SF, attended, thought it a rip-off of Star Wars. Only in the 70’s SF look, I’d
say. Mad Max might be a better
comparison (although take a look at Morgan Freeman’s helmet . . . . hmmm, where
have we seen that before?). Cruise is adequate to the role. He’s not yet too
long of tooth to play this type of adventure hero role, but he’s getting close.
So, on the whole, worth seeing if you enjoy SF and a nod back to some earlier
flicks.
No comments:
Post a Comment