Book Review--Red Sparrow by Jason Matthews

Quite the bummer this one...

Covered with praise from numerous publications (USA Today, Washington Post, Publishers Weekly, NYT, etc.) and coming from someone within the US Intelligence community (Matthews has years of experience working in the clandestine service of the CIA) I had high hopes.

I should have realized that given Matthews was given a 7 figure advance on the book and its two sequels before a word was put down and a movie deal signed shortly thereafter for Jennifer Lawrence to star in a film trilogy based on these books that this was no serious effort but instead a pre-packaged media driven vehicle to create a new "Hunger Games" (same director even) or "Twilight" series with only pretensions of seriousness.

 Further hints of the lack of real work here comes up early on when the female protagonist, written purposefully for Jennifer Lawerence to play, is detailed to have a heretofore unknown version of synesthesia that gives her the superpower like ability to determine the character and truthfulness of another person via the colors she sees surrounding them like an aura.  Over and over and over "this person is surrounded in yellow...this one is colored in blue...this one in red..."  blah, blah, blah.  Profoundly tiring and hackneyed one comes to view the female character as one of little real talent or intelligence but merely imbued with genetic abnormality that makes her good at her particular job.

And what is her job?  Well, to even sell the film series more...she's a "Sparrow" a Russian agent trained to seduce foreign individuals with their physical wares...Insert eyeroll here...This serves only for the author to engage in his puerile sexual fixations and set up Jennifer Lawrence to parade around on film in skimpy outfits.

For those hoping to hear of true tradecraft I suppose there are nuggets here and there--the Russians using a "dust" of a kind that can then be scanned for on the personages of their own people to see if they have been in contact with other spies, etc....but mostly?  Its stuff like "He left his hotel...he didn't want to be followed....so he walked around in a random pattern for hours looking for followers..."  Great...real groundbreaking stuff.

If you want to read a trashy novel to prepare yourself to watch a trashy movie and think that you are being progressive because Putin makes multiple appearances in the novel as the ultimate bad guy string puller...this is all you...Roundfile this otherwise...

Movie Review: Argo

Finally got around to seeing this film.  I've liked Affleck's other directorial works including The Town and Gone Baby Gone.  Argo continues Affleck's solid directorial resume.  While none of these three films will blow you away with storytelling, editing, acting or directorial chops.  What all will do is entertain the viewer.

Argo entertains the viewer with far fewer bullets and explosions than most films of similar ilk and there is little "action" as it were, in the film.  Almost all of the suspense and action here takes place in the minds of the viewer and characters.  Tension isn't hard to develop given the circumstances (escapees from the Iranian embassy takeover in 1980 hiding in the Canadian embassy) surrounding them as the risk of instant death at the hands of religious zealots awaits any mistake.

In a case of "if it weren't true, no one would believe it" the plot revolves around an American CIA effort to extract said escapees from Iran under the guise of a Canadian science fiction movie location shoot.  That such a scheme actually worked says a lot more about the lax airport security and overall lack of intelligence oversight during that period of time and place than it does about the quality of the plan (please see my review of The Skies Belong to Us for an insight into airport security during this period).  That said, it still took someone(s) with great courage to pull off the mission that successfully extracted those six American citizens.  Doing double duty, Affleck, in addition to directing, also takes on the role of Tony Mendez, the CIA agent who leads the American extraction effort.  While saddling him with a damaged marriage falls into the realm of cliche, luckily the film does not dwell there.

In truth Argo isn't a GREAT film.  Its merely a good one.  One that tells its story without getting in the way or playing its hand too heavily.  It might even be called "restrained".  Certainly other directors would have spruced up the story with more chases, more gunplay, more "gotcha" moments (even Affleck adds in a chase scene that never happened in real life toward the end of the film), but as a bit of a throwback to older "thrillers" Argo comes off fresh compared to something like Die Hard 4 or other set pieces for demolition crews.  While not deserving of its eventual Best Picture and other Oscar nods (there is nothing here that really grips you emotionally or that blows you away artistically), Argo is a good film not for what it is, but instead for what it isn't.

Film Review: Zero Dark Thirty

This was one of those many films I wish I had gotten to see in the theater but didn't and was waiting expectantly for to come out on DVD.

Coming into the film I already knew the vast majority of the background behind the search for Bin Laden.  I'd read boatloads of stuff in the media over the years that had been leaked regarding this effort, I had read and reviewed here No Easy Day which recapped the life and efforts of Matt Bissonette who was in line behind the Seal who shot and killed Bin Laden and read the Vanity Fair article with the "shooter" himself.  I would consider the film a historically important work--but is it a good film?

I won't quibble with some of the film's technical inaccuracies pointed out by the "shooter" in his viewing of the film (too much talking by operatives during mission, Belgain Malinois vs. German Shephard, etc.) as they are merely conventions for the film's sake and yet not gross, purposeful, historical, inaccuracies.  In fact "the shooter" doesn't seem to have much in the way of issues with the way the Bin Laden killing was portrayed.

The biggest criticisms of the film came not from those who truly felt it was a inaccurate recall of these efforts but from those (John McCain being one) who felt that its portrayal of torture as conducted by members of the CIA (or those directly/indirectly employed by the US governmental forces) was misplaced in its ability to provide valuable information.  Mr. McCain is not able to be a impartial observer in this instance given his treatment at the hands of the Vietnamese and others leveling similar criticisms are grossly blinded by their political views.  What is inarguable is that torture can be a valuable method of obtaining information.  Is it perfect?  Certainly not, but when you are dealing with murderers and assassins who could kill thousands of your citizens, such ugly methods can and should be employed.  Such vaunted conservatives (please hear the sarcasm) as Alan Dershawitz understand this, particularly when viewing a situation via the prism of Israeli and US concerns with terrorism.

As to the film itself, I did not find the water-boarding scenes nearly as "horrific" as described in the main stream media...truly they weren't uncomfortable to view or wince inducing.  I'm sorry but some water over the head, some choking and gagging on wet clothes and moral embarrassment via being portrayed nude in front of a woman for the captured Al Queada operatives doesn't exactly come close to my personal squeamish meter.

Nor was the penultimate mission to kill Bin Laden as exciting and breathless in nature has been described in most reviews.  Yes, the portrayal is suspenseful but given you don't have any emotional connection to the characters, it just isn't that impactful.  Perhaps some of this is due to the fact that I pretty much knew everything that was going to happen and how it was going to happen from my previous readings.  Certainly reading No Easy Day gives you much more of a personal connection to Matt Bissonette than this film does for any of its characters.

Jessican Chastain portrays the main character in the film, Maya, who is the CIA analyst who, over the course of many years tied enough circumstantial evidence together to track down Bin Laden's location.  Again, cross referencing the info in No Easy Day to this portrayal leads one to believe that both sources accurately depict "Maya" as an intelligent, driven, ball busting, pain in the ass, disliked by her peers, analyst.  Chastain gets this point across despite her somewhat "too high for this role" pitch of her voice which had me wondering if they could have found an actress that sounds less like a whiny college co-ed for the part.

In the end my favorite parts of the film are those that remind the viewer that 9-11 was not a one off, singular event unlikely to recur but instead simply one in a series of attacks on Western citizens around the world over the period of decades.  It reminds one that it was an extended and brutal war we were/are fighting and one that is not covered by rules that in retrospect look as moronic and short sighted as the waves of WWI soldiers sent en mass, shoulder to shoulder into the uncaring maw of fixed machine gun positions.  Thank god for those men and women willing to do what it takes to protect the rest of us.  Hopefully this very good film gets that point across to at least some people out there...