The International

The International (2009)

We can't expect every Tom Tykwer film to be as inventive or intense as Run Lola Run or The Princess and the Warrior, and The International feels almost like a breather, an intentional turn at a conventional film. It's an espionage and high stakes international drama with guns and deceit and a pair of very distinctly good good guys played by Clive Owen (brilliantly) and Naomi Watts (unconvincingly...probably just miscast). And overall it's completely enjoyable and slick, well paced, and beautifully filmed, of course.

The plot is one of those sprawling, behind-the-scenes conspiracy, third world, big money scenarios that must have shades of truth, or lots of truth, but gets simplified into a handful of bad guys and a parade of exotic locales (including the inevitable Third World warlord who is an intelligent and willing pawn in the whole game). What I mean is, the plot almost doesn't matter in the details, though it's interesting, and makes you think and worry a little about the world we live in. It's more how the heroes unfold the facts of the plot, against the odds, the clock ticking, that make the movie good. If you liked the Bourne movies (which are as a whole probably faster and more edgy) or Syriana (which is actually kind of similar in feel overall, Clooney substituted for Owen), this will really suit you.

And there is a Tykwer twist now and then, a camera with unusual fluidity, or a scene that gets replayed and rethought. Of course, the hugely complicated shootout in the Guggenheim is a masterpiece of excessive and brilliant kinetic filming. For an amazing short video on the building of the sets for this shoot (yes, it wasn't at the real Gug), go to www.firstshowing.net and type guggenheim tykwer.

In all? The best of it is worth the worst of it. A tightly made and not overly preposterous dip into a well stocked pond.

I'm a fan of German director Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run, The Princess And The Warrior, Heaven, Perfume: The Story Of A Murderer). The story seemed like a different direction for him, so this was a must see for me.

First, the only problem I had with the film is the screenplay, some contrived lines, especially in the third act, stick out. The dialogue really tries to force the theme down the viewers throat. Other than that, everything else was top notch. The way the story is set up and fleshed out was engrossing to me. I like a film that lets the viewer figure it out for themselves. It's got a classic mystery set up, where the viewer is in the shoes of the protagonist, we get to figure it out along with him as he unravels it.

Clive Owen and Naomi Watts were decent, but not really stretching there acting legs here. The cinematography and locations were beautiful, filmed in a neo-noirish blue/grey color palette with lots of wide angle shots of the characters dwarfed by the urban architecture. The shootout was very well done and more realistic and grittier than the usual action set piece.

It actually reminded me of a Michael Mann film.

No spoilers.

I pretty much had zero expectations for this film. I'd seen an ad or two and it looked conventional at best, clumsy at worst. The previews certainly don't do it justice. It starts smart and mean and doesn't let up. Not everyone will enjoy the unrelenting mood, but I found the picture intense and the rest of the audience in the theater seemed to agree. It helps that Clive Owen is believable as the protagonist and is highly watchable. A lesser actor in the role would have made the film much less effective. Armin Mueller-Stahl also adds credibility and depth. Other supporting actors were, for the most part, strong and gritty. There was probably pressure for a female lead, so in Noami Watts's defense, this is probably part of the reason why the character feels so irrelevant.

I'm happy anytime that a slick international thriller has some brains and isn't completely predictable, so I found the picture highly entertaining, if imperfect. It it flawed? Most certainly. But if you walk into the theater without pretensions, you'll probably be as entertained as I was. And I do think a theater visit is warranted, for the photography mentioned by previous reviewers, if not for the Guggenheim scene alone. I think it's dangerous to trump up a scene too much, because it inevitably leads to disappointment. But having no idea about what was coming... suffice to say, I didn't find the directing anything other than thrilling.

I was persuaded by my brother to see this film. I wanted to see another one but since he was visiting I agreed with his choice, and was surprised to find myself liking the film very much. OK, the script could be a little better, but the direction and acting were very good, even down to the supporting players such as the actors who portrayed the two NYC cops who assist the main character, Interpol agent Sallinger (Clive Owens), once the story moved to NYC. What I particularly liked was the way the story was told cinematically rather than through a lot of verbose dialogue. It seemed to me like a Bourne thriller for adults. No kinetic hand-held camera action, but smooth visually appealing cinematic exposition the way Hitchcock did it in his prime. Even the closing credits were used effectively to give a rather downbeat dénouement to the film.

In short, an entertaining movie that alleviated the February blues.

A life in film is a wonderful thing, in part because of the people you come to know intimately.

You learn how certain filmmakers twist ideas. How their imagination is shaped. Sometimes it is beautiful. Sometimes it stays beautiful and by not changing loses its luster. Then you have guys like Tykwer. He develops. He tries new moves. He thinks deeply about film. He's the guy who reimagined "Rashomon." He's the fellow who stood with Cate Blanchett looking as Kieslowski with a Kieslowski script by God!

He made a film based on sight as smell, and recently one on cinematic sight through blindness.

Now he makes an action movie with, guess what? No sex, no car chase, no fight on the top of a train, no gasoline explosions. And he doesn't rely on that newspaper notion of "a thinking man's thriller," because he deliberately makes the template so ordinary it fades from view. It hardly matters that there is a bank involved. Its all about that vanilla bugaboo, the conspiracy that compromises the authorities and (usually) involves arms. Really, the story disappears.

What we are left with is an amazing use of context. I've seen James Bond, Jason Bourne and Laura Croft traipse through famous cities, but their beings are never affected. Tykwer, I surmise, saw this as an opportunity to do a Kieslowski with cities instead of rooms. Look at what he does, its an entirely environmental film. Its not quite enough, but if you are there already, its sublime.

What else? Well, test audiences did not get it, so there was a scene replaced, the one in the Guggenheim. If you have ever been in that building it is remarkable. Its a failure, an intrusive imposition. You can see where Frank knew that corners were bad, but he so mismanages the eye that you retreat into the art, or try too. Its an amazing, disturbing experience. Tykwer exploits the very things about this space that make it so unnerving.

He pretty much gleefully trashes it. This one scene, added after the movie was finished, makes the whole adventure worthwhile.

If you know architectural cinema, you'll know it was invented by Welles and depends on planes and corners. These are absent here. We have a new method, a new eye.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.