L'Affaire Rachel Singer

Surely the older (recent) male actors were around the wrong way? Confused the hell out of me.

Greetings again from the darkness. Espionage thrillers can be so much fun in both book and movie form. Movies actually have a little advantage for the action scenes. Books clearly have the advantage in details, backstory and character development. What is frustrating as a viewer is when a movie starts strong and then crumbles under the weight of expectation ... sometimes trying to make a bigger splash than necessary. Such is the case with director John Madden's remake of the rarely-seen 2007 Israeli film "HA-HOV".

The story is centered around a 1965 mission of a trio of Mossad agents. Mossad is Israel's CIA. These three agents, Rachel (Jessica Chastain), Stephan (Marton Csokas) and David (Sam Worthington) are to capture the notorious Nazi war criminal, the Surgeon of Birkenau (Jesper Christensen), and bring him back for a proper trial of war time atrocities.

Flash forward to 1997 and Rachel's daughter has written a book about the daring mission and the three heroes. The older version of the characters are played by Helen Mirren (Rachel), Tom Wilkinson (Stephan) and Ciran Hinds (David). We are treated to flashbacks of the mission and how things took a wrong turn, but ended just fine. Or did they? There seems to be some inconsistencies with the story told and the actual events that have created much strain between Rachel and Stephan, and life-altering changes for the more sensitive David.

This is an odd film because the best story parts occur when the younger cast members are carrying out the 1965 mission. It is full of suspense and intrigue. The intensity and believability drops off significantly in the 1997 version, but oddly, the older actors are much more fun to watch on screen ... especially the great Helen Mirren. I am not sure what all of that really means, but for me, it meant the third act of the film was a bit hokey and hard to buy.

Director John Madden is known for his fabulous "Shakespeare in Love", but not much else. His films since then have all come up just a bit short of that very high bar he set 13 years ago. Jessica Chastain continues her fantastic 2011 season adding this performance to her more spectacular turns in "Tree of Life" and "The Help". Sam Worthington is known for his role in "Avatar", but his character here is so thinly written, I doubt any actor could have pulled it off. Jesper Christensen seems to usually play the bad guy and he is in full glory here as a Nazi war criminal with no regrets.

The first half will keep you on the edge of your seat, but by the end you will have a somewhat empty feeling. What a shame as this one teased us with much hope.

A plodding plot, dull dialogue and cardboard characters made this a boring evening. Does Mossad really recruit self-obsessed inadequates from soap operas? The film starts with a confusing series of action sequences posing unanswered questions, which I found irritating. It then proceeds to an over-long and pedantic account of the bungled kidnapping of a Nazi war criminal, who is the standard stock Nazi. At least the same cannot be said of the Mossad agents, who would be more at home in Eastenders - emotional turmoil and histrionics prevail and the situation deteriorates into total catastrophe.

However have to say that my wife liked it!

This espionage thriller is an English-language version of a 2007 Israeli film "Ha-Hov" and it is immediately apparent why an adaptation that will inevitably win a much larger audience was made. This is a gripping tale, intelligently told and cleverly constructed. It is much more exiting than the other spy movie of the summer of 2011 "Tinker Tailor Solider Spy" and a much more authentic representation of the Israeli secret service Mossad than "Munich".

Essentially we have two stories here, set in different times (1965 and 1997) and different locations (Berlin and Israel/Ukraine) but involving the same characters; yet director John Madden - whose first success was the contrasting "Shakespeare In Love" - has done a skillful job in interweaving the two narratives in a manner which requires the viewer to re-evaluate regularly both situations and motivations. The early period works better than the later one and fortunately it accounts for the majority of the film, but this is almost two hours of sustained tension.

Unusually there are seven strong roles in one film. The three Mossad agents Stephan, David and Rachel are played by Marton Csokas, Sam Worthington and Jessica Chastain respectively in the Cold War period and portrayed by Tom Wilkinson, Ciarán Hinds and Helen Mirren respectively in the modern day setting, while the Danish Jesper Christensen is the surgeon of Birkenau throughout the story and gives this profoundly unsympathetic role a subtle psychological dimension.

Although most of these roles are male, it is the two female performances that are especially memorable. Mirren has had a brilliant career and it is wonderful to see her at the top of her game in her sixties, while Chastain seems to have suddenly burst into movies with "The Tree Of Live" and clearly has a major career ahead of her.

The Debt has several things going for it: an interesting story and some fine performances. It's a pity that the ending was disappointing.

I'd like to commend Helen Mirren on her performance and even though she gets top billing she's not in it much and when she is her performance doesn't merit the top billing. The stars of the movie are undoubtedly the younger characters played by Jessica Chastain, Sam Worthington and Martin Csokas for it is with them that the events of 1966 are played out and we get a glimpse of what the trio went through during their mission. Jessica was quite excellent, and demonstrates the stress put on a young and inexperienced agent thrust into East Berlin in the 1960s. Marton, as the leader of the trio, was good and his character was never demanding nor bullying in the way some unit leaders can become. Sam Worthington was competent, and perhaps a little subdued, portraying a shy man with more going on inside his head than he wanted the world to see.

There is a plot twist, which I won't mention, and which was cleverly disguised in the trailers, which provides turns the story on its head and propels the movie towards the end that I found disappointing. If someone waits more than thirty years to develop a guilty conscience, something that was not properly developed for one of the characters, then it makes it difficult to believe that they would go about with their decision in a split second and undo everything they stood for. It made their first early decision to be quite pointless and in the end more damaging to others than for the main characters. Some would argue that the ending was just fine but in movies that's all well and good but in real life it's not as simple as that. So, I felt a little bit let down for a movie that I was very interested in watching.

Is it worth recommending, then? Well, the ending probably won't bother too many people and so it is worth watching as the movie keeps a fine level of tension throughout the movie so you're never to sure which way things are going to go until it occurs.