Skip to main content

You’re the Compliance Officer. It’s your call.

Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit
(2014)

(SPOILERS) The mealy-mouthed title speaks volumes about the uncertainty with which Tom Clancy’s best-known character has been rebooted. Paramount has a franchise that has made a lot of money, based on a deeply conservative, bookish CIA analyst (well, he starts out that way). How do you reconfigure him for a 21st century world (even though he already has been, back in 2003) where everything he stands for is pretty much a dirty word? The answer, it seems, is to go for an all-purpose sub-James Bond plan to bring American to its knees, with Ryan as a fresh (-ish) recruit (you know, like Casino Royale!) and surprising handiness in a fight. Yes, Jack is still a smart guy (and also now, a bit, -alec), adept at, well, analysing, but to survive in the modern franchise sewer he needs to be more than that. He needs to kick arse. And wear a hoodie. This confusion, inability to coax a series into being what it’s supposed to be, might explain the sour response to its eventual arrival following a lengthy period in Development Hell. But it’s probably more to do with the “That’ll do” shrug that saw fit to agree upon every half-hearted element, from the miscast lead and director to the laughably desperate attempt to make the villain believable. Shadow Recruit may wish it were in Cold War heaven, but no one in the audience is buying it.


9/11 has proved itself a godsend to the hack writer in need of character motivation, particularly of the ex-military variety. It’s the new Vietnam in Hollywood terms, a shorthand that requires little reinforcement. No amount of bad press and political debate about the wrongs and wrongs of interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan can stymie the iconography of the heroic soldier emerging bruised but undaunted by these conflicts. Even when he goes on to work for a corrupt establishment in order to save the world from the boogeyman. In theory, the kind of myth-making Shadow Recruit subjects us to should come up smelling of roses in any era and under any circumstances. 9/11 inspires noble London School of Economics student Jack to sign up, during an opening section that would make Ron Kovic’s eyes water (clearly Ryan, for all his analytical skills, can’t spot when he’s being sold a dummy; he swallows his patriotic duty hook, line and sinker).


Eighteen months later he’s a serving lieutenant whose chopper gets hit… And good lord, if he isn’t rendered unable to walk (as rendered on screen, it looks like as if this happens as soon as he gets there, which might in itself be a bit of commentary, except I’m dubious this movie has an ounce of serious reflection in its 105 minute running time; additionally, this is how he is retired from the marines in the novels too, just in a different era). Fortunately, Keira Knightley is on hand to motivate his recuperation. He also has the added impetus of everyone’s favourite uncle Kevin Costner, dangling mysterious carrots before him. Costner’s Thomas Harper is one of those omni-present operatives, always on a mission but finding abundant time to hang out down the local rehabilitation centre studying his potential recruit’s progress.


It isn’t long before Ryan is up and running like the stalwart we, and Harper, know he is. This is knuckle dragging, clichéd movie-minimalism. The script, credited to David Koepp (whose name had been attached to a fair amount of dross over the last few years) and first timer Adam Cozad, is at a loss over how to arrange its topical elements into any form of coherence.  It has to get on with the business of telling a traditional action/spy yarn when the form can’t cope the disparate parts. At least the picture doesn’t bother with the familiar approach of pretending to criticise a government institution while simultaneously fully endorsing it. Jack’s wholly on board when Harper offers him a job, his doubts limited to an aside; “You know, people don’t like you guys very much these days”. Ryan is set to work as a financial intelligence analyst with a Wall Street cover (“You’re the Compliance Officer. It’s your call” isn’t the kind of line that gets thrown at the protagonist of your average blockbuster, so there’s some small reward there). In which role he’s happily settled for 10 years, with an oblivious doctor girlfriend (Knightley’s Cathy), until he gets the call for field duty following a tip that something’s going down. No one else in the CIA understands what he’s gibbering about (this part might also be reasonably accurate) so he’s off to Moscow, in Koepp and Cozad’s nod to Police Academy 6.


The problem is, if you have a smart, thoughtful, acutely insightful lead character you’d better bring along some convincing revelations to justify those claims. The extent of Jack’s wisdom is the discovery of some hidden Russian accounts, necessitating a trip to the old Soviet capital to chat with Kenneth Branagh’s cirrhotic Victor Cherevin. He’s the story’s baddy, working for unnamed masters who may or may not be the big Russian cheeses themselves. This is standard issue covering of bases, of course, the kind of thing that required a “splinter faction” of the IRA in Patriot Games. That said, Shadow Recruit seems to have few qualms about pushing Russia as a force attempting to reassert itself globally at the US’s expense. It’s a nice safety zone, where the US would remain a thriving force if only those pesky Russkies don’t get in the way. Old standbys are trotted out; a key factor is the dominance a new Turkish gas pipeline will bring Moscow at the Americans’ expense.


I tend to wonder when a movie delivers exposition without a pause for breath; is it hoping that, if it speeds through, no one will notice it doesn’t make a lick of sense? It seems that these secreted funds are for the purpose of buying up US currency, the intention to collapse the dollar and crash the US economy by flooding the market in the wake of a terrorist incident. If the knowledge that the US is doing a damn good job of destroying its economy without any nudging didn’t make this enough of a stretch, we learn that a key part of this plot is an attack on US soil. Why do they need this attack to happen? It’s apparently crucial in ensuring economic collapse, breadlines and mass panic, with historical precursors validating Jack’s theory. If this doesn’t sound especially rigorous, it’s because the real reason for a great big bomb is simple. Without it the movie has no third act. And it proceeds to plumb the depths of Hollywood literalism with this device; to take out the financial system you plant a bomb under its physical embodiment – Wall Street. Did no one learn anything from The Dark Knight Returns, apart from how to steal a really rotten plot device? Don’t they realise all this money is, you know, electronic?


Someone pipes up that none of this makes much sense, as the Russians aren’t going to come out of this as winners. Ah, Ryan response sagely, but the Chinese stand to lose more. Okay, that about wraps that up then. After all, Ryan’s the clever one. There’s a wee joke about financial oversight (“You pay me to look” Ryan says to boss Colm Feore; “Not to look that hard” comes the reply), but unlike, say, a Le Carré, where the verisimilitude pulls you in, one gets the impression the writers thought they could wing it. Ryan goes for meetings in cinemas showing old black and white movies (Sorry, Wrong Number); you can tell Branagh (the guy who inflicted Dead Again on us) loves this, but it’s an ultra-cheesy in context. Placing Ryan on Wall Street during a period that spans the financial crisis suggests he isn’t terribly good at sniffing out big problems (of course, he’s only looking for ones relating to terrorists!) and the pronunciations about Russia (“They’re not a country, they’re a corporation!”) are so audacious you feel the writers must be more self-conscious than that. Don’t they really mean the US?


The mid-section of the movie, once Ryan arrives in Moscow, is by far the best. For all the sloppiness of the writing – even during this act – Branagh as director shows he can put a scene together competently or, at least, his second unit is solid. He’s calmed down considerably since his past indiscretions involving a motion-sickness-causing inability to keep the camera still (Dead Again and Frankenstein are particular culprits). As evidenced by Thor, he retains a penchant for Dutch angles but, that aside, he’s become fairly anonymous. It’s difficult to understand quite why Hollywood comes a-calling (well, you can see the kind of mindset that picked him for Thor; “Hey, isn’t Norse mythology kind of English? Let’s get that theatre guy”). Perhaps the suits thought he knew his spy yarns, except this doesn’t much resemble one. That Sir Ken’s next is Cinderella, his fourteenth feature, looks like a much better fit. Period trappings and an unhindered opportunity to position his camera at alarming angles. It will be his Prince and the ShowgirlKen’s at least lively as Cherevin, but the character and execution scream Bond baddie.


So Ryan’s bruising altercation as soon as he arrives at his hotel finds the picture upping a gear. Yes, it’s overly referencing Bourne and Bond, but this is involving enough that you only later question what you saw; did Ryan keep in combat training over the decade since he last saw action (“You’re not just an analyst any more. You’re an operative now” Harper tells him)? Likewise, his first encounter with Cherevin (Branagh hamming away with his Sunday best Brit Russian accent) occasionally provides a good line or two. Ostensibly discussing jetlag, Cherevin comments, “That first night can be brutal”. “I survived” rejoinders Ryan. Yes, his name’s Ryan, Jack Ryan.


But the gambit that allows Ryan to go rooting about in Cherevin’s draws doesn’t pass muster. It involves Ryan getting pissed and making a spectacle of himself so Cathy is left with budding lothario Cherevin. We can certainly believe Pine’s Ryan is capable of such laddish behaviour, which is part of the problem. Lip service is paid to the shock (and shaking hands) Ryan experiences following his first kill, but unlike previous incarnations he actually takes to this macho bullshit like a duck to water. We believe in Ryan as a covert jock much more than we do as a bookworm who rises to the occasion. And the trading of stories of war wounds received at separate Afghan conflicts is terribly clumsy. I can see why they couldn’t resist, but they still should have. Nevertheless, the break-in is dramatic and breathless, with Costner’s Harper displaying solid sniper skills.


Unfortunately, as soon as the plot reaches the capture of Ryan’s intended the writing is on the wall. Cherevin has a suitably grim desire to make her eat a light bulb (it looks like one of the energy-saving variety) and launches into autopilot rhetoric concerning his dedication to his country. It’s difficult to believe it wasn’t lifted verbatim from a script 40 years old. Jack is now in full on action mode when it comes to saving his wife, with a moustache-twirling response from Chervin (“The attack is going to happen, Ryan! You can’t stop it!”)


If you decide to stop watching at this point, you won’t be missing anything. Apart from the curious sight of Brookside’s Sinbad (Michael Starke) as “Auto-Plant Worker”. I had to IDMB him to make certain I wasn’t hallucinating. Perhaps the CIA’s skills at tracking down their suspect (Alec Utgoff) are intended as a validation of all that nasty mass surveillance from which there is no turning back. If so, Ryan and soon-to-be wifey’s plucked-from-the air-deductions (she sees a picture of Wall Street and realises that’s where they plan to blow shit up; hurrah!) rather work against this. Once Jack climbs astride a motorbike and races to a confrontation with the terror monger, any lingering hope of a respectable conclusion has vanished into the ether. Sticking to the dubious Dark Knight Returns template, Ryan even makes off solo with the bomb, risking life and limb for the sake of 100,000 potential victims (this bit was a reshoot). The final scene has Harper and Ryan awaiting an audience with the President. Now Ryan’s hand trembles out of nervousness at the prospect of meeting such a great man; no longer is it a response to inflicting violence on others. He’s grown, you see. When Harper calls him a boy scout on a field trip, you think, no; he’s a frat boy in a girls’ dormitory.


There are some distinctive choices here – the attempt to differentiate Ryan from his peers by positioning him in a devoted, loving relationship and giving it screen time is at least a start. Keira Knightley doesn’t have the range of Anne Archer, who was woefully underserved opposite the Harrison Ford Ryan, but she acquits herself reasonably given the deficient material. This may be because I used to grimace at her lack of discernable acting skills, so anything that doesn’t seem outrageously bad now seems competent.


One might have hoped the success of Tinker Tailor would have encourage a more literary approach to a character who is regarded as something of a thinking man’s antidote to Bond. No such luck. As for the setting, better use is made of Moscow than A Good Day to Die Hard, but it may be time to sit up and take notice that both movies singularly fail with Mother Russia (Ghost Protocol gets the sole credit of recent blockbusters).  


As for Costner, he isn’t really making the most of his second wind as a supporting player. He, and his rug, is aging very well, but he needs parts that service his laconic charm. He probably comes out of this better than any of his co-stars (except in the poster above, where he's been turned into Odo out of DS9), but the role itself is only what he brings to it; there’s nothing on the page. As such, it’s probably for the best if the rumoured spin-off featuring Harper doesn’t happen.


It’s debatable whether playing Clancy’s right wing hero has done any of the series’ leads any good. Baldwin’s potential as a star got stiffed almost as soon as he had his first big hit, and Connery stole the limelight anyway. Arguably, Harrison Ford’s decision to pick up Baldwin’s leftovers was the first sign of terminal career stupor. With no Indy he needed a franchise, but one that worked in favour of his tendency to sleepwalk was the worst decision he could have made. Affleck’s version arrived the same year as buddy Matt’s Jason Bourne, directly prior to a period where every choice Bennifer made seemed to spell the end of his career. He didn’t make anything of the part, which is probably why no one was itching for a return session (it did okay box office, though) And now Chris Pine, hopping from one Paramount franchise to another at either the behest of nurturing bigwigs or his agent. His career has turned into a bit of a mess; even his Kirk isn’t settling in as well as everyone hoped. Jack Ryan looks like he will be going back into mothballs. I doubt it will take another decade for him to resurface but, if the next move is as cobbled together as this, Paramount will have no joy with the character any time soon. Perhaps they should try him on TV. That might actually serve his more cerebral designs (which is not to suggest Clancy’s books are smart, but they have that intent), in contrast to his action-centric movies incarnations.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019)
(SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You're not only wrong. You're wrong at the top of your voice.

Bad Day at Black Rock (1955)
I’ve seen comments suggesting that John Sturges’ thriller hasn’t aged well, which I find rather mystifying. Sure, some of the characterisations border on the cardboard, but the director imbues the story with a taut, economical backbone. 

It looks like we’ve got another schizoid embolism!

Total Recall (1990)
(SPOILERS) Paul Verhoeven offered his post-mortem on the failures of the remakes of Total Recall (2012) and Robocop (2013) when he suggested “They take these absurd stories and make them too serious”. There may be something in this, but I suspect the kernel of their issues is simply filmmakers without either the smarts or vision, or both, to make something distinctive from the material. No one would have suggested the problem with David Cronenberg’s prospective Total Recall was over-seriousness, yet his version would have been far from a quip-heavy Raiders of the Lost Ark Go to Mars (as he attributes screenwriter Ron Shusset’s take on the material). Indeed, I’d go as far as saying not only the star, but also the director of Total Recall (1990) were miscast, making it something of a miracle it works to the extent it does.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

He tasks me. He tasks me, and I shall have him.

Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
(1982)
(SPOILERS) I don’t love Star Trek, but I do love Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. That probably isn’t just me, but a common refrain of many a non-devotee of the series. Although, it used to apply to The Voyage Home (the funny one, with the whales, the Star Trek even the target audience for Three Men and a Baby could enjoy). Unfortunately, its high regard has also become the desperate, self-destructive, song-and-verse, be-all-and-end-all of the overlords of the franchise itself, in whichever iteration, it seems. This is understandable to an extent, as Khan is that rare movie sequel made to transcendent effect on almost every level, and one that stands the test of time every bit as well (better, even) as when it was first unveiled.

I’m not the Jedi I should be.

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith (2005)
(SPOILERS) Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith is the only series entry (thus far) I haven’t seen at the cinema. After the first two prequels I felt no great urgency, and it isn’t an omission I’d be hugely disposed to redress for (say) a 12-hour movie marathon, were such a thing held in my vicinity. In the bare bones of Revenge of the Sith, however,George Lucas has probably the strongest, most confident of all Star Wars plots to date.

This is, after all, the reason we have the prequels in the first place; the genesis of Darth Vader, and the confrontation between Anakin and Obi Wan. That it ends up as a no more than middling movie is mostly due to Lucas’ gluttonous appetite for CGI (continuing reference to its corruptive influence is, alas, unavoidable here). But Episode III is also Exhibit A in a fundamental failure of casting and character work; this was the last chance to give Anakin Skywalker substance, to reveal his potential …

I take Quaaludes 10-15 times a day for my "back pain", Adderall to stay focused, Xanax to take the edge off, part to mellow me out, cocaine to wake me back up again, and morphine... Well, because it's awesome.

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
Along with Pain & Gain and The Great Gatsby, The Wolf of Wall Street might be viewed as the completion of a loose 2013 trilogy on the subject of success and excess; the American Dream gone awry. It’s the superior picture to its fellows, by turns enthralling, absurd, outrageous and hilarious. This is the fieriest, most deliriously vibrant picture from the director since the millennium turned. Nevertheless, stood in the company of Goodfellas, the Martin Scorsese film from which The Wolf of Wall Street consciously takes many of its cues, it is found wanting.

I was vaguely familiar with the title, not because I knew much about Jordan Belfort but because the script had been in development for such a long time (Ridley Scott was attached at one time). So part of the pleasure of the film is discovering how widely the story diverges from the Wall Street template. “The Wolf of Wall Street” suggests one who towers over the city like a behemoth, rather than a guy …

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded
The Premise
George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

How do you like that – Cuddles knew all the time!

The Pleasure Garden (1925)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s first credit as director, and his account of the production difficulties, as related to Francois Truffaut, is by and large more pleasurable than The Pleasure Garden itself. The Italian location shoot in involved the confiscation of undeclared film stock, having to recast a key role and borrowing money from the star when Hitch ran out of the stuff.

My dear, sweet brother Numsie!

The Golden Child (1986)
Post-Beverly Hills Cop, Eddie Murphy could have filmed himself washing the dishes and it would have been a huge hit. Which might not have been a bad idea, since he chose to make this misconceived stinker.