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 writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Right! Let’s restore some bloody logic!

It Couldn't Happen Here (1987)
(SPOILERS) "I think our film is arguably better than Spiceworld" said Neil Tennant of his and Chris Lowe's much-maligned It Couldn't Happen Here, a quasi-musical, quasi-surrealist journey through the English landscape via the Pet shop Boys' "own" history as envisaged by co-writer-director Jack Bond. Of course, Spiceworld could boast the presence of the illustrious Richard E Grant, while It Couldn't Happen Here had to settle for Gareth Hunt. Is its reputation deserved? It's arguably not very successful at being a coherent film (even thematically), but I have to admit that I rather like it, ramshackle and studiously aloof though it is.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …

You kind of look like a slutty Ebola virus.

Crazy Rich Asians (2018)
(SPOILERS) The phenomenal success of Crazy Rich Asians – in the US at any rate, thus far – might lead one to think it's some kind of startling original, but the truth is, whatever its core demographic appeal, this adaptation of Kevin Kwan's novel taps into universally accepted romantic comedy DNA and readily recognisable tropes of family and class, regardless of cultural background. It emerges a smoothly professional product, ticking the expected boxes in those areas – the heroine's highs, lows, rejections, proposals, accompanied by whacky scene-stealing best friend – even if the writing is sometimes a little on the clunky side.

They make themselves now.

Screamers (1995)
(SPOILERS) Adapting Philip K Dick isn’t as easy as it may seem, but that doesn't stop eager screenwriters from attempting to hit that elusive jackpot. The recent Electric Dreams managed to exorcise most of the existential gymnastics and doubts that shine through in the best versions of his work, leaving material that felt sadly facile. Dan O'Bannon had adapted Second Variety more than a decade before it appeared as Screamers, a period during which he and Ronald Shusett also turned We Can Remember It For You Wholesale into Total Recall. So the problem with Screamers isn't really the (rewritten) screenplay, which is more faithful than most to its source material (setting aside). The problem with Screamers is largely that it's cheap as chips.

Well, we took a vote. Predator’s cooler, right?

The Predator (2018)
(SPOILERS) Is The Predator everything you’d want from a Shane Black movie featuring a Predator (or Yautja, or Hish-Qu-Ten, apparently)? Emphatically not. We've already had a Shane Black movie featuring a Predator – or the other way around, at least – and that was on another level. The problem – aside from the enforced reshoots, and the not-altogether-there casting, and the possibility that full-on action extravaganzas, while delivered competently, may not be his best foot forward – is that I don't think Black's really a science-fiction guy, game as he clearly was to take on the permanently beleaguered franchise. He makes The Predator very funny, quite goofy, very gory, often entertaining, but ultimately lacking a coherent sense of what it is, something you couldn't say of his three prior directorial efforts.

My pectorals may leave much to be desired, Mrs Peel, but I’m the most powerful man you’ve ever run into.

The Avengers 2.23: The Positive-Negative Man
If there was a lesson to be learned from Season Five, it was not to include "man" in your title, unless it involves his treasure. The See-Through Man may be the season's stinker, but The Positive-Negative Man isn't far behind, a bog-standard "guy with a magical science device uses it to kill" plot. A bit like The Cybernauts, but with Michael Latimer painted green and a conspicuous absence of a cool hat.

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

The possibilities are gigantic. In a very small way, of course.

The Avengers 5.24: Mission… Highly Improbable
With a title riffing on a then-riding-high US spy show, just as the previous season's The Girl from Auntie riffed on a then-riding-high US spy show, it's to their credit that neither have even the remotest connection to their "inspirations" besides the cheap gags (in this case, the episode was based on a teleplay submitted back in 1964). Mission… Highly Improbable follows in the increasing tradition (certainly with the advent of Season Five and colour) of SF plotlines, but is also, in its particular problem with shrinkage, informed by other recent adventurers into that area.

What a truly revolting sight.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge (aka Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales) (2017)
(SPOILERS) The biggest mistake the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels have made is embracing continuity. It ought to have been just Jack Sparrow with an entirely new cast of characters each time (well, maybe keep Kevin McNally). Even On Stranger Tides had Geoffrey Rush obligatorily returning as Barbossa. Although, that picture’s biggest problem was its director; Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge has a pair of solid helmers in Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg, which is a relief at least. But alas, the continuity is back with a vengeance. And then some. Why, there’s even an origin-of-Jack Sparrow vignette, to supply us with prerequisite, unwanted and distracting uncanny valley (or uncanny Johnny) de-aging. The movie as a whole is an agreeable time passer, by no means the dodo its critical keelhauling would suggest, albeit it isn’t even pretending to try hard to come up with …