Skip to main content

Tonight, you will kill America's President.

Salt
(Director’s Cut)
(2010)

(SPOILERS) Not so many years back, if you wanted a kickass female action hero, you called popular alleged Illuminati Satanist Angelina Jolie’s agent before Charlize Theron’s. She was Lara Croft – the big screen original, for what that’s worth (not much) – met Brad Pitt while trying to shoot him up, and tutored James McAvoy in the ways of the super assassin. Salt was the last such vehicle she headlined and seems to have received its share of invective over the years, but it’s one I rather liked, a ludicrously pulpy spy thriller – whatever surface comparisons were made with sleeper poster girl Anna Chapman were just that – that refused to stint on, relished even, its absurd developments and proceeded to its destination at a breakneck pace. Having heard the Director’s Cut improved on a few things, I thought I’d give it a look.


I’m not sure it does, really. It’s about the same all in all, but with a twist ending that invokes, of all movies, G.I. Joe: Rise of the Cobra (it is a decent twist, to be fair), as it’s implied the new US President is another sleeper agent (the picture was already in danger of reaching Murder on the Orient Express levels of having virtually everyone in positions of power in on it). Ironically, this seems exactly the sort of cliffhanger you’d expect franchise-minded studio heads to favour, yet they wet with the much less intriguing open one in the theatrical cut, simply having Salt leap out of a helicopter, with Chiwetel Eijofor’s permission, in order to track down remaining KA-12 agents; they also opted for it over the more final Extended Edition in which, rather than killing Orlov (Daniel Olbrychski), on the barge prior to the climactic sequence, she does so after escaping, blowing up the sleeper training facility to boot. Which is all a bit too neat and pat.


I well recall the movie’s sometime development hell, with it initially announced as a Tom Cruise vehicle under the title Edwin A Salt about three years before it eventually got made and released (Cruise ultimately opted out because he felt Salt was too close to Ethan Hunt – which didn’t stop him from making Knight and Day instead). Kurt Wimmer penned the screenplay, one of his better post-Equilibrium forays, which include dire remakes (Total Recall and Point Break) and hacky genre vehicles (Street Kings, Law Abiding Citizen). He reportedly had his draft for Salt 2 nixed by Jolie back in 2012, but if there’s little chance of it being revived with its original star, never fear, as Sony has a TV version planned.


Philip Noyce, a director as comfortable making smaller, more politicised pictures (Rabbit Proof Fence, The Quiet American) as journeyman Hollywood blockbusters, had previously worked with Jolie on the execrable The Bone Collector, and does a more than presentable job here. The key to Salt’s success is ensuring it maintains such a pace that you don’t have sufficient time to debate its debatable plot progressions, almost all of which require incredibly unlikely circumstances to align at precise intersections in order to play out as they do. Noyce succeeds admirably, and the picture comes in at such a tidy length (still just 104 minutes in the longer Director’s Cut) that you’d assume, in the current age of bloat, it had been hacked to pieces by the studio (there were reshoots, but the studio was quite confident about the $110m budget picture, which went on to make almost $300m worldwide).


It might have been more interesting if Salt had no qualms about being a Russian sleeper and was all for carrying out her mission (certainly, her wet blanket arachnologist husband (August Diehl) does nothing to convince us she’d switch allegiances for love). Or even more so if the Director’s Cut had Liev Schreiber’s also-sleeper agent and CIA colleague Ted Winter besting her (I know, that was never going to happen). Or he’d been the focus of the plot (Schreiber had already played a sleeper in Jonathan Demme’s The Manchurian Candidate remake half a decade earlier), since Schreiber has a tendency to seemingly effortlessly wrestle attention from his lead co-star any time he’s in anything, and Salt is no exception. The most fun to be had in the movie is when he reveals his true status and promptly goes kill crazy on a room filled with presidential staff. And President.


One might argue the McGuffin objective of the plot (aiming nuclear missiles at Mecca and Tehran so as to “enrage two billion Muslins”) is rather redundant, since the US has achieved that objective with no outside interference, but this is Hollywood fantasy, logic being entirely by the by. Jolie’s expectedly impassive in the lead, which suits the performance, although her thrashing about with those stick-thin arms and legs in action scenes takes a bit of getting used to. On the Ethan Hunt comparison front, at one point she dons prosthetics to infiltrate the White House that leave her looking surprisingly(?) like her brother. Ejiofor provides solid support in a thankless role, Andre Braugher is blink and you’ll miss him, while Corey Stoll shows us he didn’t have any hair long before he was getting lead roles. Salt’s good fun, despite the naysayers, and you could do worse than take in a double bill of this and Atomic Blonde. Which cut, though? There isn’t much in it, but I’d avoid the Extended.



Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

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 can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds . Juno and the Paycock , set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.