Don Cheadle shines (as usual) in the most informative thriller you’ll see this year.
Sometimes there are no easy answers. Traitor is either an unevenly paced international spy thriller with too much discussion or the most action-packed International Cultures seminar you’ll attend this year. Finely acted, even-handed, and well-considered to a fault, it’s mature and articulate enteratinment shackled by too many spy movie genre conventions that feel too familiar to take seriously. Luckily it has Don Cheadle, who by now seems incapable of giving a bad performance.
The marketing campaign representing the film as a kind of Middle East Bourne Identity doesn’t do the complex premise and plot any justice. Cheadle plays Samir Horn, a devoutly Muslim but morally conflicted ex-U.S. Army demolitions expert who’s ostensibly fallen into the morally nebulous enterprise of selling explosives to terrorist groups in Yemen and elswhere. Except he’s actually deep, deep undercover and answerable only to a Washington-based intelligence contractor (Jeff Daniels) who hasn’t informed his superiors of Horn’s status. As Horn burrows deeper into a terrorist cell intent on murdering dozens of Americans on Thanksgiving Day, he becomes pursued by a FBI agent (Guy Pearce) with a few theological reservations of his own.
To its credit, the film as written and directed by Jeffrey Nachmanoff forsakes gratuitous action and computer-generated explosions in favor of character development and unadorned, brutal but not graphic violence. The explosions, when they occur, are not used as license for gratuitous gore, either, and the restraint is both intelligent and seemingly deliberate. Even the fist fights are uncomplicated and painful. Two major plot twists late in the third act, while not quite earned by the narrative arc, are nonetheless honestly jolting – you’ll be holding your breath both times.
Ultimately and sadly, Traitor betrays itself when Nachmanoff et al. realize they have to have a movie amid all the foreign policy and theological rumination. And here the generic face of too many of the story elements drag the more intelligent parts down. For however many times you’ve seen Islam objectively presented in a Western action film, you’ve seen the film’s exposition-focused segments at FBI Headquarters and the pat denouement fifty times. The total result is like opening a theology textbook only to find a Robert Ludlum novel squeezed into the middle – or vice versa, because the script wants to walk that fine line all through its runtime.
Nevertheless, the film is redeemed by the strength of its performances. Cheadle plays the tortured Horn as a man always disconnected from his surroundings. Even his speech patterns are clipped, as he frequently leaves conversations with one crucial line of dialogue seemingly left unsaid. Pearce is oddly compelling as a southern-fried FBI agent in love with Arabic culture. The film’s secret weapon, however, may be Said Taghmaoui as the terrorist cell field leader Omar. Taghmaoui, unforgettable a decade ago as the widowed and grieving Iraqi interrogator in Three Kings, brings the same depth and sense of conflict to this role. He and Cheadle build their characters’ friendship not on bravado or macho posturing but on mutual respect, so that Horn’s conflict becomes that much more tense for the audience to witness. It’s a sublte performance in a film that’s anything but.
Like 2006’s Breach, Traitor is a spy thriller for the audience willing to wait for a payoff. That the payoff is sugar-coated by a flawed and cliche ending is almost inconsequential after hours of gaining insight into one of the largest cultural problems of our age. And as with Breach, it’ll likely be misunderstood by the public expecting something else, becoming a 9.99 DVD in practically no time flat. What a shame. An action film with something besides carnage on its mind – though recognizing that carnage’s indelible human cost - Traitor is worth seeing. Come for the action, but stay for the ideas.












Posted by Screaming Blue Reviews 







Posted by Screaming Blue Reviews
It’s an open secret that Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro aren’t what they used to be. Pacino has written too many checks on his “hoo hah” acting account, and DeNiro’s spent much of the last decade making crappy comedies where he mostly just squints and intimidates Ben Stiller or Billy Crystal. In other words, they’re both often seen as either coasting, actively trying to avoid the Thalberg Award, or simply gone greedy in their advancing years.
Ostensibly intended as a twisting story of conflicting loyalties and “shades of gray” veracity set among the police rank and file, the film boasts a script by Russell Gewirtz, who also wrote the Spike Lee bank heist thriller Inside Man. There’s a talented supporting cast, too, even if it reads more like the ensemble of an A-list TV drama than the cast of a major motion picture: Carla Gugino, Donnie Wahlberg, Melissa Leo, and Brian Dennehy among others. That may partly be the decision of director Jon Avnet, who’s directed television both great (Boomtown) and painful (The Starter Wife.) Avnet also directed Pacino’s recent 88 Minutes, which while widely derided as airport-paperback diversionary trash was actually entertaining in its own lowbrow way.
Actually, the film will have to be very good in order to make itself a box office presence. In another September, Righteous Kill might even dominate the new release playing field. But this particular fall it faces stiff competition from more pedigreed projects, including the Coen Brother’s Burn After Reading (with George Clooney and Brad Pitt) and the Ed Harris-Viggo Mortensen Western Appaloosa. Still, twenty years from now (hell, ten) Pacino and DeNiro won’t be remembered for such twaddle as Two For the Money or Analyze That. They’ll be rightly remembered for their classic works, and this one film will likely make little dent in that hindsight one way or another. There’s enough of an afterglow from Heat, Taxi Driver and Dog Day Afternoon and all their other works that’ll draw some audiences back. Even if many of them checked out Burn After Reading first.
Posted by Screaming Blue Reviews
It’s a bit difficult to think of a reason why the animated Star Wars: The Clone Wars was even necessary in the first place. Great piles of comics, novels, and video games have explored the years between the second and third prequels, in which it takes place. In fact, there’s even a cartoon showing Anakin’s exploits during that same period already: a brutally mediocre series of short films broadcast sporadically on Cartoon Network between 2003 and 2005. And God knows George Lucas doesn’t need the money. So why release this stiff, oversimplified hunk of a movie now, in late summer?


































