I saw this movie today, the day after it opened in the US in general release. And have to say that this is perhaps one of the worst movies I have seen in years.
The trailer led me to think that this might be a geopolitical action movie of some kind. Think "The Ugly American" or Redford's "The Candidate." It turned out to be a movie consisting almost exclusively of Larry King / Charlie Rose - style "talking head" dialog scenes: long scenes, containing the most contrived debate/discussion material. One such extended debate - lasting, unbelievably, with cuts in and out, through about 2/3 of the movie, takes place in Washington DC, between a US Senator played by Tom Cruise, and a prominent network journalist played by Meryl Streep. The other, extending even longer, takes place in California between a professor played by Robert Redford, and a student played by Andrew Garfield.
The script was poor, containing little beyond this poor quality dialog. The "talking head" scenes are scripted with extraordinarily contrived, and extraordinarily boring, material. The plot was almost non-existent and lacked credibility in even very basic features. For example, we are supposed to believe that a smart, bright US Senator is going to choose a journalist who is diametrically opposed to what he stands for in order to float a "new strategy" in an exclusive interview.
The movie provides some action type footage in Afghanistan, but it is very under-developed, in service to the bi-polar State-side "talking heads" dialog sets.
Characters were stereotypical. Tha acting by the "big name" actors was competent but wooden, reflecting the wooden script with which they had to deal. Acting by the minor and support cast was actually far better than that of Redford, Streep, and Cruise. Andrew Garfield's Todd was portrayed with skill and commitment and believability that shone all the brighter given the poor quality of the dialog he reads to us opposite the remarkably disengaged and unbelievable professor played by Redford.
Cinematography was competent and uninteresting, consistent with the "talking heads" format of the movie. Scenery in Afghanistan showed early promise, but subsequent wintry scenes were poorly set, unengaging, and not generally credible.
My advice, if you like this kind of "talking heads" matter, is to skip the movie and watch Larry King or Charlie Rose or any number of other TV or radio interview/debate shows which at least, to their credit, provide some degree of believable, spontaneous dialog.
The trailer led me to think that this might be a geopolitical action movie of some kind. Think "The Ugly American" or Redford's "The Candidate." It turned out to be a movie consisting almost exclusively of Larry King / Charlie Rose - style "talking head" dialog scenes: long scenes, containing the most contrived debate/discussion material. One such extended debate - lasting, unbelievably, with cuts in and out, through about 2/3 of the movie, takes place in Washington DC, between a US Senator played by Tom Cruise, and a prominent network journalist played by Meryl Streep. The other, extending even longer, takes place in California between a professor played by Robert Redford, and a student played by Andrew Garfield.
The script was poor, containing little beyond this poor quality dialog. The "talking head" scenes are scripted with extraordinarily contrived, and extraordinarily boring, material. The plot was almost non-existent and lacked credibility in even very basic features. For example, we are supposed to believe that a smart, bright US Senator is going to choose a journalist who is diametrically opposed to what he stands for in order to float a "new strategy" in an exclusive interview.
The movie provides some action type footage in Afghanistan, but it is very under-developed, in service to the bi-polar State-side "talking heads" dialog sets.
Characters were stereotypical. Tha acting by the "big name" actors was competent but wooden, reflecting the wooden script with which they had to deal. Acting by the minor and support cast was actually far better than that of Redford, Streep, and Cruise. Andrew Garfield's Todd was portrayed with skill and commitment and believability that shone all the brighter given the poor quality of the dialog he reads to us opposite the remarkably disengaged and unbelievable professor played by Redford.
Cinematography was competent and uninteresting, consistent with the "talking heads" format of the movie. Scenery in Afghanistan showed early promise, but subsequent wintry scenes were poorly set, unengaging, and not generally credible.
My advice, if you like this kind of "talking heads" matter, is to skip the movie and watch Larry King or Charlie Rose or any number of other TV or radio interview/debate shows which at least, to their credit, provide some degree of believable, spontaneous dialog.