The Interpreter

**tabuno** · 04-07-2005, 11:29 PM

The Interpreter appears to be this year's Bourne Identity action/mystery thriller. Both are grounded on big powered, serious production values. [However, this movie still seems to be a remake of some earlier movie back in the 60, 70, 80s that I can't recall]. I assume that this movie will rank in the top tier of movies for the year (though perhaps not any Oscar nominations, it's not designed or produced for such an award). Interesting - can or are most movies actually designed for awards that actually get nominated for them?

**tabuno** · 04-23-2005, 02:23 AM

Spoiler

Thirty years after his "Three Days of Condor" starring Robert Redford, Sydney Pollack has successfully captured the constant background tension and angst of terror, fear, and unpredictability in the face of the unknown and possible mayhem and murder. From the very beginning credits and opening scene, the audience is thrust into a very serious movie of sudden and deadly consequences. The Interpreter focuses on acting and performance, the impending possiblities instead of the typical action and special effect stunts. This is a character-driven movie where the lead characters are themselves haunted people and as such the interaction between them is much more subtle and difficult than in most movies of this type. The interplay between Nicole Kidman and Sean Penn especially at the beginning is fascinating and compelling. As the plot unfolds, unlike National Treasure, The Interpreter is about trust and devious revelations not super fantastic discoveries.

The setting of the United Nations, the Bourne Supremacy pacing and background of security measures is fresh and exciting. The build-ups and action scenes are both measured and carefully executed, but well-paced. There are good moments of silence where the audience only experiencing the performance, the visual behavior, the more nuanced acting abilities that are never over the top - but finely portrayed. From beginning to end, this movie avoids the typical stereotypes, plays it seriously, and includes moments of frustrating irritation at the circumstances and obnoxious behaviors (particularly by Sean Penn as an unsympathetic, skeptical secret service agent) and the more mysterious Nicole Kidman (similar to her role in "The Birthday Girl," 2001, where Mr. Pollack took producer credit). This movie is haunting at times with emotional sympathy for both characters who reveal their respective pasts. This is an adult movie without the typical fireworks and unbelieveable stunts. This is real movie-making, making it for me one of the best movies of the year so far.

**trevor826** · 04-24-2005, 04:14 AM

I found it very average and quite formulaic, comparisons with The Bourne Identity are fair enough because again that was a slightly above average film at best.

The bus explosion was something though, does anyone know what amount of this was CGI?

Cheers Trev.

**tabuno** · 04-24-2005, 12:00 PM

trevor826 "I found it very average and quite formulaic, comparisons with The Bourne Identity are fair enough because again that was a slightly above average film at best."

tabuno: So often it's so safe to make general comments that nobody can really discuss such a comment because there's nothing to really respond to. If other readers want to assume the reputation of the poster as a good basis to make decisions regarding a movie so be it. But, I would much rather have a Chris Knipp response because he is able to make a person think and appreciate different points of view and advance critical movie discussion. If one has already made previous comments to which nothing was directly responded to, then such discussion leads nowhere, for no purpose, and my effort in essence was a waste of time.

All I can say is that the emotional tension and set up in this movie is something that I have not experience in any movie for a long time and just by this statement, I found this movie NOT to be very average and the formula was in its approach not in its plot devices that made it one of the best movies of the year so far which apparently was not disputed.

**arsaib4** · 04-24-2005, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by tabuno
So often it's so safe to make general comments that nobody can really discuss such a comment because there's nothing to really respond to. If other readers want to assume the reputation of the poster as a good basis to make decisions regarding a movie so be it. But, I would much rather have a Chris Knipp response because he is able to make a person think and appreciate different points of view and advance critical movie discussion. If one has already made previous comments to which nothing was directly responded to, then such discussion leads nowhere, for no purpose, and my effort in essence was a waste of time.

I highly recommend that you join Chris Knipp's forum if you're that enamored with what he has to say and only want to have him respond to your posts. If you found Trevor's reply to be a bit too "general" then I think you should make a little more effort to involve him in a discussion by asking him why he found the film "average and formulaic."

**trevor826** · 04-24-2005, 03:23 PM

Thanks Arsaib4, Tabuno this is my problem, if I hate a film say "Sahara" it's easy to list it's faults. If I love a film such as 3-Iron, again it's easy to say why.

When I come out of a screening and the only feeling I have is sort of "ho-hum I can't say it was bad but it's like any number of films I've seen before, no surprises, actors capable of far more, no palpable moments of tension" I find it hard to write anything more than "average and formulaic" because to me that's exactly what it was.

You thought it was great, some people may hate it but for me it did nothing.

Cheers Trev.

**tabuno** · 04-24-2005, 11:28 PM

arsaib4 "If you found Trevor's reply to be a bit too "general" then I think you should make a little more effort to involve him in a discussion by asking him why he found the film "average and formulaic."

trevor826 "When I come out of a screening and the only feeling I have is sort of "ho-hum I can't say it was bad but it's like any number of films I've seen before, no surprises, actors capable of far more, no palpable moments of tension" I find it hard to write anything more than "average and formulaic" because to me that's exactly what it was."

tabuno: Well arsaib4, you can see what I mean if you look at trevor826 reply. He doesn't really offer much in the way to respond to unlike Chris Knipp. trevor826 failed to describe what formula that this movie follows which I would believe would be simple enough to do. He listed no number of films like he's seen before that I can comment on. He doesn't define average nor does he respond to what I consider a distinctive elaboration of how Sydney Pollack extensively used facial expressions instead of the verbal dialogue and the rather interesting window to window scene technique in this movie. If trevor826 fails to elaborate I can only hope that other readers will take my more explicit comments and make up their minds about this movie themselves. trevor826 relies too much on reputation rather than discussion using a simple dismissal.

The movie held tension throughout for me, I was fascinated by how the plot unraveled. Perhaps, there comes a point when a person reaches a certain level...like experiencing what heaven or Eden might be like. My wife says because she has traveled all over the world and tasted the exquisite flavors of foreign chefs that there holds little enjoyment in the ordinary cuisine of our local area. There is an episode where Buffy the Vampire Slayer is saved from death by Willow not knowing that she was saving Buffy from eternal bliss and that reality was hell. Yet when, even average movies fail to impress, perhaps it says more about the person than the movie.

**tabuno** · 04-24-2005, 11:40 PM

According to both Box Office Guru (Gitesh Pandya) this movie was skewed and deliberately so towards older women, though it appears based on IMDb that it had its greatest impact on younger females and received general positive reviews. Because this movie was mainstream, wide-release by nature the contents and cinematic approach tends towards the middle, however, I believe that Sydney Pollack was able to use a formula piece to good effect. In fact now that I think about it, the whole notion of formula is a red-herring I believe. We all know that between the Bible and Shakespeare, the Odyssey and the Iliad that every story that can be told has been told, so that in essence everything we experience is based on some formula. It's in the presentation and approach that really makes the movie nowadays.

I would be as interested in knowing what isn't formulaic by definition and how could anyone every describe it anyway then. If it isn't somewhat formulaic either nobody would want to see it or if they did, probably wouldn't understand it, rendering the whole notion of mass communication moot.

It is curious that among this website I have yet to find very many females on this site...possibly a disturbing fact, suggesting that maybe an important psychological component of film discussion is missing here.

**trevor826** · 04-25-2005, 03:36 AM

"The good thing for me is I'm a film enthusiast, not an expert so my views are purely my own and don't matter in the great scheme of things."

This was the end note I used on another film site, it was and is true, I am not a critic but I do have an opinion.

tabuno: Well arsaib4, you can see what I mean if you look at trevor826 reply. He doesn't really offer much in the way to respond to unlike Chris Knipp.

Fair enough, I'm not Chris Knipp and while I respect his views I don't always agree with them, also see my first paragraph I wasn't offering a critique, it was how the film left me feeling.

trevor826 failed to describe what formula that this movie follows which I would believe would be simple enough to do.

I use formulaic to describe a film that holds no surprises, where you can see the direction it's taking before it gets there. If I started a list it would be very long. Formulaic isn't neccessarily bad but it can be boring, that's down to the direction and editing.

He doesn't define average

"When I come out of a screening and the only feeling I have is sort of "ho-hum I can't say it was bad but it's like any number of films I've seen before, no surprises, actors capable of far more, no palpable moments of tension" . A film I neither like or dislike, love or hate that basically does nothing for me, AVERAGE.

If you can't accept that then try this dictionary definition:

lacking special distinction, rank, or status; commonly encountered; "average people"; "the ordinary (or common) man in the street"
of no exceptional quality or ability; "a novel ( or film) of average merit";

If trevor826 fails to elaborate I can only hope that other readers will take my more explicit comments and make up their minds about this movie themselves.

So do I, nobody should not see a film based on my opinion, at least we agree there.

trevor826 relies too much on reputation

I'm sorry this did bring a smile to my face, I have no reputation (at least not on this site) and if I did have one it would probably be as an awkward son of a bitch.

The movie held tension throughout for me, I was fascinated by how the plot unraveled.

I know you enjoyed the film (as does everyone else who has read this thread) and I'm positive it'll do well at the box office. But that doesn't alter my own opinion and that seems to be hard for you to accept.

Looking at your profile you list 5 films under your favourites, 3 of them I like a lot - Dr. Zhivago, Alien, Picnic at Hanging Rock, 1 of the others I've never seen, Nomads. I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on The Interptreter after all it's only a film, not the be all and end all of life.

Cheers Trev.

**oscar jubis** · 04-25-2005, 10:24 AM

I was trying to decide whether to watch it at a theatre or wait for the dvd but my wife bailed me out. She goes to the cinema only about thrice a month and she favors this film's genre. I find it hard to believe that Pollack, Penn and Kidman have strictly adhered to a formula. But maybe they have, which would be a disappointment.

Originally posted by tabuno
It is curious that among this website I have yet to find very many females on this site...possibly a disturbing fact, suggesting that maybe an important psychological component of film discussion is missing here.

None of the female members, including my daughter who only posts when she feels passionate about a film (Eternal Sunshine, The Virgin Suicides, The Color of Paradise), have become what I'd call "regulars". I wouldn't want to say that gender is necessarily an influence on the type of contribution a member would make to this site (I'm not certain "an important psychological component of film discussion is missing here"). Then again, there's no doubt that females are not equally represented amongst members and that their participation ought to be encouraged.

**trevor826** · 04-25-2005, 01:41 PM

I find it hard to believe that Pollack, Penn and Kidman have strictly adhered to a formula.

Kidman - Great actress
Penn - Arguably one of the best actors of his generation
Pollack - Recent films include the awful Random Hearts and a poor remake of Sabrina

For me any blame has to lie fair and square with the man in charge.

Oscar, I hope your wife does enjoy the film.

Sydney Pollack extensively used facial expressions instead of the verbal dialogue

Tabuno, please watch 3-Iron if you get the chance you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Cheers Trev.

**arsaib4** · 04-25-2005, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by trevor826
...watch 3-Iron if you get the chance you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Ahhh, 3-Iron, now that's a great film!

**tabuno** · 04-25-2005, 08:03 PM

trevor826 and his retorts to my retorts to his retorts to my retorts I admit are a gentleman's response with all the gracious courtesy and respect that his upbringing has apparently and bountifully provided to him.

**hengcs** · 05-13-2005, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by trevor826

Kidman - Great actress
Penn - Arguably one of the best actors of his generation
Pollack - Recent films include the awful Random Hearts and a poor remake of Sabrina
For me any blame has to lie fair and square with the man in charge.

(edited)

Tabuno, please watch 3-Iron if you get the chance you'll be pleasantly surprised.

oh no ... tabuno ... you are gonna hate me too ...
ha ha ha

because I also find the movie a let down ...
(I will write more about it later; otherwise, none of you can retort anything ... ha ha ha)

anyway, I like the actor/actress (e.g., Sean Penn, and Nicole Kidman), but I think the way it is scripted, directed, and filmed just did not work out as a whole ...
-- the plot and pacing did not draw me in (as a thriller)
-- nor did the movie made me tear (as a drama)
-- nor did the movie made me sit back, ponder and think (as a philosophical movie) ...

Maybe, it tries too hard to get across the message that "communication", "words", "forgiveness/justice", "we can make a change", etc are important ...

Maybe I set my expectations too high prior to the movie (much more since the UN was kind to allow the use of their facilities ...)

hmmm ... I guess I will demand a lot from Da Vinci Code too ...

PS: I also agree 3 Iron is very good.

**tabuno** · 05-14-2005, 05:24 PM

hengcs: I like the actor/actress (e.g., Sean Penn, and Nicole Kidman), but I think the way it is scripted, directed, and filmed just did not work out as a whole ...
-- the plot and pacing did not draw me in (as a thriller)
-- nor did the movie made me tear (as a drama)
-- nor did the movie made me sit back, ponder and think (as a philosophical movie) ...
Maybe, it tries too hard to get across the message that "communication", "words", "forgiveness/justice", "we can make a change", etc are important ...

Tab Uno: I can agree with you about your drama and philosophical movie assessments. The movie didn't really tear me up as Crash did nor did it require much deep thought in terms of the big questions that Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy dealth with. In fact, I don't know if I want a thriller to include any of these two other components - it would make for a relatively bad movie with the tears and thoughts interferring with the movie's plot and pacing.

However, I did find like Three Days of Condor or any thriller (The Bourne Identity), it drew me in from the very opening scenes of murder and death (the unexpected source from which the murders took place) pulled me into thinking and rightly so, anybody could be killed. Who's side was Nicole on? What were the connections. Unlike an action-thriller, this movie needs to be experienced as a singular thriller without need for a lot of action. It is the set up, the mystery, the slow build up and unfolding that I enjoyed. I had a chance to really fill the tension, the unanswered questions instead of having to be bombarded with action and activity that wouldn't allow me anytime to grow with fear and uncertainty as this movie did.