Tufts Film Series

Well, it’s no “Michael Clayton.” It would be unfair, however, to write off director Tony Gilroy’s second effort as the proverbial sophomore slump. Sure, it won’t be nominated for six Academy Awards or get him a nod for Best Director; in fact, it probably won’t be nominated for anything, but “Duplicity” never tries to be an award-winner.

Instead, it strikes a fairly effective balance between wit and intrigue, succeeding a good bit more in the former than the latter. When it comes down to it, “Duplicity” lives and dies by its stars. While they’re on screen, sparks fly. And when they’re not, they don’t. As long as the focus stays with the characters and doesn’t get bogged down in the intricacies of the plot, it’s admirable, interesting, and most importantly, enjoyable.

“Duplicity” follows the exploits of two cunning corporate spies (Clive Owen and Julia Roberts) with something of a past history. As it snakes its way through various twists and turns, they find themselves entangled not only in the ploys of two rival CEOs (Paul Giamatti and Tom Wilkinson), but within the complexities of their own relationship as well. The storyline is hardly what’s on display here though; the back-and-forth between Roberts and Owen is the main, and arguably the film’s only attraction.

For Owen, fresh off of a disappointingly mediocre performance in “The International,” it’s certainly a step up. If anything, it’s a bit of a return to form, and proof that he has the charisma to carry off the roguish persona he’s cast into. Roberts, however, seems a bit more restrained. Her role here certainly doesn’t grant her the character and presence she had in “Charlie Wilson’s War,” but she’s clearly on her game, and the two play off of each other well.

Tom Wilkinson, though, is criminally underused, and appears in only a handful of scenes. Gilroy should know better than anyone what a talented actor he is; his brief appearance in “Michael Clayton” was phenomenal. His was by far the film’s most memorable character, despite Tilda Swinton’s win for Best Supporting Actress. Even the scenes in “Duplicity” that he does appear in never showcase his strengths, making his presence here mostly unrealized potential.

What Gilroy does carry through quite successfully, however, are the witty, sharply-written exchanges between Roberts and Owen. From the opening scene, he establishes an entertaining dynamic between the two, one that makes for some excellent interchanges early on and more than a few fantastic lines. The trouble is, the best of these moments are in the film’s first half, making its later stages a bit of a letdown, especially after showing such promise early on.

The plot, too, sets itself up for a share of intriguing possibilities, but never quite makes good on them. For all its changes in direction and attempts at suspense, it never goes anywhere unexpected or does anything that hasn’t been done before. Even its significant twists in the latter half never manage to create any real surprise, and instead end up feeling obligatory. So, while serviceable, it’s hardly a storyline that will make any sort of lasting impression.

And honestly, the same could be said about “Duplicity.” It’s a film that won’t really go down as much more than a footnote in the careers of those involved, a solid filmmaking effort that, overall, neither manages to impress nor disappoint. It’s an experience that’s simultaneously satisfying and forgettable, with a plot that never manages to be quite engaging enough, and performances that, while entertaining, just aren’t impressive enough to elevate it in the quiet months leading up to the blockbusters of the summer box office.

- John-Michael Sequeira

“Taken” is the type of film that could only be made in America: there are fistfights, chase sequences, and shootouts throughout. Don’t forget that body count either. And all this at the expense of believable characters, emotional depth, and most importantly, an interesting plot. Which makes it all the more curious that its director, Pierre Morel, is French.

Morel, whose directorial debut was the parkour-infused beat-‘em-up “District B13,” doesn’t stray far from what he knows best. “Taken” has a lot less parkour, but only marginally more intelligence.

It’s the story of spy-turned-retiree Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson), whose daughter Kim (Maggie Grace) finds her European vacation cut short by a gang of kidnappers with an eye for human trafficking. Her father, who happens to be on the phone with her at the time of said kidnapping, vows to do anything in his power to find her, all while promising some very nasty retribution.

Kim’s abduction, however, acts as little more than a plot device; its emotional impact is almost entirely glossed over. Yes, the mother and stepfather (Famke Janssen and Xander Berkeley) act as distraught as could be expected, but “Taken” doesn’t play to emotion, it goes straight for the jugular. Accordingly, Bryan’s reaction isn’t one of helpless mourning: he takes the first flight to Paris and puts on his brass knuckles.

The film’s early attempts at character-building not only suffer from contrived, uninteresting writing, but one scene in particular, in which Bryan tries his hand at concert security, is so absurd that it’s unintentionally comic. The script deserves the majority of the blame, but Maggie Grace isn’t doing herself any favors here. Her portrayal of 17-year-old Kim isn’t just distractingly bad, she plays the character far younger than she should, and Kim comes across frustratingly immature as a result.

Poor acting aside, the major flaw here doesn’t lie with the story itself but with its execution. The plot has been designed to maximize the potential for action sequences in favor of creating authentic characters. And at a slim 91 minutes, it has to choose one or the other. The result is a fairly one-dimensional cast that awkwardly steps out of the way to let the action take over.

The problem is, once it does, it’s not all that impressive. Sure, the gunfights are serviceable, and Bryan’s one-punch knockouts are entertaining at first, but there’s not a memorable scene to be had here. And one month from now, “Taken” won’t even be worth a second thought, because everything it does has been done before, and done better. The “Bourne” series, which has a similarly kinetic style, has it outgunned in terms of storyline, believability, interesting characters, and pure visceral fun.

A significant underlying factor here is that “Taken” tries to force its basic storyline, which has plenty of dramatic potential, into the narrow mold of an action film. Morel clearly understands how to shoot an action sequence; he doesn’t understand drama. He never succeeds in making the audience empathize with his characters in large part because he doesn’t try to. He’s content with using stock characters because they allow him room for more chase scenes, more fistfights, and more nameless henchmen being offed.

Which is a shame really, because “Taken” could have been so much more. Its central idea, and the story of an estranged father seeking redemption by finding his daughter, could have been the subject of a compelling drama. Take away the car chases, the bodies, and the breakneck pace; slow things down, let the man show how he’s feeling, give Neeson a chance to act. But Morel never takes his finger off fast-forward, and the film is all the worse for it.

- John-Michael Sequeira