Director Report Card: Tony Scott (2010)

16. Unstoppable

In the abstract, it seems ridiculous. Tony Scott just did a train movie with Denzel Washington. What could possibly compel him to immediately turn around and do another one the very next year? Turns out it's slightly more complicated than that. “Unstoppable” is based on a true story, drawing on an actual runaway train incident that occurred in Ohio in 2001. A script was written back in 2004, with both Robert Schwentke and Martin Campbell being attached to direct at different points. After Denzel came aboard to star, he brought the script to Scott. (Presumably while they were working on their previous train thriller.) Both star and director briefly exited the project, when Fox asked to trim the budget down, but they were eventually lured back. In other words: This one nearly jumped the rails multiple times before pulling into the station. “Unstoppable” finally departed for cinema screens in 2010.

In Northern Pennsylvania, a train engineer leaves the cab of a moving locomotive to re-align a switch. While he's outside, the train pops out of idle and into full throttle, making it impossible to re-enter. Now, an unmanned freight train hulling 47 cars full of hazardous material is barreling through the Pennsylvania countryside at full-speed. The same day, veteran railroad engineer Frank Barnes has been asked to orientate new conductor Will Colson. The two are doing routine work when they hear the news of the out-of-control train, which is only growing more dangerous the longer it runs. As more attempts to stop the runaway train fail, Frank and Will disobey orders and try to stop the thundering locomotive themselves.

It's easy to see why screenwriter Mark Bornback, upon reading a news article about the true story, immediately decided to write a movie based on this incident. This story has got an irresistible hook. The idea of a series of unlikely circumstances – but not so unlikely that they didn't really happen – leading to a train tearing across the countryside is plenty exciting. If you heard that pitch, you'd probably ask to know how it ended, if nothing else. It's also easy to see why a studio would give such a premise a greenlight, considering “Unstoppable” bears more than a slight passing resemblance to previously successful disaster movie or even hits like “Speed,” to a certain degree. (The screenplay was even originally entitled “Runaway Train,” a title shared with a previous, successful movie about a similar topic.)

It's not just the catchy premise that made “Unstoppable's” true story a good idea for a movie. This is a tale with a built-in time limit. The longer the train is left on the rails, the higher the chance it has of becoming dangerous. As it approaches a curving overpass bridge, by a factory, the train has a high chance of derailing. That would be extremely bad, considering the train's dangerous cargo, and provides a natural deadline for the plot. This makes every attempt to stop the train feel even more urgent. As each one fails, it puts more pressure on our heroes – and gets the audience more invested in their efforts – to stop the speeding locomotive. Building an urgent deadline like this into a story is a great way to build tension and keep the story suspenseful, as it thunders towards its conclusion.

While I've often been critical of the extreme visual style Tony Scott would adapt later in his career, it absolutely works in “Unstoppable's” favor. The movie is not as over-the-top as “Man on Fire” or “Domino,” floating at about the same level as Scott's “Taking of Pelham 123.” The snap-zooms, often done inside the cabs of the trains, establish a sense of intimacy and immediacy. Many sequences feature the camera rotating around people as they talk on radios or phones, which keep a sense of movement going even when the movie isn't on focused on the train. And when the camera is on the train, it's certainly moving fast. The camera peers up through the tracks or directly at the speeding locomotive. Scott makes sure the audience feels the same amount of speed as anyone near the barreling train would.

After thirty years in the film industry, it was also apparent that Tony Scott sure-as-hell knew how to make some cool looking action sequences. "Unstoppable" happily features several massive set-pieces. An attempt to stop the runaway train by easing another train in front of it results in the lesser train being pushed off the rails, creating another enormous, spiral, orange-and-red explosion. When the train collided with a horse trailer, Scott makes sure the trailer isn't merely torn apart but also spins up through the air. One of the film's most clever sequences involves a marine being lowers on a rope from a helicopter, attempting to board the train, and only being tossed back through some glass instead. When it comes to people climbing around a moving train, or sparks flying through the air, Scott has long since proven himself an expert at making this stuff exciting. Scott's direction and action expertise insures "Unstoppable" is heavy on adrenaline-pumping excitement. 

Much of this stuff might seem ridiculous. A moment of a passenger train full of kids nearly colliding with the runaway locomotive comes off as utterly contrived. (Though that doesn't stop it from being suspenseful.) And it's not like Scott's films are especially well known for their commitment to realism. Train experts – of which I am assuredly not one, so all the movie's technical stuff goes over my head – assure us that the movie exaggerates a lot of the story. Yet Scott makes some interesting nods towards realism here. At least one of people who experienced the real versions of these events was a consultant on the movie. CGI was used sparingly and is really only evident in one sequence. Real newscasters, at least one of which I recognize from my time spent in this area, are utilized throughout. The movie's towns are fictional but the film often shot in the actual area. A lot of "Unstoppable" seems implausible but it seems more of it really happened then you'd think.

Aside from its leading man and mobile setting, "Unstoppable" also has something else in common with Scott's "Taking if Pelham 123." Both movies are about blue collar workers who have been screwed over by their employers. Frank is a humble man who has worked the rails for a long time. His daughters are putting themselves through college via waitressing gigs at Hooter's. Despite the commitment he's shown to his job, it has returned none of that loyalty. He's about to be forced into early retirement, with slashed benefits. "Unstoppable" also takes the time to show how clueless the train company's corporate exec is, as his money-saving attempts to stop this disaster are totally ineffective. The blue collar guys do what's right, because it has to be done and they're the only ones who can do, even in defiance of their pay-masters. 

Like several of Scott's movies, this is also a film about two men butting heads during a tense situation. Frank and Will are opposed to each other early on. One's an old expert, the other's a young hotshot. Frank catches Will on his cellphone several times, putting the men at odds. Yet this manly difference-of-opinion is a lot less tense than "Crimson Tide" or "Taking of Pelham 123." Frank and Will ultimately bond over their issues with women. Frank's wife is dead and there's some unspoken tension with his daughters. Will's wife has a restraining order against him, following a kind-of fucked-up over-reaction the script forgives him for too easily. Despite their differences, these two guys prove their expertise and bravery to one another and exit the movie friends. This makes "Unstoppable" resemble "The Last Boy Scout," and other buddy cop movies, more than Scott's other Denzel-led thrillers. 

And what of Denzel? "Unstoppable" was well into the portion of his career where the beloved thespian split his time between award-winning dramas and crowd-pleasing popcorn movies. It's pretty clear which side of that divide "Unstoppable" falls on. Washington here plays a man determined to do his job, which in this scenario means saving the day. The only payment he asks in return is an honest paycheck and a good retirement plan. Even if there's little in the way of dramatic heavy-lifting, Denzel Washington absolutely knows how to make an everyman part like this compelling and distinctive. He adds a lot of humor and laidback charm to the part. Even though the character is nothing special, Washington makes sure we're invested in him through this dangerous journey.

If established superstar Denzel Washington was playing the veteran trainman, it only made sense to cast a younger box office draw as the rookie. Chris Pine, with his mega-watt smile and winking charm, appears as Will. The character is a lot more conflicted than Captain Kirk or Steve Trevor. His personal matters weigh heavily on him. Yet Pine's winning smirk and ability to seem cool-as-a-cucumber even when things are crazy around him allows his effortless movie star charm to shine through. He also has fine chemistry with Denzel. 

Its two assured leading men is part of why "Unstoppable" works as well as it does. That doesn't mean the supporting cast isn't another A-plus assembling of talent. Rosario Dawson plays a part similar to what Denzel did in "Pelham 123." Dawson is almost thanklessly great in the part, as a woman fed up with corporate orders while trying to make sure no one gets hurt in a high-stress scenario. It's a part that could've been played by almost anyone but Dawson makes it utterly her own. Kevin Corrigan also brings his unique presence, just a little weird but unforgettable, to the small role of a train expert. Ethan Suplee appears as the man who accidentally sets this disaster rolling, playing totally to type as a big, sloppy dumbass who you can't help but feel sorry for. Lee Temple also brings way more color than was necessary to the role of a welder who helps our heroes out.

"Unstoppable" received strong reviews from critics, some of whom somewhat begrudgingly admitted the movie was a well-oiled thrill machine that does pretty much everything right to achieve its humble goals of exciting and distracting the audience for 100 minutes. In an era less preoccupied with CGI superhero mayhem, the movie would've become a big summer blockbuster. Instead, the film only did slightly better at the box office than Tony Scott's last train movie. (It did score an Oscar nomination, for its Sound Editing.) Though nobody at the time knew this was going to be Tony Scott's last movie, in many ways "Unstoppable" was an ideal note for a career devoted to expertly executed spectacle to go out on. "Unstoppable" is smoothly constructed popcorn entertainment, with stylish direction and more-than-enough thrills to justify the price of a movie ticket. [Grade: B]

Even though his movies didn't make quite as much as they used to, Tony Scott was still an A-list action director at the end of his career. In the last years of his life, he was attached to high-profile projects like remakes of "The Warriors" and "The Wild Bunch," a sequel to "Top Gun," and was even considered for "Man of Steel." He also spent years developing "Emma's War," a biopic about British foreign aid worker Emma McCune, that seemed to be a more personal project for the director. Sadly, none of this would come to pass as Scott tragically took his own life in 2012.

Though sometimes dismissed as a hack during his lifetime, after his death Tony Scott was spoken of more kindly by film aficionados around the world. After watching all his movies, that's where I think I lie as well. He made some bad movies but Scott, at his best, created gorgeous imagery and executed fantastically exciting action sequences. Great art doesn't have to be great drama and Tony Scott proved that over and over again. His best movies – "True Romance" and "Revenge" – proved that his sense of cool could be balanced with a sweeter or grittier side. And, if you must compare him to his brother... Maybe Tony Scott never made a masterpiece of the level of "Alien" but he also never directs anything as mindnumbingly boring as "A Good Year," so let's call them even. 

Director Report Card: Tony Scott (2009)

15. The Taking of Pelham 123

In 1973, Morton Freedgood, under his pseudonym John Godey, published the novel “The Taking of Pelham One Two Three.” The book became a best-seller and the film rights were quickly purchased. By 1974, the cinematic “The Taking of Pelham One Two Three” would unfurl on theater screens across the country. A commercial and critical success at the time,  the film would, over the years, acquired a reputation as one of the most underrated classics of gritty seventies crime cinema. Something about the premise must prove irresistible to filmmakers too. In 1998, the novel would be adapted again for television. In 2007, a big budget remake started to roll into production, with Tony Scott directing. Scott's version of Freedgood's story would depart for theaters in 2009.

Walter Gerber, a New York City subway dispatcher, thinks today is going to be a normal day. Early in the morning, a group of men step onto Pelham 123, a subway car currently containing eighteen people. They quickly take the train hostage. Led by a volatile man who calls himself “Ryder,” the group demands ten million dollars. If the money is not delivered within thirty minutes, he will begin to kill a hostage for every minute the money is late. Gerber, working with a panicked NYC Transit Police and hostage negotiator, attempts to get the ransom delivered as quickly as possible while trying to learn more about the criminal's motives and background. Through the day, Gerber and Ryder form a connection of a sorts.

Joseph Sargent's original adaptation of “The Taking of Pelham 123” is a great movie. It's also, undeniably, a product of its time, depicting the New York City that specifically existed in 1974. This meant a remake could be justified, by finding ways to update the material. The screenplay, which David Koepp did a pass on but Brian Helgeland received final credit for, does bring the premise into the modern day. The way the hostage situation comes about is altered to acknowledge the post-9/11 state of security in the city. Among the train passengers is a man video-chatting with his girlfriend on his laptop, which becomes plot relevant later on. At one point, Ryder Googles Gerber after becoming curious about him. There is an attempt to show how changing technology would affect the way this story would play out.

The biggest difference between the original film and the remake is its focus. Sargent's “Taking of Pelham One Two Three” had more of an ensemble cast. We learned more about the other men taking the train hostage, with the passengers, the mayor, and the cops on the ground being further developed. Scott's version, meanwhile, is more about the relationship between Gerber and Ryder. The two form a dialogue, learning more about each other and discovering they have more in common than they realize. A battle of wits, of sorts, ensues. Gerber attempts to outsmart the criminal, who often counteracts him. Yet he also tries to stay one step ahead of the guy. This recalls “Crimson Tide,” which was also a thriller based around two strong personalities clashing in a tense situation.

As in the original "Taking," one of the criminals is a former employee of the rail company. In that film, part of his motivation for the scheme was that he was screwed out of some pay. That theme, of striking back against an oppressive system, is carried over here. Ryder continuously derides those-in-power. This causes him to relate more with Gerber, who is currently under investigation for taking a bribe to help pay for his kids' tuition. There's definitely this idea, running through the entire movie, that people have been treated unfairly by the structures put in place to help them. The bad guys are punished and order is restored, so neither version is exactly radical. Yet the idea remains present.

After taking it mostly easy in "Deja Vu," Tony Scott returns to the over-the-top visual style he displayed in "Man on Fire" and "Domino." Oh, this movie isn't as unrelentingly obnoxious as those two. Most of the movie is fairly unobtrusive to watch. Yet the remake still starts with a fast-motion montage of trains running with an overly loud soundtrack plays. There's a couple other annoyingly flashy visual tricks sprinkled throughout, like occasional burst of slow or fast motion. Some text appears on-screen, though thankfully only when establishing how much time is left before the deadline. Scott also utilizes 360 degree camera movements countless times, obviously to make scenes of people sitting around and talking seem more cinematic. The movie never becomes painful to watch but it definitely made me roll my eyes a few times.

Presumably because he can't help himself, the director makes sure to add more elaborate action scenes to the story. What was a simple car crash in the original, where police cars collide while on the way to drop off the ransom money, becomes a big stunt here with a cruiser spinning through the air. This is not the only time the movie pulls that gag, as a second car flips off a bridge a little later on, following another acrobatic twirl through the air. There's also a random sequence of a cop on a motorcycle flipping over a hood. The shootouts are also bloodier and more intense, the remake making sure it earns its R rating. I guess if you hire Tony Scott to make a movie, he includes some Tony Scott style stunts in there.

All of these attempts to make the story bigger, bloodier, or more action-packed all feel like deliberate attempts to overcome a simple fact: Scott's "Taking of Pelham 123" simply isn't as good as the original. The tension that ran throughout the original, a result of Robert Shaw's terse villain leaving no room for the state to disobey him, is largely absent here. The additions of plot points about the value of the dollar or making the heroic protagonist more morally ambiguous feels like unnecessary clutter in a straight-forward story that simply didn't need it. The remake also completely ditches the original's brilliant ending, increasingly making this me wonder why Scott and his team choose to remake the movie at all.

Something I especially miss in Scott's "Pelham 123" is the role New York City plays in the story. The original is often regarded as one of the best movies to capture old NYC in its gritty glory for a reason. The passengers treat a subway hijacking as merely an inconvenience, as just another day in the city. Similarly, the police and detectives investigating the crime were nonplussed by the severity of the situation. All of that is gone in Scott's film. In fact, there's almost no focus on the New York setting at all here. Most of the movie takes place on the train or in the metro office. Sets, in other words. That leaves few opportunities for real life New York locations to add any unique color or energy to the proceedings. The remake feels like it could be set in any city. Or, at least, any city that has a major subway system.

The remake also doesn't have Walter Matthau, with his world-weary eyes, sarcastic humor, and laid back charm. But Denzel Washington isn't a pushover either. Washington plays Gerber as largely a regular guy with a keen sense of what's right and what's wrong. He has a worrying wife at home and two unseen kids that he's sacrificed a lot for. The one mistake he's made, taking a bribe for something he was going to do anyway, was done to protect those kids. This makes him a contrast to a villain, who is acting in revenge. In fact, the movie really goes out of its way to make Gerber a good guy who screwed-up one time, which has him bordering dull sometimes. It's not much of a role but Denzel, talent that he is, is able to invest some personality into the part. He seems genuinely worried by what's happening and desperate to make sure it all works okay.

If Denzel is playing a more subdued role, the same can not be said of John Travolta. As Ryder, Travolta hideously overacts. He spews profanity into his phone throughout most of the movie. The rants the character is given, berating a system that he feels has betrayed him, allows Travolta to give in to his worst instincts as an actor. The character thinks he's a cool, slick bad guy – and even though it's eventually revealed that he's just a Wall Street guy that got burned – and the movie seems to agree with him. Travolta is mostly just kind of grating, playing a character that is all flashiness with no inner life at all.

Another thing the original “Taking of Pelham One Two Three” had was a cast made up of some of the finest character actors of its day. The remake doesn't have that though there are some pretty great names in the supporting cast. James Gandolfini goes against type and underplays it as the Mayor of New York City, dragged into a rough situation and forced to make some hard choices. Gandolfini plays up his neurotic side and makes the part memorable. Jon Turturro appears as the NYPD's hostage negotiator, whose attempts to take control of the situation only makes things worst. Turturro is excellent at giving the impression of someone who is both in over-their-head and far too confident in their own abilities. The great Luis Guzman appears in the role originated by Martin Balsim in the original but, sadly, is given very little to do before bluntly exiting the film. 

Scott's “Taking of Pelham 123” would open pretty softly at the box office, ultimately only grossing 150 million worldwide against a 100 budget. Which didn't make it a full-blown bomb but hardly a run-away blockbuster either. While the movie found one or two defenders among critics, the general consensus was that it was vastly inferior to the 1974 original. This is absolutely the case. 2009's version lacks the grit of the original, replacing it with a much more knowingly manufactured type of grit. Moreover, its characters are not as memorable, its pacing not as tight, its tension not as taunt, and its story not as surprising or exciting. Scott and his cast certainly make the material their own but still come up with a pale imitation. [Grade: C]

Director Report Card: Tony Scott (2006)

14. Déjà Vu

It would seem Tony Scott and Jerry Bruckheimer's careers were irrevocably intertwined, no matter how much they hated working together sometimes. After a long break, following "Crimson Tide," the two would work together again with "Déjà Vu." The film was co-written by Terry Rossio, who had just authored the mega-successful "Pirates of the Caribbean" for Bruckheimer. Obviously feeling like they had a good thing going, Scott would also reteam with Denzel Washington for the third time. The film would be released in 2006. 

In New Orleans, on Fat Tuesday, a ferry is destroyed by a home-made bomb. Over five hundred people are killed. ATF agent Douglas Carlin, gifted at quickly spotting evidence, is brought in to investigate. He discovers a dead woman, Claire Kuchever, in the river, with wounds that suggest she was burned before the explosion. Carlin is recruited by an FBI agent to join a new government investigation unit. He's presented with a machine that can perfectly recreate visions of the past, from four days ago and within a specific range. Carlin quickly deduces the machine is a form of time travel. As he uses the machine to dig into the explosion, uncovering the domestic terrorist responsible, he grows increasingly attached to Claire. Soon, he tries going back in time himself to stop the bombing.  

"Déjà Vu" is based around an irresistible premise that has driven time travel stories for decades: Can you really change the past? At first, the "Snow White" machine is depicted as only being able to look into the past, itself an intoxicating idea. Slowly, Carlin begins to wonder if the machine can be used to send warnings back to the past. Debate arises over how this would affect things. Whether this would create a branching timeline or if the universe would reorder itself to "correct" these changes. If these attempts would be devastating. These are good questions to ask about such a premise and the foundation for a solid time travel story. The film comes to a conclusion about the ramifications of time travel eventually but it is fun that it even considers these possiblities. 

At first, "Déjà Vu" seems to be going with the second theory. That history is entirely unchangable and that any attempt to do so will result in events somehow still working out the same way. The movie presents events early in its story that it later returns to. A coworker of Carlin's disappears, is assumed to have died in the bombing, and is then discovered to have been killed by the villain after Carlin sends a warning back. Little bits of evidence presented early on – a phone number written on a candy wrapper, a hurried phone call, fingerprints on a glass of water – are registered later. While I don't know if everything lines up exactly, I did enjoy the way audience members paying attention were rewarded for noticing these earlier details.

The love story in "Déjà Vu" is also somewhat interesting. From the moment Carlin sees Claire in the morgue, he's struck by her beauty. As he peers into the past, he increasingly focuses on her day-to-day life. He becomes invested in this woman that was dead before he met her. He ultimately goes back in time precisely because he wants to save her. This set-up has a lot of morbid – falling in love with a corpse? – or creepy implications, since Carlin is basically spying on Claire's past all throughout the movie. The deeper themes of a guy becoming infatuated with a girl he doesn't even know are not explored. When Carlin and Claire do meet, she's quickly charmed by him. Yet this is, if nothing else, a novel spin on the standard genre movie romantic subplot. 

In fact, Claire quickly falling for Carlin after meeting him – even allowing him to kiss her – in the past, despite all the weirdness surrounding that, is why "Déjà Vu's" has a somewhat underwhelming last act. It turns out that this movie is more compelling as a mystery than as a thriller. Watching Carlin and his team dig into the available evidence to uncover the man responsible for this heinous act sucks you in, the way good mysteries do. Once Carlin goes back in time, "Déjà Vu" becomes a standard action flick about the good guy stopping the bad guy before it's too late. Once we get to the climatic showdown between the hero and the villain, the film has run out of ways to surprise the audience.

One thing I really liked about "Déjà Vu" is that it looks like a normal movie. Tony Scott is no longer employing the brain-frying visual techniques he used in "Man on Fire" and "Domino." This movie still looks more like "Bad Boys" than "The Hunger." Scott has long since left the sunset shots and billowing curtains in the last. The photography is a bit on the grainy side and the sun-washed visuals prevalent in Scott's last two movies remain here. There's one or two snap zooms. Yet there are no disorienting montages, visual/audio distortion, obnoxious on-screen text, or other overly self-indulgent style tics. You can watch "Déjà Vu" without getting a headache and I am thankful for that. 

The film's screenwriters were critical of "Déjà Vu," saying they had written a smart sci-fi movie and that Tony Scott made a typical action movie. Yes, the director does find ways to insert some elaborate action sequences into this story. The opening explosion on the ferry is shot like a typical Tony Scott fireball, which is maybe not the best choice for what is an act of horrible terrorism. The finale features a car shooting up into the air, spinning several times, and crashing into the water. Midway through the film, Denzel grabs a special rig that can extends the Snow White machine's range and hits the road with it. An elaborate car chase of sorts follows, with Denzel in a Jeep weaving in and out of traffic. There's some fancy car wrecks in this scene, which maybe are out-of-place but they do look cool. It is an exciting sequence. 

As a Denzel Washington movie, "Déjà Vu" does not offer the dramatic opportunities that "Man on Fire" or "Crimson Tide" did. Carlin is not an especially complex or conflicted guy. He's mostly a good detective, who wants to catch the person responsible for this crime, prevent it from happening, and save the girl. Pretty standard hero shit. Denzel even gets to play action hero again, during the shoot-out at the movie's ending. Yet Washington is never less than compelling in anything. The quiet delight Carlin takes in uncovering clues is a nice touch. You have no problem following this guy, even if he's not an especially deep or nuanced character. 

The villain in the film, eventually revealed to have the hilarious name of "Carroll Oerstadt," is played Jim Caviezel. Oerstadt is a hyper-nationalistic would-be "patriot" who is blowing up this boat as revenge against the U.S. after being rejected by the armed forces. He's covered in America-themed tattoos and it's implied his opinions of non-white people are not nice. The film's writers patterned the character after Timothy McVeigh, which goes to show you how the more things change, the more they stay the same. Because both Oerstadt and his crime seem very familiar in 2021, where we can't go more than a week without a right-winged prick or a radicalized incel killing a bunch of innocent people. Caviezel is very creepy in the part, presumably because the character is just a more extreme version of things he already believes.

Paula Patton plays Claire. While it seems likely that Patton was cast largely because, yes, she does have the kind of face a man could fall in love with at first sight, she's more than capable. Patton has an easy-going screen presence that make her early scenes likable. She handles herself during the action theatrics of the last act. Val Kilmer shows up at the FBI agent who recruits Carlin. It's cool to see Scott working with Kilmer again, after twenty years. He's totally serviceable in the party sharing a couple of good moments with Denzel. Adam Goldberg, as the smart-ass scientist working on Snow White, steals many of his scenes. His acerbic delivery help enlivens a character that otherwise doesn't do much beside deliver exposition. 

"Déjà Vu" was also, notably, one of the first productions to film in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina. The disaster is mentioned by name and its lingering shadow hangs over many of the movie's scenes. Yet "Déjà Vu" is here to celebrate New Orleans, not bury it. The elevated cemeteries and jazz culture of the city adds a lot of color and energy to "Déjà Vu." I'm sure this isn't the state's proudest cinematic moment nor its best on-screen depiction. There's still a clear affection for the community and its culture in the movie. When "Déjà Vu" ends with a dedication to the people of New Orleans, it feels very sincere. 

"Déjà Vu" did pretty well at the box office, making 180 million worldwide against a 75 million dollar production budget. Reviews were mixed, with some finding the movie preposterous while others were able to enjoy its mixture of sci-fi ideas and big action set pieces. While the screenwriters of a movie criticizing the final film isn't unprecedented, Tony Scott also said he made some mistakes while making the film. "Déjà Vu" is certainly not a masterpiece but it is reasonably entertaining while you're watching it. I enjoy time travel stories and this one found a pretty fun spin on the idea. [Grade: B]

Director Report Card: Tony Scott (2005)

13. Domino

Around 1994, Tony Scott read an article about Domino Harvey. Harvey was the daughter of well known actor Laurence Harvey but, after working briefly as a model, she rejected her family's glamorous life style. In an unexpected turn of events, she would instead begin operating as a bounty hunter. Intrigued by what he read, Scott would meet with Domino and secure the film rights to her life story. The project then spent a decade in development hell, with names like Sharon Stone and Jennifer Lopez being considered for the title role. Scott's “Domino” wouldn't get rolling until Richard Kelly, the director of “Donnie Darko,” was hired to completely rewrite the script. “Domino” would finally blasts into theaters in 2005.

In its opening minutes, “Domino” refers to itself as “based on a true story. Sort of.” Scott and Kelly would use the facts in Miss Harvey's life as the foundation for a wild crime saga. After her rebellious ways got her kicked out of modeling school and college, Domino finds a newspaper ad for a bounty hunting seminar. Teaming up with an eccentric band led by Ed Moseby and Choco, Domino is soon finding her hunger for danger and excitement satisfied. Soon, Domino's team is recruited to star in a reality TV show. The bounty hunters unknowingly stumble upon a complicated scheme involving forged driver's license, money stolen from an army truck, a group of robbers dressed like First Ladies, and the mafia. Everything goes pear-shaped inside a Las Vegas high-rise casino.

Scott made “Domino” directly after “Man on Fire” and, it brings me no pleasure to report this, shares the exact same visual quirks. This film's style is similarly extreme. There are snap zooms, mixtures of fast and slow motion, montages with trailing imagery, visual and audio distortion, and random color changes. Once again, text will appear on-screen from time-to-time. Another thing “Domino” has in common with “Man on Fire” is, even when its standing still, the movie looks washed-out, gritty, and sun-bathed. The soundtrack is absolutely intrusive as well. As if there was any doubt Tony was indulging himself here, there's also multiple shots of helicopters flying over a city. “Man on Fire” presumably looked this way to reflect the protagonist's fractured mind. Supposedly “Domino” looks this way to reflect the coke-fueled mindset of bounty hunters... Except we never see the film's heroes do drugs, so the obnoxious visual style feels totally excessive and self-indulgent.

“Man on Fire's” annoying visuals were at least linked to a story that was easy to get invested in and understand. “Domino,” meanwhile, drops its characters down into a convoluted crime plot that is told in a nonlinear fashion. We begin in the middle, Domino narrating her own story to the FBI agent interviewing her. (A framing device the film cuts back to on numerous occasion.) The film then works back to where we came in and then going onward. Yet “Domino” is not content simply jumping around in time. Its convoluted plot involves multiple parties pursuing different goals. The film is judicial about what information it reveals at what times, in hopes of surprising us. All this really ends up doing is confusing us. “Domino's” story is not that complicated, once you read it as a Wikipedia article, but it's a lot harder to follow as you watch it play out.

Trying to make heads-or-tails of “Domino's” plot is not helped by the movie making a number of plot irrelevant digressions. A supporting character, played by Mo'nique, goes on “The Jerry Spring Show” and delivers a tasteless dissertation on names for mixed race individuals. This feels like one of Oscar-winning thespian Mo'nique's stand-up bits inserted into the movie, for no particular reason. Probably the movie's most pointless sequence has everyone in the R.V. with Domino being dosed with mescaline. The drug trip that follows affects the story in no way whatsoever. This scene also features a cameo from Tom Waits as some sort of spirit guide who croaks vaguely spiritual wisdom. There's also exploding trailers, murder scenes we later learn didn't actually happen, and visits to a sex addiction recovery seminar thrown into the movie. Why is this stuff in the movie? It's the definition of self-indulgent.

Then again, that superfluous Jerry Springer sequence is almost like a key to understand the whole movie's tone. Despite starring a character that began her life in high society, “Domino” is largely concerned with trashy people. Mo'nique's character, in a vaguely racist and totally unnecessary plot point, is also the record holder for being the world's youngest grandmother. At one point, Choco storms into Ed's apartment, who is watching porn. The two almost comes to blow over pointless relationship drama. There's an extended subplot involving a trailer park resident whose arm gets severed, for fuzzy reasons, in the grisliest manner possible. “Domino” has a fascination with grotesque behavior like this, the motivations of which I can only speculate upon.

I guess this might be because “Domino's” story also involves reality television. An eccentric TV executives decides following around a group of bounty hunters, which includes a former model/minor celebrity, might be a good premise for a reality show. The drama that Domino and her team experience in their (very dramatic) day-to-day lives are captured by the cameramen.... But only for a couple of scenes. In a slightly obnoxious meta-touch, Ian Ziering and Brian Austin Green appear as highly exaggerated versions of themselves. This plot point is dropped long before we get to the explosion-filled final shoot-out in the casino. Which makes you wonder what the entire point of this subplot was in the first place! Ziering and Green, doing standard riffs on the conceited Hollywood actor idea, provide some comic relief but that's about their sole contribution to the overall movie.

So let's talk about that casino shoot-out. As in “True Romance,” Tony Scott ends a movie by having all of the movie's subplots – or most of them, in this case – collide violently at the climax of the story. The mafia, the casino owner, the cops, and the bounty hunters all end up gunning each other down inside the Space Needle-like dome of the Stratosphere. By this point, the movie's narrative has become a knotted-up mess. You can untangle it but you really can't be asked to care that much. The movie's visuals, already ugly and disjointed, also become completely incomprehensible at this point. I re-watched the violent sequence three times in an attempt to figure out exactly what happened and I'm still not sure. 

For most of its run time, “Domino” is trying to be funny, I think. Its self-consciously outrageous content, I'm guessing, was intended to make the audience laugh. Or at least chuckle in disbelief, in a “that's so fucked-up!” kind of way. So much of the movie is so knowingly ridiculous... Which makes “Domino's” attempt to become very serious in its last third all the stranger. Much like “Man on Fire,” the film attempts to make a point about a universal theme. The line “Heads, you live. Tails, you die” is repeated over and over again. How random chance affects our lives is the intended goal. Yet to be hit with something so serious after ninety minutes of flippant nonsense feels like a slap in the face. And all the dying declarations of love – because the movie really does roll one of those out – in the world can't change that. 

About the only thing “Domino” really has in its favor is a very capable cast. Keira Knightly stars as the titular character. And Keira Knightly is very sexy. She spends long stretches of the movie in skin-tight clothing of some sort. She gets a witness to cooperate by giving him a lap dance. There's lingering shots of her ass, bikini-clad pool splashing, and a sex scene in the middle of the desert. It would feel gross if Keira Knightly's sex appeal wasn't so powerful. She's confident and energetic. When Domino punches people in the nose, which she does several times as an expression of her attitude, you believe her. Her non-stop sexiness is also a part of a fiercely independent need to express herself, so it actually makes sense. Knightly successfully pulls off this blend of sex kitten and bad-ass bitch. The parts of the movie that are watchable are mostly because of her.

Sadly, no matter how charismatic Knightly is, she can't salvage the movie's utterly anemic love story. Édgar Ramírez plays Choco. Choco doesn't speak much English and flirts with a lot of female characters over the course of the movie... Despite that, at some point, “Domino” randomly decides to throw him and the title character together as lovers. This is despite Knightly and Ramirez sharing few scenes together by this point. That's no fault of the actors. Ramirez is sort of funny with a few of the lines he has. Knightly, of course, has enough smolder to have chemistry with anyone. There's simply no reason for these characters to fall in love with each other. Any time the movie turns to focus on that, it drags to a halt.

“Domino” also shares a couple of cast members with “Man on Fire” as well. Christopher Walken appears as the easily angered network executive, doing the exact – hilarious – things you expect from Christopher Walken. Mickey Rouke plays Ed, providing a sleazy and decidedly Mickey-Rourke-like take on the role of a mentor. Also in the cast is Lucy Liu, as the agent interviewing Domino after the fact. This framing device is fairly useless but Liu is always a delight, especially in stern and serious roles like this. I also liked a very over-the-top Delroy Lindo as the bail bondsman that helps fund the bounty hunters. 

For any Richard Kelly fans curious about “Domino,” you can feel some of the writer/director's sensibilities inside the film. A mob boss who takes phone calls inside a glass bubble deep within his swimming pool, to get around police surveillance, feels like something that could exist in “Southland Tales.” And I guess weird tonal shifts are a trademark of his as well. Though perhaps those were unavoidable in this case. The real Domino Harvey died of a drug overdose while the movie inspired by her life was in post-production. You can't very well make a movie about how exciting and fun someone's life was when they self-destructed a few months before the film is released. Even absorbed outside of that context, “Domino” is a relentlessly noisy and messy movie that can only be enjoyed in short bursts. That's largely thanks to the limitless charms of Keira Knightly and a few other cast members and almost nothing else. [Grade: C-]

Director Report Card: Tony Scott (2004)

12. Man on Fire

In 1980, A.J. Quinnell published “Man on Fire,” the first of five novels featuring former French Foreign Legion soldier Creasy. The book became a bestseller and, by the mid-eighties, interest in a film adaptation soon arose. Tony Scott was very interested in directing but, since he only had "The Hunger" on his resume at the time, the producers deemed him not experienced enough to make the movie. "Man on Fire" would ultimately be adapted by Élie Chouraqui and star Scott Glenn. Seventeen years passed, during which the 1987 version of "Man on Fire" slipped into obscurity. By now established as a very successful filmmaker, Tony Scott decided it was time he made his "Man on Fire." The remake, released in 2004, would immediately become more popular and well-known than the original. Which suggests Scott probably should've just been allowed to make the movie the first time he wanted to. 

John Creasy is a thoroughly traumatized ex-CIA assassin, drowning his sorrows in alcohol and near-suicidal. While visiting Mexico City, his old friend Paul suggests he finds work as a bodyguard. Creasy is soon hired by Samuel Ramos, a minor auto mogul. Creasy is tasked with protecting Ramos' eight year old daughter, Pita. The precocious girl soon chips away at Creasy's cold exterior and he becomes like a father figure to her. Months later, Pita is kidnapped by a Mexican cartel and Creasy is gravely injured. Someone sabotages the trade-off and Pita is seemingly killed. Now driven by a fiery vengeance, Creasy becomes determined to kill every single person reasonable for the kidnapping, from the smallest lackey to the head of the cartel. 

This "Man on Fire" is presumably a lot more famous than the 1987 version because Denzel Washington is a lot more famous than Scott Glenn. The film marks the beginning of a new period in the actor's career. After spending two decades as one of the most respected performers of his generation, Denzel would start starring in action movies. He has done action-packed flicks before this but bad-ass hero roles really seemed to become a priority for the star around this time. After "Man on Fire," Washington would appear in "Book of Eli," "2 Guns," "Safe House," "The Magnificent Seven" remake, two "Equalizer" movies, and three further collaborations with Tony Scott. Whether or not you think a multi-Oscar winner like Denzel is wasting his time doing shoot-em-up flicks like this is a matter of opinion. He certainly doesn't think that.

"Man on Fire" is certainly important to another cinematic action trend of the last decade. The movie is a notable example of what I call the "Dadsploitation" genre. These are films frequently about men who are middle-aged and have usually already lived a life full of action and violence, which they've formally retired from. Inevitably, they must utilize their very particular set of skills to protect, rescue, or avenge wives, daughters, sometimes sons, or surrogate wife/daughter/son figures. It's a specific fantasy designed to appeal to older men who want to feel like bad-asses but also define themselves first most as fathers and husbands. "Man on Fire" hits every note of the Dadsploitation set-up, making it a predecessor to "Taken" and all the similarly themed that followed in its wake. (Much like "Taken," it even stars an actor better known for his dramas than his action roles.)

Though it's a subgenre littered with themes of sexism and racism, I don't actually dislike Dadsploitation movies. They're often fun, in the same way similarly problematic films like classic westerns or eighties action flicks are. And I don't mind seeing Denzel be a bad-ass either. He's pretty good at it. The best scenes in "Man on Fire" are those devoted to Washington being steely, stern, and intimidating. When loading a rocket launcher, he gravely intones that forgiveness is in-between his victims and God and it's his job to arrange the meeting. Denzel's casualness when interrogating bad dudes is so smooth and charismatic that you hardly notice the movie partaking of that hoary cliche of a bad-ass in sunglasses slowly walking away from an explosion.

If you have even a passing familiarly with these types of movies, you know what's going to happen to poor little Pita. The movie devoted a lot of time to Creasy and the little girl getting to know each other. She softens his chilly exterior with her adorable ways. Eventually, she's as much a daughter to him as she is to her actual father. Creasy helps the girl with her swimming practices and piano classes. It's super hackneyed and manipulative but it totally works. Largely because Dakota Fanning, as Pita, really is that fucking cute. Like every Fanning character, she's smarter and more perceptive than you'd expect a girl her age to be. Yet the movie also allows Fanning to dance with her teddy bear or get tucked into bed. She's even missing two of her front teeth, to emphasize how precious she is. How can you not love her? Dakota's brute force adorableness makes the movie far more emotionally involving than it would've been with a lesser actress in the part. (Which makes me thankful that the film spares Pita from the more awful fate she suffered in the book.)

If "Man on Fire" was just surviving on the strength of its cast to enliven predictable material, I'd probably enjoy it just fine. Instead, Tony Scott decided to get extra-spicy with the visuals. Throughout the late nineties, Scott's already distinctive approach was growing increasingly exaggerated. With "Man on Fire," the director's style would go completely off the deep end. The movie rarely goes ten minutes without a jittery or distorted montage full of overlapping imageries and sounds. There's dramatic pauses, Michael Bay-like 360 shots, and bursts of either slow-motion or fast-motion footage. Text frequently appears on-screen, in different fonts and sizes. Even during its rare subdued moments, it still features washed-out and grainy photography. The film approaches sensory overload for the entirety of its runtime. During a sequence where Creasy intimidates some bad guys inside a nightclub, where pounding techno music is playing, it becomes completely overwhelming. "Man on Fire" is a lot to handle.

"Man on Fire's" visual aggression is met by a story with its fair share of pretensions. Creasy is introduced in a pretty bad emotional state as the film begins. I guess the frantic visuals are meant to convey his chaotic mental condition. (Though I'm not sure why it continues after he gets sober.) This culminates with a suicide attempt. His life is spared when, by pure chance, the bullet fails to fire. This event – which the film references many times with the self-important line "a bullet never lies" – is a miracle of sorts and the first of several religious references in the film. Creasy has unexplained scars on his hands, which feels like a stigmata reference. Blood runs from his hand by the end, confirming him as some sort of warped Christ figure. If that was too subtle for you, Pita gifts him a St. Jude's medal, the most obvious of the film's bizarre religious allusions. In a story that otherwise doesn't have much to do with religion or Christianity at all.

A thematic threads throughout the movie that are more compelling are those of redemption and corruption. Creasy is a man on the search for redemption, for the violent deeds in his past that are only alluded too. Yet he has to travel through an utterly corrupt world to get there. The police in Mexico City are hopelessly dirty. The kidnapping goes wrong because gangs are so intertwined with the police, a cop regularly stealing money meant to pay ransoms are so common, he's become protected from his crimes. As Creasy uncovers the truth about the kidnapping, he learns that Pita's father was involved in the conspiracy himself. On his path to save his own soul by saving an innocent little girl, Creasy has to run through a number of people who have utterly compromised their own morals.

Yet these attempts to add thematic depth to “Man on Fire” ultimately feel like pseudo-intellectual posturing after a while. It's another juvenile attempt to make this simple action story feel much more serious and important than it actually is. The movie's focus on sadistic violence, perpetrated by the protagonist, is another attempt to add grit and “realism” to the movie. Creasy frequently tortures the people he encounters on his quest. He duct tapes a low-level thug to a car seat, slices off his fingers, and cauterizes the wounds with a cigarette lighter. Later, he blindfolds another low-level thug, shoots his toes off, and intimidates him. The movie's most notorious moment of violence has him inserting plastic explosives up a corrupt cop's rectum. (The actual penetration is kept off-screen, thankfully.) All these people are killed, so Creasy's torture tactics really are just meant to get information. Never mind that torture is notoriously unreliable when extracting intel. Obviously, this is a morally gray story but it does feel weird that the “hero” brutally torturing his adversaries in pretty fucked-up ways are, the film seems to conclude, totally worth it.

Despite all the many issues I have with “Man on Fire,” from its obnoxious visuals to its self-important writing to its morally dubious center, I did come away from the movie kind of enjoying it. As originally scripted, “Man on Fire” ended with Creasy destroying the bad guys via pyrotechnics. However, Scott must have remembered the end of “Revenge” at one some point. He decided something a little more low-key and character driven would be fitting. “Man on Fire's” reliance on on-screen text and its unearned self-seriousness continues all the way to the end, as the film concludes with a dedication to a fictional character. Yet the movie is, if nothing else, utterly sincere about the relationship at the center of the story, between the lovable little girl and the cold-hearted man she charms. That is what ends up giving this loud, chaotic, excessively violent motion picture just enough of a sense of grace to make it worth watching.

Tony Scott continues to pepper the supporting cast with beloved actors, making otherwise forgettable little roles memorable because someone really entertaining is playing them. This is, as far as I can tell, why Christopher Walken plays Paul. The indistinct best buddy role becomes instantly fantastic because Christopher Walken is allowed to do his thing. Whether it's laughing about how he met his wife or delivering portentous dialogue about how fucked the bad guys are, Walken makes it sing. Mickey Rourke also appears briefly as the family lawyer, another role that is totally inessential but is enlivened by Rourke's weirdo energy. Memorable for the wrong reasons are Radha Mitchell – with a terrible Southern accent – as Ramos' trophy wife and pop star Marc Anthony – who seems totally out of his element – as Ramos himself. 

“Man on Fire” would open to good box office, ultimately grossing 170 million against its 40 million dollar budget. Critical reception was largely negative, most being as baffled by Scott's extreme style as I was. Yet the movie would be very popular on DVD and television. That's where the film found its target audience of middle-aged dads. I can't tell you how many raves I heard about this movie from older, pot-bellied, mustachioed co-workers over the years. The universal quality of “Man on Fire's” dad-ish themes are also obvious in the movie receiving two separate Bollywood remakes in 2005, one in Hindi and one in Tamil. Perhaps I should revisit the movie if I ever have a daughter of my own. For now, I'll say that “Man on Fire” works against itself more often than not but that the talent of its stars and the lizard-brain thrills of its premise go a long way towards redeeming it. [Grade: C+]

Director Report Card: Tony Scott (2001)

11. Spy Game

Tony Scott found a good amount of critical and commercial success with “Enemy of the State,” a conspiracy thriller that paired a then-current superstar with a beloved screen icon of the seventies. Scott must've been fond of how that one turned out because he would try almost the exact same formula with his next movie. “Spy Game” comes from the writer team behind humble movies like “Sniper” and “Cutthroat Island.” The film paired Brad Pitt – the modern superstar – with Robert Redford – the established icon – inside a paranoia-infused espionage story. To further remind the viewer of the director's last movie, he would adapt a similar visual design for the movie too. 

The year is 1991. CIA operative Tom Bishop heads into a Chinese prison on a rescue mission. The op goes wrong and Bishop is captured. The U.S. government has twenty-hour hours to arrange an exchange before he is executed for the crime of espionage. The CIA brings in Nathan Muir, Bishop's former mentor and his closest friend. He explains the story of how they met in Vietnam, performed jobs in Berlin, before having a falling out after Bishop lost his girlfriend during a botched mission in Beirut. Muir suspects that the CIA would be just as happy if Bishop died in China and he works behind their backs to rescue him.

Unlike his brother, there aren't too many themes and ideas that reoccur across Tony Scott's various movies. However, if you look at a little closer, there's one story element he returned to a few times. That's the idea of the protagonist with a sometimes contentious relationship with his mentor. You see it in “Top Gun,” between Tom Cruise and Tom Skerritt. It shows up again in “Days of Thunder,” with Robert Duvall in the mentor role, and obviously in “Enemy of the State,” between Smith and Hackman. If you really squint, you can see traces of this idea in “The Hunger” and “Revenge,” with “Crimson Tide” as a subversion of this idea. “Spy Game” is the Tony Scott movie most concerned with this idea so far, focusing squarely on a rookie and the man he looks up to.

You also can't help but look at “Spy Game” as a movie about one generation of cool passing the torch to the next. Robert Redford and Brad Pitt have similar screen personas. They are both genuine, A-list movie stars who are equally respected as sex symbols, box office draws, and actually good actors. The scenes Redford and Pitt share together are the highlights of “Spy Game.” A moment where they are sneaking around a war zone in Beirut, cracking jokes while dodging behind wreckage, seems to recall Redford's most iconic turn in “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.” Moments like this make it entirely clear that Redford recognized Pitt as his most apparent successor for the same breed of cinematic stardom.

Even though the movie is obviously built around Redford and Pitt's chemistry, “Spy Games” separates the two for long stretches of the story. Pitt is captured in China and Redford is working to rescue him in America, while arguing with a boardroom full of gassy, complaining officials. That means “Spy Games” is mostly Redford's movie. He gets to grin, tell jokes, and be a fantastic orator. Pitt, meanwhile, is left to look gorgeous. Whether that's when crouching with a sniper rifle or left bleeding and bandaged under threat of torture. Granted, Pitt has charisma of such a level that even this is not a waste of his talent, as his charm shines through in these scenes. Yet it's still odd that the movie doesn't build more of its structure around the two stars interacting.

Having said that, I do kind of like the way this narrative operates. “Spy Game” almost unfolds like a series of nested stories. We open in 1991, with news of Bishop's capture and Muir in the board room with the CIA decision-makers. He proceeds to tell them about how the two men met, the adventures they had together, and how they eventually had their falling out. The flashback heavy narrative gives us an idea of the history between these guys. By starting in the nineties and stretching back to the Vietnam War, through the Cold War and various conflicts in the Middle East, it also provides a play-by-play of how the enemies of the U.S. shifted – and how they stayed the same – throughout this span of time.

At the same time, “Spy Game” is also a story with a time limit. Bishop's life is on the line and it's a matter of hours. Unless Huir can figure out how to convince the CIA to help his friend, he'll die. In order to let us know how urgent this is, the time and the number of remaining hours until Bishop is executed flash on the screen throughout the film. This story should be a race against time and yet the bulk of its run time is devoted to someone talking about his past. By constantly shifting to events that have already happened, it makes what's going on in the present feel a lot less urgent. It's just an odd miscalculation in the story structure. 

If “Enemy of the State” was a homage to “The Conversation,” “Spy Game” is a homage to “Three Days of the Condor.” Like that film and many other spy movies – including Tony's brother's “Body of Lies” – “Spy Game” is about how expendable agents are to their governments. While in Berlin, Bishop has to sacrifice an innocent man, which Huir repeatedly and dispassionately refers to as an “asset.” He also assures him that he would've done the same thing, if Bishop had been the assets. This enrages Bishop, who refuses to believe that human lives are only tools to use in international games and power plays. While it's nothing we haven't seen before, “Spy Game” does make this conflict compelling. I guess the intrinsic value of human life being questioned is always compelling drama. Pitt and Redford certainly perform nicely in this moment.

Another hallmark of serious spy thrillers like this is that nothing is ever what it seems. Deception is the name of the game and everyone always has their own agenda. All throughout “Spy Game,” you're waiting for the reveal. You can assume that a lot of what we're seeing is a misdirect of some sort. Furthermore, it's easy enough to guess that Huir's character arc will have his apparent coldness towards human life being revised. Even though it's easy enough to guess where all of this is going, watching “Spy Games” unfold is satisfying enough. The pieces slowly fall into place and reveal the truth in a way that's predictable but entertaining. If nothing else, the movie is efficient, making sure all its various subplots build towards the ending.

That includes the movie's love story. While posing as a photojournalist in Beirut, and trying to convince a doctor to help assassinate a local Shah who is funding terrorism, Bishop becomes close to a relief worker named Elizabeth Hadley. Hadley, played by Catherine McCormack, falls into bed with Bishop. The film seems to intentionally keeps itself guarded around this romance. The scenes of Pitt and McCormack being romantic, which certainly seem effective enough, are limited. It's an odd choice, as the dissolution of their relationship is the reason Bishop and Huir have their falling out. You'd think the film would want to focus more on that. But I guess someone figured the relationship between the men was more important.

With “The Fan,” Tony Scott's already stylized direction started to grow more hyperkinetic. In “Enemy of the State,” we watched it grow even more frantic, with grittier camera movement, more helicopter shots of the city swinging by, and editing that was even faster. In “Spy Game,” Scott pushes this even further. There's yet more helicopter shots, including an extended sequence of Pitt and Redford talking on a rooftop. The movie does this annoying thing a few times, where the footage speeds up while panning to one side before immediately returning to normal. Scott also makes sure to include some black-and-white footage and on-screen text, usually in the form of the time or location. While some of those touches aren't the worst, it does start to get grating after a little while. These visual techniques don't seem to serve the story in any way. 

Yet, when you get down to it, Tony Scott still knows how to engineer an effective action scene. There's not a lot of explosions or chaos in “Spy Game.” But when it comes, you notice it. A sequence devoted to an unexpected shoot-out in Beirut is a highlight of the movie. Bullets fly through the air, glass shatters, and blood explodes suddenly against windshields. It all climaxes with a massive explosion. Interestingly, Scott makes sure to focus on the aftermath of this violence, showing the burnt-out ruins and bodies with missing limbs being laid on the ground. Not only does this make “Spy Game” grittier than the director's more light-hearted action films but it also works for the film, by showing the differences between Bishop and Huir's opinion towards human life. 

“Spy Game” would come out in November of 2001, not long after the September 11th terrorist attacks in America changed the planet forever. One assumes that this was not exactly the kind of escapist entertainment Americans were hungry for right in the wake of such an event. This is presumably why the movie only made 62 million at the domestic box office, far short of its 112 million budget. Worldwide ticket sales brought its gross to 143 million, so it wasn't a total wash for 20th Century Fox. Nevertheless, “Spy Game” remains one of Tony Scott's more forgotten films. It's not a bad flick, doing what it needs to and distracting the audience with some decent performances and one or two fun, if predictable, twists. It's worth it, if for no other reason than to see Redford and Pitt light up the screen briefly. [Grade: B-] 

Director Report Card: Tony Scott (1998)

10. Enemy of the State

Supposedly, at some point in the early nineties, Jerry Bruckheimer and Don Simpsons conceived of a thriller based around the National Security Agency. They tried to recruit Tony Scott but he was unimpressed with the script. After partnering again on “Crimson Tide,” they manage to interest the director in the project once more. In fact, Scott was apparently already in development on “Enemy of the State” when he made “The Fan,” testing some of the visual techniques he hoped to use on his next film on that project. When the film would actually roll into production later in the decade, it would see Scott re-teaming with Gene Hackman and another performer well on his way to superstar status: Will Smith. “Enemy of the State” arrived in theaters in 1998.

Corrupt NSA official Thomas Brian Reynolds is determined to push a new security bill through congress, which will allow the organization to spy on any American citizen. When a congressman opposes the bill, Reynolds simply has him killed. The murder is caught on film by a nature photographer. After agents begin to pursue him, the photographer passes the footage to Robert Clayton Dean, a family man and labor rights lawyer. The NSA goes about discrediting Dean and he's soon on the run from the omniscient organization. Shortly afterwards, he encounters Brill, a former security expert, and they team-up to expose the entire conspiracy.

In 1998, "Enemy of the State" seemed much more like fiction than it does now. In the late nineties, the idea of the U.S. government spying on its own citizens under the guise of "protecting us from terrorism" was strictly the arena of paranoid conspiracy thrillers. (Amusingly, the NSA tried to collaborate with the filmmakers and we're disappointed the script portrayed them as the bad guys!) Now, in our post-Patriot Act, Edward Snowden world, we all just take it for granted that everything we say and do is monitored by the government. We're all so numb to the idea of our personal privacy being completely violated that we tell jokes about it. This certainly makes "Enemy of the State" one of the more prescient films of its time.

"Enemy of the State" might have been ahead of the curve over the U.S. government's willingness to spy on its own people but this doesn't mean the movie isn't ridiculous at times. The film was made during that era when many people didn't understand what computers could actually do. There's a moment where someone actually tells a computer technician to zoom-in and enhance. Now only does that work but he's then able to show angles the camera couldn't have possibly have gotten. This meant the film's technology bumps up against science-fiction at times.

No matter how realistic or ridiculous "Enemy of the State" may be the film is most effective as a thriller about a man's life being ruined. Dean seems to have a great life. He has a beautiful wife who loves him, a smart son, a huge house, and a prestigious job where he makes a difference. Yet it doesn't take a lot for it to fall apart once the NSA goes about discrediting him. His credit cards are cut off. His bank account is emptied. His name is run through the mud in the newspaper. His wife becomes convinced he's cheating on her with an old girlfriend. It's a nightmare situation anyone can relate to, everything good in someone's life turning on them. Much like "The Game," "Enemy of the State" shows us how fickle success, no matter how great, can be.

Of course, the movie mines a rich vein of paranoia to some success. After becoming a target for the NSA, Dean is discovering listening devices in his shoes and walls. He meets people that he thinks are allies, only to discover that they are spies. Once Bril – the epitome of "you're not paranoid if they're really after you" – enters the story, "Enemy of the State" exploits this idea for all its worth. He makes it seem like, no matter how much privacy we think we have, someone is always listening. You can't do anything in public and the thoughts in your head are the only truly secret information you have. Presenting this level of paranoia as totally justified is certainly a distressing idea. 

No matter how many high-minded ideas the film may have about privacy, government abuse of power, and the fragility of happiness... This is still a Jerry Bruckheimer production, directed by Tony Scott. The movie seeks to entertain more than it seeks to unnerve. As the story goes on, it bends in increasingly action-packed directions. Dean leads pursuing agents on a foot chase through a hotel, which eventually ends with him running through a crowded traffic tunnel on foot. There's a massive explosion, after Bril's base is located, that's then followed up with a elaborately choreographed car chase. Shoot-outs appear soon enough after that. All of this stuff is certainly entertaining, even if the film is perhaps more effective when focusing on the paranoid side of its premise.

Naturally, Tony Scott knows how to direct explosive action sequences like this. "Enemy of the States" doesn't feature too many of the director's sunset shots, as he prefers a gloomier, chillier visual design here. (Befitting the paranoid tone.) Yet there's still plenty of the classic Scott visuals here, mostly in the form of people in dark rooms squatting before glowing monitors. The over-the-top editing seen in "The Fan" reappears here as well. Shots of helicopters flying over the city or scenes sling-shotting between spy satellites put in appearances. The action scenes are still tightly, frantically edited, so much that a degree of shakiness is starting to work its way in. Yet the film mostly looks as stylish as you'd expect from the director at this point.

Ultimately, the push-and-pull between "Enemy of the State's" desire to be an unsettling thriller about paranoia and a crowd-pleasing action movie is its undoing. In the last act, Dean and Bril successfully turn the tables on the NSA, exposing them to the same spying techniques they use. Ultimately, the bad guys are defeated and peace is restored. For a movie with such a downbeat thesis – that the government doesn't give a shit about people's privacy – a hopeful ending like this feels inappropriate. It's also too neat from a narrative perspective, as a subplot about the mobsters Dean was trying to expose in his day job turns out to exist solely to help resolve the A-plot. A more downbeat denouncement, that continues to suggest nobody is really safe, would've been more fitting.

You can also see this divide in the movie's leading man. Will Smith is certainly believable as a family man with a loving relationship with his wife and kid. He has good chemistry with Regina King, as his outspoken missus. Yet this was Smith during the "Men in Black" era of his career, where he was still expected to toss sarcastic one-liners around during any situation. This is not such a good fit for a movie like "Enemy of the State." His frequent comedic rebuttals to Bril's extreme behavior come off as overly glib. Jokes revolving around lingerie feel especially out-of-place. Smith would eventually evolve pass his smart-ass routine but, at this point, he ends up undermining the film's darker impulses.

Tony Scott supposedly had to really talk Gene Hackman into appearing in the film. It's not hard to figure out why he'd be reluctant, since Hackman's presence makes "Enemy of the State" a stealth sequel to "The Conversation." (Which is still probably Hackman's best performance.) When showing a vintage photograph of Bril, they even use a photo from that 1974 classic. Whether Bril is literally meant to be Harry Caul or not may belong to the realm of fan theories. "Enemy of the State" certainly isn't in the same league as "The Conversation" but it's still entertaining to see Hackman return to such paranoid material. He makes Bril's eccentricities endearing and has good chemistry with Smith, even if their styles sometimes seem at odds with each other.

As much as flashy visuals, eclectic supporting casts are now a trademark of Tony Scott's films. Jon Voight underplays it as Reynolds, making the film's corrupt voice of authority as stately and official-seeming as possible. The film does an interesting thing, by casting actors best known for comedy in small supporting roles. Jason Lee brings a nice, panicky energy to his brief role as the nature photographer. Jack Black and Seth Green, right on the verge of becoming bigger stars, appear as two especially colorful NSA computer experts. Jamie Kennedy is in a similar role. I guess everyone was eager to say they worked with Gene Hackman because a lot of familiar faces are in fairly thin roles. Gabriel Bryne shows up literally for one single scene. Jake Busey and Barry Pepper are in parts that could've been played by any heavy. The movie at least makes good use of Lisa Bonet, as Will's ex-girlfriend/current partner. In just their few scenes together, you can already see some sparks between them. Which is almost certainly because Bonet can have sparks with anyone. 

“Enemy of the State” would open to strong box office and largely positive reviews. It seems to me the chase scenes and explosions pleases summer movie audiences while critics responded to the conspiracy thriller aspects. In the years afterwards, retrospective reviews have been especially kind to the film, noticing how ahead of the curve it was on not trusting the NSA and probing into themes of surveillance and paranoid. More recently, there was even an attempt by Bruckheimer to develop the premise into television series, which didn't get very far. Looking back at it, “Enemy of the State” is not quite as smart or bleak as it should be, falling short of being a truly gripping thriller. Yet, thanks to some energetic direction and a strong cast, it still proves to be a satisfying watch. [Grade: B]