Due to the nature of the medium, most professions portrayed in films are far more interesting, intriguing and/or exciting than in real-life where most cops rarely pull their guns, paleontologists usually don't encounter cloned dinosaurs and cartoonists seldom enter the cartoon worlds they've created.
By their very secretive essence, it's hard to tell exactly what spies are like in the real world, but with various ones being uncovered and exposed as of recent, it doesn't appear that their lives are as sexy, dangerous and/or exotic as portrayed in spy-based entertainment such as the James Bond series or any number of similar films. Instead, most of their job requirements are probably rather mundane and the long stakeouts, research and paperwork would probably be less than thrilling for most viewers to behold.
In that sense, the latest such spy film, "The Tailor of Panama," fits that humdrum aura, but more so in mood and resultant feeling than in actually showing spies sitting around and doing very little or nothing. In fact, writer/director John Boorman ("The General," "Deliverance") and co-writer John le Carré (the novelist who's adapted his own work after writing other novels such as "The Spy Who Came in From the Cold") appear to have fashioned an engaging, interesting and even funny spy caper.
Yet, while the film seemingly has all of the proper ingredients in place, features a great cast, and is certainly competently made and handsomely staged, it never manages to feel like it gets out of second gear. As a result, it's unlikely that many viewers will get too excited about the film and what it has to offer.
Part of that might stem from the presence of the latest James Bond himself, Pierce Brosnan, in the role of this picture's British agent. Having thrilled viewers in those films (such as "The World is Not Enough") and playing similarly resourceful and charismatic characters in "The Thomas Crown Affair" and TV's "Remington Steele," his standing onscreen reputation ends up conflicting with his character here.
That's actually appears to be part of the wry joke that the filmmakers are delivering in this moderately witty film -- that slowly turns from a drama into something of a farce -- as Brosnan plays something of an anti-Bond type spy character.
Resourceful in more of a self-serving way than in being at the Majesty's beck and call, the character isn't particularly likable or sympathetic, and he doesn't really do anything that will get viewers to cheer for his success or be impressed by his actions and behavior. While that's presumably the intended point, viewers usually want to experience one sort of strong emotion or another toward characters - love 'em or hate 'em - rather than feeling rather blasé about what they see.
Yet, that's the film's biggest problem. Despite the progressively developing storyline that sounds interesting -- of a character unknowingly setting into motion an increasingly out of control series of events by making up stories of political unrest - the overall film feels far too sedate for most of its running time. It only finally starts to pick up steam toward the end, but by then, it's a little too late.
Notwithstanding the reputation-based conflict, Brosnan is actually good in the role, convincingly playing the sort of rogue who would do what he does and get away with it. The film really belongs to Geoffrey Rush ("Quills," "Shine"), however, in the title role. Although his is not an infallible character, Rush imbues him with enough engaging characteristics that you can't help but enjoy and be entertained by his performance.
As his suspicious wife, Jamie Lee Curtis ("Halloween: H2O," "True Lies") is decent but unremarkable, which can also be said about Brendan Gleeson ("The General," "Lake Placid") and Leonor Varela ("The Man in the Iron Mask," the TV miniseries "Cleopatra") as his fabricated revolutionaries, and Catherine McCormack ("Dangerous Beauty," "Braveheart") as the spy's embassy lover. All deliver solid performances, yet none really light any sort of fire, much like the film itself, beyond the various sex scenes.
While the picture contains no specific structural flaw or bad performance, it simply never manages to be engaging or compelling enough to overcome its overall bland and lackluster feel. Although it looks great, is more than competently made and features a good cast who deliver solid performances - all of which make it easy enough to sit through - the film is near instantly forgettable.
![[Logo]](/images/screenit_logo2.jpg){kind=logo}
