The first time I saw this, about ten years ago, I thought it was pretty cool. Zippy car chases, nicely staged, up and down stairs in Hamburg, in and out of passageways, and so forth. Three -- count 'em -- three gorgeous women. Gene Hackman and Matt Dillon, a couple of engaging actors. And it had an interesting premise, too. Young man doesn't get along well with his dad, discovers dad was a CIA spy, develops new respect for him.
But I just saw it again, less distracted by the puzzling plot, and it was something of a disappointment. The women are just as gorgeous, Gene Hackman is as good as he almost always is, and the shenanigans with the cars are as exciting, but the rest seems pedestrian, almost amateurishly done -- from the script to the direction.
I'll give you an example of what I mean. Hackman and Dillon are driving on a crowded road outside of Paris. Hackman is driving slowly and Dillon impatiently urges him to speed it up. Hackman, his eyes on the rear-view mirror, says, "We've got company." Then he shifts into a lower gear and the Peugot leaps ahead. "What are you doin'?" Dillon exclaims. "Seeing how good he is," replies Hackman with a slight smile. There follows a high speed chase with cars twirling around on wet sandy roads, through some kind of quarry, and it ends with Hackman confronting the other driver and telling him to quit following him. The chase is fine. But it's pointless. Why is the car chase in the movie anyway? "Seeing how GOOD he is?" That's the reason these lives are put in danger for five hectic minutes? Not to mention the Peugots? That would be a great motive for a car chase in a kiddy cartoon.
The rest of the plot is almost as weak. Matt Dillon's character is a complete irritation for the first third of the movie. He seems to have nothing but contempt for his father, although Hackman doesn't seem to be guilty of much more than losing the kid's jitterbug bass lure. Dillon is always noodging him, the way Captain Ahab was always noodging Moby Dick. The kid is a dumb, self-indulgent slob and Hackman can never do anything right. Well -- that's okay as a proposition, but it's very poorly delivered, and Dillon's character is turned into a strident stereotype. Furthermore, Dillon himself gives an artless and unconvincing performance in a role that maybe nobody could convincingly enact. When Dillon finds out his father, whom he'd thought to be an ineffective stick-in-the-mud, was a spy, he almost begins to weep as he goes through his lines -- "You've been lying to me all this time." Dillon ought to be elated at discovering his Dad's secret identity.
Another curious incident, among so many curious incidents: the evil guys (and man, do they LOOK evil with their black leather coats and their rimless spectacles as thick as Coke bottle bottoms) have kidnapped Hackman's succulent wife, Gale Hunnicutt, because he has information they want him to spill. So the first thing they do when he steps off the plane is try to massacre him in a drive-by shooting? Did I miss something? Why kill someone you need to wring information from?
I won't go on, I guess. It's still an engaging movie if you're seeing it for the first time because you don't know where it's going to turn next. And the location shooting is interesting too, reminding us that in the middle of a chill wintry drizzle even Paris doesn't look so hot, never mind Hamburg. It has other exciting moments that I haven't mentioned. Identities twist themselves inside out unexpectedly. I don't want to get into that and possibly debase the film's chief virtue.
But I just saw it again, less distracted by the puzzling plot, and it was something of a disappointment. The women are just as gorgeous, Gene Hackman is as good as he almost always is, and the shenanigans with the cars are as exciting, but the rest seems pedestrian, almost amateurishly done -- from the script to the direction.
I'll give you an example of what I mean. Hackman and Dillon are driving on a crowded road outside of Paris. Hackman is driving slowly and Dillon impatiently urges him to speed it up. Hackman, his eyes on the rear-view mirror, says, "We've got company." Then he shifts into a lower gear and the Peugot leaps ahead. "What are you doin'?" Dillon exclaims. "Seeing how good he is," replies Hackman with a slight smile. There follows a high speed chase with cars twirling around on wet sandy roads, through some kind of quarry, and it ends with Hackman confronting the other driver and telling him to quit following him. The chase is fine. But it's pointless. Why is the car chase in the movie anyway? "Seeing how GOOD he is?" That's the reason these lives are put in danger for five hectic minutes? Not to mention the Peugots? That would be a great motive for a car chase in a kiddy cartoon.
The rest of the plot is almost as weak. Matt Dillon's character is a complete irritation for the first third of the movie. He seems to have nothing but contempt for his father, although Hackman doesn't seem to be guilty of much more than losing the kid's jitterbug bass lure. Dillon is always noodging him, the way Captain Ahab was always noodging Moby Dick. The kid is a dumb, self-indulgent slob and Hackman can never do anything right. Well -- that's okay as a proposition, but it's very poorly delivered, and Dillon's character is turned into a strident stereotype. Furthermore, Dillon himself gives an artless and unconvincing performance in a role that maybe nobody could convincingly enact. When Dillon finds out his father, whom he'd thought to be an ineffective stick-in-the-mud, was a spy, he almost begins to weep as he goes through his lines -- "You've been lying to me all this time." Dillon ought to be elated at discovering his Dad's secret identity.
Another curious incident, among so many curious incidents: the evil guys (and man, do they LOOK evil with their black leather coats and their rimless spectacles as thick as Coke bottle bottoms) have kidnapped Hackman's succulent wife, Gale Hunnicutt, because he has information they want him to spill. So the first thing they do when he steps off the plane is try to massacre him in a drive-by shooting? Did I miss something? Why kill someone you need to wring information from?
I won't go on, I guess. It's still an engaging movie if you're seeing it for the first time because you don't know where it's going to turn next. And the location shooting is interesting too, reminding us that in the middle of a chill wintry drizzle even Paris doesn't look so hot, never mind Hamburg. It has other exciting moments that I haven't mentioned. Identities twist themselves inside out unexpectedly. I don't want to get into that and possibly debase the film's chief virtue.