The Interpreter

[tabuno]

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

[tabuno]

Spoiler

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

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

[trevor826]

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

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

Cheers Trev.

[tabuno]

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

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

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

[arsaib4]

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

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

[trevor826]

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

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

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

Cheers Trev.

[tabuno]

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

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

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

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

[tabuno]

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

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

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

[trevor826]

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

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


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

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


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



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


He doesn't define average

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

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

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


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

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


trevor826 relies too much on reputation

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


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

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

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

Cheers Trev.

[oscar jubis]

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


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

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

[trevor826]

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

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

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

Oscar, I hope your wife does enjoy the film.


Sydney Pollack extensively used facial expressions instead of the verbal dialogue

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

Cheers Trev.

[arsaib4]

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



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

[tabuno]

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

[hengcs]

Originally posted by trevor826

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

(edited)

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

PS: I also agree 3 Iron is very good.

[tabuno]

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

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

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

[arsaib4]

Directed by Sydney Pollack, The Interpreter, is an intriguing and suspenseful thriller with political aspirations (albeit of the armchair variety), and it works in a way that thrillers of yesteryears used to. Films like The Manchurian Candidate, The Parallax View, and Pollack’s own Three Days of the Condor succeeded by convincing the audience to uncover their taxonomies, and while The Interpreter doesn’t quite reach that level, it’s still an agreeable effort. Nicole Kidman (blonder than ever before) plays Silvia Broome, a Sorbonne-educated interpreter at the U.N. who was born in the U.S. but raised in Africa. One night she overhears a snatch of conversation involving a possible assassination attempt on a genocidal African leader about to address the General Assembly. But after a subdued secret service agent, Tobin Keller (Sean Penn), and his partner (a wonderful Catherine Keener) get involved with the case, Silvia’s enigmatic history becomes the focus (she has ties with the country and the leader in question -- [country of Matoba and its language of "Ku" are fictional]), and Keller and co. try to solve the mystery behind Silvia’s assured demeanor not quite realizing its depth.

The Interpreter feels like a work of someone who’s been around the block a few times, and Pollack certainly qualifies; moments where he slowly builds up the tension are thrilling to say the least (the events leading to a bombing are one example). And while the film doesn’t always progress in one direction (it’s obvious that it went through numerous rewrites), it usually comes back to exploring a bit more about its characters which is quite rare nowadays. Pollack tries to up the political ante late which doesn’t really work because it wasn’t in the cards earlier -- perhaps the fact that it’s the first film to get access to U.N.’s East-Manhattan structure has some thing to do with it (Hitchcock wasn't able to in 1959 for North by Northwest); nonetheless, veteran cinematographer Darius Khondji does well to capture the vast and impeccable corridors inside as people go about their business. Penn and Kidman don’t have much chemistry together but none is required as the film truly belongs to our "Interpreter" (she even gets the first credit). Penn is wise enough to realize that, adequately playing second fiddle to someone who’s arguably the better actor also. Kidman brings a fiery intensity to her role, and even during stretches when the film becomes tangled with itself, she stands out as someone who we could trust with all of her untrustworthiness.

Grade: B-

*THE INTERPRETER is now playing. It will be available on DVD in October.

[tabuno]

I read with interest and agreement arsaib4's review of The Interpreter yet I can't figure his B- grade. Again, if I remember correctly, this is the second time his written comments don't seem to match his final grade. If I was to grade his comments, I'd rate this movie a B+. What's the story here? Why can't a B- at least be supported by the movie review? I sure would be interested to know what at B+ or A- rating would read like.

[arsaib4]

I appreciate your response. You've asked an interesting question which I think would be quite difficult to explain for anyone because not only the application of a certain grade to a film is subjective, but so is the "grading system" itself, I think. I can only use Howard Schumann as an example because he's the only one who uses grades. If you were to read his "B-" review you would find it quite negative actually. I try to be a little more selective in terms that I use "C+," which is the median grade (between "A+" and "F"), as a sort of a benchmark. So an "average" film (e.g. Sahara), is a "C+" to me which I consider an ambivalent recommendation.

Now, the other concern is the body of the review itself. As you'd agree, it's quite difficult to balance your thoughts in a shorter review while keeping some semblance of continuity. I think I've gotten better but I'm far from "perfect" in terms of of a match between the review and the grade. Certainly, I'm not referring to review which is alloted an "A+," an "A," or an "A-." (I'm sure you agree with the grade given to Crash even though It was a longer review.) I recently gave a "B" to Brothers but I'm not sure that you've seen it so that's probably not a good example.

As for The Interpreter, I thought I mentioned enough weaknesses. Just to highlight a few:

"...political aspirations (albeit of the armchair variety)..."

"...doesn’t quite reach that level..." The Parallax View and Three Days of the Cordor]

"...the film doesn’t always progress in one direction (it’s obvious that it went through numerous rewrites)..."

"Pollack tries to up the political ante late which doesn’t really work because it wasn’t in the cards earlier..."

Again, I've only highlighted some of the negatives. Obviously the positives outweigh them since I believe that it's a good film. I hope my attempt made some sense. BTW, it's okay if you refer to me as a second person.

[tabuno]

Anduril: "As for The Interpreter, I thought I mentioned enough weaknesses. Just to highlight a few:

"...political aspirations (albeit of the armchair variety)..."

"...doesn’t quite reach that level..." [in reference to films like The Parallax View and Three Days of the Cordor]

"...the film doesn’t always progress in one direction (it’s obvious that it went through numerous rewrites)..."

"Pollack tries to up the political ante late which doesn’t really work because it wasn’t in the cards earlier..."

Tab Uno: When a movie has more positives than negatives it then become an automatic C+ to B+ category for me. If a movie "doesn't quite" reach a superior level that is A for me than it still seems ok to give a movie an A-, B+ but a B- isn't "quite reach," for me it means "it doesn't reach." And "political aspirations" well what about the pedestrian political reasons one might consider we're in Iraq with billions of dollar spent and thousands of lives lost... armchair variety but very, very significant. Again the Middle East War, the former USSR and the Cold War...what is armchair strangely enough from a movie standpoint is very, very pedstrian but real...I wouldn't diminish a movie's rating for having pedestrian political aspirations. Aren't some of the best films those that don't always progress in one direction - aren't there supposed to be twists, turns, and deadends? Brazil (1985) comes to mind, The Matrix (1999). And upping the ante when it wasn't in the cards earlier? I don't really see if that's a problem because in most movies, plots are uncovered, as an onion one must go through layers and layers and sometimes the importance of something doesn't emerge until later in a movie - just as in real life sometimes. One just begins to understand the surface features but sometimes one stumbles across a clue of a secret that just by definition is something hidden and not to be none early on in the movie. So something just like the Titanic, the iceberg or the realization of the true damage just gets getting bigger and bigger until the whole movie tips upside down or well it just sinks (but in a good way from a movie standpoint). I still think your movie review rates a B or B+.

[arsaib4]

Originally posted by tabuno
Anduril: "As for The Interpreter, I thought I mentioned enough weaknesses. Just to highlight a few:

LOL. I said "second person," not different person. Anyway, I'm not a "heavyweight"; I'm happy being skinny. ;)

And "political aspirations" well what about the pedestrian political reasons one might consider we're in Iraq with billions of dollar spent and thousands of lives lost... armchair variety but very, very significant.

I'm not quite sure what you meant exactly. You might consider the reasons pedestrian but how they are of the armchair variety yet still significant?

I wouldn't diminish a movie's rating for having pedestrian political aspirations.

I was quite disappointed with Pollack willing to invent a country and a language while being adamant about shooting inside the U.N. It didn't quite make sense to me. We have an oil-for-food scandal going on with which Kofi Annan's son might be involved; there've been allegations of sexual abuse by U.N. peacekeeper troops in Africa; an African leader is assassinated every other week it seems like -- but here we have a filmmaker more interested in getting permission from Annan for the building rather than at least attempting to bring a more relevant issue to the forefront.

Aren't some of the best films those that don't always progress in one direction - aren't there supposed to be twists, turns, and deadends? Brazil (1985) comes to mind, The Matrix (1999). And upping the ante when it wasn't in the cards earlier?

I wasn't just speaking about the twists and turns, but there were also some procedural mishaps and a few things that needed to be explained better.

I still think your movie review rates a B or B+.

I'm glad we're getting closer.

[tabuno]

arsaib4: "I was quite disappointed with Pollack willing to invent a country and a language while being adamant about shooting inside the U.N. It didn't quite make sense to me. We have an oil-for-food scandal going on with which Kofi Annan's son might be involved; there've been allegations of sexual abuse by U.N. peacekeeper troops in Africa; an African leader is assassinated every other week it seems like -- but here we have a filmmaker more interested in getting permission from Annan for the building rather than at least attempting to bring a more relevant issue to the forefront."

tabuno: I surrender. Your comment is so remarkably on target that I feel that my mind has been shot and all my brain matter spilling out to the floor. I must have been so enraptured by Nicole Kidman that I've become a piece of blubber. At this moment, in contemporary terms, your singular statement here can momentarily downgrade The Interpreter significantly. I can only hope that over the test of time, your comments will become less pertinent as new issues and controversies arise and that what Pollack has been able to accomplish is address a more generic but important issue that is more universal and not tied to a specific event or time and thus allow The Interpreter to upgrade its value over time. But yes, your point in the moment very well taken.

As for "armchair variety yet still significant" political aspirations can be some of the most powerful of motivations and bases for a quality movie and underlay some of our most real major events of our time. In The Interpreter you imply that the political aspirations of the movie are one of its weaknesses. For me, such motivations lie at the heart of most of the significant, major events of our time. Watergate, even the Vietnam War could have at its core political aspirations in that Presidencies are won or lost such as President Carter and the Iran Hostage crises. Iraq and President Bush, his political aspiration are now hanging by a thread such is the power of such arm chair political aspirations...something that now even the average American, a majority of Americans are now beginning to have doubts about now.

arsaib4: "there were also some procedural mishaps and a few things that needed to be explained better."

tabuno: good clarification. Probably neither of us have the time nor energy to really pursue the procedural mishaps and the things left unclear in this movie. For me, the basic messages and plot points were sufficiently brought into the open that I had no qualms about more explanations in this movie. As for procedural, I probably noticed some of them but again watching Nicole Kidman, made me forget them - it's like magic, one can manage to slip something by by misdirection - all eyes on Nicole. I just can't remember any to build up to anything to diminish this movie.

[arsaib4]

We recently discussed the decline our B.O. has been in but The Interpreter has proved to be an exception. This quality film shocked the pundits opening with $22 million in the U.S. back in April, and at this point has grossed over $225 million worldwide, thus making it one of the very few true successes of this year so far. (Its budget was about $80 million.)

I appreciate that you took time to answer my questions. While I wanted The Interpreter to take an overt political stance, it’s not without its merits. One character almost single-handedly takes the film there in the penultimate sequence, but it didn’t quite feel right since all we saw earlier were a couple of photographs (I’m trying to be as discreet as possible). Still, your points are notable. Perhaps we didn’t get off to a good start on a couple of occasions, but I’ve enjoyed our conversations recently. I don’t know why people prefer to insult others in order to involve them in a discussion.

As you’ve noticed, I’ve tried to talk about a few more American films recently. While I’ll still continue to champion lesser known films, it’s pretty obvious to me that even on this site, there’s not a heck of a lot of interest in those works. Hopefully, I’ll be able to find the right balance, and, yes, hopefully so will you.

[tabuno]

Perhaps its a little bit like one's first kiss or first date, but on a second go around after having watched The Interpreter on DVD, the initial fascinating, mystery has faded with repeated viewings. I'm not sure whether my initial review still remains valid or whether I was just mesmerized by Nichole Kidman as I usually am. Strangely, I can appreciate the comments of other people's posts now that I've seen the movie again. I still have to believe that this movie has the potential to really have an impact on a first time through basis and it's in that experience without knowing how the future plays out that this movie excells. Yet, obviously it can't be considered even close to a classic if it can't hold up on repeated viewings. Like The Blair Witch Project (1999) the fascination of the movie is in the process of living, experiencing the sensations through the "first time," discovering from the beginning the fresh unknown clues, the unfolding of the plot that leads to the more intriguing satisfaction. In it not so much in the contents that the movie excelled as to how the editing and plot evolved. But as some say about sex it's never as good as the first time and this movie really adds new meaning to that phrase for me.

[arsaib4]

Originally posted by tabuno
I'm not sure whether my initial review still remains valid or whether I was just mesmerized by Nichole Kidman as I usually am.

Even if you were, there's nothing wrong with that.

I still have to believe that this movie has the potential to really have an impact on a first time through basis and it's in that experience without knowing how the future plays out that this movie excells. Yet, obviously it can't be considered even close to a classic if it can't hold up on repeated viewings. Like The Blair Witch Project (1999) the fascination of the movie is in the process of living, experiencing the sensations through the "first time," discovering from the beginning the fresh unknown clues, the unfolding of the plot that leads to the more intriguing satisfaction. In it not so much in the contents that the movie excelled as to how the editing and plot evolved.

There are certainly exceptions, but most thrillers/whodunits don't play well the second time around mostly because the suspense factor isn't there. That's when the audiences also become aware of some of the other issues the film might've had that they missed in the initial viewing.

But films like, say, M (1931) or The Usual Suspects (1995) don't lose much because they have more to offer than the ultimate answer.

I think The Interpreter, even with its flaws, is a film which deserves to be seen, and I hope people get to watch it on DVD.

[oscar jubis]

(Warning: Spoilers)
The basic premise requires significant suspension of disbelief: the UN interpreter who accidentally overhears a plot to kill Zuwanie, an African president, also had her parents killed by landmines same president ordered to be placed. Moreover, the final chapter has Zuwanie staging an elaborate bogus assassination attempt inside the UN building in order to justify his violent policies. It's a movie with a single and clear foreign villain (this ain't no Syriana or even The Constant Gardener) which makes it rather simple and old-fashioned.

What makes The Interpreter worth-watching is the flawless execution by a wonderful crew and cast headed by Sydney Pollack. Maybe it's not saying too much but it's his best film in 20 years (since 1985's Out of Africa). The action scenes are edited for both excitement and spatial clarity, a rarity nowadays. For the first time since the United Nations complex was completed, a filmmaker was allowed full access to it and the payoff is obvious. The pacing of the narrative generates quite a bit mystery and suspense while remaining grounded in characterization. Nicole Kidman as the interpreter who vacilates between violence and diplomacy as a response to evil, and Sean Penn as a security agent drowning in grief, are both very good.