"Contrived Phoney Baloney"

email this story
read comments (17)
post a comment

Corrected: Given Thursday morning's thumbs-up capsule review from a friend of Ridley Scott's Body of Lies, this slam review by Variety's Todd McCarthy came as a bit of a shock.

"Neither the location-based verisimilitude of Ridley Scott's shooting style nor the estimable Middle East expertise of source-material author David Ignatius can disguise Body of Lies as anything other than the contrived phony-baloney it is. Coming on like an inside account of CIA operations against jihad-minded terrorists, pic shows its true colors by featuring a shootout, chase or big explosion every 10 minutes or so, on its way to a climax so conventional it would have been at home in a 1940s Warner Bros. melodrama."

I read McCarthy's review on my iPhone while getting gas on the way up to Santa Barbara. I literally said "whoa" out loud while reading the first graph.

The Hollywood Reporter's Kirk Honeycutt came in positive, although I wondered what he really meant when he wrote that the film "may not be as much fun as old spy movies starring Cary Grant" -- North by Northwest? -- "or more recent entertainments such as Spy Game, directed by Ridley's brother Tony, but it feels all too accurate." Or this statement: "To be sure, the film retains familiar genre elements...but how the action-thriller crowd will react to such a disturbing environment is a tough call."

Biden's Choke-Up Moment<< previous | next >>Six Days Old

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on October 3, 2008 at 4:01 AM

comment #1

actionman says ...

And yet the Reporter loved it, not echoing any of what McCarthy said.

Wells -- you're up early today!

Posted by actionman at October 3, 2008 4:16 AM

comment #2

gruver1 says ...

Not "up early." Crashed for a couple of hours, and now II can't sleep for some reason.

Posted by gruver1 at October 3, 2008 4:33 AM

comment #3

doobiedoo says ...

Mike Goodridge's Screen International review was also extremely positive.

I'm increasingly convinced Todd McCarthy is starting to either lose his sense of the business, or his mind. The viciousness with which he slammed Burn After Reading and Flash of Genius seemed completely out of context to the films and their audiences.

And now this. I've seen Body of Lies, and think it's one of the more subversive mainstream films i've seen in ages.

For a while there I actually thought Scott was about to pull off one of the more shocking and politically radical denouements of recent cinema. He cops out with a fairly silly twist, but up until that point, i was both hugely entertained and intruiged.

Mark Strong is also TERRIFIC and dominates every scene he's in.

Posted by doobiedoo at October 3, 2008 5:07 AM

comment #4

actionman says ...

Wells -- that sucks. I had some serious problems sleeping the last few months. Very aggravating. Maybe your still on a high from the Ed Harris tribute -- I know I'd be!

Yeah, McCarthy's recent pans of Burn and Tropic Thunder were WAY off base. I haven't seen Flash of Genius though I very much want too. He was very mean to that film, which looks like a solid piece of entertainment based on the trailers.

Posted by actionman at October 3, 2008 5:46 AM

comment #5

Josh Massey says ...

Madonna and Willem Dafoe have never been better.

Posted by Josh Massey at October 3, 2008 6:34 AM

comment #6

p.Vice says ...

No shock here.

Posted by p.Vice at October 3, 2008 6:45 AM

comment #7

actionman says ...

what, that McCarthy is out of touch?

Posted by actionman at October 3, 2008 6:50 AM

comment #8

p.Vice says ...

Who said anything about McCarthy being out of touch?

Posted by p.Vice at October 3, 2008 6:58 AM

comment #9

Spacesheik says ...

"Madonna and Willem Dafoe have never been better"

Hahah, Josh.

Plenty of wax to go around.

Posted by Spacesheik at October 3, 2008 7:01 AM

comment #10

actionman says ...

Doobiedoo raised that idea...and I think he's on to something. McCarthy can certainly spin a phrase and he's very knowledgeable, but like Peter Bart and many others at Variety, he's starting to feel a little out of touch.

Did you see Burn After Reading, p.Vice? It was like I saw a COMPLETELY different film than McCarthy did. Same with Tropic Thunder.

Posted by actionman at October 3, 2008 7:01 AM

comment #11

p.Vice says ...

I wouldn't call McCarthy out of touch, because the definition of "out of touch" depends on what one is supposed to be in touch with. McCarthy is employed to bring a very traditional and conservative industry-specific viewpoint to his reviews and he does that well. That might mean he'll dislike some movies that don't fit the mainstream template but it doesn't mean his reviews don't give a pretty good idea of where the film is coming from and how it plays. I wouldn't say I agree with his opinion of either Burn After Reading or Tropic Thunder, but having read both of those reviews before seeing the films I'd say they gave me an accurate portrait of the films I wound up seeing.

Posted by p.Vice at October 3, 2008 7:49 AM

comment #12

actionman says ...

I don't understand. He panned both Burn and Tropic. Out right killed Burn if I'm not mistaken. You said that you didn't agree with him. So how were the films an accurate portrait of what you saw? Not trying to pick a fight here, just asking.

I read both of the reviews before I saw the films. And when the films were over, I really couldn't understand any of the criticisms that he lodged against either of them. It was like we saw two completely different films with the same title. And it's not just McCarthy; go read Sarris or Reed or Armond White (who is just about the biggest JOKE of any critc writing today).

Posted by actionman at October 3, 2008 7:57 AM

comment #13

Chapman Carruthers says ...

confused how anyone else's words can accurately portray what you see during a later experience.

sounds like you're looking for a recitation of facts and little else, actionman. not sure how reviews will stand up if the editor's cut out all the opinions.

Posted by Chapman Carruthers at October 3, 2008 8:09 AM

comment #14

K. Bowen says ...

Ummm .... Body of Evidence?

Sorry Jeff. But it's better to correct than leave be.

Posted by K. Bowen at October 3, 2008 8:29 AM

comment #15

p.Vice says ...

If you consider how a person's opinion affects their choice of language, you can read statements that might imply a positive or negative slant as description rather than opinion. This is what I took from McCarthy's Burn review:

"sophomoric snarky mode / dark goofball comedy " - So tone-wise we're looking at Hudsucker / Raising Arizona territory.

"seriously talented cast has been asked to act like cartoon characters." The movie is taking a satirical edge with characters who aren't meant to be taken literally, and there aren't going to be a lot of super-serious dramatic scenes.

"tale of desperation, mutual suspicion and vigorous musical beds, all in the name of laughs that only sporadically ensue." I've got an idea of some of the film's thematic beats, and also know it's not a belly laugh kind of movie.

"without the grounding of a serious substructure that would make the sudden turn to violence catch the viewer up short". There's not a lot of depth or digression to the plot. It's a movie that stays on track.

"feels immature but was evidently written around the same time as that for “No Country,” It could bear some resemblance to No Country but it's an altogether different and less weighty film.

"economy of storytelling is in evidence, as is their unerring visual sense" -- It's a Coen movie that bears their mark as directors.

Posted by p.Vice at October 3, 2008 8:47 AM

comment #16