There was an article I read a while back inquiring why films for older moviegoers were failing at the box office, DUPLICITY being among them. After seeing DUPLICITY, the problem is not the age group, the problem is the movie itself.
Can't any screenwriter tell an actual story without having to use constant flashbacks? A movie should tell a story from A to Z. Not from A to M to E to P to G to W to K to Z. The movie starts in 2003, then heads into 5 YEARS LATER, then 2 YEARS AGO, then the present, then 18 MONTHS AGO, back to the present again, then 14 MONTHS AGO, back to the present once again, then 6 MONTHS AGO, back to the present yet again, then 3 MONTHS AGO, once again to the present, and just when we thought we were finally done, then comes 10 DAYS AGO, and AGAIN back to the present. See how all these numerous flashbacks can make watching a movie confusing? Who in their right mind thought this plot device was a good idea? Note to screenwriters: ENOUGH WITH THE FLASHBACKS!!!
Then you have the boxed-in shots that go in and out and in and out of the screen several times. Sorry, but if your movie is this incoherent, fancy camera moves are not going to save it. It's just a movie that looks cool but feels hollow inside.
Then you have no idea who's the good guy or the bad guy. Or who's the good spy or the bad spy. Or who works for who. Or what country or state they're in. I kept looking at my roommate and he was just as confused as I was.
And all this for a shampoo that cures baldness? Haven't the screenwriter heard of Rogaine? Or Bosley Hair Club for Men?
As for the acting, it was...eh. I never thought Julia Roberts was much of an actress to begin with. If this was suppose to be her comeback, it looked more like a comedown. If she doesn't want to end up like Meg Ryan, she better stop playing the ingénue and start playing a grownup. Clive Owen just seemed like he was trying to be George Clooney but just looked plain uncomfortable. In fact, I think George Clooney would've done a better job as the lead actor in this, or at least make it watchable. Tom Wilkinson and Paul Giamatti were woefully underused. In fact, the only thing I liked about the film was the opening credits, with Wilkinson and Giamatti giving each other the smack-down in the rain at an airplane hanger.
The biggest con was on the moviegoers.
Can't any screenwriter tell an actual story without having to use constant flashbacks? A movie should tell a story from A to Z. Not from A to M to E to P to G to W to K to Z. The movie starts in 2003, then heads into 5 YEARS LATER, then 2 YEARS AGO, then the present, then 18 MONTHS AGO, back to the present again, then 14 MONTHS AGO, back to the present once again, then 6 MONTHS AGO, back to the present yet again, then 3 MONTHS AGO, once again to the present, and just when we thought we were finally done, then comes 10 DAYS AGO, and AGAIN back to the present. See how all these numerous flashbacks can make watching a movie confusing? Who in their right mind thought this plot device was a good idea? Note to screenwriters: ENOUGH WITH THE FLASHBACKS!!!
Then you have the boxed-in shots that go in and out and in and out of the screen several times. Sorry, but if your movie is this incoherent, fancy camera moves are not going to save it. It's just a movie that looks cool but feels hollow inside.
Then you have no idea who's the good guy or the bad guy. Or who's the good spy or the bad spy. Or who works for who. Or what country or state they're in. I kept looking at my roommate and he was just as confused as I was.
And all this for a shampoo that cures baldness? Haven't the screenwriter heard of Rogaine? Or Bosley Hair Club for Men?
As for the acting, it was...eh. I never thought Julia Roberts was much of an actress to begin with. If this was suppose to be her comeback, it looked more like a comedown. If she doesn't want to end up like Meg Ryan, she better stop playing the ingénue and start playing a grownup. Clive Owen just seemed like he was trying to be George Clooney but just looked plain uncomfortable. In fact, I think George Clooney would've done a better job as the lead actor in this, or at least make it watchable. Tom Wilkinson and Paul Giamatti were woefully underused. In fact, the only thing I liked about the film was the opening credits, with Wilkinson and Giamatti giving each other the smack-down in the rain at an airplane hanger.
The biggest con was on the moviegoers.