Duplicity (2009) User Reviews

Romance, Comedy and Drama---It Has It All

[atlasmb · 7/10 · 12 March 2020]

Set in the high-stakes world of corporate espionage, this is a film built on the interplay between writer/director and viewer. It jumps from the present to flashbacks repeatedly, every time revising the viewer's understanding of present-day action.

There is ambiguity in the intentions of Ray (Clive Owen) and Claire (Julia Roberts), rival agents who join forces, it seems, to pull off a big payday. This is a romance between two people who never trust anyone. Is such a thing possible? The film keeps us guessing as each flashback adds another layer of understanding, in effect rewriting the story.

One must pay attention to follow the narrative as it twists, turns, and doubles back on itself, but the payoff is worth it.

One of my favorite things about this film is the music. The film credits James Newton Howard, who has a nearly-endless list of compositional accomplishments. The accompaniment to the opening credits of this film is a good indication of what is to come musically.

Much like "The Thomas Crown Affair", comedy is interwoven with the drama in an enjoyable way. A strong cast, well directed, keeps things just light enough that the drama is not undercut.

Duped to the End

[thesar-2 · 5/10 · 7 July 2009]

Having just finished the enormously disappointing 'The International,' a 2009 espionage thriller starring Clive Owen, I can't believe I saw 'Duplicity'…another 2009 espionage thriller starring Clive Owen. Sue me, I'm a Julia Roberts fan, I actually like Owen – we all make mistakes so no judgments on some projects, and I love a good 'Ocean's Eleven'-type spy/dark comedy. Fortunately, after having to take several breaks in 'Duplicity' and wanting to turn this off for good, I stuck through to the end. I'm glad I did. Few horrible movies, as I thought this was slowly becoming, reach out and grab me in the closing. Perfect movie? By no means; it's barely average, but if you allow yourself, like I did, to reach the climax, you'll probably be equally surprised. After roughly three-dozen "two weeks ago," "ten years ago," etc, flashbacks, you'll learn Roberts and Owen are capers in love attempting to make a heist (and life) together using their trained skills. After awhile, they settle down between two rivaling companies bent on cosmetology, products, etc. You, the viewer, pick up clues along the way on whose side who's on and who you can trust. Big problems with the film started with an maddening slow-mo Wilkinson/Giamatti intro, then the endless boxed in scenes (dang, I know style, but this was as ridiculous and annoying as Lee's 'Hulk' comic book, uh, approach to minimizing the screen) and with the extreme lack of chemistry between the two leads. Sure, Owens is swift and good, but Roberts looks fresh off the 'Ocean's' set, with almost zero charisma she was built on in the early 90s. In fact, she just looks tired. Motherhood might do that. Nevertheless, it had its moments, and the end ties all the confusion you'll have. I certainly did until the last act.

a throwback to very good "light" Hollywood Hitchcock, with virtues and vices (mostly virtues)

[Quinoa1984 · 7/10 · 20 March 2009]

We need more filmmakers like Tony Gilroy in Hollywood right now. Coming off of his debut feature Michael Clayton, after years of working on stuff like the Bourne movies, to his second film Duplicity, he's marked some strong territory as a guy who can work with top-shelf A-list talent and put them in material that is mature just enough to make it safe for the 30+ year olds to see it and not think their intelligence is being wasted. His films provide such a wealth of juicy scenes of dialog and plots that make us think about what the characters will do next as opposed to just spoon-feeding along the conventions. And even if Duplicity is not quite as excellent as his first film (and suffice to say it's got a couple of things that make it tick) it's still a marker of fine entertainment. At the least, it makes for a strong matinée viewing, if one were to rate it such.

Like one of those features from the 40s or 50s from Hitchcock where he would place Cary Grant and (insert blonde bombshell here), Duplicity relies on its stars, and sometimes its dependable character actor supporting players, to make it more about watching them and how they go about the material as opposed to the real specifics of what to worry in the plot itself. Hitchcock wasn't worried about what was really in the "secret" formula since he knew, maybe rightfully so, that the audience doesn't really care either. When will Grant and Kelly have that kiss? It's certainly a lot more fun trying to explain how well Clive Owen and Julia Roberts fit into this classic Hollywood couple mold (not to mention since it's their second time on-screen following the more theater-based Closer) and play off one another than describing how "one is a MI6 and the other CIA and their operatives in these corporate firms and one might be making a toaster oven or yada yada and they both do A and B and..."

So yeah, basically Duplicity is about conning and about not believing what the other person is saying, but at the same time Gilroy toys around with the idea of people who are stuck in a world where by proxy they can't trust one another but get each other so well who the other is at the same time. The characters Tom Wilkinson and Paul Giamatti play- who, by the way, share one of the funniest and most awesome opening credits sequences I've seen in years- are playing checkers in their corporate one-oneupmanship games, but it's Roberts and Owen that are playing chess which is a little brainier but trickier at the same time.

One might criticize that there's almost too much of this back-and-forth guessing and curiously trying to figure out what the other is saying about something. But if done right in a film it can be fun to watch just to see what move or motive or revelation will come next. And Gilroy has casted these two stars so perfectly that you can lose yourself in these scenes where they keep playing the same guessing games (some dialog deliberately repeated). This helps especially when the actual plot becomes a little silly, and particularly when it's revealed in the last ten minutes what the big TWIST has occurred. It won't do any good to explain what it is, but suffice to say it's a little too convenient to put into exposition, and it's been done before. In a script that is otherwise sharp and clever and dramatically pleasing in construction and character Gilroy falls back on a couple of tired devices towards the end.

It comes dangerously close, as Ebert pointed out, to saying simply "who cares?" But, thankfully, Duplicity does, for at least roughly in total 2/3 of the running time, give us characters to care about and go along for the ride with and so have this sheer joy of an A-list movie that tries to be about the guessing game and cons and covert operations and the nature of this whole thing Gilroy's dealing with. And the last shot, thankfully, tries to put a good coda on everything that's happened. It's a glossy, breezy time in usually the best way. 7.5/10

Slick but slight

[rogerdarlington · 3 April 2009]

There's no denying it: Julia Roberts - here playing former CIA agent Claire Stenwick - is a star and we've missed her in recent years. British actor Clive Owen - ex MI6 agent Ray Koval - is watchable enough, so the pairing works quite well, especially when delivering some sharp lines from writer Tony Gilroy who also directs (the same twin talents that he exercised on "Michael Clayton"). Supporting roles are ably filled by Paul Giamatti and Tom Wilkinson as rival entrepreneurs locked in a bitter conflict that seemingly only one-time spies can bring to a resolution. Throw in some glitzy locations - New York, Rome, the Bahamas - and slick and stylish cinematography and one has a good-looking movie, but not necessarily one that delivers.

In a film that could be called "Ocean's Two", the strength of the work is also paradoxically its weakness. The constant flashbacks are essential to Gilroy's calculated and entertaining - if utterly implausible - narrative but, after a while, they come to feel somewhat convoluted and contrived and the hair-raising plot has an ending that is thin to the point of baldness.

Almost too clever

[lloydinspace · 7/10 · 9 January 2010]

A good film with good acting performances but all too clever to really be enjoyed. I was keeping up with the film right up until the whole "you don't remember me do you" sequence happened again.I would commend this film on the acting and the twists and to show once again clive owen and julia roberts brilliant on screen chemistry.I personally didn't particularly understand the great need for a pharmaceutical company to have spies. It's a bit chilling to think of boots spying on rival companies.a deserved golden globe nomination for julia roberts and a good performance by both clive owen and tom wilkinson with a possible Oscar nomination for julia roberts in the wings. overall i think it was a good film with good acting if not a little too complex.

Nice chemistry between Roberts and Owen

[SnoopyStyle · 7/10 · 4 July 2014]

Competiting CEOs Howard Tully (Tom Wilkinson) and Richard Garsik (Paul Giamatti) truly truly hate each other. Back in 2003 Dubai, Claire Stenwick (Julia Roberts) working for the CIA drugs and takes advantage of Ray Koval (Clive Owen) working for MI6. Five years later, both are working in corporate espionage but are surprised that they're on the same team. Claire has worked her way into corporate security for Tully. Koval is working under Duke (Denis O'Hare) who is running the operation and works for Garsik. Tully is introducing something revolutionary and Garsik wants to know. Claire and Ray can never truly trust each other as spies for hire.

Tony Gilroy is the writer/director. I like this murky complicated written story. I really like Roberts and Owen. It's a fun spy versus spy with twists and turns. They have great chemistry together. The drawback is mostly the product. It's a bit of a letdown and I'm not sure the final twist is as compelling as it thinks it is. It feels like a big artificial twist to pull the rug from under the viewer. And I don't think it makes complete sense.

Elegant, clever film too clever even for itself, in the end

[editor-131 · 6/10 · 22 March 2009]

If Tony Gilroy didn't get the corporate universe "Duplicity" dwells in from John Jakes' 1963 novella "The Sellers of the Dream," I'll eat my hat. (I just ordered the anthology it was published in, since, because the tattered copy given me when I was 13 or 14, along with a pile of others, had pages torn out, I never knew how it ended. Or even middled. That tale (compared also to "Network," for example), was a less dark, more playful satire of a world in which two huge consumer products companies have supplanted the U.S. and U.S.S.R. as the world's pre-eminent rivals, and they each operate, as if in a permanent Cold War of commerce, their own highly antagonistic espionage services—to a degree never before seen on film, till now!) The movie is engaging from the get-go, at least for those who like to get lost in a maze, or who, like me, are constantly trying to stay a step ahead of the plots twists and turns and guess what's going to happen, figure out what's really going on, and predict how it will all come out. (In doing so, I often get to praise myself: "I could write these things!") Here, I almost got some of it ... e.g., I thought they were never actually going to name the game-changing new product, since it seemed to me that was never really what the film was finally going to be about—wasn't going to be part of the narrative payoff. I wasn't quite right. Close, but no cigar. The chemistry between spies Clive Owen and Julia Roberts works, akin to their bleak but intense romance in "Closer," though in tone it's really much more like the constant footsie, potential insinuation of backstabbing and pervasive mistrust as displayed best previously by Catherine Zeta-Jones and George Clooney in the Coen brothers' divorce satire, "Intolerable Cruelty." Ironic, since both movies were released as we here at Film-osophy Central were and are again going through that kind of high-stakes, anxiety-producing split-up. Be that as it may, the film increasingly trips over its own Byzantine cleverness. E.g., what, in the end, was Tully's motive? How indeed, did Ray (Owen) smuggle the product formula out—an especially compelling question because it seemed it was precisely Claire's (Roberts) seemingly gratuitous accusations that set him up for the search that would seem to have prevented it. So, if he outmaneuvered, we are owed the explanation of how (not to mention, why even have thrown her complicating behavior in there at all?) What, too, given the ending, were Tully (Tom Wilkinson) and Garsik (Paul Giamatti), the two CEOs, fighting about on the tarmac—why, and when? There's films that set up, then, in the end, frustrate your expectations and in doing so avoid clichés and the cheap, formula feel-good resolution ("The Wrestler"). There's films that end suddenly, abruptly cutting to black, so that you are forced to then wrestle with what just preceded—it hanging there, now confronting you with the need to digest it, it having been metaphorically rammed down your throat ("No Country for Old Men"). Those endings have legitimacy and do not retrospectively undermine the enjoyability of the preceding two hours. The ending of films like "Duplicity," by contrast—making little sense and leaving too many loose ends, AND seeming and unsalutary inconsistencies—makes you feel you've been duped into thitherto enjoying, and becoming intellectually engaged in, something that didn't ultimately deserve it.

Nothing special

[judywalker2 · 6/10 · 22 March 2009]

This movie is like every other movie in the past few years- nothing special. Duplicity's trailer make it seem a lot more fun that what it really is. This should have been an Ocean's movie; it certainly has the talent to be. Clive Owens and Julia Roberts (not really looking very glamorous) are good actors and they are supported by other stellar performers. So why isn't this movie very much fun? Well its the writing. There are a lot of so called twist that can be guessed almost immediately. Only one actually surprises you. Also the dialog is not very witty and it should have been. In fact it repeats itself so much as to be annoying. So in the end what could have been a fun little romp turns boring in the end.

Even Owen and Roberts couldn't save this confusing and mind boggling mess

[mexicospidergreen · 4/10 · 11 April 2009]

Two corporate spies (Owen & Roberts) hook up (after knowing each other a while back) to pull off a scheme to get 40 Million dollars. The mission is to infiltrate a company that each other work in, and expose a secret product the company is releasing. Soon things get out of plan, and the two spies realize they have more feelings for each other than they recently thought. I've been a fan of Clive Owen ever since Children of Men, and I was so gratified to see Julia Roberts back on the screen. A few years ago both Clive and Julia did a movie together called "Closer", and it was satisfying to see them back together again. Their performances together are the only uplifting value of this film. Although we could have used more of Paul Giamatti and definitely more Tom Wilkinson, the entire cast was perfect for this film. This movie had too much potential in the first half, but after that it becomes a confusing and mind boggling mess of a movie. There were so many twists, and confused story telling even I heard some of the audience members yell out "Huh? What was that about?" The script was good, but the story was horribly told that it came to a very disappointing outcome. That's a shame because I was expecting to enjoy a good suspense movie that wasn't confusing. Duplicity is a often funny and well acted movie, but you'll have to find either the film's director or the screenwriter to translate the story for you, or else you won't get it. It surprisingly turns romantic in the end which makes it a fairly good date movie, but you'll be more confused than dazzled. I have to say skip this movie, and if you want to see Julia Roberts at her best rent Erin Brockovich. If you want to see Clive Owen at his best rent Inside Man. Need I say more?

Okay Thriller; Owen and Roberts Sizzle; Beautiful Locations

[Danusha_Goska · 7/10 · 22 March 2009]

"Duplicity" is a likable thriller, mostly for Clive Owen and Julia Roberts. If you like these stars, chances are you will like this movie. Owen is handsome and suave, both in an expensive suit and in nothing but a bedsheet. Julia Roberts is as beautiful and sexy as ever, but in a new, worldly wise, jaded way.

"Duplicity" is set in glamorous, international locations and its clever script focuses on trust, risk, betrayal and love. So far so good. "Duplicity"'s twist falls a bit flat, though, and belief in it requires that the viewer conclude that characters who had previously been presented as very bright and masterful suddenly be revealed to have been duped by a ruse so obvious even I, no superspy, saw it coming. The final payoff is a fizzle, rather than a joyous explosion.

Denis O'Hare, an actor unfamiliar to me, is strangely compelling as Duke, a low level spy. It was fun realizing how an older, not very handsome actor can, just with his innate acting skill, take a minor, functionary role and become the person you most want to watch on screen.

Conned

[gary-444 · 2/10 · 24 March 2009]

I was lured to see this on the promise of a smart, witty slice of old fashioned fun and intrigue - I was conned. A knowing, pretentious, tedious, overlong story which suffocates under its own artifice. Starring Julia Roberts ( Claire Stenwick) ,and Clive Owen (Ray Koval), as "Duplicitous" spies, the film tries to recreate the glitter, froth and intrigue of roles made famous by the likes of Cary Grant in the 1950's, yet fails under leaden direction and total lack of chemistry between the leads.

Director "Michael Clayton" Tony Gilroy also has writing credits for The Bourne series, so his credentials are excellent. But Clive Owen seems ill at ease as a romantic, witty lead apparently yearning for the opportunity to play the more robust part he played in the under rated "International". Julia Roberts shines in one of her better performances, offering more than her obvious glamour but without the quality of script to enable her to truly excel. She seems barely bothered about enticing Owen into bed, and the word play between them consistently falls flat.

An extensive travelogue incorporating London, Rome, New York, Dubai and Geneva provides some scenic interest, as these erstwhile CIA and MI6 spies swap political espionage for industrial espionage turning into criminal espionage. At 126 minutes it is at least 35 minutes too long. Sharper editing, greater pace, and less "flab" might have made this a better picture. But we are left with it as it is, an instantly disposable, and forgettable addition to the respective parties film credits.

Mr. & Mrs. ...

[kosmasp · 8/10 · 15 August 2009]

When I heard about the movie, I couldn't help myself, but compare this with the Pitt & Jolie movie "Mr. & Mrs. Smith". The comparison does not fit though. Were "Smith" movie was a fun ride, this one is a more complex story.

But not that complex, that you can't follow it or might need a degree to understand it. Fact is though, you can't just relax and let the images just take you away. You have to stay with the story. But it's not hard to stay with the movie, because you have to charismatic leads. Roberts and Owen are great and even the small roles are cast perfectly.

The wit, the humor, the dialogue, the twists ... just everything works smoothly. A really cool twisty spy thriller with actors that play off each other!

Counter Corporate Espionage Comedy

[timothyhilditch · 7/10 · 4 January 2022]

Two spies hatch a plan to get rich. This movie is a game pulling the blindfold on everyone, to create a serious tone of grown ups fighting in a sandpit. Hilarious seriousness with great writing and acting to empathise the multi-layered plot. Laughed out loud for most of it, my kind of comedy.

After all the fun, the ending left a sour taste, once taking the blindfold off it was just a sandpit. If you like creative complex comedies this ones for you. Hopefully now you know about the sour ending it won't taste so bad.

Slick But Shallow Fluff

[zardoz-13 · 4/10 · 25 March 2009]

Oscar-nominated "Michael Clayton" writer & director Tony Gilroy serves audiences a soufflé of sorts in the shallow new Julia Roberts & Clive Owen romantic comedy about jet-setting, globe-trotting corporate spies. Roberts and Owen, who previously co-starred in Mike Nichols' drama "Closer" (2004), keep turning the tables on each other. They love one another so much that they don't trust each other. Ultimately, however, they have the tables turned on them. Mind you, this should come as no surprise to anybody who suffers through this predictable, 125-minute, PG-13 rated comedy of errors. Sadly, "Duplicity" strives to be too smart for its own good, and everything collapses like a soufflé amid Gilroy's Machiavellian plotting. In a way, "Duplicity" imitates last year's assassination thriller "Vantage Point," but it substitutes crisp verbal repartee for crackling violence. The action in this lively industrial espionage epic occurs in splintered chronological spirals that create more confusion than they clear up. Meaning, time jumps around so erratically that you may get lost along the way. The clean-scrubbed charismatic principals generate a lot of chemistry, but they keep having the same conversations in different settings around the world. Indeed, "Duplicity" is not the kind of movie you can follow if you are either sending text messages or get hung up in a line at the concession stand. You'll come back in lost, and your date will have a devil of a time summarizing what you didn't see. After a while, "Duplicity" becomes annoying, even if it boasts splendid photography, scenic settings, and slick editing.

Claire Stenwick (Julia Roberts of "Charlie Wilson's War") is a seasoned CIA agent, and Ray Koval (Clive Owen of "Sin City") is her cloak & dagger counterpart at British MI-6. Wait a minute, who's going to accept Julia Roberts as a CIA agent? Well, since "Duplicity" is a comedy, okay. The role fits Owen like a glove, however, but then he was in the running once to play James Bond. Conversely, Roberts looks like she ought to be selling Tupperware. The action opens five years in the past when Claire and Koval meet for the first time at the American Consulate during a Fourth of July party in Dubai,one of the United Arab Emirates. Koval picks her up, but she outwits him and steals top-secret Egyptian air defense codes that he had stashed under the box springs of his mattress. Actually, naughty little Claire drugged unsuspecting Koval, and he hasn't recovered from her audacity. He catches up with Claire five years later in New York City's Grand Central Station, but she acts like she doesn't remember him. Since their initial encounter in Dubai, our protagonists have retired from international intrigue and have become agents in industrial intrigue.

"Duplicity" concerns the cutthroat competition between two multinational corporations, Equikrom and Burkett & Randle, and they are determined to corner world markets. In fact, they worry more about what the other is doing than what they ought to be doing. Think of them as the fictional equivalents of Pepsi-Cola versus Coca-Cola, but they manufacture everything from soap to medical products. Claire and Koval decide to exploit this feud for their own gain. They go to work for Equikrom. Koval serves as her supervisor, while she goes undercover as a mole into Burkett & Randle. The problem is that neither Claire nor Koval evoke any interest as characters. They constantly spar with each other, but they have no more depth than Gilroy's giddy dialogue. You know a movie is in trouble when the supporting characters prove far more provocative than the primary characters. Equikrom's devious leprechaun like CEO Dick Garsik (Paul Giamatti of "Shoot'em Up") and Burkett & Randall's head honcho Howard Tully (Tom Wilkinson of "Michael Clayton") are rivals to the death. Gilroy shows how much they abhor each other over the slow-motion title credits. They meet on the tarmac at an airport and tangle like wrestlers while their staffs watch in horror. When he learns about a fabled new product Burkett & Randall are about to unveil, Garsik launches a full-scale espionage compaign with Claire and Koval to find out what it is.

"Duplicity" is Julia Roberts' first starring role since the woebegone "Mona Lisa Smile" in 2003. She looks sparkling but terribly miscast. The real scene stealers are Paul Giamatti and Tom Wilkinson. Carrie Preston has some memorable moments as a gullible travel agent that our hero in disguise seduces to gain access to a Burkett & Randall building. The use of multiple flashbacks obliterates any coherence in a movie that should have been as light and dry as a martini. Clearly, Gilroy—who has written better movies such as "Dolores Claiborne" (1995) and the Matt Damon "Bourne" spy trilogy—tries to conceal the absence of substance by swirling past and present timelines. In the end, "Duplicity" is a harmless but loquacious exercise in silliness that contains none of the violence of the Brad Pitt & Angelina Jolie spy comedy "Mr. & Mrs. Smith." The hero and heroine wind up in bed a couple of times for amoral premarital sex, but nudity is confined to an out-of-focus glimpse of a bare-breasted Roberts. Profanity is held to a half-dozen words, so there is nothing really offensive on hand. "Dark Knight" composer James Newton Howard's orchestral score infuses "Duplicity" more energy than anything Roberts and Owen pull off as a pair. The eleventh hour revelation about the product that Burkett & Randal is manufacturing proves rather lame. Happily, "Duplicity" is the kind of movie that you'll forget in no time.

Class

[harry_tk_yung · 13 June 2009]

After brainy "Michael Clayton" and suffocating "Bourne", Tony Gilroy brings us something that has both intelligence (both meanings) and tension, but on a lighter scale, and top it with generous sprinkles of witty dialogue and glamorous sites. From the point of view of sheer enjoyment, "Duplicity" is tops. But then, I am still missing the most important point: this is a love story in a style that is reminiscent of the hay days of the 50s and 60s (think Cary Grant) – in other words, one classy romance.

The title "Duplicity" is well chosen. As the story unfolds, it keeps flipping back and forth between high flying industrial espionage and slow simmering love relationship. With successive flashbacks starting with "5 years ago in Dubai", the plot is spun in such an intriguing way that makes the audience believe that they are really smart in being able to follow. Those who have watched "Michael Clayton" may recognize this clever signature story-telling style of Director Gilroy. To his credit, he has succeeded in mesmerising the audience by making the story sound more complicated than it really is.

Simply told, it's starts in Dubai as one of those sex-first-love-later encounters between two special agents, FBI's Clare (Julia Roberts) and MI-6's Roy (Clive Owen), with ensuing globe-trotting during the next 5 years in glamorous cities such as Rome, London, Miami and others. Along the way, in between sessions in bed, the two also hatch a plot that begins with quitting their respective agencies and ends up in a grand coup to take advantage of a colossal feud between two top pharmaceutical corporations to steal a "formula of the century" and profit to the tune of 40 million dollars. There is of course a surprise final grand twist which is anything from surprising to even the average movie goer. Nor does the plot hold up under a microscopic logical examination. But all these flaws hardly matter. The beauty in the movie is in the rapport between Claire and Ray.

The protagonists are, by profession, trained to mistrust. This is underscored right form their very first encounter when she had him in a six-love set, so to speak. Their relationship is built on mistrust. But then, in attempting what they are setting out to do, they need to have a great deal of mutual trust. Therein lies fascinatingly intriguing drama. But that is only half of it. There is also the romance. The tantalizing question is whether it is used just a tool, or is there transient mutual attraction, or more? Or do they even know the answer themselves?

Roberts, just past 40, is getting into a new phase of her screen persona, looking more serious and pensive than she has ever been. But worry not – the radiant that her audiences know best does break out like a ray of sunshine from behind the clouds from time to time. Owens is right at home in his native elements. The two work together well. There is also an excellent cast of supports, some better known on television than on the big screen. But then, very well know, on the big screen, are Tom Wilkinson and Paul Giamatti. Much mention has already been made of the ingenious opening credit featuring these two locked in a slow-motioned, silence, mortal (figuratively speaking) combat. Don't be late. Don't miss it.

Smart, complicated, and engrossing

[ikanboy · 7/10 · 21 March 2009]

After seeing the preview I was turned off. Seeing it for the umpteenth time didn't change my mind. It looked like a soufflé served for Roberts fans, and predictable. Then I noticed that the reviewers were split, and it was done by the same guy that did Michael Clayton, so I had to see for myself. Besides there has been nothing else to see.

I'm glad I went. It's smart, complicated, well written and directed, and there are plenty of good actors to split up the pie. The best part is that it's not a Roberts vehicle. In her "comeback" she's been content (or smart enough) to take on roles which suit her middle aged reality. Some don't like the shifting time frames. That didn't bother me. Stay awake and it'll not confuse. The Owen/Roberts chemistry works well, and the ending is a surprising hoot.

Come Oscar time we'll have forgotten it, although I do have a hankering for a nod to Carrie Preston in a hilarious five minutes of fame piece, as the woman who Owen Bonks to get inside info from. Priceless!

Too Cool to Notice It Isn't

[moutonbear25 · 7/10 · 20 March 2009]

Can you think of anything more satisfying than pulling a fast one on someone? It's even more delicious when that particular someone is someone you care about or who has gotten you more times than you would like to remember. The look on their faces when they realize they've been had is worth every painstaking effort you had to make to pull it off. You would think then that DUPLICITY, a film in which two very likable and sneaky folks, Julia Roberts and Clive Owen, who have proved chemistry together from working previously in Mike Nichols' CLOSER, would be sticking it to each other so bad that you would delight in every jab they made at each other. Well, the ultimate joke would be on you then because, while writer/director, Tony Gilroy, positions DUPLICITY as a feisty heist movie by stepping up the cool factor any way he can, it is actually nothing more than a failed prank fallen flat on its pretty Hollywood face.

When we first meet Claire Stenwick and Ray Koval (Roberts and Owen), they are drinking it up in Dubai at the US consulate. She isn't the least bit interested in him and he is working her as hard as he can. I didn't hear it but he must have said the right thing at some point because they end up in bed together. Of course, she was only sleeping with him so that she could drug him and steal some super secret international spy stuff. And naturally, he put aside all of his super secret spy training and allowed himself to be taken in by her beauty. It is a fleeting moment with very little chemistry or connection but this is supposed to be the instance that binds the two in a lust that is supposed to span years and lead to what we're told is true love. They reconnect years later in some other exotic shooting location and concoct a plan to dupe two high profile rival corporations and make off with millions of dollars that will allow them to bask in exorbitantly rich bliss for the rest of their lives. It's a fine plan but I wasn't buying anything.

Gilroy's last directorial effort was his first. MICHAEL CLAYTON earned him respect from critics and contemporaries alike as the film went on to earn a number of Oscar nominations, including Best Picture and Best Director for Gilroy himself. Gilroy enlisted some of the same players he worked with last time out, including composer, James Newton Howard, cinematographer, Robert Elswit and even cast member, Tom Wilkinson, rejoins the gang as the head of one of these soon-to-be-conned corporations. How is it then that when all these folks got together last time, they achieved such subtle perfection while this time, Howard sounds as though he were ripping off the OCEAN'S 11 through 13 scores and Elswit is practically washed out? (Wilkinson is still great as he can do very little wrong in my book.) Perhaps the blame can be placed on Gilroy's most tired screenplay in years. By keeping corporate espionage grounded in reality last time out, he made it fascinating and relatable. By infusing it with Hollywood convention, the whole game was played out before it even began.

DUPLICITY boils down to very little more than two pretty people running games on each other and anyone else they can. The trouble is that the games they're running are amusing only to them and entirely transparent to the rest of us. The truly duplicitous nature of DUPLICITY it would seem is just that everyone on that side of the screen thinks they are so much funnier, so much sneakier and so much more dubious than what we on this side of the screen actually see. Once again, the cool kids are too ignorant to notice that they are nowhere near as cool as they think they are.

www.blacksheepreviews.com

Stars shine in complicated spy comedy

[Philby-3 · 7/10 · 5 April 2009]

This is a good old-fashioned piece of escapist entertainment lacking the usual violence and thuggery with two very photogenic leads and plenty of comic support. The plot, though, is way more complicated than it need have been. Unless I've missed something (which is quite likely), there's at least one important aspect that remains unexplained, but it didn't hit me until I walked out of the cinema, so my suspension of disbelief at least lasted through the 2 hour running time. Tony Gilroy, the writer-director, is best known for the action-filled Bourne films. There is plenty of action and suspense here too, but also some slow patches – to some extent this is due to the requirements of romantic comedy which has been mixed in to the action formula. The confusion is added to by the over-use of flashbacks which seem to contradict what we have seen earlier.

As the distrustful lovers, Clive Owen and Julia Roberts are totally convincing; I would suggest neither of their spouses see the film. Julia does things quietly, and is the more effective for it. Clive has no trouble establishing himself as a sex magnet, though strangely enough it is shared interests and attitudes rather than sex which keep them together (although we are told the sex is great).

The story itself is wound our heroes' plan to exploit the insane competition between two huge corporations making bathroom products. One of them, with a name that sounds like Proctor and Gamble, is run by a lordly CEO called Howard Tully played by Tom Wilkinson, the other Equiklunk (or something) is run by Richard Garsink, played by Paul Giamatti, who is more of a street fighter. A sight gag at the start – a fight between the two of them at an airport – establishes that their competition is personal. The shampoo business is just a means to an end – victory for one, humiliation for the other. While Wilkinson is no more than OK as Tully, Giamatti hugely enjoys himself as the driven Garsink almost to the point of caricature. The underlings are also a lot of fun.

Naturally there is plenty of elegant scenery – five star hotels, casinos and resorts, executive jets, huge offices, as well as the streets of Manhattan. Tully has an office you could put a bowling alley in, while Garsink, a lover of disguise, actually goes to a bowling alley to consult with his security operatives. Yet the picture of the world of the private spy is less than alluring. The problem is the same as other areas of private practice – awful clients. It would take a very large amount of money to make me want to make the world safe for a brand of shampoo, even if it had miraculous properties. At bottom though this is romance and without giving the ending away it's a fair bet our distrustful couple will find romance, if not the pot of gold.

Duplicity: Two Sides of the Same Con

[Half_the_Audience · 6/10 · 21 March 2009]

It's hard to feel sympathy these days for anyone who makes millions off the backs of ordinary people. Even harder when they're beautiful to look at and wear Armani. Julia Roberts and Clive Owen star in Duplicity, a light tale of corporate espionage with a little romance and a lot of greed thrown in. Tony Gilroy, the talented writer of the Bourne trilogy, and who made his directorial debut with the much-lauded Michael Clayton which he also wrote, directs. With Duplicity, he further explores his affinity for globalization issues and the multi-national conglomerate as culture.

Two spies, Claire Stenwick (Roberts) and Ray Koval (Owen), formerly of the C.I.A. and MI6 respectively, retire to the better-compensating private sector acquiring sensitive positions in high-level security inside two behemoth corporations resembling despot-driven versions of consumer products marketers Proctor & Gamble and SC Johnson. Ostensibly they team up with the goal to steal a top secret formula for the Next Big Product that one firm is trying to get from the other, and sell it to a third party for an obscene amount of money. Double-agency and treasonous hijinks ensue, with much of the emphasis placed on matters of trust and vulnerability. If it sounds too much like your average male/female relationship, we have the corporations' uber-competitive/paranoid CEO's simultaneously plotting against each other for a parallel storyline.

Sounds fantastic! And relevant! And intriguing! But the gold remains in the conceit. However cunningly Gilroy sets us up with a promising opener (not to mention a fun if over-long title sequence), he soon lets us down when it appears things aren't going to build, but go in circles.

Duplicity's twists and reversals spill out in non-linear fashion, requiring some work on the part of the audience to keep the sequence of events straight. There is a symmetry to many individual scenes, played out either as rehearsal or performance of one kind or another, reminding us of constructions-- societal and dramatic-- and the different roles that we assume to assist us in our life dealings. But the device of disorder seems unrelated to the theme at large, present only as a trendy gimmick to keep the viewer off balance.

Quickly devolving into a superficial mashup of tired conventions, you could probably exchange the entire second act's script with almost any 70's industrial-complex thriller riddled with random lines from an 80's work-a-day romcom or two and not really notice a difference in the plot. Additionally, the self-reflexive text practically claims to be rich and successful, and while it may look good on paper, it's only a front for an arbitrary plot permitted even less dimension within Duplicity's painfully constricted PG-rated world.

The uninspired dialogue that passes for "witty repartee" makes me nostalgic for... witty repartee. If there had been any real chemistry between the two leads, it wouldn't be so noticeable that we never learn a thing about them other than a limited career dossier for each. In fact, the roles of Spy #1 and Spy #2 could have been played by any two humans who you could tell apart. Claire and Ray meet in postcard locations, debate each other's personal trust issues by rote, fade out on the implied sexual act, then retreat to their assigned corners while we are intermittently entertained by amusing secondary figures-- many, we're not sure who THEY really are, or whom they work for. Gilroy admits in a recent New Yorker interview that pursuant to the demands of the studio (by way of a focus group), additional footage was shot and a sequence reordered to help sort out the confusing storyline.

Have no fear, consumers. In spite of the modern look and feel of the film, Duplicity delivers the traditional goods. Incredibly, a seasoned female CIA pro, who has detachedly used sex in the past to get a job done, holds it against her male partner-in-time for doing the same thing for the purpose of achieving their common goal-- and with a mark who could hardly qualify as competition. Oh I forgot. Women are jealous and possessive and are driven to hysteria by their emotions. How quaint. (Don't get me wrong-- the scene where the annoyed Claire debriefs said mark was superb. It was the anachronistic nag-fest she threw later that was a step backward for believable female characters.)

Even though we're supposed to like Claire and Ray's conniving couple, and buy into THEIR greed over that of the corporate muckety-mucks', the payoff is so justly thin that it perhaps teaches a poignant lesson after all: the inevitable financial success of this film will make most of us realize just how under-compensated WE are when it comes to Hollywood's disbursement of grown-up fare.

By the sheer quantity of extraordinarily effusive reviews from the bastions of Old World Media, one might sense that the Newspapers and Networks are paying out big time in exchange for Uni's desperately needed P&A dollars because neither a slickly cut trailer nor two of Hollywood's top performers can bail Duplicity out of its dull-drum.

Ban flashbacks, please!

[sschimel · 1/10 · 29 March 2009]

Well. This movie has only one thing going for it and that's the charm of Clive Owens. But it's hard to believe that the genius behind Michael Clayton had anything to do with this. The writing is horrible, and at 2 1/2 hours, it's too long by about, um, 2 1/2 hours. It's aiming for Cary Grant and Audrey Hepburn, but fails on all counts. And I hate to say it, but I think Julia Roberts has been very ill-served by the make up artists and costumers on this movies. And I really think that Hollywood needs to call a moratorium on flashbacks as a major plot device. The movie seems to consist entirely of flashbacks, many of which involve the same lines of dialogue, which turn out to be a script devised by the main characters. the flashbacks, crosses, and double crosses make your head hurt if you think about them too much.

fun but a bit disappointing

[FilmLabRat · 6/10 · 17 March 2009]

I was really looking forward to something like the Bourne movies... another from Tony Gilroy who seems to be making a splash these days. But these "who's telling the truth and who's a trickster?" films are getting old. Too many are rolling out of Hollywood. I thought 'The Departed' by Scorsese did the best job in recent years - a much more satisfying movie, in my book. With meaning. Dealing with pizza and baldness for the sake of wealth? Not very high stakes.

On the other hand, if you're looking for a fun romantic comedy, this does combine that element with the spy/intrigue/thriller. It was fun fluff - more like the Oceans franchise - and don't mind leaving the theater saying "what for?" or wanting something mindless with eye candy, this is a film for you. Not bad or a waste but don't expect a work of genius.

Terrible, Boring Film

[Director-11 · 2/10 · 4 April 2009]

Wow this film is bad. I loved "Michael Clayton," but this is clearly a director with one successful film allowed to go off the deep end on his sophomore effort. (See "Atonement.")

I knew we were in trouble from the opening credits -- an interminable slow motion sequence of what's supposed to be a comedic pantomime of two people who hate each other...with the music turned up extra loud to make it seem faster, funnier, quirkier...or something... Problem is, we get the idea after five seconds. The rest of the open gives us no new information, and it's not actually funny, so it seems to last an hour.

These opening credits telegraph what you are in for: two hours of film-making DEVOID of actual content, delivered with mediocre style.

Scene after scene is too long. I don't need a whole sequence of Clive Owen following Julia Roberts, I just need enough shots to know that a following happens. The passing scenery does not interest me. I also don't need the scene in the car where two guys mock Clive's accent to go on this long...or even happen. Clive Owen has an English accent. Is that supposed to be funny? And how many tilt-up-to-skyscraper shots does a movie really need? I guess about 50.

But apparently you also need the actors performing the SAME exact scene (the film's big gimmick) even more than that. Note to filmmakers: this only worked in "The Conversation." Unless it reveals something new, it's a waste of time. (And if it *does* reveal something new, then stop it after 10 seconds, and one occurrence, because once we realize what actually *is* new information (if we haven't guessed already) we're done. The different intonations of the act are of no interest.)

Also, FYI, legitimate suspense is not created by just having people yell "Hurry! Hurry!" while someone looks up a room number from their messy desk. That's just arbitrary.

And -- wow -- BOXES as a transition device. Again, this has been done to death, but usually when it has been done to death, the boxes are telling you something in terms of simultaneous action -- they're not just using boxes for the sake of having boxes. WOW.

The worst part is that the film believes it is being clever, when really what's going on is TOTALLY OBVIOUS. You're way ahead of it for at least an hour, yet the filmmakers feel they have to SPOON FEED YOU A MONTAGE OF "WHAT JUST HAPPENED" (and even *that* is too long) in case you were asleep during the show (a legitimate worry with this film.) That's just insulting.

Oh yes, and ultimately the screenplay is about NOTHING. (Is that technically a spoiler?) Basically the protagonists try to do something frivilous, involving no stakes, then in the end find out they were doomed to fail from day one because they're self-involved idiots. Yawn.

There is one good performance from the southern woman seduced by Clive Ownen. Her behavior is funny in her interrogation scene, the only inspired part of the film.

Almost forgot...you have Roberts use a copy machine to copy the "secret document," yet no one even thinks to check whether or not SHE MIGHT HAVE MADE A COPY OF IT WHILE USING THE COPY MACHINE. (See what I mean by "insulting"?)

Avoid this film.

a quick review of Duplicity

[ashleybmeyer · 9/10 · 25 March 2009]

I don't watch many crime thrillers, because they usually turn out to be not remotely believable or personal, but Duplicity was a pleasant departure from the stereotype. It was really more of a romantic comedy (-ish dramedy, even) within the structure of a crime thriller. The two lead characters were actually pretty believable, aside from their supernatural cockiness that you kind of have to expect from spies in a spy movie (although I was sad that we got so little background or history on either character). Their troubles definitely weren't common, but they were easy to sympathize with, somehow. On top of that, it was delightful and kind of thrilling to see how their relationship was built. (The movie put together their history piece by piece, rather than giving it to us chronologically, which I generally think is a more fun way of witnessing a story.) The other big part of what made this movie so fun was that the objects of our spies' investigation was a couple of skincare corporations! Finally, we get to see tactical drama surrounding something other than a casino, a bank, or a government. Something like a cosmetics company is mundane enough that it becomes fun to play with in the context of large-scale crime drama. Even our favorite CEO's nerdy remarks ("Well, it's a common misconception that "lotion" and "cream" are the same thing") are kind of endearing and bring you back to the fact that this could be an actual corporation run by actual business nerds. So yes, safe to say that this movie was worth watching, and had me walking out of the theater wishing I was a spy. Go watch it.

Average espionage thriller

[Enchorde · 7/10 · 13 February 2010]

Recap: Ray Koval and Claire Stenwick are two of a kind, professional spies. They take an instant liking to each other, but who can trust a spy, really. And they should know. But nowadays it is industrial espionage that pays, and Ray and Claire finds themselves in the middle of a bitter war between two rivaling companies. And the frontline is the companies' internal security divisions. Ray and Claire finds themselves on different sides. Or are they? Claire is supposed to undercover working for Ray, but is he really. Everyone seems to have their own agenda. And suddenly everything is heating up as a secret revolutionary product is about to hit the market.

Comments: A very good and entertaining spy-thriller. It centers around trust and duplicity, and as the story develops, spliced in with flashbacks, it pays to pay attention. There is always a measure of uncertainty and possibilities for the story to switch direction. Unfortunately writer and director Tony Gilroy, whom has done great work in the recent past, doesn't utilize those possibilities. Despite the uncertainties and possibilities the story always see to follow the standard route in the end, actually making it a bit predictable.

I might be giving away a little much now, despite the spoiler alert, because there is an unexpected twist at the end. Sadly it is one of the kind that comes almost completely out of the blue, even though it is in line with the theme of the movie. It gives quite a good end, but it would have been a lot better if one in hindsight could have found traces or hints for the upcoming twist, including the audience in the scheming and plotting espionage.

Well, in the end I was pretty satisfied anyway. I wanted a espionage, last hit or con kind of story and got a good one, even though it wasn't new or unique. It did and showed what it was supposed to.

7/10

This is a "cool, sexy caper"? Try "confusing, incoherent caper".

[dmanyc · 1/10 · 28 April 2010]

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.