seveb-25179

Another Coen Bros crime classic, in the vein of "Miller's Crossing" and "Fargo", rather than the surreal comedy of "Raising Arizona" or "The Big Lebowski".

An example of a film where "less is more", dialogue and extreme violence are used sparingly but very effectively, (A movie Quentin Tarantino might learn something from then?)

Tommy Lee Jones delivers another of his understated "Woodrow F Call" / "Sam Gerrard" style performances, as the sheriff, while main protagonists Javier Bardem and Josh Brolin both got a big career boost in their breakout roles. Kelly Macdonald plays a smaller, but existentially crucial, role and Woody Harrelson contributes a cameo.

The film does have one crucial weak point in my opinion, which is that Brolin goes back to the scene of the drug deal gone bad, in order to bring water to the lone survivor (who had earlier begged him for some, when he had none with him to give). Experienced hunter and human that he is, Brolin's character would calculate that the guy would bleed out long before he could return, quite apart from that act being too foolhardy and dangerous to contemplate, which he does acknowledge. Instead, Josh and Kelly would sit quietly on the money for a while, then leave town and live happily ever after, roll credits.

Apparently Heath Ledger turned down the role. I think he would have been fine too, and perhaps the rash decision to return to the scene would have seemed more credible coming from a 28 year old (Ledger) rather than from the more experienced 39 year old (Brolin).

However that's not what he does and, as he should have surmised, life becomes "interesting" as a result.

Bardem puts in a magnetic and indelible performance, helping to create what is destined to become one of cinemas legendary villains, however, being Spanish, and having a strong accent, I can't help wondering if perhaps some of the philosophical nuances of the character, as written, are overshadowed or obscured, and not highlighted as well as they might have been by a clearer enunciator.

Mark Strong, who was apparently first reserve for this role, would have been interesting and I also wonder how someone like Lee Marvin or Rutger Hauer might have played it.

The two groups involved in the drug deal were a Mexican cartel and what appears to be a local Texan businessman and his gang. Having established his credentials as a "badass" in the first part of the film, Bardem now appears to have been hired by them to track down and recover the missing money. Two of the Texan's associates accompany Bardem to the scene of the shootout, where Bardem examines Brolin's truck and takes its VIN plate, then, after being given the transponder for a transmitter planted in the money, he executes them. The only way this betrayal makes sense is if Bardem has decided that this is such a big score that he wants to keep it all for himself. If this were his SOP he would never have got the job in the first place. In response the Texan now hires Woody Harrelson to track Bardem down, kill him and recover the money.

The Mexican gang also turn up at various points along the way, adding a wildcard element into what essentially becomes a duel between Brolin and Bardem, with Tommy Lee never quite managing to catch up.

I think the book is mainly centred around the character of the sheriff, how the events in his past have shaped him and how the current events change him. However in the film we never learn about those events in the past and so don't really get to know what makes him tick, which makes the scenes where he recounts his dreams, that conclude the film, less relevant and impactful than they could be.

The film is more focused on exhibiting the nature of the psychopathic or sociopathic personality and showing how incomprehensible they are to "normal" minds, but without offering any real insight into the condition.

The most important change made by the Coens' is in the scene where Bardem meets Kelly MacDonald. As explained by Macdonald, "the ending of the book is different. She reacts more in the way I react. She kind of falls apart. In the film she's been through so much and she can't lose any more. It's just she's got this quiet acceptance of it."

Carla Jean - "You got no cause to hurt me"

Chigurh - "No, but I gave my word"

Carla Jean - "You gave your word?"

Chigurh - "To your husband"

Carla Jean -"That don't make sense... you gave your word to my husband to kill me?""

Chigurh - "Your husband had the opportunity to save you, instead he used you to try and save himself"

Carla Jean - "He's not like that... (shakes her head) he's not like you say"

(They look at each other in silence for a while)

Carla Jean -"You don't have to do this"

Chigurh -"They always say the same thing"

Carla Jean -"What do they say?"

Chigurh -"They say 'you don't have to do this'"

Carla Jean -"You don't"

Chigurh -"Ok... (takes out coin and tosses it, catching it onto the back of his hand') This is the best I can do... call it"

Carla Jean -"I knew you was crazy when I saw you sittin' there. I knowed exactly what was in store for me"

Chigurh - (Smiling) "Call it"

Carla Jean -"No, I ain't gonna call it"

Chigurh - (Serious) "Call it"

Carla Jean -"The coin don't have no say, it's just you"

Chigurh - (rolling his eyes in mild exasperation) "I got here the same way the coin did"

NB - Psychopathy and sociopathy are terms describing severe antisocial behaviours,

Psychopathy is generally considered more severe, marked by a profound lack of empathy, remorse, and a fixed inability to form emotional bonds, often linked to genetic factors.

Sociopathy is an unofficial term for Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD), characterized by a weak ability to feel empathy, impulsivity, volatile behavior, and potentially the ability to form limited attachments, often stemming from environmental factors like childhood trauma.

Since Val Kilmer died I've been scheduling a personal "Val Kilmer retrospective season" for myself. I never paid that much attention to his work when he was alive so this was a new one for me.

Many people have commented on his variability as an actor, great in some things, not so much in others, but for me it basically comes down to the type of actor he was, rather than any differences in his level of performance. To me, despite his highly rated looks when he was young, he is essentially a character actor, not a star. Val was always at his best playing a character who was someone else, rather than "himself". By that I mean he was at his best when he played Doc Holliday or Jim Morrison, rather than as a protagonist who was basically "Val Kilmer" in a situation.

To illustrate the difference I will site Jack Nicholson, who is considered to be a great actor and yet also almost always plays "Jack" on some level. He won Oscars for "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest", "Terms Of Endearment" and "As Good As It Gets" but in all those performances he was still very "Jack". In Batman he played "Jack" as the Joker, in "A Few Good Men" he played "Jack" the colonel. Whereas Val was never a charisma based performer, he's more like a Meryl Streep, more comfortable burying himself inside a role, rather than being himself in a role.

So, onward to "Double Identity", which is from Kilmer's post peak, career decline, DTV "Fat Val" period. Yes, it's noticeable that Val has developed a paunch and that every time you see him he appears to be doing up the front button on his suit. Like Steven Segal in his "Fat Steven" period, Val sports a beard, to disguise his double chin, and wears a jacket of some sort at all times, to camouflage his bulging belly.

However I disagree with those who say his acting in this is tired or bored, I think his acting is fine and flows as easily and naturally as ever, it's just that Val doesn't have the natural charisma to excel in this sort of role. He was better suited to "The Saint" because they worked that story in such a way as to allow him to don a series of disguises and play roles other that of the Saint as himself, however that film failed due to the plot becoming too complicated at the expense of the action elements and had an unsatisfying ending, in which the Saint did not get to administer personal justice to the villains, who are merely arrested, rather than having their asses kicked and or being despatched to hell by the hero, as is expected.

This film also has a tendency toward over complication (or confusion, depending on your mood) and the action could have been more spectacular, however, given the limited budget it would have had, overall I find it to be one of those DTV films which punches well above its weight. In most ways it's a very competent production and I recommend it to those who enjoy the espionage genre and particularly those who are fans of Val himself, as this is one of his best late period efforts, possibly his last decent starring role.

The plot of the film is a variation on "North By North West" with Val as a civilian doctor who is mistaken for a secret agent involved in some sort of diamond dealing scenario. An Eastern European gangster wants to broker a new partnership between an ex-Soviet Republic, who mine diamonds, and a Western European distributor, which will cut out the existing International Diamond Cartel and break their monopoly.

A group who appear to be the British Secret Service (lead by Julian Wadham) have an agent on the inside (played by Isabella Miko, who is spectacularly beautiful in a way reminiscent of Michelle Pfeifer) and have been disseminating false information about an imaginary super-agent called "John Charter", in order to distract the gangsters from discovering the identity of their real operative. When a coincidental series of circumstances lead the gangster to mistakenly suspect Val of being Charter, the Secret Service decide to lean into it and do what they can to encourage that delusion, which puts Val in danger of being eliminated. Lots of following and chasing and catching and escaping ensues, which can become hard to follow at times.

Isabella's initial chance encounter with Val sets the ball rolling, then, after a while, she begins to sympathise with his plight, as an unwitting target, and starts to help him try to avoid this fate. Of course they fall in love in short order, a relationship which is unconvincingly developed, but that is not unusual in films of this type so we can let it pass.

Later there is a significant shift in perspective. The supposed British Secret Service guys (which is how they wanted Val to view them, in order to make him more receptive and compliant with their plans to use him as a "Judas goat") actually turn out to be operatives working for the Diamond Cartel, out to prevent the deal and preserve the monopoly.

It also seems that Isabella may have a caper of her own on the go, to heist the money involved for herself. It's never made clear exactly why Isabella is working with the Secret Service / Cartel group, is she just an independent contractor they have hired? Do they have something on her to force her to do their bidding? Or does she have some personal motive for revenge on the gangster? The relationship between her and Julian Wadham is always slightly antagonistic, with underlying tension and thinly veiled threats, but is never explained. She has friends / allies outside of Julian's group who assist her to help Val and later pursue her personal agenda.

Parts of the climax don't necessarily make a lot of sense, but there is plenty of shoot'em up action, so we can let it pass.

Sophia in Bulgaria is the location and its landmark buildings are well utilised by the director

All in all I rate it one of the better DTV movies.