Spy Game Movie
Storyline
TAGLINES
It's not how you play the game. It's how the game plays you.
"Poor is the pupil who does not surpass his teacher" (Leonardo Da Vinci)
In the end, only friendship matters!
CIA operative Nathan Muir (Redford) is on the brink of retirement when he finds out that his protege Tom Bishop (Pitt) has been arrested in China for espionage. No stranger to the machinations of the CIA's top echelon, Muir hones all his skills and irreverent manner in order to find a way to free Bishop. As he embarks on his mission to free Bishop, Muir recalls how he recruited and trained the young rookie, at that time a sergeant in Vietnam, their turbulent times together as operatives and the woman who threatened their friendship.
| Robert Redford | Nathan D. Muir |
| Brad Pitt | Tom Bishop |
| Catherine McCormack | Elizabeth Hadley |
| Stephen Dillane | Charles Harker |
| Larry Bryggman | Troy Folger |
| Marianne Jean-Baptiste | Gladys Jennip |
| Matthew Marsh | Dr. William Byars |
| Todd Boyce | Robert Aiken |
| Michael Paul Chan | Vincent Vy Ngo |
| Garrick Hagon | CIA Director Cy Wilson |
| Andrew Grainger | Andrew Unger |
| Bill Buell | Fred Kappler |
| Colin Stinton | Henry Pollard |
| Ted Maynard | CIA Administrator |
| Tom Hodgkins | CIA Lobby Guard |
| Tony Scott |
6.90 out of 10 (25481 votes)
Visitor Reviews
High quality Hollywood thriller
posted on 28 Aug 2009Spy Game is everything we're not supposed to expect from a major Hollywood movie: engrossing, intelligent, well written, acted and directed. But that's just what it is and more, this is definitely the best thing I've seen since Memento. Although Pitt is really good and Redford plays himself as well as he has in years, I think the most credit should go to Tony Scott.
In the hands of a lesser director this could have been something more like Mission Impossible. But Scott stays right on target, keeping us interested, developing the characters, and keeping the pacing nearly perfect. Scott also shows us that he's stayed with the times: he employs the full array of modern camera tricks like fast motion, reverse zooms and funky lenses but in a way that actually makes the film better instead of being an annoying distraction. The dialogue feels natural, all the actors do good work, no one tries to steal the show or be the star. The story is interesting and almost never lapses into the kind of hyper violence or sappy sentimentality one has come to associate with modern studio pictures. You get a feeling this is pretty close to how the CIA really operates, a place with fantastic technology at its disposal but who's ultimate effectiveness is determined by the fallible people who run the missions and take the chances. I really enjoyed this film, I hope it's a sign of things to come and not a rarity.
Fantastic Movie!
posted on 22 Aug 2009Everything I'd hoped for in a movie, if you like conspiracy movies that don't suffer from weak plots and actors like 'Big Willy' in, this is for you. Has a bit of everything, from conspiracy to black-ops missions , totally immersive without being overly political. Also outstanding performances from Robert Redford and Brad Pitt, well worth the cash to see this gem.
b. o. r. i. n. g.
posted on 18 Aug 2009This was absolutely one of the longest, most boring movies I have ever seen. I like dramas, in fact I prefer them. Twelve Angry Men, for instance, is one of my all-time favorite movies. I think they were trying to do something similar here, with all the intrigue taking place between a bunch of men sitting at a table. But they failed. Miserably. There is no intrigue, the plot is hackneyed and trite, the acting is stifled (and that's giving Redford the benefit of the doubt), the suspense is missing entirely. If you've seen virtually any movie released in the last, say, fifty years, then nothing in this movie will be a surprise to you. It's all been done before, and much much better.Oh, and if you saw the trailer and thought this was an action movie, then you will REALLY be disappointed.No matter what you were expecting, I would say, you're likely to be disappointed with this movie. It's sixteen hours of my life that I know I'll never get back. I think that in honor of this movie I may do away with my long-standing policy of not walking out on movies. If I have to sit through another one like this, I won't make it.
Flash and Glitz are not enough
posted on 12 Aug 2009Hey, I like spy and action movies as much as the next guy, but this movie was pretty bad.If you were to assemble a list of the top 100 Hollywood cliches, you could probably find 99 of them here. It goes on and on with improbable scenarios and that horribly annoying "zip around fast forward" scene change technique. Oh, and that cliche boy's choir soundtrack.Redford is way too old for the flashback scenarios. How about a little makeup for those? I doubt there were many 75 year old operatives in Vietnam.More plodding and inane plot devices twisted it from a potentially good story to an overdramatized tale of inept bungling. Maybe it's "real"... we hear a lot about the CIA bungling everything.All right, it's not a total write-off, but I'm pretty sure you could find better things to do with your time than watching this.
A Nice, Intelligent Thriller
posted on 10 Aug 2009The trailer for the movie expected me to see the standard American movie formula; namely the typical shoot-em up blow em up waste of money that you usually see these days. Well, except for the ending which I found to be totally implausible, I was engaged and thinking (albeit not that hard) throughout the movie, which these days should be considered a victory. I thought the timing particularly after September 11th to help my appreciation of the film, that there are "enemies of the state" out there, and that there probably are covert actions and double dealing of the type that is dealt with here, although I suspect that most of the activity that happened to Redford and Pitt throughout the movie may have been experienced by a whole cadre of agents. Redford in particular I thought was effective as the jaded cynical old fox who brings all his skills to bear to help out his protege. The whole substory about Beirut was very well done; you almost felt like you were there, and the suicide bombings really hit home hard. I spent a precious ten minutes figuring out where I'd seen Pitt's girlfriend from; she's Mel Gibson's first lover in Braveheart; very good here I thought for a small role. All in all, you could do worse than plunk down (gasp!) $12.90 here in Canada to watch it on the big screen.
slick thriller as only mr.scott can do
posted on 08 Aug 2009i saw this film about 3 weeks ago, and i was pleasantly surprised. it bared a number of similarities to Scott's previous film "enemy of the state", especially in the speed-frame camera work and editing. the middle section of the film became a bit muddled with all the intrigue, but i thought pitt and especially redford were commanding throughout. the guy i went to see this with, went to see "behind enemy lines" the next day and said that it kicked ass over this film, but i just disagreed and cut a fart on him.8/10
Watchable, but not a classic.
posted on 06 Aug 2009`What wicked webs we weave when we practice to deceive.' - A Quotation by something Shakespeare wrote that seems to make a good intro to a movie about espionage.Spy Game is... well, just look at the title. It's not a Merchant-Ivory costume drama. It's a movie about spies. Actually, it's a movie about when spies had to stop acting like spies in the early 1990s.The year is 1991. The Berlin Wall is down. The first George Bush is President. And something not exactly nice is going on with the spooks at the CIA. Nathan Muir (Redford) is an agent, and is retiring. Today. He's awakened by a phone call from the American Embassy in Hong Kong. One of Muir's proteges has gotten into a bit of a mess in China. Seems that Tom Bishop (Pitt) was trying to pull a rescue operation in a Chinese prison, and things went poorly. This couldn't have come at a worse time, as the President is just about to head to China to secure a trade agreement. The head spooks, led by Charles Harker (Dillane), want to know what Muir knows about Bishop. Muir wants to know what exactly is going on, and why the CIA hasn't just pulled an extraction. 3...2...1... make plot twist go NOW!Spy movies are convoluted, and they should be. Spy Game isn't in the James Bond mode of spy films. It's more of a Tom Clancy type story. More believable, but with fewer dangerously hot bad girls and explosions.Spy Game is drenched in cinematic style. You're always aware that you are watching a movie. But, that's one of Tony Scott's (brother of Ridley Scott) strong points. He also made Top Gun and Crimson Tide. He makes slick, commercial films. Sort of like a better version of Michael Bay. Surprisingly, the quick-cut style, wacky filters, and shifts of frame-rate work well in this flick. It looks good, it sounds good, and, feels good for ¾ of the movie.Why only ¾? It's not because of Tony Scott, or any of the actors. Redford plays a company man who knows when and how to cross the line, and does it well. Brad Pitt is Robert Redford if Redford had chosen to be a character actor instead of a leading man. Stephen Dillane is good at being slimy. So, it comes down to the story, then, doesn't it?And, the story is good, up until the end. Most of the movie is done in flashback, with Muir explaining his history with Bishop - from Vietnam, to Berlin, to Lebanon. Any one of these stories on its own would have made a pretty good movie on its own. Actually, Spy Game almost feels like a series of short films. The bits that happen in the film's `present' are good, too. Up until the end. With the sort of build-up presented, you expect a bigger ending than what you get. The ending is (mostly) plausible, but, it needed something more. Explosions, or a shoot-out, or a fight, or something. It just didn't feel right. It plays something like the espionage version of The Usual Suspects, only without Keyser Soze. Apart from that quibble, it's certainly watchable, and, probably should be seen more than once, just to get all the details. I think I may have missed some, due to some technical problems that were fixed quite easily, but, they happened during the second reel when most of the exposition was going on. So, my suspension-of-disbelief was suspended, and the rest of my understanding suffered because of it.
Good movie, will see it again
posted on 31 Jul 2009Redford is great in this. Someone swept up by circumstances into something he doesn't want to be involved in and surrounded by people that don't understand the rules of the Game. I think this will end up with the same "cult" following as Three Days of the Condor. It has the same feeling to it. Unfortunately it has not had any staying power at the box office. I will see it again in a theater if possible and get the DVD as soon as its released.
Slick but boring
posted on 23 Jul 2009*Contains some minor spoilers*I saw this movie last night on pay-per-view satellite TV. I paid £3.50 (US$5) for it but fell asleep towards the end, as it was just rather boring.Spy Game is slick and fairly well made; the performances (particularly Redford's) are good, but the general lack of a sense of direction in the film make it rather hard to watch. The premise of the film is expressed rather too subtly, in my opinion. It's clear that Pitt's character is acting covertly and attempting to rescue someone in the movie's opening sequence, but from then on I found myself asking questions of what exactly was going on in the film.There is some interesting camerawork in the film, showing Beirut rooftops and Hong Kong skyscrapers in a mix of slow and fast-motion, and while this all looks nice its hard to take it as anything more than eye candy.The relationship between Pitt and Redford in the flashback scenes develops OK, but Pitt's love interest (on which the entire plot of the film rests) is so utterly underdeveloped that its almost impossible to understand how his character would get himself in such a pickle over the girl in question.Although I don't like to get bogged down in the technicalities of a plot, make-up etc, in this instance, I really must. For starters, we see Pitt being contacted by Redford in 1975, when Pitt is a sniper fighting in Vietnam. The main plot is set in 1991, some 16 years later. While I'm aware that no film maker can reverse the aging process, I don't think it's too much to ask for some decent make up and hair work to at least help the illusion along. Redford's hair never changes in style or color throughout the movie (apart from some little sideburns at one point), and Pitt is far too young to be playing someone old enough to have been a trained sharp shooter some 16 years earlier. Little nags like these (I had a similar problem with "Red Dragon") make suspension of disbelief all the more difficult.All in all this movie is slick and subtle (often too subtle). The acting is good, the direction mediocre. The settings are recreated excellently and theres none of the over-the-top, hard-to-believe bull**** thats all too familiar in Hollywood spy-based movies. That said, Spy Game is really just rather boring, nothing really happens for almost an hour, and the make up and hair team could have at least turned up for work for the flashback scenes.Overall, worth seeing if you really like spy movies, otherwise, you're not missing anything special.5.5 out of 10.
7 on a scale of 10
posted on 11 Jul 2009Now, first of all, I love Redford ... as an actor. Not otherwise, as I ain't no homo! But, I digress. I especially like him in his roles of intrigue and mystery or suspense. This movie seemed tailor-made for me. As a 7, I don't hate it, but there is always room for criticism on a 7 of 10.I basically enjoyed the 2 hours. I only criticized it in the first 20 minutes as a few ridiculous assumptions were made. And, they weren't even necessary. Also, the other major criticism was the editing. Horrible! Obviously, this movie was much longer late in the process and someone went at it with a meat cleaver at the last minute.Lastly, I just didn't think it had the suspense I expected it would have. Although the idea of a spy game within the inner sanctum of the CIA was unique and intriguing, I just thought it fell flat compared to spy games in the field. And, Redford was too subdued in the role.But, I sat through it and I gave it a 7. However, if it wasn't Redford and it wasn't a spy thriller - a genre I like a lot, I would be blasting this movie much worse.
what a great of movie
posted on 09 Jul 2009i just saw this movie and i really flew out of my seat i didn't know that Brad Pitt could act, and not just show his face on the screen and save the box office.I really like Bob Redford here too he is really good as an old time working CIA man.The directions of T.Scott was OK and the story that takes us through the Vietnam var too the end of the Cold war was belivible. I like the whole production of the movie and give if two thumbs up and my small toeJoakim Helm
excellent film
posted on 23 Jun 2009Top notch thriller. Engrossing, though typical plot/subplot (two men develop friendship, woman comes between them, but buddy helps out and saves couple) and great character development considering characters are supposed to be mysterious spies and very little is told about their background.Robert Redford is a cynical, yet warm mentor, and Brad Pitt is a hotshot moralist as well as being the best assassin in the "business". Redford is an old-school operative who uses his 'tradecraft' to out-wit the technology the modern CIA now relies on, to bust his protégée out of a Chinese prison after Pitt's character, a rogue agent, uses CIA resources to rescue his girlfriend, fails and ends up in prison himself facing execution in less then 24 hours for being a spy . The relationship between the two men is told in a series of flashbacks that span a time-line of about 20 years starting during the Vietnam war to the cold war in Berlin and the mean streets of Beruit as Redford's character stalls for time during a debriefing into the rescue failure on his last day of work before retirement. In the meantime, between breaks of debriefing, he mines for information about why the CIA won't save one of their own as well as setting up a covert operation to get Pitt and his girlfriend out of prison before they are executed.Cinematography is reminiscent of brother Ridley (grainy, washed-out imagery in tones of brown and blue), and editing and camera movement is more like recent films from Woo or Ang Lee. The action is realistic without being over the top. There are no fancy gadgets or impossible stunts.Compared to stuff like XXX (or worse, XXX-2), Mission Impossible 1 & 2, or any number of action thrillers about secret agents (such as the most recent crop of James Bond films or Charlie's Angels), this movie seems to tell it the way it is or the way you might think reality might be. The "tradecraft" actually makes way more sense then, say, a watch with a laser cutter built in or a car with missiles an ejection seat. All in all, a very watchable and believable film.
on my top ten list
posted on 19 Jun 2009i have to admit that brad pitt is one of my favorite actors. i don't know if its the acting specifically, but he is been in so many movies that i like. Seven, Fight Club, Ocean's eleven, and this has to be his best movie yet. this movie is very suspenseful. i am not an expert on the CIA and how realistic this movie is but, i have to say that it was gripping after the first scene, and full of tension the rest of the movie. robert redford is also amazing in this movie. for an old guy he comes off as very cool.
I was very disappointed!
posted on 15 Jun 2009Writer Michael Bechner needs to do his homework. Clearly just putting two great actors together does NOT make for a great movie! The acting was, of course, superb but the script had problems. For example, (and this is not at all central to the plot) at one point Redford's character says that he first met Pitt's character 25 years ago when they fought together in Viet Nam. 25 years ago, Brad Pitt was only 12 years old! Now I know one can say that he was playing someone older than he really is, but then the make-up artists should have made him look older. Instead, Brad Pitt simply looked like the Brad Pitt of today.
Engaging spy thriller from start to finish
posted on 30 May 2009SPY GAME, the latest film from veteran director Tony Scott (CRIMSON TIDE, ENEMY OF THE STATE, and the modern classic TOP GUN) and screenwriter Michael Frost Beckner (who wrote the so-so SNIPER and the horrible CUTTHROAT ISLAND), is one of the best spy films in recent years. Scott shies away from full-blown action here, instead building tension through longtime CIA operative Nathan Muir's (aptly played by Robert Redford) assessment of an old pupil, Tom Bishop (Brad Pitt).Bishop, recently (the film, however, is set in 1991) imprisoned after a failed mission, is due to be executed at 8 a.m. EST. Muir is called upon to give intimate details of Bishop's life to, among others, CIA suits Troy Folger (Larry Bryggman, late of DIE HARD WITH A VENGEANCE) and Charles Harker (Stephen Dillane), Muir's main adversary. Why so important? The United States and China are due for trade talks the very day Bishop is to be executed.Muir and Bishop's relationship is detailed in flashbacks, from their first meeting in Vietnam in the early 1970s, where Bishop, fresh out of Hemet, California, is a rookie sniper with three confirmed kills. After Bishop survives Vietnam, he moves on to West Germany as a clerk, until Muir, in a chance meeting, decides to introduce Bishop into the world of espionage. In a fine touch, Bishop learns from the wise Muir in a cornucopia of images.Early on, Bishop learns the thin line between the world of espionage and real life during a mission in Berlin. Muir later tells him on a rooftop, "If you go off the reservation, I won't come after you." As the film moves on, however, Muir learns that Bishop may not be worthwhile to the CIA, and may not be rescued, thereby enlisting the help of his secretary, Gladys (Marianne Jean-Baptiste), friend Harry Duncan (David Hemmings), and others to save his friend's life. The real story lies in 1985 Beirut, when Bishop, undercover as a photographer, meets Elizabeth Hadley (Catherine McCormack), a Londoner working as a relief worker in the wartorn city. Though their relationship is never truly founded as we would like, this is Muir's story and not Bishop's. This, however, ultimately hurts any true growth of Bishop's character. Redford, then, makes Muir shine. It is in Beirut, therefore, that makes Muir change his mind about saving Bishop.The flashbacks, especially Vietnam and Beirut, are wonderfully captured on film by cinematographer Daniel Mindel (who also did Scott's ENEMY OF THE STATE). Scott fleshes out all the supporting characters nicely, though, yes, this is Redford's film. Highly recommended to those who enjoy the likes of Tom Clancy. 8/10NOTE: As a San Diego Padres fan, I must point out that there is a goof in the film (I have notified IMDb of this also). In Beirut in 1985, Bishop, from Hemet, California, near Riverside, is wearing the blue San Diego Padres baseball cap with white and orange lettering. This is an anachronism: the Padres still wore their brown and yellow uniforms in 1985, and didn't replace them with the blue, white, and sometimes gray uniforms until new ownership in 1990. The brown and yellow cap is not hard to find.
An imperfect movie
posted on 14 May 2009The movie has a very complex structure, with some flashback sequences that are very good but really do nothing to advance the plot of the movie. I ended up having to watch the movie again afterwards, skipping through the flashbacks to follow the plot more closely. Where the movie can spend twenty minutes on an incidental piece of background character history, important plot points are casually thrown out in single sentences. Perhaps the audience is expected to pick up these subtleties from the chaff - but I found it tiresome. There are other points which make the movie quite confusing. While its good to see British actors playing non-stereotyped roles in Hollywood movies, I was quite confused as to why so many CIA employees had London accents. In particular, at the beginning of the movie we see the very underrated actor David Hemmings talking in his Shakesperean British accent entering what is quite obviously LLoyd's of London; it took me sometime to understand that the character was an American in a building in Hong Kong. This strikes me as the equivalent of Clint Eastwood walking into the Empire State building pretending to be an Italian in Rome. Also, I couldn't understand why the movie was set in 1991 - why not make it present day? (Especially as no attempt was made to capture the period in fashion, technology etc). And its asking a bit much for us to believe that a military operation can be authorised simply by forging the signature of the DCI. The plot is thoughtful and interesting. However there needed to be much more character development and background (perhaps this rather than dwelling on the less-relevant set-piece flashbacks). For instance, it isn't immediately clear that Redford's character is trying to obstruct the CIA guys, and when it does become apparent, there is little explanation. This is especially odd as we are shown Redford in flashback as being a tow-the-line kind of agent, little more than professional respect for Pitt. I wish the movie had shown what made Redford want to take this course of action, why he felt the need to save Pitt. I really wanted to like this movie. In fact I think I would have preferred to read it as a Clancyesque novel. It has a very good premise, and there are outstanding performances by Redford and Pitt, while the supporting actors are all strong. The cinematography is also excellent, with innovative use of different framerate filming, angles, fast and slow motion, and some great use of locations. It seemed to me though, that this is prevented from being a polished movie by some rather amateurish errors in judgment.
The actors are better than the movie, which is okay.
posted on 04 May 2009A neat little plot:Redford (Brad's old colleague, who he fell out with) is grilled about Brad's past - cue flashbacks - in attempt to disgrace and discredit him, so the Chinese can execute him on spying charges. Redford uses rest breaks and guile to find out what's happened, and arrange a rescue..It's a solid film, mostly in flashback, about Brad's recruitment and their subsequent spying exploits in the Cold War and Beirut. If I had to criticise (and I do), it would be that Brad Pitt was supposedly recruited as a sniper in the Vietnam War! He's 38 years old, looks nearer 30 even in real life, and we're expected to believe he's a minimum of 55 years old. I may have some dates wrong (I was only half-watching the film), but that killed the drama stone dead for me.I would also say that although I enjoyed Redford's race-against-time, the 'memories' - which make up about 2/3 of the film, left me curiously bored.
They're well shot and everything; no faulting the visuals; but I was bored (and I'll sit through almost anything). Catherine McCormack did an adequate job in a token role.With Redford & Pitt in the same movie, it just should have been better.
Great Movie
posted on 10 Apr 2009This movie is just plain awesome. It has a great premise too it and the flashback scenes are awesome. I loved how they show how a CIA agent gets trained and how you use people to get what you want. The cast is top notched and very believable in their roles. I however thought the whole flashback scenes with wht was going did not make much sense to me and spent way to long on it when they were discussing what to do about Brad Pitt. Overall good action
Redford - Wrinkles And All
posted on 31 Mar 2009The one thing that I admire about Robert Redford is that he plays characters close to his real age. In "Spy Game" he is CIA agent Nathan Muir who is about to retire. On his last day, he learns that his former protege, Tom Bishop (Brad Pitt) has been placed in a Chinese prison and is about to be executed. Muir, against the wishes of his superiors, plans to bring Bishop out. The relationship between Muir and Bishop is detailed in a series of flashbacks - how Muir recruited and trained Bishop, and how Bishop develops a relationship with political activist Elizabeth Hadley (Catherine McCormack) which eventually leads to Bishop's imprisonment. Muir while appearing to appease his colleagues and superiors is calling in a few markers from his contacts around the world in an effort to secure Bishop's release. Redford, wrinkles and all, is the consummate con man once again as Muir who won;t leave his friend in jeopardy. Brad Pitt is also good as the cocky young Bishop who like Muir, has his own way of doing things. "Spy Game" reminds one a little od "Three Days of the Condor" (1975) another CIA themed Redford film but this time with Redford "on the inside".
I don't believe it...
posted on 28 Aug 2009Possible SpoilersI don't want to offend anyone, but there are alot of logical problems with this film to make it even impossible to watch. How the hell did they get Brad out of the Hong Kong prison? They totally disabled the whole electrical power of Hong Kong prison? This is the great minds of the American directing at work here. Having been living in Hong Kong for many years, now I can relate to those people complaining about American War films. They never research the place that they are going to film on. That is not the HK I knew, it must be some other country that they dreamt up and decided to put in the film. Why don't they use actual Hong Kong actors from HK? No, of course not. That would be too logical. They will of course use Asians that are from other countries that speak strange cantonese accent to play the part. And what do they show of the Hk prison? It looked like a third world corrupted country that can beat up anyone. I know that this is not supposed to be taken too seriously, but come on folks, this is alittle silly. It is also alittle insulting both to the viewers and also to other countries. We are not that stupid.