Melton Cartes

This is a James Cameron production. Not a James Cameron script nor a James Cameron film. All criticisms should be leveled at the two writers and the director for making a milquetoast thriller despite some harrowing moments. Credit should go to them for not trying to gild the lily or sex up an already INCREDIBLY dangerous undertaking such as cave diving. But what's missing a thematic story that would make the plot shenanigans meaningful. Instead, it's just great photography and some thrills, but largely forgettable. If Cameron had written and directed it, that would be totally different.

Claire Denis is known for opaque, contemplative films. But this is basically a pretentious film that veils itself in science-fiction but doesn't really respect let alone explore the most fundamental inherent concept of sci-fi, the "what if?" It could have, but it ham-handedly sets up an illogical premise that dooms shiploads of throwaway people (delinquents, criminals, etc.) on space missions of apparently no scientific value (the ships are minuscule and don't seem to have any type of landing craft, therefore they're not expected to colonize anywhere). So, there's no point to the mission and no point to the film since there's no way for any of the characters to emerge on the other side in any way, positively or negatively. The acting is excellent as is to be expected, but it's thrown away on what amounts to a silly, low-budget wannabe science-fiction drama. The space ship effects and cinematography is dismal and makes it feel as if Denis doesn't respect the material or the genre since she can't seem to be bothered to portray realism faithfully. It feels as if she's veiling this dismissal behind a "low budget," but that's absurd in this day and age. HIGH LIFE winds up feeling like two hours of a group of people stuck in an elevator, dying off one by one, all of whom know there's nothing outside, and therefore no one even bothers to try to change their situation. Lastly, Juliette Binoche's erotic scene is...a head scratcher. Why was that in the film? It forwarded or altered nothing.

The Spy is a very well-produced, exceptionally well acted, horribly written 6-part episodic series that treads amazingly clichéd territory and ultimately delivers nothing. SPOILERS... In addition to every story needing a "hero" who may or may not transform through the events of the tale, they also need a single focused opposition or opponent, someone best suited to defeat the hero's efforts. Yes, that could be all of Syria in this story, or Al-Assad, or even the mystery behind how this story plays out. But it's not very well drawn in THE SPY and leaves this 'true story' feeling more like a chapter in a history book or a documentary rather than a really gripping drama, which is what happens when you don't correctly structure a narrative. So, taking a page yet again from the best example of what to do with biopics or true stories, AMADEUS, another character should have been used as the hero of THE SPY with their own very specific opponent. Noah Emmerich plays Israeli spy Eli Cohen's (Sacha Baron Cohen) fictionalized Mossad handler, Dan Peleg. Star Trek Deep Space Nine's Alexander Siddig plays the Syrian dictator's right-hand man and security chief, Ahmed Suidani. These should have been the hero and opponent, respectively, of THE SPY. Peleg is frequently shown doubting Cohen's viability and then after becoming convinced of his exceptional aptitude, wary of the incredible danger that he — a spy handler — is placing this well-meaning family man in. It's unclear whether or not Peleg (or the real people he represents) knew the identity of their Syrian counterpart, Suidani. But that doesn't matter. A much more gripping and dramatic version of this same story would have shown the emotional toll on Peleg as he played a deadly chess game with his unseen, unknown opponent across the Israeli Syrian border. Both men would have assumed and known that someone was on the other end, and while this story is not exactly a chess game, the focus would have been better served on Peleg's struggles with lying to Cohen's wife and keeping up the charade he and his superiors created. Those scenes exist, but they're skimmed over and not mined to their fullest dramatic effect. The fact that it all comes to nothing by the end —yes Cohen is made Minister of Defense in Al-Assad's government and gives the Israeli's a target to attack, but almost immediately is found out, captured, tortured, and hanged — is a let down. So, all of that for nothing. Credit sequence title cards tell us of how the Syrian government continues to refuse to turn over Cohen's remains and that his unfortunate wife still fights for him. It's a distressingly sad indictment of war, national conflicts, and the ill-conceived missions planned at "the highest levels of governments" to do counter-intelligence. It's a dirty business and no stories to date seem to clean up any versions, American or other countries', to leave a viewer feeling that espionage is a worthwhile defense tool let alone career choice. The real thematic question that should have been the foundation of THE SPY is "What does putting another person in harm's way do to the handler and is it ever really worth it?" Even escapist fiction like MISSION IMPOSSIBLE FALLOUT holds the value of one person's life against the possibility of nuclear devastation as worth fighting for. A drama such as what THE SPY is trying to be certainly should have done something more with the value of that spy's life.