Pierce Brosnan has always been my favorite - right from Remington Steel to his becoming the famed agent 007. Frankly, I actually looked forward to Bond movies while he was Bond. So it won't be wrong to say that I watched this movie for Brosnan because there have been so many movies in this genre over the years that there is practically nothing new left when it comes to the plot.
Brosnan plays Peter Devereaux, an erstwhile CIA officer, who is living a retired life in Lausanne when his past life catches up with him. His former boss, Jake Hanley, suddenly shows up at his doorstep announcing that he needs to help Natalia, the aide of a Russian presidential candidate Arkady Fedorov, flee Russia because she asked specifically for Peter. Natalia copies a few incriminating photos from Fedorov's safe which will help bring him under the influence of the CIA. Peter and Natalia have a history - and a daughter. He rushes to help her but sadly cannot save her when his protege David Mason kills her under orders from CIA station chief, Perry Weinstein. The dying Natalia gives him the proof on her phone. Now Peter must track down the person whose name Natalia gave him as soon as she met up with him - Mira Filipova.
The plot, for once, does not revolve around any missiles - biological or otherwise. Thank God for small mercies! It doesn't seem out-of-the-world either. We have all heard of the Chechen conflict. A war instigated for the sole purpose of securing a weak nation's oilfields sounds way too familiar. But what I could not understand is why Peter chooses to expose Federov rather than joining Hanley in a plot to blackmail him to make sure that Russia joins Nato. Surely, as a former CIA agent he understands the international implications of it. Also, Natalia died while making sure that CIA got the proof they needed to make sure that Federov dances to their tune. I am not sure that he can take the moral stand that Federov is guilty of killing his own men to trigger a war and hence deserves to be exposed. Whichever way I looked at it, Peter Devereaux's actions seem inexplicable. Another puzzling thing - how can CIA remain oblivious to the fact that Peter has a daughter while Mason fishes out the truth seemingly easily?
That said, I enjoyed the movie - though half of it was spent in sighing over Mason. If only he were my neighbor, I would have followed the commandment 'Love Thy Neighbor' to a T. :-)
Brosnan plays Peter Devereaux, an erstwhile CIA officer, who is living a retired life in Lausanne when his past life catches up with him. His former boss, Jake Hanley, suddenly shows up at his doorstep announcing that he needs to help Natalia, the aide of a Russian presidential candidate Arkady Fedorov, flee Russia because she asked specifically for Peter. Natalia copies a few incriminating photos from Fedorov's safe which will help bring him under the influence of the CIA. Peter and Natalia have a history - and a daughter. He rushes to help her but sadly cannot save her when his protege David Mason kills her under orders from CIA station chief, Perry Weinstein. The dying Natalia gives him the proof on her phone. Now Peter must track down the person whose name Natalia gave him as soon as she met up with him - Mira Filipova.
The plot, for once, does not revolve around any missiles - biological or otherwise. Thank God for small mercies! It doesn't seem out-of-the-world either. We have all heard of the Chechen conflict. A war instigated for the sole purpose of securing a weak nation's oilfields sounds way too familiar. But what I could not understand is why Peter chooses to expose Federov rather than joining Hanley in a plot to blackmail him to make sure that Russia joins Nato. Surely, as a former CIA agent he understands the international implications of it. Also, Natalia died while making sure that CIA got the proof they needed to make sure that Federov dances to their tune. I am not sure that he can take the moral stand that Federov is guilty of killing his own men to trigger a war and hence deserves to be exposed. Whichever way I looked at it, Peter Devereaux's actions seem inexplicable. Another puzzling thing - how can CIA remain oblivious to the fact that Peter has a daughter while Mason fishes out the truth seemingly easily?
That said, I enjoyed the movie - though half of it was spent in sighing over Mason. If only he were my neighbor, I would have followed the commandment 'Love Thy Neighbor' to a T. :-)
Posts
