The Tourist

Angelina Jolie (Elise Clifton-Ward)
Johnny Depp (Frank Tupelo)
Secret (Alexander Pearce)

IMDB.com says it: Revolves around Frank, an American tourist visiting Italy to mend a broken heart. Elise is an extraordinary woman who deliberately crosses his path.

However, Frank never mentions a broken heart, merely that there was someone in his life. He also never mentions the reason for his trip.

It's a movie about Elise; a European woman who is evading European thugs because of the billions of Euros her "lover" Alexander Pearce stole from them and the hundreds of millions he owes on that money in taxes. She is instructed to throw both groups off of his trail, by keeping close company with someone that can pass for him. Frank is an American tourist who is just happy to be in her company.

Most of the critics say it was an action movie waiting for action or a Rom-Com at best. Roger Ebert's review was the earliest written one I found so it's no wonder that most of the reviews I read that were written after his, were paraphrased version of his review. I thought I would offer my own; not influenced by someone first.

Since there was limited action, I wouldn't dare call it action. And there wasn't so much "comedy" as there was "wit" and there was more lust than romance, so I wouldn't call it a romantic comedy. It was more of a heist movie. A movie about thieves that aren't really bad people, that we root for in hopes that their caper goes off without a hitch. Although in this movie, the actually stealing of the money is done before hand. It's basically the running from the law after the fact. I think if you take the movie as it is, no classifications, no genre, no expectations of the writer or director to top what they've already done; you'll enjoy it much more. I think the latter is most important. Too often, people go to a movie because it's directed by a top director and end up disliking the movie and by association, the director. Most of the reviews mentioned the writer/director: Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck. He directed a few shorts but basically one other major film: The Lives of Others in 2006. The film was slow, quiet, dark, damp and chilling since you hope to trust the main character. It was a good film. He made one film that impressed the critics and for that he was expected to impress them again. It seems like a poor choice to make.

Either way, no matter the movie, it's a good idea to watch a movie without great expectations.
I think the movie does contain some cliches, it's true. An average Joe swiftly moving on the ledge of a building or quickly scaling roof tops. A man not being suspicious of a woman he doesn't know, who is clearly out of his league. Those are things that have been done time and time again, but something that is rarely done, are action scenes that are feasible. The Tourist offers situations that could happen, which I for one appreciate. The scene where Jolie's boat tows Depp's boat is done very well. It's an exciting scene without seeming far fetched.

It's said that Depp didn't relate well to his character, but I want to look at his acting from another point of view. Spoiler alert! In the end, we find out that Frank and Pearce are one in the same. Pearce had extensive and expensive surgery to completely change his facial features, and took on a whole new persona. End of spoilers. Depp is playing a character that is leading a double life. I feel that Depp played the part well. He played the part of a man who must suddenly behave like someone else. The reason Frank's character seemed so forced is because it's Pearce forcing himself to be Frank. We're supposed to think there is something odd with him. And at the end we see that his odd attitude is due to the fact that he is Pearce. Depp truly seemed like the unaware tourist with something to hide.

Jolie was said to be poorly channeling Audrey Hepburn. I think she was channeling the persona of a very sophisticated, confident, intelligent, seductive and intimidating woman. The Audrey Hepburn comment is another one that was made by Ebert and then echoed by lesser critics with no original thought. Jolie's fashion was on every one's mind, but I wonder, what it had to do with the movie. If we focus on her role, she played the part well. Granted, I would have liked to see her with more emotion. The only emotion came when she thought or spoke about Alexander, everywhere else she was slightly flat. But still she was playing the part of a woman who knows she is being watched and for the sake of her safety, she can not and should not appear phased about anything.

For the sake of not sounding as though this movie was made without flaws, I will say it could have used more physical attraction between Frank and Elise and a bit more thrill over all. I enjoy simple details that you remember after you've experienced the twists and turns of the movie. Had I been a writer of this film, I would have written a scene where Frank and Elise kiss, and Frank (being Pearce) does something simple that startles Elise in a familiar way. In movies, men always gently and seductively stroke the side of a woman's face with their whole hand; they keep their fingertips on the back of the neck while their thumb is near the woman's earlobe. They gently move their hand down their neck in a sensual way. It would have been interesting to see this little detail utilized; with Frank making this classic movie while kissing but purposely grazing her earlobe with his thumb, something he did when he was Pearce. All the while, we are unaware that Frank and Pearce are the same man. But we are intrigued as to why she seems startled by something so simple. Then at the end, when Frank kisses Elise and we realize he is Pearce, we can see him graze her earlobe again, and then we can assume that it's something she remembered from Pearce.

Earlier, I did say that this movie had the right amount of thrill, and it does. It has a realistic amount of thrill, but for the sake of the movie-going world a good old-fashioned explosion might have been appreciated... Although sophisticated characters and spontaneous fires of fury don't seem to go hand-in-hand. But the masses still may have preferred more destruction in Venice.

My final very short review:

A deceiving woman and an even more deceiving tourist drive the watery roads of Venice, outrunning police and European gangsters. A well made movie, with very appealing actors who envelop the persona of their characters. The events in the movie, while some may be cliche, nothing is done to an unbelievable level. The plot is easy enough to follow, but complex enough to ensure that there are no awkward lags of time. Even more appealing: the plot twist, which ties in beautifully to the whole movie and its seemingly unimportant details. A wonderful break from the everyday thriller that most often contains death and explosions non-stop.

I definitely recommend this movie.