about the film: on the surface this film would seem to be a fictional account based on the true story of the fbi’s case against robert hanssen, the former fbi agent who engaged in spying for the soviet union and russia against the u.s. for a period of at least 15 years. however, upon further notice, this film is really about the events prior to the arrest of hanssen as seen through the life of american fbi operative, eric o’neil (although not told in strictly first person) who worked as an investigative specialist of the special surveillance group (ssg), and played a role in the arrest and life imprisonment conviction of hanssen.
what i liked: this film’s primary goal was to reveal information that might not be known to the average viewer about the case against and subsequent arrest of hanssen. it delivers in a straight forward manner (typical first, second and third act with a beat in the middle where o’neil learns of why he’s been chosen for his specific task) a fictional interpretation of what it might really be like to be part of a sting operation. i liked the screenplay (except see under what I didn’t like). since it was based on a true story, the writer(s) did a great job of minimizing the embellishment of certain events that could of happened so as to dialogue (via omnipresent third person), in a somewhat of an entertaining way, the feeling of what it’s like being on the good and bad side of making a case against a known spy. the story was not compromised by the director’s mode of shot, the acting was firmly controlled by chris cooper (hanssen) and by laura linney (agent burroughs). on a neutral note, ryan phillippe didn’t hurt (except one scene) or help in his role in portraying o’neil. the music, mostly of piano and violins, seemed to enhance the action on screen at every pivotal moment in the film. other than a few gun shots and yelling, there was very little “big action,” but where this film succeeded was in the smallest of action; 4 scenes in particular: home computer scene, palm pilot scene, car stuck in traffic scene and videotape scene. these four scenes in particular help justify my argument that the best thing about this film was how easily the fear and anticipation of “being caught” was transposed from film to viewer (think of the vault scene in the first mission impossible with tom cruise). as we see o’neil try to gather incriminating information without getting caught by his boss, hanssen, i think the director/writers wanted us to get into the mindset of what it was like for hanssen to spy for 15 years without “being caught.” this film did a great job of exploiting the art and mastery of the “lie”. agent burroughs’/linney’s statement to o’neil about how all her fbi work since she’s been at the bureau means nothing parallels very effectively in the film hanssen’s realization that his rationale for spying (which is to expose vulnerabilities in the fbi's operations) means nothing. also i liked the delicate neutral handling of catholicism (religion, in general) and east german ethnicity…the film leaves it for the viewer to decide or judge based on the facts that hanssen was a devout catholic (even part of opus dei) and that o’neil’s wife, juliana, was of east german descent. editing overall kept the story going and most (if not all scenes) enhanced a reference or the meaning in the film’s dialogue or story at later times.
what i didn’t like: the film’s dialogue repeats itself (a little burdensome) when the theme of “why” or a “motive of one’s action” might be asked…the writer/director wants us to believe that the “why” doesn’t matter because even after the facts, people believe what they want to believe and “you are who you are”…the “why” was answered by hanssen, when he states to o’neil “i do matter, plenty.” it’s not the logic or theme i’m upset with… it’s the unbelievable quick transformation of hanssen’s character from that point of “i do matter, plenty” to the understanding after he is arrested that the only thing people will remember about him is not his reason for spying (criticizing the fbi’s lack of security and intelligence) but rather that he was/is a spy. the transformation of o’neil’s character from asking why he should keep his stressful job of observing hanssen as he contemplates quitting (which justifies the part played by bruce davison as eric’s dad, john) to accepting his job unconditionally further exploits the unnatural rush of characterization in the film. also, hanssen’s transformation from always being in control to barely hanging on was also a bit rushed and not totally believable (due to a lapse in screenplay). the role of dan plesac, played by dennis haysbert, was totally unnecessary in the film. phillippe’s performance in the “shooting in the woods scene” was absolutely horrible…just a bunch of yelling and forced lines that totally came out unnaturally.
my conclusion: a very tactical and typical plot film with a few subtle and some not so subtle themes (ex. “lying” and “does what we do matter?”) to be made, another strong performance by cooper and linney, decent screenplay with a few exhilarating scenes and a non-invasive director to get the story told without any biased influence
for a "professional" written review, go to roeper's review here
