Tourist SPOILER Thread

[numbat]

Now The Tourist has opened (or is soon to), i thought it was probably a good idea to start this thread for discussions of the movie plot etc etc.

Seeing as it is a spy thriller and starts on different dates in different countries, those who haven't seen it may not want to find out the details of Rufus's "small but important" role, or the eventual identity of Mr Pearce!!!

So please keep your discussions of the plot and Rufus's role here and not spread them generally throughout the board.

(Can you tell that i don't get to see it til the 26th, hahahaha!!!)



Ok, I'll try hard to keep my mouth shut. Must remember not to tell anyone what happens..... must try to remember..........

;D

[judypatooty]

Excellent idea, Numbat! I'm going to see it on Saturday!!!

[bearnoevil]

Ah numbat me neither!! Sometimes living in Australia sucks... But can't wait to see it nevertheless!!!

[GreenEyesToo]

Well, the BBC film review programme covered the film tonight. "Clunky", and "no chemistry between Depp and Jolie." Ouch!

No mention of Rufus.

[francesca]

Dec 9, 2010 0:06:45 GMT GreenEyesToo said:

Well, the BBC film review programme covered the film tonight. "Clunky", and "no chemistry between Depp and Jolie." Ouch!

quote]
I could have told you that from the trailer. Ms Jolie must be a founder member of the School of Dramatic Wood.
I shall still be going to see it soon.

[vmaciv]

Francesca

Was there any review for Rufus or the others I would find that interesting. And even from the previews I could tell you there would be no chemistry. And I agree that she is very wooden. I never understood the attraction unless it is her beauty.

[rufluvr]

If the reviews on IMDB are to be believed (and they all say about the same thing: No artistic vision; Pretty bad; and Awful, Awful, Awful) my statement two nights ago that I had a bad feeling about the movie was not presumptuous as I feared, but apparently psychic. The three reviews gave it three stars. Total. Out of potentially 30. Yikes!

Can it really be that bad, though? We will see and judge for ourselves, won't we? No number of bad reviews would keep me from the opportunity of seeing Rufus up on the big screen. ;D Of course we go knowing that there will be at least one actor who will make the most of his mush (as he's done it before) and we can certainly enjoy those moments regardless of the rest

In light of those reviews, I guess its not such a bad thing he didn't get the lead in this thing after all, huh? Even without seeing the movie, I disagree with the reviewers on one thing. They think based on the poor premiere and there being no more press junkets planned that it will tank at the box office. I don't know about that. People love these kind of spy/thriller movies and these two leads, that should help The Tourist have a fair amount of sucessful, if not blockbuster. Will be interesting to see what happens with it.

[bearnoevil]

Dec 9, 2010 1:21:13 GMT francesca said:

Dec 9, 2010 0:06:45 GMT GreenEyesToo said:

Well, the BBC film review programme covered the film tonight. "Clunky", and "no chemistry between Depp and Jolie." Ouch!

quote]
I could have told you that from the trailer. Ms Jolie must be a founder member of the School of Dramatic Wood.
I shall still be going to see it soon.

Agreeeeeeeeeeeed completely..... She has got to be one of the worst actors I have ever seen in my whole entire life... She is so wooden, and is always the same... I think Rufus will be the star in this one, as usual!!!!!!

[kygal]

Thought this review was interesting. Does mention Rufus...which makes me even more curious. Sounds like the author would have liked to see more of him in this movie!

www.i-flicks.net/reviews/34-cinema/2118-the-tourist

[rueful]

Thanks for the link kygal. It does sound like the reviewer likes Rufus, but I sure don't like what it implies.

He even managed to get Rufus Sewell on board for all of ten seconds.

I'm hoping that's an exaggeration, but probably not.

Edited to add a link to Roger Ebert's review. He gives it a pretty bad one--2 stars, but calls that depressing given the talent level. In fact, he makes so many snide remarks (such as, "All three "Tourist" writers seem to have used their [Academy] awards as doorstops") that I'm surprised he gave it 2 stars. WARNING: He always says things that he thinks are subtle but tend to be spoilers, so if you want to remain totally pure, don't read it. In fact, the thing he says about Rufus could be perceived as a bit of a spoiler, so I haven't quoted it entirely.

rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20101208/REVIEWS/101209973

But he does say,

The supporting roles are filled by excellent actors, and it’s a sign of the movie’s haplessness that none of them make a mark. You have Paul Bettany and Timothy Dalton as cops, Steven Berkoff as the gangster and Rufus Sewell as "The Englishman...Depp plays his Wisconsin math teacher as a man waiting for the school bell to ring so he can go bowling. The other actors [here Ebert means Rufus and other supporting actors] are concealed in the shadows of their archetypes.

[wichiwoman]

He even managed to get Rufus Sewell on board for all of ten seconds.

...I just feel sorry for Rufus Sewell.

Rats, doesn't sound good for Rufus, does it? 10 seconds then Rufus is kaput?

Oh well, 10 seconds of Rufus is a lifetime to us fangirls!

[vmaciv]

I think the reviewer is trying to say that the movie lacks any redeeming qualities and wastes the talent of all involved. I believe the specific mention of Rufus underscores the reviewer respect for his abilities. Apparently my original fear is confirmed. I will wait for Zen. I am always left amazed that the movie industry does not understand what to do with a beautiful talented man. Oh well I will keep my fingers crossed that they figure it out eventually.

[rueful]

Dec 9, 2010 1:21:13 GMT francesca said:

I could have told you that from the trailer. Ms Jolie must be a founder member of the School of Dramatic Wood.
I shall still be going to see it soon.

LOL, Frannie. I can't imagine why you'd still want to see it. ;D

I haven't seen AJ in very much, so I can't judge her acting. I don't blame her for accepting as many roles as she can, while she can. The way Hollywood treats women, in two years, the only job she will be able to get is playing the grandmother of someone that Clint Eastwood is dating.

But I really don't understand the obsession with her looks. This reviewer (who doesn't mention Rufus or any of the other secondary characters, but gives the movie a terrible review) has exactly captured my sentiments about AJ:

If aliens landed and saw only The Tourist to judge us on, they would believe that Jolie was our queen. The camera lingers on her a good fifteen to twenty seconds too long every few minutes, and the people in the film treat her as if they'd never seen a woman prior. Even the women treat her this way. She'll enter a room, people will gasp and stare, and she'll smile like a Cheshire cat. It's confounding. Yes, she's an attractive lady, and sure, she seems to make the news on a regular basis, but she's not the only example of sexuality we're working with, is she? She's not so breathtaking that normal human interaction with her becomes impossible, right? Yet, The Tourist believes this is the case.

www.film.com/features/story/review-the-tourist-annoys/43014983

The following moderately good review actually "identifies" Rufus. I know this is the spoiler thread, but I'm still putting it under a spoiler bar.

SPOILER: Click to show

Jolie plays Elise Ward, the luscious, scrupulously dressed lover of international embezzler Alexander Pearce (Rufus Sewell), and Scotland Yard’s Inspector Acheson (Paul Bettany) has eyes on her as she struts from cafe to cafe around Paris’ Left Bank. Elise is their only chance to catch Pearce, since he recently underwent copious plastic surgery and no one knows exactly what he looks like anymore. So, Pearce tells Elise to seduce an expendable stranger with roughly the same height and build to throw the authorities off his scent.

Personally, I think this is a red herring, which is why I put "identifies" in quotes.

newsok.com/tourist-puts-marquee-stars-in-glamorous-caper/article/3522177

[tipou]

i might be courageous and go see it tonite.
i hope its interstingly bad at least, its been a while since i have not written a mean review.
i am in the MOOOOOOOOOOOD

[rueful]

Well, I've seen it now.

If you're going to see it only because of Rufus, the "ten seconds" in the review was not quite accurate, but it was not a lot longer than that. Possibly 5 minutes total. He looked gorgeous on the big screen Really! (Yay! I'm no longer a big-screen Rufus virgin! ) Rufus's description of it as a "small but cool" role to Rae was dead on target. He probably had fun making it, and he was fun to watch, but he literally had 4 appearances and about 5 lines.

Timothy Dalton didn't get too much more.

I didn't think it was nearly as bad as the reviews have implied (although maybe they lowered my expectations). It was entertaining fluff, and JD and AJ did exactly what could be expected with roles that were sort of (as one reviewer wrote) archetypes and written without much depth. Which is to say, not much. I think this is a case where actors who didn't carry so much baggage--that is, actors who disappear more in their roles--might have been better.

Any disappointment can definitely be attributed to the script, which was not nearly as witty or clever as any of the old 50s and 60s movies of the same genre.

So, if you're only going for Rufus, and you've already had the privilege of seeing him on the big screen before, you might consider waiting for DVD. If you have a couple hours to kill fairly painlessly (but also fairly brainlessly), then you might want to go.