Ariel Vromen
Criminal

CRIMINAL. We've basically already seen this movie. There's one in particular that came out just a few months ago called Self/less (directed by Tarsem Singh) featuring Ryan Reynolds, whose plot and the leitmotif of the entire work are practically identical. Only in that film, Ryan Reynolds, an actor whose stock in Hollywood must evidently be on the rise, was the hero and lead actor, while here, where he plays CIA agent Bill Pope, he exits the scene almost immediately.

Clearly, this is just one of the many possible parallels for a weak film with predictable outcomes (much worse in terms of development) and this despite a first-rate cast available to the young Israeli director Ariel Vromen, considering the concurrent presence of three giants like Kevin Costner, Gary Oldman, and Tommy Lee Jones. Thus, it follows, talking about a waste of actors and potential in this case is certainly justified.

However, since this film is not an exception even from this point of view (for me, the emblematic film in this sense is and will always be 'The Counselor' by Ridley Scott with Michael Fassbender and based on a subject by Cormac McCarthy, yet unwatchable, incomprehensible), it is legitimate to ask where the problem lies. If there is one. I don't fully understand the financial mechanisms of Hollywood, but in front of such a weak film, yet evidently still costing some money, I also question what the investment and subsequent returns are for those who produce such a film.

The feeling, the same one you get regarding the music world (for example), is that the quality of the product - in terms of revenue - counts practically zero.

The skill of the actors and directors and all parties involved, the scriptwriters, the synergy among those who work on the project, are all secondary factors. They don't matter. If the film has a significant producer backing it who can set up a remarkable promotional machine, well, then the game is set. Maybe your returns won't be historic, but always enough to keep the merry-go-round going.

THE ROLE OF THE CAST. It is then legitimate to also question those who pursue the profession of acting and what their motivations might be. Earlier, I mentioned three great actors, all of whom are present in the film and all of whom act below their potential or at least limit themselves to what we could call the 'bare minimum'. But why not, after all? They sign a contract and the earnings at that moment are guaranteed. They know how things work, and I'm sure that of the large profits collected, their share of the pie is practically minimal compared to the total earnings and the significance of their contribution, which is the only one truly fundamental since, you see, after all, you pay the movie ticket to see them, to see Kevin Costner.

Speaking of Kevin Costner, I always enjoy seeing him as an anti-hero (as in this case) or the bad guy. His dark side, so to speak, I find certainly more fascinating than the handsome and romantic one who dances with wolves and melts the hearts of viewers. And the film in question is indeed shaped around the character played by him. Kevin Costner, who plays the death-row inmate Jericho Stewart, is practically the only real reason for the film. Meanwhile, more marginal roles are destined for a dull Gary Oldman and a Tommy Lee Jones who is brilliant, but because he is naturally brilliant. Their roles are necessarily marginal. The first is one of the 'heads' of the CIA, limiting himself to a managerial role within the film's dynamics; the second finds himself in the unusual role of a doctor working for a government research center.

THE PLOT. But let's get to the plot. A competent and brave CIA agent, Bill Pope (Ryan Reynolds), is brutally murdered while hunting for the usual international supervillain. However, agent Pope was the only one possessing exclusive and indispensable information for finding a key figure in resolving the crisis, a boy, the usual hacker, who goes by the name 'the Dutchman' and who has practically gained possession of the data to manipulate the U.S. arsenal at will and in an international conspiracy soon involving other world powers, including the usual Russians.

But the CIA, as such, is not caught off guard in the face of the crisis and turns to this Doctor Franks (Tommy Lee Jones) who has, funded by the government over the last eight years, experimented with what we could define as the transfer of the cerebral pattern, in practice, the entire 'package' inclusive of all information contained within a brain from one subject to the other. Certainly, so far, he has only conducted experiments, albeit successful, on mice and dogs, but given the emergency, there is nothing left but to operate on the deceased Bill Pope.

According to Doctor Franks, probably the only character in the film possessed of some expressiveness and seemingly also critical sense, there would, however, be only one subject suitable for such an intervention and this type of 'implant'. His name is Jericho Stewart. As already mentioned, Jericho is a death-row inmate and a subject that defining as borderline is an understatement. The truth, in fact, is he is completely out of his mind and crazy as a horse with no judgment and/or sense.

Reckless, contemptuous of the rules imposed on him, and clearly out of control, Jericho is the only suitable subject to participate in the procedure (as a child he had suffered a particular head injury making him suitable for this type of transplant) and consequently, he will gradually take on and make his own not only the memories but also all the practical intellectual emotional and emotive capabilities of the deceased agent Bill Pope.

The continuation is clearly the usual succession of action and clichés that would frankly tire even the most die-hard action film aficionado. Furthermore, the character played by Costner, as undoubtedly badass as he may be, owing to being knocked out by the procedure, does not possess a particular verve and irony typical of this type of hero and in the end, rather, having acquired the humanity of the deceased Bill Pope, he will gain a heart of gold renouncing his 'animal' past.

Clearly in the process of acquiring Bill Pope's cerebral package, there is also everything concerning his emotions related to his private sphere, and for this reason, Jericho will inevitably find himself connected to what were the late CIA agent's wife and daughter. A bond and even before that a meeting that will be crucial in allowing him to fully recover Pope's lost potential and solve the case. Obviously acting on his own account and disregarding the rules and every attempt of control by the CIA.

WE ARE ALL FRANKENSTEIN. The basic premise of the film is clearly the transfer of what would then be a true identity from one subject to another. An idea that as said is surely not original in science-fiction cinema but neither in more typical action cinema. Just think, say, of 'Face Off' by John Woo in what is practically his only successful American film with Nicholas Cage and John Travolta as the leads and 'ready' to swap faces in a typically to-the-death clash between FBI good agent Sean Archer and supervillain Castor Troy.

Now beyond whether the film is successful or not, it is undeniable that this, the basic idea from which the film departs, is clearly something appealing and that tickles the imagination of viewers. It's no coincidence, after all, that it is a recurring theme of this type of cinema but also of modern sci-fi literature and even the world of comics. After all, we live in an era where we are told that a head transplant is now a reality and in which plastic surgery has reached every boundary and forbidden dream of Voronoff and Dr. Frankenstein himself. We are at the point where, from certain perspectives, sci-fi, science fiction intersects, ends up merging - rather than clashing - with reality and the ongoing discoveries in the medical and scientific field. But the transfer of information, indeed a true cerebral identity (and thus in some way a real identity), from one subject to another? It brings into play something concerning the religious and the 'sacred' sphere, a principle akin to reincarnation, but at the same time, also, staying strictly within the field of scientific and futuristic, what is after all the world of computers and that of robots.

The fact is, it seems, given this 'possibility,' anyone could somehow radically change themselves and not just in outward appearance, but also regarding their stock of knowledge and capacity and even on the emotional and spiritual plane. All of this is undoubtedly very fascinating. Come on, who deep down wouldn't want to try truly being someone else? Sooner or later, we all have, hidden in the depths of our most secret thoughts, this perverse taste, this repressed voyeuristic instinct. Becoming someone else, at the same time as digging into the head and soul of other people. Even somehow having control over someone else.

And what then is the true essence of a human being? What is it that makes us such? We continue to give great importance to aesthetics, but a film like this also tells us that what we are transcends our form and physical structure. Naturally, this type of thought is not new, but rather it has been part of human imagination for millennia. But is it really so? Can the soul be completely separated from the body? Can we refuse or accept ourselves only for what is one of the two components, just as we can accept, be attracted, or reject others only for their outward appearance or their cerebral component? If we think about it, after all, there is something monstrous in all of this. There is an alteration, an unresolved imbalance that is inherent to humanity. But what do we really reject, our outward appearance or our intellectual and spiritual affluence, or more simply are we unable to align the two parts, inevitably reflecting only in others and not recognizing their own complexities.