The Amateur Review

While The Amateur is technically a remake, it’s more akin to last year’s The Fall Guy. Popular culture has largely forgotten the original spy movie (and book), and the marketing for James Hawes’ version has avoided mentioning that source material. Given that neither was very well received, that’s probably for the best, as it gives Rami Malek and company the opportunity to succeed (or fail) on their own terms. Hawes and his writing team kept the same basic story and major plot points while updating it to reflect our post-Cold War world, as well as the digital age. However, whereas the original posited Charlie Heller’s inexperience was his superpower, this version centers his alternative set of skills, which do not including firing a gun.

Not that Charlie (Malek) necessarily wants to become a spy. He’s adjacent to that life by dint of being a cryptographer at the CIA and is friendly with some field operatives. But his sole focus is getting revenge on the terrorists who murdered his wife, Sarah (Rachel Brosnahan). Unimpressed by the efforts of Deputy Director Alex Moore (Holt McCallany) and his associate Caleb (Danny Sapani) to track and neutralize the bad guys, Charlie insists on doing it himself. You’d be right to question why they would agree to such a bad idea. They see his inevitable failure as a tidy way to cover their own asses, taking Charlie off the board after he recently came across some cables implicating them in a cover-up.

The data he leverages into a trial run as an asset is digitally dropped into his lap at nearly the perfect moment, despite having nothing to do with his current work. It’s just the first of the myriad glaring contrivances that prompt questions the movie has no interest in answering. While a forgivable feature of most spy thrillers, the frequency makes it difficult to dial into the plot for any extended period of time. For example, you’re left to wonder how a rival agent tracks Charlie to a club in Paris, where Charlie gives him the slip, before finding him again moments later at a random crowded dive bar. There’s the time one of Charlie’s victims escapes from his trap, only to be struck by a car moments later. Then there’s the fight that comes out of nowhere, allowing Charlie to escape what was moments ago a dead end. Each adds to the feeling that Charlie’s opponents aren’t fighting him so much as they are facing off against the screenwriters.

As the various subplots develop around the fringes of Charlie’s warpath, the filmmakers are unsure where to take them. Caleb is clearly a gifted and intelligent investigator with an excellent ability to read intent, and every moment he’s directing the inquiry into Charlie’s actions is gripping. However, he’s sorely underused, and far too little comes of his efforts. Director Samantha O’Brien (Julianne Nicholson) is suspicious of Moore’s actions abroad, solidifying our hunch that he’s gone rogue, in a classic spy movie element. Unfortunately, not only does this show up quite late, the film never decides what to do with it. Does she know he’s lying to her? Does she just not care? Is she trying to play him in return? It’s never clear, even within an individual scene. Mixed in with these examples are the many, many lingering shots and small moments that amount to nothing.

A muddy plot will always harm a spy flick, but it just might remain enjoyable if it’s fun and stylistic, or otherwise technically savvy. Unfortunately, The Amateur is not. Martin Ruhe’s cinematography is passable but boring, which shouldn’t be a surprise given some of his past work. The best kills were spoiled in the trailer, and the other action scenes are nothing special. How shocked would you be to learn there’s a chase through a crowded nightclub? Or someone leading our protagonist through a tunnel to escape the authorities? The hand-to-hand combat is not well filmed, nor particularly well performed (with the exception of Laurence Fishburne as CIA trainer Henderson). The score isn’t bad, but neither is it anything interesting for its genre. The dialog is lackluster when it’s not outright bad. Even some of the casting decisions are questionable. Nicholson as CIA Director doesn’t quite work, although that’s forgivable for a side character. Malek is the real problem. He’s too stylish, confident, and buff to make sense as a cryptographer confined to a windowless room, but too meek and small to cut it as a spy. His performance is fine, but he frequently lands closer to creepy than menacing.

A frequent refrain in online film circles is that remaking classics is a mistake; we should be remaking bad movies. After all, so many forgotten films had a solid premise but fumbled the execution, leaving plenty of meat on the bone. The filmmakers have a ready-made idea, but without the expectation and fan outrage that so often accompanies remakes, allowing them more freedom to adapt and adjust the story as they see fit. So it’s all the more baffling that Hawes rejected that opportunity. The original wasn’t a success, so why did he expect the same fundamental movie would do better nearly half a century later? I do not have the answer to that question, but I do have the result in front of me. And Ocean’s Eleven this is not.