Movie Review: The Adjustment Bureau (2011)
A fun film with all the romance and thrills of Hitchcock
Photo: Universal Pictures
The Adjustment Bureau is a casting coup. It has all the right names in all the right places. With two other actors in the lead roles I'm afraid to think of what it would have become, but with Matt Damon and Emily Blunt opposite one another the result is a romantic thriller with all the liveliness Hitchcock would be proud of. It conjures memories of such teamings as Cary Grant and Eva Marie Saint and James Stewart and Kim Novak.
The cast includes Matt Damon, Emily Blunt, John Slattery, Michael Kelly, Anthony Mackie, Terence Stamp and Jon Stewart. For more information on this film including pictures, trailers and a detailed synopsis choose from the following menu.
Review
"The Adjustment Bureau" is a Universal Pictures release, directed by George Nolfi and is rated PG-13 for brief strong language, some sexuality and a violent image. The running time is 1 hour 38 minutes.
Damon stars as David Norris, an up-and-coming New York politician with the charisma that immediately leads you to suspect his political career is heading toward the White House. However, fate has dealt him a critical blow as the press has published some scandalous photos sending his current bid for a seat in the U.S. Senate down the drain.
Only minutes before his concession speech an unexpected bathroom rendezvous finds David in the electric midst of Elise (Blunt), a beautiful contemporary dancer that just so happens to be hiding from security after crashing an upstairs wedding. Yeah, Elise is exactly the kind of person David should probably stay clear of if a career in politics is what he wants, but the mutual attraction between the two is too much to ignore.
The chemistry is instant, and not only between Elise and David, but between Damon and Blunt. By the time this one scene is over my expectations for the film had increased ten fold based solely on the back-and-forth banter between the two actors. Their ability to play off one another is uncanny as the unlikely nature of the scene is lost in their ability to make you believe everything they're saying. And just as soon as you grow attached to the idea of them together, they're immediately torn apart.
The story quickly jumps three years into the future. David and Elise haven't seen each other since that first meeting and not for a lack of trying on David's part. It's almost as if something is keeping them apart. Enter, the men with hats, the titular Adjustment Bureau. The silliness gets ramped up at this point as what appeared to be just a typical romantic dramedy turns into a sci-fi thriller, and a ridiculous one at that. But the tongue-in-cheek nature of it all only heightens the entertainment.
The Adjustment Bureau never takes itself too seriously even if the characters do. The fact you believe the attraction between Damon and Blunt keeps the dramatic tension intact while a bunch of other lunacy and misdirection is allowed to take place. Opposite the film's romantic angle the stone-faced determination of the clandestine Adjustment Bureau is led by the silver-haired "Mad Men" star John Slattery, given a heart by Anthony Mackie (The Hurt Locker) and given a hammer by Terence Stamp (Billy Budd, The Hit). As much as the performances of the two leads are integral, Slattery, Mackie and Stamp play the perfect foils.
I should add the film hits a couple of snags and a few narrative bumps along the road, slowing the briskly paced story, but it's merely an instance of stumbling blocks for an otherwise jaunty feature. Thomas Newman's score is bouyant and mysterious and two time Oscar-winner John Toll's (The Thin Red Line) cinematography keeps up with the story's quick pace.
I was a big fan of Matt Damon and Emily Blunt before I ever saw this movie, but this is some of the best work I've seen from both to date as I couldn't imagine anyone taking over their roles. I know this is a declaration typically left for films likely to earn actors Oscar fare, but when the talent on display gives a movie as much life as these two add here it's only right to say so.
The year-long delay did worry me going in, but the directorial debut of George Nolfi didn't let me down as he knew exactly the pieces he needed to tell a fun and entertaining story that serves as a solid pre-summer release.
Showing 17 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New CommentNOTE: The Facebook login option has been disabled. We apologize for any inconvenience. |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
Looks like it was heavily influenced by DARK CITY, but I want to see it after I read your review.
I might try and move up my plans so I can see it this evening actually.
saw it last night n thoroughly enjoyed it – maybe ill be wary of all trilby wearers i see in future
When you watch this movie, notice how the boom mike continuously bobs up and down the top of the screen. Its ridiculous!!! Don't they pay someone a crap load of money to pay attention to that stuff? And the director must be on crack or just didn't care enough to correct it or reshoot the scenes. It totally takes away from the movie. I have no respect for the crew members for being so sloppy. Whoever the boom mic operator was–could be several–does not deserve to work in hollywood ever again.
You seeing the boom mic is most likely due to improper matting by the projectionist, which means you saw the film in the wrong aspect ratio. Your beef is with the theater you saw it at, not the film itself.
pretty sure if was the movie at different points u can see not just the mic but also most of the rigging not just on top either. and it gets so close to the actors head dont know how the ratio would have mattered unless cutting out their heads is an option.
Same problem in Minneapolis, boom mic in almost in every scene
If you have this problem you need to complain to the theater management and get your money back.
I'm not oriented in these types of things. Why is it the theater's fault? Shouldn't the distributor have sent the footage WITHOUT the boom mic?
I didn't see any boom mic's at my screening…………..anyhoo.
I enjoyed the film a good bit. The reviews are right, the chemistry between Blunt and Damon really anchors the film. If Knight and Day had had this sort of spark between it's leads it could have been way better, but I digress.
I liked that it was a weird blend of a few different genres but totally agree it couldn't pick one that it primarily wanted to be apart from a love story and it doens't delve into the fate/free will stuff very deeply.
To me it was hokum. But very well done hokum. I'd go and see it again.
I actually enjoyed the movie, but thought they muddled the theology a bit. Does this film make the case for predestination?
I saw it this weekend and loved it! I totally agree about the length, it seemed a little slow sometimes. I'd buy the DVD
I thought this was solid, Blunt and Damon had great chemistry. It did remind me of Hitchcock. I was also a little nervous by the delay, so it pretty much exceeded my expectations.
I usually enjoy the reviews on this website and find them quite reliable however in this instance i am shocked that this film scored so highly.For me at most a C grade movie. (Spoiler alert!) The movie only held my interest through its slow and tedious plot in the hope of some ending that would give meaning to all the pointless happenings throughout.The ending just served to sum up perfectly how pointless the movie was.Damon and Blunt did have some chemistry on the rare moments they where on screen together but it wasn't near enough to make this film anything less than average in my opinion, although i am stretching to even call it average.As i write this i realise the movie was way worse than the C grade i struggled to give it and that the only enjoyment derived from the movie was that hope that something would happen in order to for it all to make sense,as i said above it did not.In fact probably the only thing i enjoyed from this movie was admiring the extreme beauty of Emily Blunt. It wasn't that it was badly acted, it's just that the plot was absolutely atrocious, a story of such idiocy it gives the impression it was written by a 12 year old trying to recreate the recent surge of the strange happening genre with endings that give sense to it all.This did not! I think those movies have run their course as it is,we wait the whole movie for some shocking or unexpected revelation whilst watching 90mins of far fetched nonsense hoping this point will make it at least a little worthwhile. Well i can tell in this movie that does not happen,the notion of this 'captain' who we never see, only serves to enhance the fact in my mind that the ending of this movie was as pointless as all those leading up to it. Don't waste your time going to see this, google an image of Emily Blunt and look at it for 10 mins and you've got all that their is good from it.
oops, anything more than average*
It's true. The projectionist is supposed to mask out the boom. I saw the film at the Arc Light in Hollywood and I don't believe we never saw the boom. We both work in film and TV so I think we would've noticed it at least once if there was a universal problem.
That said, not all films have to have the boom masked out, so perhaps this particular film played it a little too close. But please don't bash the boom operator. They don't have access to monitors while shooting to know what the framing is or whether or not they're in the shot.
Someone else watching on a monitor will generally tell the boom operator when he or she gets in a shot so the operator can adjust.
I'm still wrapping my head arount the whole boom mic thing, and I have a question re: the aspect ratio comments above. If the film is projected, how would adjusting the aspect ratio help anything? We'd see the overhanging projection above and/or below the edges of the white screen, wouldn't we? Or, do the projectors themselves have aspect ratio settings (where they can cut off the top and bottom before the image is projected)? I know that modern theaters can change the screen size, but that wouldn't do any good unless the black "letterbox" absorbs light. Hopefully that made sense. Can anyone explain?
(I saw the movie this weekend and really liked it, but the boom mic situation was absolutely comical! I agree with Nicholas…the mics were REALLY close to the actors' heads in many scenes, so I'm dubious about this being a mere aspect ratio issue. I'm more in the "sloppy editing" camp.)