The Double

The plot of this movie has room for a decent spy thriller, but it fell short. Uninspired acting and a script not worthy of inspiration leaves the characters flat and unrelatable. The two leads spend very little time actually on screen together, and there is no chemistry when they are. At one point, some information comes to light which seems like a game changer, but it is quickly swept under the rug and ignored, as it has no impact on what happens next, while it could have been actually interesting. In the end, you won't care about the characters at all, and so anything that happens won't interest you. I advise you to look elsewhere and to not come back.

Richard Gere plays "Paul Shepherdson," a decorated CIA veteran who is just pulled out of retirement & teamed up with new & upcoming agent, Ben Geary (Topher Grace) to find the truth about the Russian assassin "Cassius," who Shepherdson claimed to have killed years before. The intel says he lives & is now in the US. The movie follows the duo as the real truth of the matter comes closer, and things are not always as they seem, not like we haven't heard that line before in countless intelligence genre films. It just failed to deliver surprise as very early we are bombarded with hints as to who's who. All the elements where there, great actors & production but the script wasn't as brilliant as it could have been. They could have played out an extraordinary cat & mouse game if things in the script were changed. I did enjoy watching this and I give a 7/10 generously as I'm a fan of both Grace & Gere.

Also I would recommend a watch at least on the web, cause the ad campaign failed so horribly in marketing the film, maybe they could at least go VOD or STV cause it really deserves more.

we cannot call a thriller as thriller if all the ingredients of the recipe is exposed right in front of your eyes within 5 minutes running. we cannot call a mystery a mystery if the 'whodoneit' is already so obviously shown from the early stage of a story. using often with the flash-backs to explain what happened years ago also won't help a transition of the plot but only shows the limit of a screenplay and its director. one of the worse thing is a so-called movie thriller is implementing the constant non-stop sound track to support the tension of a suppose-to-be-suspenseful movie, by the annoying endless non-stop drumming dong, dong, dong to set the tempo but in the meantime blocking the clearance of all the dialog is another stupid arrangement of this movie. no matter how you tried your best to make sudden twists later in the plot or the scenario, it's just rubbish and crap, only horror movies or brain-dead farces that claimed themselves as 'COMEDY' do not need logic. i've also found out that recently more and more lousy screenplays been proved into production (not just Hollywood) and this one in particular, is a living proof of what i'm saying here. i just don't understand why nobody in the production of this movie, including the director never pointed out the absolutely unacceptable flaws and holes of this shitty screenplay. richard gere should have used his influence to point out to the production people what would not work, what should be more logic of this screenplay, otherwise, the movie would also damage his own image. if i were him, i would not and could not perform well if the screenplay so obviously stupidly ridiculous. but maybe it explains why he could be an actor and i not.

this is a horrible movie. avoid as best as you can.

This isn't your thinking man spy movie. Here it relies more on action and some surprises.And some nice surprises I might add. It has a nice pace and it will entertain more than enough. But it could have been so much better. The most essential thing that "The Double" lacks is proper build up.One of the surprises is revealed much too quickly which for me spoiled lot of the fun too early on.It is fair to say that I did lose a little interest.Although I did suspect that the director must have a good reason to do so if he was that confident. And while there were reasons (plot wise) I still think this reveal was a bad idea.In my opinion one should always try to keep the viewer in suspense until it has served it's purpose. And in this case it only would have benefited the story more if it did.Especially with the average action scenes and lack of characterization and drama. One tip though which is something I have learned to accept. Avoid watching trailers,at least when it comes to movies that rely on suspense and twists.Long gone are the days that a trailer is made to tease and draw you to a movie without revealing anything. I don't know what it is with these people making them. But to spoil a movie before someone has watched is always a bad idea.Honestly sometimes you just have to watch a trailer to know exactly what is going to happen.What would be the point to watch the full movie? So as I understand one twist is revealed in the trailer.Which I luckily did not see. Otherwise I might have not even watched this. Overall this is a decent and entertaining production for which you have to keep expectations low on all levels in order to enjoy it.

A retired CIA operative (Richard Gere) is paired with a young FBI agent (Topher Grace) to unravel the mystery of a senator's murder, with all signs pointing to a Soviet assassin.

On top of the great casting of the leads, you also have Martin Sheen being as dignified as ever and Odette Yustman having a smaller, but important role. All around, the casting was just spot on.

What is great about this film is that the words "action star" rarely come up when talking about Grace or Gere, but both have a high level of anger, energy and violence in this flick. I think it marks a great expansion in both of their ranges.

I saw a review that said the film should allow us to "think" more. And yes, one of the key twists is given away far too early in the film. But I think this exposition is warranted, given the bigger twist that comes up later on... and ultimately leads to a chilling ending if you think about what will happen after the credits roll (I am being vague here to not give anything away). I hear (but do not know) that the first twist was even revealed in the trailer. Okay, that was a little too early.

Ebert is surprisingly nice to this movie compared to the average viewer. He says, "Here is a movie constructed from basic parts at the Used Screenplay Store, with a character plugged in whenever one is required." But then he goes and gives the film two stars out of four -- not a terrible rating. He also says the writers had a better film when they wrote "3:10 to Yuma", and that is certainly true.

I want to give this film a second viewing... I did not understand at first about the Russians in Mexico. And now that I do, I want to see the scene again... hmmm. Looks like the film hooked me.