The new thriller “Traitor” actually actually acknowledges the terrorist threat facing not just our nation but the world.
It’s ’bout time.
That’s where the good news concerning the new Don Cheadle feature ends.
“Traitor” is a strangely inert thriller, and what’s more shocking is the lackluster performance Cheadle turns in.
He’s been so good, so long, it’s stunning to see him fail in such a magnified role.
It certainly doesn’t help that his Samir Horn is a former Special Operations officer turned terrorist. He gets arrested in Yemen while trying to sell explosives to some evil doers – although the evil doers here are far more attractive, courteous and charismatic than their U.S. counterparts.
Samir meets a fellow terrorist in jail, and the duo start planning a major terrorist attack once they’re sprung free by some comrades-in-arms.
Meanwhile, a pair of U.S. agents (Guy Pearce and Neal McDonough) are on Samir’s trail, but he’s always at least a half dozen steps ahead of them.
“Traitor” has all the makings of a solid actioner, but it rarely, if ever, grabs us by the collar. Cheadle’s character is the main culprit. He’s such a cipher it’s hard to care what happens next to him. The actor’s usually expressive face fails him time and again.
Pearce serves up a sly southern accent, but his character isn’t given enough of a back story beyond the “preacher’s son” cliche.
A few scenes threaten to get our attention, and the film’s score unnerves as intended. But every time we think a “Bourne-like” sequence is about to explode, the moment fizzles.
“Traitor” dares to take terrorism seriously. What it doesn’t do is give us a reason to worry whether any of the key figures in the film survive the next attack.
RELATED POSTS
My review of “Vantage Point”
(Photo: Don Cheadle considers some of the moral equivalizing that bogs down the new thriller “Traitor.”)
Related posts:
on 
on 
{ 1 trackback }
{ 6 comments… read them below or add one }
Watching the reaction to this movie has been pretty intriguing. Critics on the left don’t care for it…David Denby didn’t like it, saying that it “spreads a little paranoia and mistrust” for daring to suggest that there might actually be sleeper terrorists in the country (you know, because that’s never happened before). And Dirty Harry hated it because of a few instances of moral equivalence. Another conservative critic friend thought I was crazy for giving it three stars.
I was simply refreshed to find a movie that treats terrorism as an interesting, complex question, and the U.S. government (and its agents) as the good guys.
I thought Dirty Harry would dig it for recognizing the terrorist threat. And it was easy for me to ignore the moral equivalence moments which are few and front-loaded in the film. But while the film bends over backwards to portray Muslims in three dimensions, it STILL wasn’t enough for some movie critics (will post on this later today)
I’m seeing this one tonight. I have noticed most critics have been giving it less than high marks ~ but audiences like it. This makes me very curious to see it and make up my own mind.
Let us know what you think about it …
I read one reviewer who said this movie was “fearmongering.” I think it is probably more realistic than most of us would like to think. I felt it was a fair portrayal of Islam ~ I liked the fact the characters quoted from the Koran.
I enjoyed the movie, but it could have been much, much better. At times (very few times) it reminded me of “Munich.” But it fell very short of being half the movie of “Munich.” My husband said it felt like a made-for-t.v. movie.
In conclusion, it could have been much better.
Heidi,
Thanks for checking back in. I found it hard to pinpoint exactly why the movie wasn’t gripping, but mid-film I realized I didn’t care about Samir’s fate… Cheadle wasn’t doing his job, nor was the screenwriter…