Showing posts with label spies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label spies. Show all posts

Monday, March 28, 2011

Salt

Regular readers of the blog (if they’re out there) know that I’m not a fan of action movies. So, as you may imagine, I was just thrilled to sit down and watch Salt, yet another action movie about a rogue agent. But, despite its many problems (and many there were), Salt was still better than Knight and Day. So, there’s that.

Evelyn Salt (Angelina Jolie) is a CIA agent, specializing in Russian matters. A Russian defector shows up and, during Salt's interrogation of him, accuses her of being a Russian spy with the intention to murder the visiting Russian president. Rather than submit to questioning and prove herself innocent, Salt immediately runs, causing her (now former) coworkers to make chase. Salt, though eager to escape from the assailants, finds herself incredibly concerned for her husband’s safety—this concern only increases when she is unable to contact him. The entire movie consists of the chase with a few "I hope my husband's okay" moments.

Even though I didn’t care for the movie’s action, there was one plot point that intrigued me. The defector who labeled Salt a spy explained that there exists a Russian group that raises children with the intention of sending them to live in America as spies. These children were taught the English language and American ways before they were taught Russian, and were eventually shipped off to America with given identity and mission. If the movie centered more on this process, spending time with the children raised as spies and dealing with how they felt about the role they were forced to play, I would have been more invested. Though the mystery of whether or not Salt was a member of this group made the movie more exciting, I would have liked to see the group highlighted in a different way.

My main problem with Salt, though, was its lack of substance. The movie jumped from one chase scene to another, spending little time advancing plot or explaining why characters were taking the actions they did. Maybe that’s what the action movie audience wants, but I wish motivations for the action (other than “get away”) had been clearer. I would have cared more.

Salt gets a 1/5. Though parts of its premise were thought-provoking, the majority of the movie was a mindless chase. I don’t need to watch that.



I'm sorry that there was no new post last week (and that the writing on this post is lackluster and borderline-bad). I'm in the last 3 weeks of my first year of grad school (woo-hoo!) and have been bogged down with papers, projects, and readings. Soon, though, The Daily Shill will jump into summer mode, which means that there'll be more reviews of books and often posts more than once weekly.

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

Between Two Worlds

The story of what happened to Roxana Saberi boggled my mind. Saberi, a citizen in both the United States and Iran, was living in Iran and was arrested and imprisoned for being a spy (which she was not). Her book, Between Two Worlds shares what happened to her in the months between her arrest and her freedom.

As I stated earlier, Saberi’s story is astonishing. The strength she showed in dealing with being imprisoned for a crime she didn’t commit, in a country with an incredibly fuzzy justice system, is admirable. Reading the book, I had to continue to remind myself that this was a true story, that it really happened only a year and a half ago.

Initially, I was not particularly impressed with Saberi’s writing style. Between Two Worlds tells what happened to Saberi during her imprisonment, but it does not offer as much commentary as I had hoped it would; the writing is simple and straightforward. However, as I think about it, I’m not sure what more I would want Saberi to do. What happened to her is engaging enough; she does not need to embellish it with beautiful sentences.

In the end, I’m going to give Between Two Worlds a 4/5. It is an exciting, and appalling, read.


Watch Jon Stewart’s interview with Roxana Saberi. (Really, do watch this one, especially if you aren’t going to read the book. Her story is unbelievable).

Buy the book.

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

Broker, Trader, Lawyer, Spy

As a kid, I wanted nothing more than to be a private detective. I ate up mystery books like the candy I would sneak from the cupboard; I wanted to dust everything for fingerprints; my cousin Lee and I opened our own detective agency, and when we didn’t get any business, we made up criminals to catch. So when I picked up Eamon Javers’s book Broker, Trader, Lawyer, Spy and learned that it was about corporate spies (which are like the advanced version of the private detective), I was thrilled.

Broker, Trader, Lawyer, Spy is separated into two parts: the first half focuses on the history of private detectives/spies, and the second focuses on the techniques used by these spies (and, randomly, a little bit about Russian spies). Though both sections were incredibly interesting, the first part was unquestionably my favorite. Javers travels through history, focusing on a particular group of spies or a certain incident in each chapter of the section. The chapter that drew my interest the most was “The Chocolate War,” which centers on the battle between Mars and Nestle over the safety of the Nestle Magic, a hollow chocolate ball with a toy in the center. Though I don’t remember the drama over this candy, I do remember buying my share of the “Wonderballs,” and, only a few months ago, wondered what ever happened to them. It was exciting when Broker, Trader, Lawyer, Spy answered that question.

However, though the subject matter was exciting and engaging, Broker, Trader, Lawyer, Spy could’ve used another draft. Its organization was weak, jumping from chapter to chapter without transition, and, at times, it was difficult to keep track of the people Javers was talking about. Also, aside from the “spy” part, I don’t see how the title fits the book.

That being said, I still recommend Broker, Trader, Lawyer, Spy if you are interested in corporate espionage. Despite the weaknesses in the structure and writing of the book, I’m glad I read it. I give it a 3/5, and it almost got a four.