Director: Tom Tykwer (Run Lola Run, Perfume, Heaven, Paris, je t’aime [segment "Faubourg Saint-Denis"])
Writer: Eric Singer
Producers: Lloyd Phillips, Charles Roven, Richard Suckle
Starring: Clive Owen, Naomi Watts, Armin Mueller-Stahl, Ulrich Thomsen
MPAA Rating: R
Running time: 118 min.

Here was the chance for Tom Tykwer to really let loose with his imagination and prove that he can take the corporate conspiracy sub-genre and do something new and interesting as he’s done previously with the oddly compelling Perfume or the gimmicky, but intense Run Lola Run. Instead, despite the wonderful locales and cold, but alluring cinematography, we’re left with just another dry, “Fugitive-esque” thriller that is as predictable as it is thought provokingly mute.

Clive Owen stars as Interpol Agent Salinger who has been trying for years to crack a corporate conspiracy involving an international bank that he believes is doing more than just banking; e.g. arms dealing, money laundering, escalating regional tensions and government espionage to the highest bidder. With international cooperation, Manhattan District Attorney (Naomi Watts) helps Salinger in tracing one clue to the next in an attempt to get to someone high enough up the ladder in order to expose the conspiracy and whistle blow the entire organization’s true identity. But bringing down a trillion dollar organization that spans the globe and is arguably more powerful than any single nation on earth is not easy and they’ll stop at nothing to make sure no one, including Salinger and Whitman, ever get close enough to expose the truth.

That last paragraph reads like the back of a Tom Clancy novel. And unfortunately that’s pretty much exactly what this movie is. I was hoping for a very smart, corporate thriller (ala Michael Clayton, but instead got basically just another dumbed down shoot-em-up with cliche tactics at every turn. Hell, half the movie is spent tracking clues to find a one-legged man.

Clive Owen plays himself – which is usually a good thing (and it is here too), but even with my man crush this is starting to get a little tired. I think we’ve seen the “scruffy, yet handsome, rogue character who can beat all odds if he just gets angry enough” plenty of times from him now. Just once I want him to realize he’s over his head and prevail using something other than a machine gun or a menacing stare. Maybe something a little smarter next time?

Then there’s Naomi Watts who might as well have been on horse tranquilizers throughout. This is NOT the same woman who captivated us in Mulholland Drive. I think that woman is gone and in her stead the producers have hired “Bianca” from Lars and the Real Girl. There just was absolutely no heart put into this at all and it was clear the jet lag from traveling from city to city was taking its toll.

There are two highlights to this film. First, the superficial: the dynamite action sequence that showcases and utilizes architecture to its highest potential. It did leave me wondering what the hell could possibly keep the NYC Police Department so busy that they can’t show up to a massive, fifteen-man, gun fight right in the middle of Manhattan until twenty minutes after it’s begun. But maybe that’s a nitpick… or maybe not. Either way, the choreography, cinematography and composition of this scene is outstanding and I’m sure it will be marketed to death to get people in the theater.

Normally I don’t like to point out others’ articles in my reviews, but looking over the Roger Ebert review for this movie, he simply cops out at every turn; claiming that it’s OK not to nit-pick the cliches, because that’s what movies do. This highly efficient bank that can get to anyone, anywhere never really goes after Salinger or Whitman, even knowing they’re getting close to the truth. Why not? Because the movie wouldn’t work if they were dead. Thugs come out of nowhere and are all dressed alike. Why? Because that’s what movies do and they’re dressed that way to make them easily identifiable to the audience. The police don’t show up because then there couldn’t be a neat gun fight. Sorry, but I’m crying bullshit on this one. If smart is what you’re going for (which clearly The International is), I’d rather have it thought out and then executed well. Not just tack on conveniences and then claim, “well, that’s how it’s done in the movies.”

Besides the handsome looking gun fight, the one other promise of hope (or no hope as the case is) the film has going for it is its pessimistic outlook. The best scene in the film is the verbal showdown between Agent Salinger and one of the higher-ups in the IBBC, played by Armin Mueller-Stahl. The two exchange words in which it becomes clear to the audience the futility of trying to take down such an organization. It’s simply too big and woven too deeply and delicately into the fabric of world affairs. Even the idealistic crusader who’s too big for his britches doesn’t stand a chance in the long run. In this short-lived way, it reminded me of the broodingly dark movies of the 1970′s such as The Conversation or even a bit of The French Connection. This thematic concept works pretty well in delivering something a little dodgier than the typical, “FBI arrests all the bad guys while the protagonists walk away with their arms around each other at the end” type of movie.

Still, while the premise has potential, the ultimate message is interesting and refreshing (only in that we haven’t seen it for a while), the locales are jet-setting and the action sequence is one of the better of the past few years, the rest of the film is unrealistic, cookie-cutter nonsense that while admittedly entertaining, is not something that will be remembered in years (even months) to come. I certainly won’t spend any time with a second viewing.