This movie is quite "ho-hum". Neither the difficulty of a bystander drawn into violent conflict in the Middle East (e.g., Eva Marie Sainte in Exodus), nor the violence, nor the espionage presents anything novel to the viewer.
And there is one central problem: that outlined by Daniel Baker below in his review. The movie's central charge is that promiscuous Western women are fools and will, in exchange for a pleasant lunch, be willing accomplices to any violence anyone has in mind. Thus, the initial killings in the movie are caused by a Swedish girl. Why? She enjoyed sex with the terrorist who enjoined her to do so - after she met him at a club.
The protagonist, Diane Keaton's character suddenly and dramatically changes the politics of a lifetime - due to a pleasant lunch and evening with an Israeli member of Mossad - even though she realizes that the Israeli deliberately caused her to believe he was another. Indeed, it's telling that Keaton's character came to adore one (hooded) man due to a short talk he gives, another because he gives her a pleasant lunch, and subverts the entire objective of her mission after she has slept with a third man. The statement, "OH! He's cute" presages a complete change of life for any woman.
One is tempted to be kind and think that presenting ongoing Palestinian terrorism was novel when this was released in 1984, but we'd seen Exodus, Cast a Giant Shadow and others long before. (Both are more interesting movies). Moreover, it had been a dozen years since everyone had watched the Munich Olympics' kidnapping, it was 36 years after the Arabs in Palestine began their campaign of terror against the new state of Israel, and a century after the Arabs began to terrorize the Jews in Palestine.
**** SPOILERS ****
Another problem I had with this movie is the completely different reaction of Keaton's character to witnessing the killing of her friend/co-worker in Lebanon and her witness of the killing of the man she had worked throughout the movie to trap and kill. Why is she not unhinged by the former - but devastated by the death of her mission's enemy? One would think people who had spent long periods in terrorist camps would be inured to this sort of thing - and moviegoers have seen aplomb in the face of such violence in movies so frequently that her reaction at the end of the film seems strange.
**** SPOILERS END ****
This attempt to mix romance with a story about terrorism didn't work. There's too little real suspense - and since we hardly see any romance (merely a woman who makes a fool of herself with each good looking man) we have a very hard time sympathizing with her. Moreover, we hardly SEE any romance - simply a puppy-like enthusiasm about possible mates.
In some respects, this movie should have been re-jiggered to be expressly about the Keaton character's sad loneliness, about her pathetic yearning to marry in incipient middle age. Then the movie would make more sense of why she falls for anyone (from anywhere) with a smile -- and she'll do anything (including participation in terrorist training camps) to win his favor - and when she likes another, she'll reverse course. The problem is that pity for the main character does not easily yield moment by moment to sympathy with a fool.
It's not very good.
And there is one central problem: that outlined by Daniel Baker below in his review. The movie's central charge is that promiscuous Western women are fools and will, in exchange for a pleasant lunch, be willing accomplices to any violence anyone has in mind. Thus, the initial killings in the movie are caused by a Swedish girl. Why? She enjoyed sex with the terrorist who enjoined her to do so - after she met him at a club.
The protagonist, Diane Keaton's character suddenly and dramatically changes the politics of a lifetime - due to a pleasant lunch and evening with an Israeli member of Mossad - even though she realizes that the Israeli deliberately caused her to believe he was another. Indeed, it's telling that Keaton's character came to adore one (hooded) man due to a short talk he gives, another because he gives her a pleasant lunch, and subverts the entire objective of her mission after she has slept with a third man. The statement, "OH! He's cute" presages a complete change of life for any woman.
One is tempted to be kind and think that presenting ongoing Palestinian terrorism was novel when this was released in 1984, but we'd seen Exodus, Cast a Giant Shadow and others long before. (Both are more interesting movies). Moreover, it had been a dozen years since everyone had watched the Munich Olympics' kidnapping, it was 36 years after the Arabs in Palestine began their campaign of terror against the new state of Israel, and a century after the Arabs began to terrorize the Jews in Palestine.
**** SPOILERS ****
Another problem I had with this movie is the completely different reaction of Keaton's character to witnessing the killing of her friend/co-worker in Lebanon and her witness of the killing of the man she had worked throughout the movie to trap and kill. Why is she not unhinged by the former - but devastated by the death of her mission's enemy? One would think people who had spent long periods in terrorist camps would be inured to this sort of thing - and moviegoers have seen aplomb in the face of such violence in movies so frequently that her reaction at the end of the film seems strange.
**** SPOILERS END ****
This attempt to mix romance with a story about terrorism didn't work. There's too little real suspense - and since we hardly see any romance (merely a woman who makes a fool of herself with each good looking man) we have a very hard time sympathizing with her. Moreover, we hardly SEE any romance - simply a puppy-like enthusiasm about possible mates.
In some respects, this movie should have been re-jiggered to be expressly about the Keaton character's sad loneliness, about her pathetic yearning to marry in incipient middle age. Then the movie would make more sense of why she falls for anyone (from anywhere) with a smile -- and she'll do anything (including participation in terrorist training camps) to win his favor - and when she likes another, she'll reverse course. The problem is that pity for the main character does not easily yield moment by moment to sympathy with a fool.
It's not very good.