Skip to main content

Red Sparrow is a Painful Watch


I don’t know the last time an espionage thriller like Red Sparrow was made; one that borrows heavily from the action and erotic subsets of the genre with some Soviet intrigue added to the mix. This movie, based on the spy book by Jason Matthews (a former CIA operative himself), was advertised to imply a plot about a cold, expert spy/assassin who was moulded through rigorous conditioning –it looked a lot like the inferred Black Widow back story of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. But that’s not exactly what the movie turned out to be. Which is a shame, because it would have been better as advertised.
Dominika Egorova (Jennifer Lawrence), a former Russian ballerina, is in desperate straits to support her ailing mother (Joely Richardson). As such, she is pressured by her uncle (Matthias Schoenaerts), who works for Russian Intelligence, to seduce a corrupt politician. But when the action takes an unexpected turn, Dominika becomes a security threat. So she’s forced to train to become a special operative called a “Sparrow”. Meanwhile, a CIA agent called Nash (Joel Edgerton) is working with a Russian mole and soon becomes enamoured with Dominika.
Red Sparrow re-teams Jennifer Lawrence with Francis Lawrence, the director of the last three Hunger Games movies. His past on those films is evident in some of the action scenes and the way he films the political intrigue and looming threats. But this movie is a lot more adult-oriented in its content, though that by no means makes it good. The story for one thing, is way too convoluted and the pacing is really off. There’s possible evidence, which is never discussed, that Dominika has been doing work similar to her uncles’ recruitment for some time before the events of the film. And this movie is way too long, with about three gruelling climaxes, none of which are very interesting. But the biggest problem is that the bleak tone is supplemented by intense violence that is almost always either overdone or superfluous.  It makes for a number of scenes that are very unpleasant to watch. There’s a torture sequence that adds nothing to the plot, a handful of excessively brutal attacks, one particularly gruesome weapon, and a disturbing amount of sexual violence. This is the second consecutive film for Jennifer Lawrence where she’s sexually assaulted multiple times, and it’s just as awful to watch as in Mother! And the movie never really earns any of these; even when they do contribute directly to the plot, I felt they didn’t need to be as extensive. They’re scenes that come off as more masochistic shock value than anything else, and there’s very little separating Red Sparrow from just being an exploitation film. The similarity is especially palpable at the school, where sexual manipulation is a key part of the Sparrows’ training, and the matron (Charlotte Rampling) doesn’t hesitate to routinely grope and force students to strip.
Red Sparrow managed to assemble a really talented cast, even if most of them aren’t performing their best here. This is a movie of American, British, Irish, Belgian, Dutch, and Polish actors all doing Russian accents, so of course some won’t sound right. But to her credit, Lawrence has one of the better accents, and there are times in this movie where she‘s really trying her best. However the character isn’t allowed to have much emotion outside of when she’s being tormented, so the result is a performance that a lot of the time seems stale. I understand the sympathy we’re meant to feel for Dominika is in how she’s been forced into a certain lifestyle, but there’s no levity, no balance to her personality at all to connect with. We only see her determination and misery, which Lawrence can do well, but it doesn’t make for a compelling character. The only other character the movie tries to give some personality to is her manipulative uncle Ivan, but in all honesty that may just come from Schoenaerts’ charismatic demeanour. Edgerton is fine, if underwhelming as the American spy trying to recruit Dominika, and Rampling does the best she could possibly do with such a B-grade stock character. This film also features Mary-Louise Parker showing up unexpectedly as a U.S. senator with important information, Ciaran Hinds as the Head of Russian Intelligence, and none other than Jeremy Irons as his right-hand man. Irons probably has the worst accent of the bunch, but for his handful of scenes he’s a welcome presence. Same goes for noted stage and television actor Douglas Hodge as one of Dominika’s thoroughly unlikeable associates.
This is certainly a movie with aspirations. It tries to have a clever style, effective tension, and James Newton Howard’s score (like many of his) is bombastic and elaborate, particularly near the end. But the excesses in its darker moments combined with unassuming performances and characters, and an obtuse and confusing story that goes on far too long makes Red Sparrow a pretty unappealing movie overall.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Strange History of the American Spoof Movie

Parody movies have been around for a lot longer than we tend to think of them. Even from the earliest days of Hollywood there were movies meant to satirize a particular subject or genre. In the silent era, Buster Keaton was responsible for a few. And in the early sound era, almost as soon as the monster pictures took off did you see comic versions of them -Abbott and Costello hosting a few. But parody movies tended to be subtle for most of cinema history, or parody came in conjunction with another goal of the comedy. It really wasn’t until the 1980s and 90s that it took off and became popularly understood. And there is perhaps a line to be drawn to the counterculture comedy explosion that began in the 1970s through avenues like  Saturday Night Live , which frequently parodied from even its earliest years popular movies and cultural properties of the time. But that is still a way’s back. To my generation though, ‘parody movie’ is perhaps a less known term than the more blunt ‘s...

Notes on the Title Cards of The Lord of the Rings

It might be sacrilege for one who both considers The Lord of the Rings  trilogy to be one of the greatest triumphs of cinema and has been an avid lover of the films since adolescence, to declare that the original theatrical cuts of the films are better than the much beloved extended editions. Easily it’s my most controversial opinion regarding these movies. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the extended editions quite a lot, especially as someone who just enjoys spending time in that universe. They flesh it out more, add extra flavour, and in increasing the length by about an hour really emphasize the epic quality of these films. But I find that the original cuts are generally more cleanly paced, more seamlessly edited, and much more accessible to audiences. All the stuff there is to love about The Lord of the Rings  is there in the original versions, the plethora of new and extended scenes merely add to that for fans. And of those, they fall into three camps for me: 1....

Back to the Feature: New York, New York (1977)

New York, New York  is a two hour forty minute musical movie largely about a toxic relationship and I understand why it was Martin Scorsese’s first big flop. Some have blamed its poor reception on the kind of movie it was, of a style and tone Scorsese wasn’t known for, but I find that hard to believe. Even after only five films, he’d proven himself an extremely versatile director, and Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore  found an audience. Sure this jazz musical love letter to New York City was following up Taxi Driver and its’ far more cynical take on the city, but then it’s also ‘from the director of Taxi Driver ’ which itself was a big hit. Was it a matter of public appetite for musicals, or mere word of mouth and early critical reception that dissuaded viewers? Irrespective of that, I was stunned to discover this movie was the origin of the titular song, which I’d assumed was much older (it’s definitely got the sound of something that might have come out of the Jazz sce...