Based on a true story. It seems as though the multiplexes have been chock-full of these types of movies in recent months. It's not uncommon for studios and scriptwriters to rip their stories right out of the newspapers, but eventually enough is enough. This story, about real-life FBI spy Robert Hanssen and the man who brought him down, doesn't give us the answers to life nor does it tip the scales against real story movies. Better than that, it entertains and rivets, which is all we can really ask of a movie.
Eric O'Neill (Ryan Phillippe) is summoned to FBI headquarters on a Sunday morning to be "re-tasked." He is given a new assignment: ride the desk of respected agent Hanssen (Chris Cooper). There have been problems between him and female subordinates; he is, what Kate Burroughs (Lara Linney) calls, a sexual deviant, posting on pornographic websites and the like. But there is more to the story: eventually, Eric and his wife Juliana are treated like family by the Hanssens, bringing Eric into a spy ring which has allegedly cost the United States untold billions of dollars and at least 50 human lives. It is up to O'Neill to bring down the worst spy in American history while protecting his back at the same time.
Before the first reel even begins winding its way through the projector, we already know how this story ends: Hanssen is caught, O'Neill is safe. Anyone with a working television knows that. Whatever lack of suspense this fact gives the movie is no fault of the movie's. It's a simple fact of true stories. For instance, when Eric is copying Hanssen's palm pilot in a race against the clock, we know he's not going to get caught. Later on, during a confrontation in a park (no spoilers since this is seen in the trailer), we know Hanssen doesn't fatally wound Eric. Knowing the outcome beforehand chips away at the level of drama director Billy Ray is trying to convey. Again, it's not Ray's fault or really a "fault"; it's a fact of these types of stories.
What we do have here is an incredibly lean, fast-paced and well-done thriller without some of the usual thriller trademarks. There is one scene involving small amounts of blood, no real profanity, and one scene of sexuality which is all but covered up. In essence, Ray has put together a taut drama with a surprising performance from Phillippe that somehow knows to toe the line between cliché and reality.
The real surprise here is Phillippe, who always seemed to be one or two rungs belong Leonardo DiCaprio on the Hollywood Acting Respect Scale. That's not to say Phillippe is a bad actor, but critics and audiences like to pick "pretty boy" actors apart for their movie choices. In this role, though, opposite Cooper, he has a better actor to play off of, someone to match what he throws out. Bar none, the best scenes in the movie are between Hanssen and O'Neill, based on the sheer tension they each bring to the situation. When the story veers away from the two male leads, "Breach" begins to loose its punch. The information we receive regarding Hanssen's meddling in Juliana and Eric's marriage is a facet of the story, but it's not what the audience came to see. Likewise the religious storyline. Why does it even matter? Arguments can be made stating this is a real event and the movie needed to get as close to it as possible. However, I'm sure other portions of the story were left out for dramatic purpose. Why was this kept in?
The promotional material for "Breach" goes out of its way to mention the term "sexual deviant." It is featured so early and often in the trailer that you would think that portion of Hanssen's life was vital to the story. It's not. It's given extremely short thrift and, aside from a late scene involving videotape, it relegated to the background. A lot of the flaws committed in "true story" movies can be rationalized by saying we're watching a, well, true story. Leave out a part of the narrative and you're damned; include it, no matter how trivial it may seem, and you're damned. In the end, the only rational thing to do is to serve the story. The sexual deviant angle, while titillating and the first story Eric is given about his assignment, doesn't add anything to the film. Even the jarring videotape stands out. Why include this when there's really no good reason? Who did the tape go to? Why did it go out?
Logically, the only reason for it to exist is as a test for Eric. If it got mailed, then Hanssen felt as though he could trust him. If not, he knew something was wrong. But we never get that type of information. It's simply there as a catalyst for an argument between Eric and Juliana. And if that's the only reason it exists/existed, then the audience needed more clarification on it.
It sounds as though I'm bashing on "Breach," picking at its minor faults. That's not the case. This is still a movie that exceeded my expectations, especially considering the odds stacked against it.
The positives outweigh the negatives when it comes to "Breach." There is very little fat to cut from the production: the film drops the audience into the story without much in the way of introductions and, outside of the aforementioned issues, doesn't allow itself to get distracted from the main plot. The best thing that can be said about any movie is that the audience was entertained, never thinking about the running time or the finale. I experienced that with "Breach." It is, simultaneously, riveting and entertaining.
"Breach", starring Chris Cooper, Ryan Phillippe and Laura Linney, rates a 7 on the scale of 1 to 10. Some audiences may be put off by some references or dialog and there is a heavy religious subplot that might not play for everyone. However, if "Breach" is an example of what the studios will be releasing during the January/February doldrums, we're all in good shape.