REVIEW: Salt, Angelina Jolie Deliver the Action-Packed Summer Blockbuster Goods
Somewhere midway through Phillip Noyce's exhilarating, over-the-top yet strangely modest action-thriller Salt, Angelina Jolie, as on-the-run CIA agent Evelyn Salt, ducks into a ladies' room to dress a nasty-looking flesh wound -- with a maxi-pad. It's an elegant and ingenious solution to a sticky problem. But then, Salt is a do-it-yourselfer, a resourceful spy who has been trained by the best. She can fashion last-minute weapons from common household items (fire-extinguisher flamethrower, anyone?) and leap off overpasses onto moving semi-trucks with the grace of a lemur (a creature that, with her wide-open, smoky-rimmed eyes, she somewhat resembles). Salt could surely, as an old perfume commercial -- borrowing straight from Peggy Lee -- used to say, bring home the bacon and fry it up in the pan. But who'd want to watch that?
Like its star, Salt is a spare and lean piece of work; it's everything a modern action movie should be, a picture made with confidence but not arrogance, one that believes so wholeheartedly in its outlandish plot twists that they come to make perfect alt-universe sense. The story -- the script is by Kurt Wimmer -- draws numerous outrageous loops, but Noyce neither dwells on them ponderously nor speeds through them in a misguided attempt to energize his audience. And he makes fine use of his star, an actress whose lanky gait is as delicious to watch as her spring-loaded leaps are. Noyce frames the movie around Jolie's finely tuned sense of movement, and yet it's her expressiveness that anchors the story emotionally: In an old-fashioned, old-Hollywood way, Noyce and his cinematographer, Robert Elswit, are wholly alive to her face and all its possibilities.
The movie opens with a flashback, jolting us back to early-2000's North Korea. A semi-naked Salt is being tortured by soldiers in a dank-looking dungeon. They keep insisting she's a spy; she keeps repeating, with unwavering authority, "I'm not a spy, I'm a businesswoman" -- movie shorthand for "Of course I'm a spy, you nitwits." Shortly thereafter, our bruised and battered heroine is freed as part of a deal with the U.S. government; her colleague, Ted Winter (played by a sly, sharp Liev Schreiber), escorts her away from that North Korean prison and toward the man responsible for getting her freed: Her arachnologist love interest (played by German actor August Diehl, who also appeared in Inglourious Basterds), the man she'll later marry.
Cut to present-day Washington, where Evelyn Salt has scaled back her spy duties to focus on things like learning fancy ways of folding napkins for her upcoming wedding anniversary celebration. Suddenly, a badly shaven Russian defector named Orlov (Daniel Olbrychksi) shows up at her workplace, ready to spill secrets. He reveals a nutso plot hatched years ago, designed to restore Russia to its former glory as a superpower, in which cute tykes are trained as tough little superspies who will eventually grow up and infiltrate the U.S. government from within. (We see these wee tots in flashback, wearing matched stripey shirts and respectfully kissing the ring of their feared and beloved spymaster as they're being indoctrinated into the church of spyhood.)
Although Salt is openly dismissive of Orlov's revelation, it clearly rattles her, and her boss, Peabody (the always regal Chiwetel Ejiofor), begins to wonder what the hell is up. Schreiber's Winter, on the other hand, defends his colleague and close friend. And Salt knows, as we do, that something terrible is about to happen, and she races back to her apartment to change clothes, jury-rig the aforementioned flamethrower, and make sure the family dog is safe, approximately in that order. Then, as any sensible person would, she climbs out the window of her pre-war apartment building, clinging to its stone lintels like an extremely glamorous spider-monkey; it's the first of numerous feats of derring-do that also include jumping onto the tops of several fast-moving vehicles and beating the crap out of a crew of leering baddies.
Pages: 1 2
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
You know how to write a review that lets the reader know exactly what kind of movie to expect and its quality without revealing too much or ruining the twists and surprises.
I knew I would like it the minute I read about Salt's backstory.
No choppy, rapid-fire cutting? I might have to see this. I've been avoiding these movies since choppy editing replaced good filmmaking.
Now we'll see a torrent of hate email from Nolan fanboys enraged that Stephanie liked Salt but didn't like Inception. Wait for it...
Didn't read the review but am looking forward to seeing this - Phillip Noyce is quite a strong director and the trailer & TV spots look good.
Anyone who didn't like the Inception is getting my attention to his/her opinions automatically. And if she says she didn't like his Batman films as well, I will seriously consider marrying her.
She's taken. Sorry. =(
Yeah, I've had a mini-crush on Stephanie for some time... Somewhere in the comments I heard her husband is a film/culture writer as well. Any good? For whom does he write?
Salt II? That'll be a treat. Salt II treaty if you will.
Please write movie reviews that don't give away plot points, surprises, and details. Part of the pleasure of watching a movie like this is being surprised. This reviewer should pay for about a quarter of my ticket price because she's taken away some of that surprise.
I loved the review. I usually do. I was already excited at the thought of another Jolie action film and this review just ratcheted up my anticipation. In a saner world, this review might also put to rest the oft-repeated refrain that the reviewer hates every movie she reviews. But in a cyber world, where group think has become a plus, I'm not hopeful. Still, great review. Can't wait to see the film.
To Donald: The husband is Charles Taylor. He also used to write reviews for Salon, and I thought he was one of the best reviewers around. I didn't always agree with him, but I loved the writing and the originality of his mind. You might want to Google him, since if you like Stephanie's style, there is a similarity in approach i.e. snappy, fast-paced prose and a refusal to follow the pack opinion if it doesn't fit his perception of the movie.
I haven't had to suspend this much disbelief since the days of Ahnuld and Stallone. And the Cold War stuff was as stale as a 3 week old bagel. What a mess of a film. 1 out of 4 stars (and the only reason for the 1 star is because of Jolie's physical beauty is still breathaking to watch)
Yeah, Salt is going to make people want to make movies, not Inception.
Another good review, Stephanie. Thanks for keeping the conversation intelligent. In particular I like your observations about the clean directing of the action--truly a rarity these days. It's a strange movie in that it's simultaneously preposterous and elegant.
another rambling incoherent review. style over substance. I guess it figures it comes from this website. i by no means am a nolan fanboy, but recognize what people go to movies to see. i said it was laughable that people thought salt was going to gross more than inception. didnt this website have something titled along the lines of 5 reasons why salt will gross more than inception, blah blah blah.
salt week 1:32 mil
inception week 2: 40 mil
good riddance, overblown action garbage. people arent afraid of a 2 1/2 hr movie that makes you think.
It's a mark of the stupidity (and hypocrisy) of Stephanie's lazy fanboys that they actually *admire* her for her critical double standards, her inane protocols, and her lack of intellectual rigor. For her review (gee what a surprise that an Angelina Jolie starrer gets an unqualified rave from Stephanie - gosh darn it, never saw that one coming!!) praises *Salt* for all the same qualities she derided *Inception* for having: an unbelievable plot set in an "alt universe," "outlandish plot twists," over-the-top images which equate "awesomeness" with "greatness," paper-thin characterization, etc., etc. No use trying to find consistency and fairness in a Stephanie Zacharek evaluation. Read between the lines and she's basically excusing *Salt* for containing the exact same elements she found objectionable and tiresome in *Inception*. To describe a movie as taking place in an "alt universe" where "outlandish plot twists" occur is to admit the movie is junk after all.
The only difference is that *Salt* doesn't take itself too seriously: being self-consciously "hip" rather than attempting to be "deep," and also having a glam heroine rather than a gloomy hero, Steph can ignore the fact that in all other respects, it's just as undistinguished as the other film she panned.
Essentially she loved *Salt* for one main reason: because it has Angelina Jolie as a kick-ass heroine. Since Stephanie, like so many of her smug admirers, has always been a delusional, self-congratulatory narcissist, of course that combo would go down well. It always does.
Secret to making a movie that SZ is guaranteed to love: make the plot knowingly "hip" in its outrageousness. Make sure you include plenty of preposterous plot twists, but make sure you *show*, every step of the way, you're in on the joke. That way no one can accuse you of taking yourself too seriously. That also is guaranteed to make SZ and like-minded hipsters feel super-cool and "with it" when they watch.
Next, add in a glam-girl heroine who, despite looking like a waif, can by some miracle kick ass effortlessly, even when up against men twice her size. Stephanie, being a narcissist, will always praise any movie that allows her to "identify" (the way a little kid "identifies" with her barbie dolls) with a sexy, witty, butt-kicking, devil-may-care babe. (Never mind that in real life, a woman with Jolie's physique would last about 30 seconds against any of these heavies: in today's market, movies are about flattering the female ago just as much as the teen male ego. At least James Cameron, whatever his other faults, cast the brawny Linda Hamilton as his female ass-kicker.) Most people outgrow this kind of dumb fantasy long before they're Steph's age.
Finally, cast Angelina Jolie in the lead. This isn't always necessary, but it's a marked bonus.
What's especially funny is that I guessed more or less what SZ was going to write the moment I saw the poster for *Salt*. She has become *that* crushingly predictable. There wasn't a single paragraph of this review that took me by surprise. Stephanie, you truly are a paint-by-numbers hack.
This part of SZ's review made me laugh:
*The movie opens with a flashback, jolting us back to early-2000’s North Korea. A semi-naked Salt is being tortured by soldiers in a dank-looking dungeon. They keep insisting she’s a spy; she keeps repeating, with unwavering authority, “I’m not a spy, I’m a businesswoman”*
God, I've never seen that one before! Didn't Madonna parody this one in her "Die Another Day" video? Isn't it the opening scene of every episode of *Alias* ever? Thank God *Salt*'s there to keep the hoariest of cliches alive.
Wrong: Taylor didn't follow "the pack" only because he followed Pauline Kael's dictums instead. His departure from the mainstream merely concealed a different set of allegiances that were watertight.
Taylor was always an exceptionally bad, piss-poor writer, with little to offer but attitudinizing. And his taste was easily as bad as anyone else's.
(Sorry Donald, this is a reply to Chris: an indent-resisting maneuver.)
Chris: I think you do a good service in getting us to compare her reviews. Having read her review of "Prince of Persia," for example, with its key praise for it being that though it isn't perfect, it does at least aim for "grandeur" ([i]n a moviegoing climate where so many people — out of necessity or preference — end up watching movies at home on DVD"), I think you really should ask for some explanation as to why "Inception" was so panned SPECIFICALLY FOR its aiming at the OMG! awesome. I don't think it's quite a contradiction, because I think she really appreciates ambitious reach, lavish and scale, and wants us to extend ourselves to films that generously offer as much, but doesn't want to sense that a film's grandeur / awesomeness depends on your willingness as a filmgoer to experience it as an acolyte oh-so-ready to lose yourself to rapture, or just on your having sat before a film that will willy-nilly juice you until you're brain-fried, but it's worthy of a clarification, and my guess is that few who read both reviews thought one was required.
Reading this review, I myself would want to know how exactly a reviewer would square praising a film for it "believ[ing] so wholeheartedly in its outlandish plot twists that they come to make perfect alt-universe sense," with its also deserving kudos for its "healthy sense of humor." It seems, at least, that the same film is credited for its level of seriousness and immersion, but also for its laid-backness and modesty, its evidencing of a knowing and awry distance / detachment. Maybe the two can go together, but not obviously so; and it's worth a check to see if with this film they're congruent, and / or that if for some reason to a certain reviewer taking oneself seriously is always a precarious lurch, even when its clearly established as a subject of praise. I don't want to be prepared to be generous with a film simply because a film maker shows s/he's prepared to shift tones / weight if what s/he's up to "now" is making me uncomfortable -- not simply because it gives me room to think / feel for myself -- or because it extends some reach but beyond MOSTLY ACCEPTED perimeters (i.e., standard summer blockbuster fair): I'd be concerned, I think, that what I foremost want / expect movies to show me is that they are first of all MY subject -- i.e., just a movie -- with from there being the starting place, the only place, from which something worthwhile might develop. I'd be afraid that previous shocks were delimiting, were limiting, current explorations, who I might still become. Or is it sheerly childish to ask that a movie be allowed still to alter you, morph beyond being just a movie to actually become a life-changing event -- to a certain extent even without your permission -- with adulthood being about attenuation, modest reconsideration / recalibration to a largely settled core? Do we actually APPRECIATE the bossyness in the Nolans -- the bossy Nolans -- if "they" help us color all of what might be good for us but what we can't bear to brave, so we can engage them optionally, perhaps LARGELY laughing, mocking, deriding and closed?
*I think you really should ask for some explanation as to why "Inception" was so panned SPECIFICALLY FOR its aiming at the OMG! awesome. I don't think it's quite a contradiction, because I think she really appreciates ambitious reach, lavish and scale, and wants us to extend ourselves to films that generously offer as much, but doesn't want to sense that a film's grandeur / awesomeness depends on your willingness as a filmgoer to experience it as an acolyte oh-so-ready to lose yourself to rapture*
Patrick, I understand that everyone has their personal quirks and biases, and that what turns one person's crank won't turn another's. Every single critic and moviegoer on the planet brings her or his own personal prejudices to the table. And I know there's no objectively "right" or "wrong" opinion about any movie under the sun. (And I must repeat: I'm fairly lukewarm on Christopher Nolan myself.)
But Stephanie takes subjectivity of response to a nearly psychotic extreme. Skim through her reviews and it becomes glaringly obvious she just plain likes certain qualities that aren't inherently "better" or "worse" than others she detests: she just likes movies that contain certain ingredients and that's that. It doesn't matter if the ingredients are sloppily flung together, it doesn't matter if the recipe is poorly prepared in the kitchen, all that matters is that it contains Stephanie's favorite ingredients. She's like a restaurant who loves pasta more than anything in the world, so therefore gives every single Italian restaurant she visits a four-star review. Whereas she hates Chinese food, so every Chinese place gets the thumbs down regardless of how good or bad the food is. Just the fact that it serves Chinese food is enough for her to give a restaurant a thrashing. Have critical standards sunk so low that we now revere individual reviewers simply for *not* saying the same thing as everyone else? One can be a moron as long as one isn't a sheep? Just because Zacharek departs from the general consensus on Chris Nolan movies, she's to be revered as some sort of hero?
Having read (like a masochist) enough of Stephanie's reviews over the years, I'm prepared to say again that the main reason she loved *Salt* and hated *Inception* is this (to quote from myself): *Salt* is a movie *having a glam heroine rather than a gloomy hero*.
Again and again SZ says nice things about movies with heroines who play into SZ's wish-fulfillment fantasies. It's quite revealing what she does and doesn't like about the movies she reviews. What really irritates her about *Inception* and *The Dark Knight* is that the kind of wish-fulfillment they tap into is more of a guy thing, whereas SZ likes chick flicks of a certain sort, not gushily sentimental ones like *Titanic*, but Angelina's movies, or the TV show *Sex and the City*, chick shows and chicklit and chick flicks of a certain hip, cool register. Chris Nolan's universe is too much of a geeky boy's club, but it isn't actually "worse" artistically so much as it appeals to a different niche.
Oops, this....
*She's like a restaurant who loves pasta more than anything in the world*
should read *She's like a restaurant REVIEWER who loves pasta.... etc.*
Eh. Salt was rather unremarkable, though the actors were good.
But even if you took into account the whole "alternative reality" case, Inception still makes no sense, and its protagonist is a complete retard.
And even Salt's negative reviews praise Jolie's performance, so Steph's hardly in the minority.
"God, I've never seen that one before! Didn't Madonna parody this one in her "Die Another Day" video? Isn't it the opening scene of every episode of Alias ever? Thank God Salt's there to keep the hoariest of cliches alive. "
I agree with that, though. North Korea is the new Russia when it comes to stock villians.
And there's nothing Steph says here that I particularly disagree with. It's just to what degree does this please me to the point where I'm satisfied...? Not enough to give it an 8.5 out of ten, that's for sure.
"salt week 1:32 mil
inception week 2: 40 mil"
Um, this figure doesn't exactly sound promising for your prediction if it continues at this pace.
"good riddance, overblown action garbage."
Which one are you talking about?
She really liked "Letters to Juliet," and it wasn't so much cool and hip (in fact it wasn't at all that) as it was bright, warm, relaxed and --- conditionally -- AVAILABLE: I think (but am now pausing to reconsider), the opposite of hipster. I think you can provide a lot of examples of the cool and hip (reservedness?) she goes for, but it would as you know need targeting to convince, because with just hearing that she goes for the hip and cool it's too easy to think of movies that are a kind of cool, that are in fact so LAMENTABLY cooled down that you recall most vividly her attending to the few instances of vibrant "aliveness" the films did allow, the refreshing bit of color -- glam? -- in landscapes otherwise so everywhere neutered and grey. Your claim that she is attracted to glam is interesting, though. As I've suggested / implied, it could be made to be about her preference for color over drabness, part of her war against freezing mannerisms -- which would be a sign of her own aliveness, her expectancy for soulfulness, much more than it would her girlish adolescence -- but you mostly want to make it equivalent to the stunted guy's going for glum and grime it would seem.
You made the point earlier that the legacy of Pauline Kael (I remember now I actually did try to get into her work -- a couple of times in fact -- but so wasn't drawn in that I could barely recall having tried her on: I was always way, way more for Nathaniel Branden than I was the kinda alien creature-seeming Ayn Rand as well) has been the omnipresence of critics who cannot allow that their ostensibly more evolved, more involved engagement with films has mostly been a kind of cunning skating on the surface, an ongoing disinclination to throughly analyze, deeply involve oneself with film, in preference to sporting with them You focus on Stephanie because you think she's so beholden to her, because she represents THE PROBLEM -- the log jam -- it would mostly seem, and not because you're a masochist (though you say this, and I accept it, and hope you know it's worth your exploring too). And it seems -- from one of the things you said on the "Inception" thread -- also because you have seen what she can do, and sense her potential. If I were you, I would continue to finesse out where she goes wrong, and -- very much please -- at some point also where she goes so wonderfully right, for all our sakes. Maybe you could best do so by responding after you've just seen a film she's "taken on."
You know the challenge involved in showing the kind of reviewer who seems attendant and responsive to every film molecule to be actually mostly closed off / shut down, so I wish you a universe of good luck, as well as an unbeknownst deity or two to have your back. But my rooting for your cause is genuine: Wouldn't it be wonderful if one day Stephanie looked back and recalled "Avatar" in such a way that you wouldn't be drawn, as one commenter on the Salon thread did, to ask if she in fact had a limbic system? As I thought the alien flower she so appreciated and attended to in the film notable but still so easily and immediately trumped preamble, I had to wonder to, and would certainly cheer at this!
Chris, this is where you lose credibility for me. You may disagree with every opinion Taylor's ever had, but to call him a poor writer is simply flat out wrong and dishonest. Whether I agree with what he's saying or not, his writing is superb. How you can characterize it otherwise is beyond me.
Whenever a review sparks commenters to review reviews of other reviews of the review the first reviewer first reviewed, you know something is seriously f***ed up.
Apparently film criticism is its own subculture! =D
Next »