Polanski is in top form here. In terms of pure film-making craft, Polanski has never really done too much better than this, but unfortunately the material he's working from, though well done on many levels, ultimately doesn't wash.
1. Why would Professor Emmett go to such lengths to conceal from the ghost writer his relationship with the former Prime Minister when a) he has a photo of them together hanging on his wall, and b) later, at the end of the film, he allows himself to be seen publicly chatting with Mrs. Lang (herself a former agent) at the book release party? Anyone visiting his home or attending the book party (who also uses Google) could easily make a connection between Emmett and Lang, not just an overly curious ghost writer.
2. We're supposed to question that Lang has a natural taste for politics on the notion that all Lang really wanted to do in his Cambridge years was party and chase girls (like politicians never party and chase girls); yet we're not supposed to question that he had a natural taste for espionage? JFK got more girls than James Bond, so I'm not sure what Lang's interest in politics relative to spying says about his skirt chasing. Based on what is presented to Ewan MacGregor in the film, he doesn't find any hard evidence that Adam Lang was in the CIA. Only Emmett's suspicious denials(this guy was a spy?), which he displays right away when MacGregor visits him at his house leave any kind of tell that Emmett is hiding something. If Emmett just admitted he was once friends with Lang, then MacGregor wouldn't have anything on him. I could have easily had a good friend in college who was CIA without me knowing about it. But denying that I knew him at all would reveal I was hiding something. Emmett's behavior doesn't wash. His character is poorly written -- too much of a bumbling fool to be a believable CIA agent.
And realistically, if an English Oxbridge student wanted a career in intelligence, why would they bother with the CIA and not just go to work for MI5 or MI6 or some other British intelligence service? Anyway, so the ghost writer discovers Lang had an American CIA pal from his days at Cambridge. Professeor Emmett not only acts like a complete fool to one of Lang's ghost writers, but two of them! (the first one gets killed when presumably Emmett acts like a suspicious idiot in front of him too) This is what is especially hard to swallow about this movie. When did CIA agents start to so easily give themselves away, yet remain so able to rule pull the strings of the universe?
3. Though Lang clearly has much bigger problems with the International Criminal Court than with any rumors of CIA connections, we're supposed to believe that he, his wife and Emmett are able arrange for the murder of meddling ghost writers merely because they became suspicious a) Paul Emmett once worked with the CIA and b) also knew Adam Lang. Well, assuming Paul Emmett knew dozens of people in college (probably more than most students if he was active in theatre and other campus activities), are we also to presume everyone else he knew at Cambridge must have had CIA connections too? Give me a break.
4. Finally, this film has a great ending, but am I really supposed to believe that Emmett and Mrs. Lang can arrange for people they don't like to be run down by a car only minutes after giving the order? The genius of Roman Polanski can make flawed stuff like this play well, really well. But the flaws are still there. As fun and suspenseful as this film is, the B-movie underlying material here just isn't up to Polanski's level.
On another note, as I think others have pointed out, it's interesting to watch a film about a famous man essentially exiled in America, while Polanski himself is exiled out of America (and Britain for that matter). Yet, Polanski gets nabbed in Switzerland of all places. I guess Truth is much more fascinating than this kind of half-baked fiction.
1. Why would Professor Emmett go to such lengths to conceal from the ghost writer his relationship with the former Prime Minister when a) he has a photo of them together hanging on his wall, and b) later, at the end of the film, he allows himself to be seen publicly chatting with Mrs. Lang (herself a former agent) at the book release party? Anyone visiting his home or attending the book party (who also uses Google) could easily make a connection between Emmett and Lang, not just an overly curious ghost writer.
2. We're supposed to question that Lang has a natural taste for politics on the notion that all Lang really wanted to do in his Cambridge years was party and chase girls (like politicians never party and chase girls); yet we're not supposed to question that he had a natural taste for espionage? JFK got more girls than James Bond, so I'm not sure what Lang's interest in politics relative to spying says about his skirt chasing. Based on what is presented to Ewan MacGregor in the film, he doesn't find any hard evidence that Adam Lang was in the CIA. Only Emmett's suspicious denials(this guy was a spy?), which he displays right away when MacGregor visits him at his house leave any kind of tell that Emmett is hiding something. If Emmett just admitted he was once friends with Lang, then MacGregor wouldn't have anything on him. I could have easily had a good friend in college who was CIA without me knowing about it. But denying that I knew him at all would reveal I was hiding something. Emmett's behavior doesn't wash. His character is poorly written -- too much of a bumbling fool to be a believable CIA agent.
And realistically, if an English Oxbridge student wanted a career in intelligence, why would they bother with the CIA and not just go to work for MI5 or MI6 or some other British intelligence service? Anyway, so the ghost writer discovers Lang had an American CIA pal from his days at Cambridge. Professeor Emmett not only acts like a complete fool to one of Lang's ghost writers, but two of them! (the first one gets killed when presumably Emmett acts like a suspicious idiot in front of him too) This is what is especially hard to swallow about this movie. When did CIA agents start to so easily give themselves away, yet remain so able to rule pull the strings of the universe?
3. Though Lang clearly has much bigger problems with the International Criminal Court than with any rumors of CIA connections, we're supposed to believe that he, his wife and Emmett are able arrange for the murder of meddling ghost writers merely because they became suspicious a) Paul Emmett once worked with the CIA and b) also knew Adam Lang. Well, assuming Paul Emmett knew dozens of people in college (probably more than most students if he was active in theatre and other campus activities), are we also to presume everyone else he knew at Cambridge must have had CIA connections too? Give me a break.
4. Finally, this film has a great ending, but am I really supposed to believe that Emmett and Mrs. Lang can arrange for people they don't like to be run down by a car only minutes after giving the order? The genius of Roman Polanski can make flawed stuff like this play well, really well. But the flaws are still there. As fun and suspenseful as this film is, the B-movie underlying material here just isn't up to Polanski's level.
On another note, as I think others have pointed out, it's interesting to watch a film about a famous man essentially exiled in America, while Polanski himself is exiled out of America (and Britain for that matter). Yet, Polanski gets nabbed in Switzerland of all places. I guess Truth is much more fascinating than this kind of half-baked fiction.