"Duplicity" isn't billed as a comedy, but as a straight crime-thriller and romance. But, it is also a sort of comedy of errors. Not in the sense of Shakespeare's farce, but in the oneupmanship and goofs of the two leads. Julia Roberts plays Claire Stenwick and Clive Owen plays Ray Koval. They are espionage agents for the U.S. and Great Britain who resign their careers in the CIA and M16 to go private and make a big swindle that will give them a $40 million retirement for the rest of their lives. The only trouble is that they've been at their trade so long that they no longer trust anyone. The humor comes in their constant doubt about one another. It's a sort of ironic justice. The film does have intrigue, and that's what keeps a viewer's interest. Otherwise, it's a very weak script. It jumps all over the place so much that it's very difficult to follow. The technique of going back 5 years, and two years, and 14 months, and 10 months, and two months, etc. is used to unveil bits of the story and keep the intrigue as it goes along. But, that's also part of its weakness. It's just very choppy and confusing. The filmmakers needed to find a better way to do that, so that the audience could stay with the story. The film has a very good supporting cast, and the acting is fine. But, the shaky plot and bouncing around just takes away from the enjoyment. It lacks in directing also – there are scenes when Clive Owen seems to have long pauses in his lines – as though he doesn't know what to say next. From early on, I began to doubt aspects of the film. Maybe that's because of the weak plot and one flaw that the movie makers didn't catch. For as good as Claire and Ray were supposed to be in their line of work, they actually seemed dumb in places – especially Ray. They didn't read signs correctly. But their biggest flaw – in the character development in the script, was that they weren't as security conscious as one would expect. While each had some recorded tape of the other, it never dawned on them that other intelligence sources might also be monitoring them together. That makes them seem as not the sharpest of espionage agents, so I suspected their cleverness and ability very early. There are lots of bedroom scenes that require no plot or clever scripting, so DVD viewers can go to the kitchen for refreshments. I like most of the cast of this film in their many other films, but this isn't a movie that any of them can be proud of in their portfolios. Anyone who hasn't seen this film would be wise to try another one or save the price of a rental or purchase. Here's a sample dialog of the humor in the tragic mistrust between Claire and Ray. Claire, "Then I'm thinking how terrible it is that I think that way. Then I realize we both think that way. Then I'm thinking, is that what makes this so worth it? Is that it? That I know you're thinking exactly what I'm thinking? Because then I'm thinking, do we both think like that because of what we do? Are we good at what we do because we think like that?"Ray, "Everybody thinks like that. They just don't say it." Claire, "Civilians don't think like that." Ray, "Bull---t. Nobody trusts anybody. We just cop to it." Claire, "OK, so cop to it." Ray, "Me? I think you better go first." Claire, "Why? What am I hiding?" Ray, "This wasn't an accident was it? Our meeting like this?"

This One may be just a Notch too Clever and Complicated for its own Good as it Almost seems Apparent from the Get-Go that this is going to Alienate a lot of Leisurely Types that are Looking for some Breezy Entertainment to Kick-Back and Take a Break and Breathe Easily. Not a Chance.It is a Ramped Up and Rotated, Turned and Twisted, Back and Forth Film for Thinkers. it Challenges You Every Time it Flashes Back. it Makes You Pay Attention Every Time it Monologues. It Asks You to Listen Up and Stay Frosty. it can be Very Rewarding in the End but if You are not up to the Task, its going to Wear You Out and Put You through the Ringer.There are Laughs and Deadpan Delights with Two Movie Stars Backed Up with Two Leading Supporting Character Actors. So there is Clive Owen and Julia Roberts with Tom Wilkinson and Paul Giamatti in Director/Writer Tony Gilroy's Snappy, Sizzling Rom-Com-Dram and it is All Done with Style and Glitz as it Makes Gleeful Fun out of those Corporate Types that are Very Serious about Shaving Cream and Toothpaste.

This is a film that is desperately trying to sound clever. Unfortunately it expends so much effort on this, not well I might add, that it wastes a better than expected, if not stellar, turn from both leads.A theme throughout the film is that things a made more complicated than they need to be, both for the audience and characters. In fact this film identifies something, that in my mind, is more pernicious than a regular plot hole, a total lack of clarity in the motives of the characters. Some logistical oversight I can forgive, but if a filmmaker cannot reveal why a character is engaged in all these extra complicated plot points the film is lost.SPOILERS FROM HERE ONAs a counter example take memento by Christopher nolan. Very complex plot vs story film told through flashbacks, yet we understand why everyone does what they do: memory loss and deception. There is value in piecing it together to show how the story unfolds. Duplicity uses flashbacks, is not even as complex, but doesn't provide reasons for it. Both leads 'deceive' the intelligence teams through planned and scripted encounters, exotic rendezvous etc. but none of it is necessary and so doesn't make sense. This all plods on for a while making sense even if often unnecessary until at the end we are given a clanger, which I'm still surprised others don't note. It is revealed Tom wilkinsons character planned to find two fraudsters (Clive Owen and Julia Roberts, not just Paul giamatti) all along. I find myself screaming WHY?! He doesn't need to do this, doesn't know them, has a genuine goal of duping giamatti (which he does: this bit is fine) yet risks his entire plan by wasting time making things unnecessarily complicated. Before anyone says hes punishing them: no. He constructs the crime they commit before they know about it: essentially entrapment.. The real stinker is that to dupe the two he needs precisely the same resources (a mole in equistrom) to dupe giamatti so why does he deliberately seek out two (unknown to him fraudsters). Whilst not being a plot hole per se it makes no sense for him to do this: there is no motive at all. It is simply a cheap plot trick. You might as well take any film and change the ending by cutting to a character having masterminded every turn in the plot. It's not hard to do UNLESS you give them a believable motive throughout. This film does not have it and so it resorts to the intellectual equivalent of '...but it was all a dream'.Terrible.

It certainly looks very promising: A romantic spy thriller starring Clive Owen and Julia Roberts. What could there be not to like? Or so I thought. The movie, however, disappointed me all the way, or at least as far as I got. After 85 minutes I finally called it quits, as I couldn't face another 40 minutes of confusion, lack of plot and flashbacks by the bucket load. And the only regret I have is that I didn't stop sooner and used my time for something better. I found it hard to figure out what the storyline actually was, and the only conclusion I have come to is that there isn't one. I do like Clive Owen, and he's probably the only reason I watched thus far - him and the hope that it would actually get interesting at some point. OK, a few funny pieces of dialog along the way, but other than that, I could see nothing interesting about this movie, let alone thrilling.