So, I’m walking into my favorite theater to see the new release “Spy Game,” and who should be standing there than our very own governor, Mr. John Engler. Now, most people don’t know this, but I actually used to be a respectable journalist, and my specialty or whatever, was politics. So I’ve interviewed the guy.

Of course, I’m sure he doesn’t remember me, seeing as how he’s answered questions from 10 bazillion reporters.

So me and my buddy the gov sat down to check out the newest offering from Brad Pitt and Robert Redford, a neat idea of a spy flick that veers off the track when it comes to telling an intriguing story, turning a good film into poppycock.

On a side note, Redford is one of the coolest guys ever. He was in 1973’s “The Sting” and 1974’s “The Great Gatsby,” two movies which rock mightily.

And of course, Pitt has a pretty good track record going too. 1999’s “Fight Club?” 1995’s “12 Monkeys?” Come on, he also rocks.

So these two hella-cool guys are in a movie together, something that should be a winning prospect. Unfortunately, the movie starts to sink like the flesh on Redford’s face. Have you seen this guy lately? His face is starting to resemble a shar-pei’s. He’s still cool, but there’s some major leather face action going on.

But anyway, to word it at the request of my co-workers who make fun of my pretentious film analysis, the storyline becomes convoluted because of the repeated extended flashbacks. Sound like a real critic, don’t I?

The plot involves two spies, Tom Bishop and Nathan Muir (Pitt and Redford, respectively). Muir is the old pro who trained Bishop, who begins the movie by getting captured in a Chinese prison in the early 1990s.

So, even as he prepares for retirement, Muir decides to get sentimental and rescue Bishop, all from the comfort of CIA headquarters.

The problem is, CIA officials think it would be better to deny involvement and let Bishop get whacked. So Muir keeps it all on the down low, lying and sneaking his way into helping his buddy.

The story should be thrilling enough, but through flashbacks we see not only Muir meeting and recruiting Bishop, but also as they work on missions in Beirut and Germany. So, rather than building any intensity with the issue at hand, we follow them through missions much less thrilling, if only because we already know what happens: They survive. No matter what takes place in their earlier missions, we know they made it through. If they hadn’t, then the Chinese killing a dead man wouldn’t be worth making a movie about and there wouldn’t be anyone to help Bishop.

The flashback routine could be cool. It worked in 1995’s “The Usual Suspects,” but for the most part, an audience doesn’t have a clue what happens in that movie until the end.

But in “Spy Game,” it just feels overdone and makes the movie seem overly long. It drags the pacing and the plot down on what starts out as a strong action flick with enough intelligence not to rely on big booms to accomplish its goal.

The movie is intelligent and ambitious, but it just plain lacks the drive and intensity necessary to pull it all together.

So the next time my pal Johnny E. and I decide to see a movie, I think we’ll go with renting some of these guys’ older, better movies. “Spy Game” isn’t a bad effort, but it doesn’t compete with some of the other work these guys have done.