The mole movie is no new invention; its storied tradition includes both highs (Al Pacino and Johnny Depp in “”Donnie Brasco””) and lows (Al Pacino and Colin Farrell in “”The Recruit””). The film type’s formula is opaque and tired by now: a newbie is trained by a mentor, with imminent role-reversals fueling the excitement.

Today, the genre’s best quality —­ its ability to utilize tension in a way that vivifies, drives and stretches a narrative — has been overshadowed by society’s fascination with every agency acronym (CIA, FBI, etc.). In turn, mole and spy films have adopted a technical sensibility, working to inform a society still reeling from the domestic failures that led to 9/11.

Such a philosophy has sucked the genre dry, however, with even Robert De Niro falling victim to the trend; his “”Good Shepherd”” was initially glorified as an unheralded look into the CIA’s Cold War-era origins, but ended up becoming hyper-nuanced, drawn-out and uninspiring.

So imagine the possibilities for Billy Ray’s “”Breach,”” a new film and director for perhaps a new age. The CIA thriller follows the true-story takedown of Robert Hanssen (Chris Cooper), an outspoken analyst captured and charged for treason in 2001 for what many politicos consider to be the worst intelligence debacle in U.S. history. The film’s hope lies in its goal, which Ray said was to reinvigorate an uninspired society by revisiting the classical roots of the spy film.

“”Movies of the ’70s were part of the social contract that said that film should be harshly critical and articulate the popular rage,”” Ray said in an interview. “”Today’s age is completely cynical and apathetic, but I think that’s changing, so I expect angrier movies. And that’s a good thing.””

The film’s focus moves away from the modern-day systematic approach, concentrating on Hanssen’s relationship with Eric O’Neill (Ryan Phillippe), a fresh-faced agent piggybacking the traitor both as his clerk and the CIA mole assigned to build a treason case against him.

Hanssen is the prime role for Cooper, whose knack for secondary characters birthed his hardline portrayal of an abusive, military father in “”American Beauty”” and his Oscar-winning role as an oddball orchid hunter in “”Adaptation.”” Hollywood’s sixth man quietly manages to inject universal complexities and humanity into a character every patriotic American is meant to hate.

“”Hanssen spoke and painted himself in the best light, which made it very hard to forget he was ultimately a malicious and betraying bastard,”” said the real-life O’Neill, who, in his late 20s, quit the agency. “”But he was put onscreen so well that we could actually question if he was a moral and upright person, and try to rationalize why he sold millions of dollars worth of information that did damage and got people killed.””

The character’s egotism offers a justification for his actions. He gripes about his stagnant career in a cold and unfair pecking order, while glorifying his reformist visions as an asset to a timid intelligence community. In the film, Hanssen blames a pervasive U.S. “”gun culture”” for blocking intel-centric agents from climbing institutional ladders.

Hanssen’s obsession, and resulting frustration, is aptly steered by Cooper’s talents, taking the form of smut fetishes and pontificated tirades about the value of religion. Those vices rationalize Hanssen’s betrayal, flirting with the sin’s nobility as well as its treachery.

“”He’d never let you think he was crazy,”” Ray said. “”He would paint himself in the best light, which somehow, to him, justified the sale of confidential intel. Treason was his way of exposing the holes in domestic defense.””

But for every one of Cooper’s achievements, there is a shortfall by Phillippe, whose portrayal of O’Neill does not do justice to the agent’s mettle. O’Neill said he fought unyielding day-to-day pressures, locked in intense battles of wits and minds with a man superior in age, rank and experience.

“”I couldn’t let myself be afraid when I was around him, because one mistake could affect hundreds of lives,”” O’Neill said. “”It was exhausting and intimidating, but in the end I realized we were going to win this case by doing more than reacting. I had to turn the tables on him to build some confidence and a relationship that could eventually trap him.””

Unfortunately, Phillippe’s empty-minded acting matches unevenly against the situation’s heavy intensity and scope, and falls even flatter when compared to Cooper’s talents. Phillippe lacks the maturity needed to recreate the ballsy personality. All of the film’s kudos belong to Cooper’s Hanssen, a character that makes us question the world around us (as well as our own nation’s safety) without the categorical personality of typical villains.

Beyond Cooper, the film’s plot lacks the balls to engage in any exhaustive analyses that could have saved the film from an unbalanced acting duo; it doesn’t delve deep enough into the CIA’s workings, nor does it offer enough intriguing character studies.