Sunday's regular movie review.I rented the subject of today's review from a local Redbox kiosk largely on the basis of its starring Denzel Washington and, to a lesser extent, Ryan Reynolds. I also liked that it was about spies.
Safe House (2012: Daniel Espinosa) [IMDb: A young CIA agent (Ryan Reynolds) is tasked with looking after a fugitive (Denzel Washington) in a safe house. But when the safe house is attacked, he finds himself on the run with his charge.]Before watching the DVD last night, I googled to get the IMDb citation (above) and happened on Rotten Tomatoes' rating ("Rotten") and was put on my guard by the comment, "Washington and Reynolds are let down by a thin script and choppily edited action sequences that betray the film's unfortunate lack of imagination."
Then I watched the movie, paying particularly close attention to its logic, thinking that the editing comment might betray a lack of coherence in the movie's explanation of why someone wanted the Denzel Washington character (Tobin Frost) dead. The explanation seemed coherent enough, if also more explanation than needed. I won't spoil your viewing by saying why I think it was "more" than enough. (But I will quote something Tobin Frost tells his young colleague: "Everyone betrays everyone.")
As for the action, maybe the editing was choppy; I didn't care. My own complaint is that there was too much action—more car collisions, more shots fired than would have satisfied me. Your call. I rate Safe House VG (Very Good).
"Man on Fire starts out well, but goes over the top in the violent second half." [I don't seem to have rated Man on Fire, but I remember it favorably.]
"Tony Scott tries [in Déjà Vu] to combine action, science fiction, romance, and explosions into one movie, but the time travel conceit might be too preposterous and the action falls apart under scrutiny." [I don't seem to have rated Déjà Vu either, but in a 2007 post, I said, favorably:
It won't let me go."Despite a strong cast [including John Travolta], The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 suffers under the excesses of Tony Scott's frantic direction, and fails to measure up to the 1974 original." [I rated The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 Excellent and think I enjoyed it more than the original, which I remember enjoying very much also.]
Without giving the show away, I'll say that the plot involves time travel. Right, how much more science fictiony can you get? Thing is, the technology and the characters are told so convincingly that it was no problem at all to suspend not only my disbelief but also my usual aversion to science fiction. I mean, Denzel Washington! And the best performance I've seen by Val Kilmer, who was perhaps responding to Washington and to Scott's direction? And James Caviezel (who starred in Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, 2004), eerily perfect as the terrorist.]
"The ending [of Training Day] may be less than satisfying, but Denzel Washington reminds us why he's such a great actor in this taut and brutal police drama." [I liked Training Day very much.]
"As fast, loud, and relentless as the train at the center of the story, Unstoppable is perfect popcorn entertainment—and director Tony Scott's best movie in years."
I rated Unstoppable Extraordinary, and perhaps it literally was Scott's "best movie in years." But Scott had directed The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 and Deja Vu in the preceding four years, Domino in 2005, Man on Fire in 2004, and Spy Game in 2001, and I can recommend all of these films to you. If you have the time to watch.
I seem to like films generally more than Rotten Tomatoes does. Or maybe I just rate more leniently? If anyone has watched (or will watch) a few of the films mentioned above, please let me know how you rated them.
Denzel is a fine actor. I can't recall one of his movies I didn't like, though I'm sure there were a few.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, very fine, and I just like Denzel Washington's personality. He must be wonderful to know "in real life." As I recall, his character in Unstoppable sort of mentored the younger colleague (played by Chris Pine) who was indispensable and instrumental in finally getting the train stopped. And, notice, he mentors the Ryan Reynolds character in Safe House. I imagine that Washington mentored the actors as well.
DeleteI'll have to try to remember which of his movies, if any, that I didn't like much either. If you think of any of your few, please let me know.
A friend emailed me:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about many of the comparisons with the reviews from Rotten Tomatoes. On the other hand, I usually don't care much for others' reviews, particularly those from the internet. I think, from memory, the first Pelham 123 was better, but both were good movies. Unstoppable was very good. Of course, all of these are "action flics" and so the critical standards may be a little lower, or different. I notice there were a lot of Ridley Scott films; Blade Runner is certainly among his best and manages to break through into an entirely different category. [My wife] and I also love his TV series, The Good Wife.
The friend is a retired professor of English in California. The Good Wife is one of my wife's and my favorite TV shows.
Since I don't own a TV, only watch two or three movies annually on computer, and drag myself to an actual movie theater maybe twice a decade, I find the new "Always on Sunday" feature thought provoking. The reviews and comments create what to me is an alien realm, remind me of trips to foreign lands, and inspire a similar sort of anthropological mindset.
ReplyDeleteAt Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania one can view casts of the Laetoli footprints, think of the way things are in the world, and muse "we have been walking upright at least 3.6 million years and what we have now is the best we can do?" In Kigali, Rwanda, one can chat with genocide perpetrators and wonder "did they really go out and kill 800,000 of their neighbors because a voice on a radio station told them to?" That accomplishment must humble American "shock jocks" and radical talk radio hosts. And here in North Carolina one can fire up a computer and read "Always on Sunday" (or any number of other online reviews) and wonder if a movie, TV show or radio broadcast will eventually inspire a large group of people here to act out en masse instead of just occasionally going off in lone wolf fashion at a college campus, movie theater, temple, or congresswoman's meet and greet.
'Braveheart' reportedly helped resuscitate the heartbeat of Scottish independence after it lay dormant for centuries. 'Dr. Strangelove' arguably had as much, if not more, impact on the American public than the real nuclear missile crisis the year before. Fans seemingly watch more movies and TV shows about baseball than they watch actual baseball games.
Will there be an American 'Braveheart' that stirs some long-dormant national passion? Will someone produce a movie, TV show, or radio broadcast with the sort of impact in America that they managed in Rwanda? For someone who watches with stunned disbelief the Kardashians ability to make millions of dollars from their shrewd alchemy, these are not unimportant questions.
Motomynd, thanks for sharing your musings. If I knew who "the Kardashians" were, I might be able to understand how a fascination with them affects the importance your questions have for you about the possible impact of movies, TV shows, or radio programs on collective human passions and actions. Is Kim Kardashian one of the Kardashians referred to? Or does "the Kardashians" possibly refer, not to individuals with that name, but to a category of human beings roughly in Kim's line of work or whatever—some sort of TV personality, I gather? Is she really someone of importance? Should I be spending time following her instead of watching Denzel Washington or Tony Scott movies? Or instead of stocking the bird feeders or taking photographs of the rabbits who live in my back yard, come to that?
DeleteSome sort of insight may have been provoked by my reading your musings, the thought that the diversity of human interests and collective and individual human actions is just the many faces of the one life that flourishes on the planet—each interest, each collective, each individual playing its determined role in the whole; none privileged, none necessarily sure to survive beyond the current season or age; all strains of the wriggling, squirming mass of living organisms that Earth has mothered.
Motomynd, I shared your initial comment with my friend the retired English Professor in California, hoping he would share his views, formed over many years of teaching film in college. He did:
DeleteThanks for this thoughtful comment from one of your other readers. I have lots of reservations about his ideas, which doesn't mean he's wrong and I'm right, of course.
First, the tragedy in Rwanda, like so many and like other genocides, is horrible, deplorable, and has, like so many tragedies, a group of commenters who try to draw lessons, most of which I'm very skeptical of. I find it highly unlikely that a large group of Americans would respond in a similarly violent way to TV, movie, or radio. Unfortunately, we tend to breed our own very special kind of loner killers, as in Timothy McVeigh, or the guy in Colorado. Of course the culture helps produce them, but the culture is so vast it's hard to pinpoint one particular cause. I doubt violent action movies are a source—that's what this post seems to imply.
On the other hand, I would say our culture of gun proliferation and ersatz views of freedom and independence do help promote these acts. Nevertheless Norway, with a far saner gun culture and more homogenous populace, can still breed an unrelenting and deluded killer like Brevik.
I liked Braveheart and Dr. Strangelove, but they are odd films to yoke together with the Rwandan adventure and the Denzel Washington ones you reviewed—or with each other. Dr. Strangelove is a great, satirical, funny film, which still wears well and offered, I thought, a sane critique of nuclear absurdity and international paranoia. We stepped back from that nuclear brink, but perhaps we will find another one.
Mel Gibson is, politically, an idiot, but a fairly good actor, and has made some intriguing films. I can't endorse his morals, his antisemitism, his politics, or his narcissism. But I wouldn't want to censor Braveheart or even The Passion of the Christ. In neither of these is an echo of Nazi propaganda.
If one were to assess the American film industry for deluding the American people, I would say the strongest tendency lies in the portrait of physically attractive American families who are rich—making it seem like this is the norm. So many films take that as a given, and undoubtedly it sells tickets. Still, my most recurrent habitual critique of American films is that they love gimmicks that are so extreme as to be unrealistic, and, in my view, dramatically unsustainable, or, at best, merely mechanical and predictable: like two people who declare they don't like each other or only want to have sex, or will trade mates, or whatever, then at least some couple at the end of the film ends up blissfully in love (that's the romantic version of the mechanical, predictable film; the other form is the "twist" in reality, where one person can see every one else naked, or looks like an actual dog, or is really a 5-year-old in a 25-year-old's body. I don't think such films tell us much, offer us much, or really satisfy us. But often they seem to me like the standard fare available on any given Sunday.
I realize that this is a little rambling. Perhaps two key points: America isn't in serious danger from its media; there's room for great improvement in the subject matter and strategy of American films.
Moristotle, in regard to your questions...my personal perspective is that humanity, and the world, would be better off if people didn't waste their time and energy on Kim or the other Kardashians, or on Denzel Washington or any other movie stars. Or on Shakespeare plays, for that matter. There is this thing called real life that, in my opinion anyway, is made more enjoyable and meaningful by actively living, not by sitting around watching TV shows, movies and plays. Especially if those shows and plays are about fictional characters with minimal potential of teaching anyone anything at all about how to make the real world a better place.
ReplyDeleteDo people become stronger contributors to their own lives and to the world by absorbing the thoughts and creativity of others and regurgitating it, or by spending more time tapping their own thought processes and creative instincts? Is better to be a good reader who fills one's brain with borrowed knowledge, or to be a good thinker who offers new perspectives to the world?
The questions at the end of my original post are, I think, of legitimate concern. Will someone in America achieve enough clout through electronic media to start a violent rampage against a specific minority as happened with the Rwanda genocide? Given the polarization and the tone of political rhetoric in America, and given that so many people seem almost desperate to find someone or something to follow instead of thinking for and believing in themselves, I wonder if it could happen.
Thanks, Motomynd, for your sobering elaboration. I'm not sure how my life went wrong, how I got diverted into informing and amusing myself by reading books and plays, watching cinematic and theatrical productions, and thinking and writing about them and about the ideas they provoked in me (and participating in discussions such as we are having). This is largely what my "real life" became and has been.
DeleteI guess I'm never going to know what of value my thought processes and creative instincts, if left unread and untutored and unfettered by books and movies and plays (and discussions like this), might have been able to discover anyway—to make that better humanity and better world you envision.
I can, though, I think, comprehend the big [yes or no] questions you pose, but I'm not sure what practical value there might be in contemplating them. What would the usefulness be of a "yes" answer, or a "no"? Only if you think that someone in America could achieve enough electronic clout to start a violent movement might you be led, or compelled, to try to do something about it. Have you identified what that "something" might be, other than musing wistfully how much better off humanity and the world would be if people didn't waste their time and energy on reading books and newspapers and magazines and watching movies and TV programs (and perhaps having discussions like this)?
One way or the other, life will go on haltingly as it has done for millennia.
We individuals can only do what we can do, along the lines of acting locally, however globally we may may incline to think. We tend our own gardens, and help our neighbors tend theirs if they need our help and are open to it.
And we join discussions with our friends out of solidarity and fellow feeling and sympathy. Let me know what else I can do for you.
Even though the "real" 1960s as they happened in California still haven't gotten to my hometown in Virginia, I've always been fond of the Eldridge Cleaver quote: "...you're either part of the solution or you're part of the problem."
ReplyDeleteWhile being spectators does keep people out of the way of those with more active and activist leanings, I'm not sure that makes them part of the solution. It may or may not make them part of the problem. Offered appropriately tongue in cheek, of course.
Motomynd, I appreciate your sensitively tucking your tongue into a cheek to spare my feelings. What are friends for?
DeleteI agree that Eldridge Cleaver's observation deserves a fond memory, but it of course isn't literally true. At best, some people are sometimes or often part of the solution, and some people (sometimes the same ones) are sometimes or often part of the problem. (This will not be nearly so well remembered as Mr. Cleaver's statement.)
Am I right in concluding that you pride yourself on doing very little spectating (beyond informing yourself that Kardashians and Denzel Washingtons exist, for example) and on therefore being more often than not part of the solution?
What part of the solution, specifically, are you to the potential problem that someone in America could achieve enough electronic clout to start a violent movement?
Moristotle, I would agree with you to a point but probably see the percentages quite differently. I would say that maybe five percent of people are usually actively involved in trying to find solutions, and that 95 percent are part of the problem, either through their actively undermining the quest for solutions, or through their own lack of effort in looking for them. Therefore I would respectfully say Eldridge Cleaver's observation is spot on most of the time, and is far more often true than off the mark.
ReplyDeleteTo address your specific question: I guess my small part in the solution against someone achieving enough electronic clout to start a violent movement is that I devote most of my time to actively studying and learning. And I waste only a very tiny part of my time being mindlessly entertained by screen or stage. Which I hope at least gives me a start toward being well enough informed that I hopefully don't fall prey to some manipulative leader who may be able to turn the less informed into a mindless mob. From lynchings in this country to people being burned at the stake in Europe over religious differences, the common problem seems to be ill-informed people falling prey to corrupt leadership and mob mentality.
Motomynd, how can you be confident that the percentages are "quite different"? My word "some" doesn't have a number attached. Plus, there are problems galore. The human race and even Life on Earth hangs in the balance. The number of people involved at some level in trying to solve problems varies from very few on some problems to quite a few on others. What justification could you possibly give for five percent?
DeleteAlso, among the "great unwashed," surely there are hoards of individuals with so little talent that it would be ridiculous to think of enlisting them in the quest for solutions. At best, someone in charge could put some of them to work (menial work) on a solution that someone smart thought of and organized.
I'm relieved to hear that your "small part" in the solution to the particular problem under theoretical discussion is very similar to my own small part in the solution of a number of other problems. That is, I too devote time to "actively studying and learning"—although, admittedly, not "most of my time." I praise you for the larger commitment and want to take nothing away from you for it.
And I'm glad to be able to say that I too spend only a very tiny part of my time being mindlessly entertained by screen or stage. My watching the screen (I rarely go to stage productions anymore) is at a high level of mental activity, much of it critical as opposed to "for entertainment" (although I admit that I derive much pleasure in life from exercising critical and creative thought—that is, thinking is, for me, a form of self-entertainment).
Oh, I admit, that I have, on rare occasions, watched TV mindlessly (and I bet you have, too, on a few occasions, perhaps in a sports bar after a hard day riding a bike?). And no doubt many people watch mindlessly a lot, as though it were an alcoholic beverage to help them "veg out" after a hard day at the office or in the factory or field.
But even mindless watching is relatively harmless, don't you think? At least, it keeps people out of trouble (we hope)—compared to mindlessly voting, mindlessly operating equipment that could harm oneself or others, etc.?
Moristotle, Ha! You have me on two counts. Since you are constantly stumping me with references to movies and actors I know little of, and since I seem to confound you at times with news tidbits about countries and organizations you seem to know little of, I made an assumption our percentages on many things would be quite different.
ReplyDeleteAnd as for the five percent, I should have used the more exact 4.7% but I am guilty of rounding. I am kidding, of course, but I just didn't want to use a term like "small percentage" which I feared would not grab your attention and provoke a reply.
My larger point being that if one pays attention in life, it quickly becomes obvious that a "vast percentage" of people seem to just mindlessly go through the motions and a "miniscule percentage" seem to have their brains actively engaged. As an example I will cite drivers' seeming obsession with tailgating. Next time you are on the highway, or even a country back road, pay attention to the car following you. Is it the "accepted" safe distance of two seconds behind, or is it much closer? As I commute between Virginia and North Carolina I make a game of this, and I find that more than nine out of 10 drivers either blatantly tailgate or follow so closely as to be unsafe. And they do it for no reason, because I cannot fathom how it can possibly be that important to get to Yanceyville, or even Danville, a half second earlier.
So I am guilty of extrapolating that if they behave mindlessly when involved in their most important and potentially lethal daily activity, then they are most likely equally disengaged with thoughtful and positive decisions in other areas of their lives. Yes, this is a general assumption based on unscientific polling done without a control group. However, when I consider the number of out of shape and overweight people versus slim and fit, and the "vast percentage" of people who know much about TV drivel compared to the few who are informed on national and international news, I see enough circumstantial evidence to support my conclusion.
About your sports bar question: You apparently are not aware I am a sport biker, not a Harley rider? Sorry, that was a bit of humor for my close friends who ride Harleys: both of them. Plus, when a man pushing 60 has a petite young wife waiting at home, he does not waste time hanging out at sports bars.
Where I will agree with you is that mindless watching is relatively harmless, compared to actively undermining the positive efforts of others, at least. As I noted in a previous post, if people are only going to be spectators instead of being actively involved, being mindless watchers at least keeps them out of the way. For the benefit of the rest of us, however, it would be considerate of them to at least summon the energy to be mindfully engaged while driving. If that isn't too much to ask.
Motomynd, I know it's a side issue, but I never tire of saying it of my most treasured commenters: Loved this comment! (And, since I know that Ken will be reading this and I didn't say that on HIS comment from late last night in California, I'll say it here: Ken, I loved your comment too.)
DeleteI am, probably, as aware as you are of tail-gaters, and I abhor them too. You have chosen a very convincing example of mindlessness in action and, by pointing out that it involves "their most important and potentially lethal daily activity," you have strengthened your point so much that I have to agree with your conclusion that "a 'vast percentage' of people...just mindlessly go through the motions," alas.
And I grant that I have nowhere near the familiarity you do with things like mass murder and genocide in Africa and Europe (and elsewhere), but I am not as unaware of it as my failure to have told you this earlier might have led you to think. There just wasn't any reason to tell you, until now, and I hate telling you even now, for it probably seems defensive. But I hope you know from prior exchanges that I'm comfortable with just being who I am, knowing some things (a few things), being vaguely familiar with some others (a few others), but mostly not knowing or being familiar with much in this vast world.
While it may not be "too much to ask" of the mindless that they "be considerate," I'm sure you know that asking them isn't going to make any difference. As I think Jean-Paul Sartre said (or one of those "existentialists," at any rate), "Hell is other people." (The Brainy Quote website does give Sartre credit, but also Sigmund Freud and H.L. Mencken.)
P.S. You have only two Harley friends? What a hoot, or at least your humorous comment about it.
DeleteAnd I can conceive of no better justification than you provide for not frequenting sports bars. It's good to know that your moto motto, "Ride, baby, ride," doesn't apply to the road only, but often to the road's destination.