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.
