Trouble with the Curve (Theatrical Review)

Trouble with the Curve (2012)
Drama, 111 minutes
Directed by Robert Lorenz
Starring Clint Eastwood, Amy Adams, Justin Timberlake and John Goodman

I knew that I wanted to see Trouble with the Curve without knowing anything about the plot. The reason? Clint Eastwood and Amy Adams are so likable. Eastwood claimed that he would never act again after making Gran Torino, but I'm happy that he changed his mind. Eastwood plays baseball scout, Gus Lobel, and his character is similar to Walt from Gran Torino in many ways. He's hard to get along with, even if you happen to be one of his close friends.

One thing I should point out is that Trouble of the Curve is funny. Although it's tagged as a drama, there is a lot of humor in the movie. Eastwood has good comic timing and his character delivers one-liners at every opportunity. The audience in my theater laughed loudly and often. But the story also has the ability to move you emotionally. It feels somewhat like a James L. Brooks movie, such as Broadcast News or As Good as It Gets.

Like Moneyball, Trouble with the Curve is about people more than it is about Baseball. Gus has three months left on his contract and with the exception of his friend, Paul (Goodman), people are starting to wonder whether he's still capable of doing his job. He's a dinosaur, preferring to dig through a pile of newspapers for statistics, rather than rely on computers for the information. His boss (Matthew Lillard) wants to replace him.

The thing is, there is some truth to the belief that Gus is struggling to do his job as a scout. His eyesight is failing and it doesn't go unnoticed. Paul pays him a visit and advises him of the situation, asking him if he has considered the future, but Gus won't listen. In desperation, Paul asks Gus's daughter, Mickey (Adams), to go on the road and help out her father with his latest scouting assignment. She's an ambitious lawyer, and on the verge of becoming a partner, but she agrees to squeeze it into her schedule and intervene.

Adams is a talented actress and I've been waiting for her to get a meaty role after earning an Oscar nomination for her performance in Doubt. Her role in The Fighter was too brief to count. I've yet to see The Master, but I came away thinking this was the best Amy Adams performance in the past four years. I mentioned that she is likable, but she's also good at what she does. There's a certain intelligence and vulnerability to her characters that I find appealing, and it's present in Mickey. She appears successful on the outside, but she has never been close to her father.

There are three main themes present in the movie:

If you have seen Absolute Power, you'll know that Eastwood is convincing as a father who has a problematic relationship with his daughter. One of the keys to Trouble with the Curve is seeing how Mickey attempts to resolve her issues with Gus.

The most obvious issue is with Gus, as old age threatens his livelihood. Director Robert Lorenz takes plenty of time at the outset to establish his characters, allowing us to get an idea of what is at stake. Is Gus washed up, or does he still have something to offer? I won't ruin that for you.

The other main theme is the ability to decide what constitutes happiness. It's different for everyone. Are you happy because you earn a good salary and thrive in your career? What about personal relationships and family? How about having time to enjoy your life?

It's clear that Gus is happy working as a baseball scout, but what isn't clear is how Mickey views her own life. Is she truly happy as a lawyer? Can she come to terms with the distance between her and her father? She's also romantically involved with a man who thinks of her as a commodity rather than as a woman he loves. He figures that they get along quite well and are both successful, so it would make sense for them to be together. He's not the most romantic of men.

I should also mention Justin Timberlake, who plays a former baseball player and young talent scout. He's also interested in Mickey if she'll let down her defenses long enough.

That's the setup. As you can see, there are a lot of issues at stake.

One thing the movie does badly is make it obvious which characters you are supposed to root for, and who you should dislike. That flaw makes it easy to predict the outcome for Gus, Mickey, and at least three other minor characters. Those flaws aside, I enjoyed the pacing and the thorough characterization.

If this turns out to be Eastwood's final acting role, it's not a bad way to finish. As for Adams, it is good to see her in a role which allows her to show that she can actually act.

Trouble with the Curve isn't a great movie, but it's very good, and one that I want to own. It's a pleasure to spend time with the actors and the story has a lot of warmth. If you're a fan of Eastwood or Adams, I doubt that you'll be disappointed.

Overall score 4/5

Return to index of every review on the site.

Rushmore

Rushmore (1998)
Comedy, Drama, 93 minutes
Directed by Wes Anderson
Starring Jason Schwartzman, Bill Murray and Olivia Williams

Comedy is so subjective. Some people want American Pie, The Hangover, or the latest Eddie Murphy movie, while others prefer gentle indie comedies such as Little Miss Sunshine.

What makes you laugh?

I often think about my own sense of humor and it's difficult to pin down at times. I tend to avoid cheap laughs or things done for shock value, and I admire intelligent dialogue and quirky or original takes on everyday situations. One director who never fails to make me smile is Wes Anderson. He definitely falls into the quirky category, but there is so much more to his movies than that.

Rushmore is Anderson's second movie, coming two years after his debut, Bottle Rocket. Both movies were written with Owen Wilson, and they have a similar feel. Anderson is one of those directors who appears to make movies about nothing and it's easy to sit there wondering what you just watched. But, unlike many comedies, there are deeper themes present. I usually find myself thinking about Anderson's work several days after I see the movie. That's the case this time, and it's the main reason I am writing this review.

Rushmore stars Jason Schwartzman in his first role. He plays Max Fischer, who is a 15-year-old student at Rushmore, a private school. He's there because he wrote a play in second grade and won a scholarship. Most of the students have rich parents, but Max's father is a barber and Max has to lie and claim that he's the son of a brain surgeon in order to gain acceptance.

Max is struggling at school and is informed that he'll be expelled if he flunks another class. His main problem is not one of intelligence, it's his lack of focus. He takes on so many extracurricular activities that he doesn't have time to work on his grades. We see snippets of Max indulging in each of these activities, such as beekeeping and fencing, and these snapshots give the movie a lot of charm. It reminds me of Amelie and some of Jeunet's other work in that regard.

As usual, something feels odd in Anderson's world. This effect is heightened by the dialogue. For example, Max sounds as if he is much older. He talks so seriously and it's funny that someone of that age thinks the way he does. Watch him direct Serpico for the school play and you'll see just what I mean.

The heart of the story involves an unusual love triangle. Max befriends Herman Blume (Murray), who is a wealthy tycoon and former student of Rushmore. They both develop feelings for Miss Cross (Williams), who teaches at the school.

I won't reveal any more of the plot, because it doesn't really matter. All you need to know is that Rushmore is a typical Wes Anderson film. He'll surprise you at times, make you laugh, and leave you wondering how he came up with such original ideas.

I should also mention Mark Mothersbaugh, who began his association with Anderson on this film by contributing to the soundtrack. Other music used in the film includes songs by The Kinks, The Who, The Faces, and John Lennon. They all add to the nostalgic tone and fit perfectly.

Owen Wilson doesn't appear in this one, but Luke and Andrew Wilson are both involved. If you appreciate quirky comedy, Rushmore won't disappoint.

The Criterion Blu-ray offers a superb presentation. Colors are natural throughout and you'll feel as if you are standing next to the characters. The special features are also noteworthy and the highlight is a 55-minute feature showing interviews with Murray and Anderson on the Charlie Rose Show. Fans of commentaries will be happy that Anderson, Owen Wilson and Schwartzman appear on the commentary track.

If you are curious about the appeal of Wes Anderson, Rushmore isn't a bad starting point. It won't work for everyone though.

Overall score 4.5/5

Return to index of every review on the site.

The Hunger Games

The Hunger Games (2012)
Action, Adventure, Sci-Fi, 142 minutes
Directed by Gary Ross
Starring Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Stanley Tucci, Wes Bentley, Donald Sutherland and Amandla Stenburg

The Top 5 films at the box office (worldwide) this year are: The Avengers ($1.5 billion), The Dark Knight Rises ($1 billion), Ice Age: Continental Drift ($836 million), The Amazing Spider-Man ($744 million) and The Hunger Games ($645 million). In the US, The Hunger Games ranks third behind The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises. It's clear that comic book heroes sell, and other key elements are action and conflict. The Hunger Games aims to give us a new fantasy hero to follow after the conclusion of the Harry Potter franchise.

Does it succeed?

The movie is an adaptation of the first part of a trilogy, written by Suzanne Collins, which was initially aimed at young adults. But, like the Harry Potter series, the trilogy appeals to readers of all ages. I can't comment on the quality of the books because I haven't read them, so I don't know how faithful the movie adaptation is. All I can judge is how well the story works on the big screen. The second movie in the series is set for a 2013 release, while the final part of the trilogy will be split into two movies. So, to answer my question, The Hunger Games is a resounding success as a financial venture and it's enormously popular.

Financial success is one thing, but is the movie worth your time? I guess that depends on what you find entertaining. Let me describe what you can expect.

The story opens with a glimpse into the life of Katniss Everdeen (Lawrence). We learn that she lives in one of the poorest of twelve districts in Panem, and that food is scarce. She feeds her mother and sister by hunting for game in the woods and she's a gifted archer. The twelve districts hold a lottery each year to select a boy and girl to represent them. The 24 children will fight to the death and only a single victor will survive. When Katniss sees her young sister chosen, she volunteers to take her place. The chosen boy from District 12 is Peeta Mellark (Hutcherson).

That's all we are told about life in District 12. This is not a drama in which we learn about the struggle to live under such a regime, it's more of an action movie. The story moves on quickly and we are shown the sharp contrast between District 12 and the Capitol, where the population is wealthy and the games are seen as nothing more than a form of entertainment. Katniss and Peeta are interviewed on television by host Caesar Flickerman (Tucci). The Capitol is presented as weird and decadent, and most people look like extras from Amadeus. One character looks to be based on Rita Skeeter from Harry Potter. I had the impression that these people were weird for the sake of being weird and it didn't feel convincing.

The movie plays out like an American version of Battle Royale with elements from The Running Man added for good measure. Those in control of the game can intervene at will using computers. Sometimes they will send medicine, while at other times they will harm or kill some of the contestants. It's all a grotesque manipulation aimed at entertaining the population in the Capitol.

Director Gary Ross is a gifted storyteller, and he also has writing credits for Big, Pleasantville, and Seabiscuit. Unlike all three of those movies, I found that The Hunger Games lacked depth. It's obvious why I am supposed to root for Katniss as she risks her own life to save her sister, but there aren't enough background details to make me connect with her strongly. It felt more like a cynical plot device than anything that was remotely real.

So, for me, The Hunger Games became something of a comic book. There is an attempt at showing group dynamics. Who will work together? At what point will they try to kill each other? Who will take their chances alone? What skills will each of the characters have? How inventive will the deaths be? But the attempt is flawed because some of the most dangerous contestants are displayed as sneering idiots, and it detracts from the seriousness of the situation. This is supposed to be a battle for survival, not a comedy?

I'm trying to give a balanced review, but some of the battles are rather silly. That's not to say that the movie doesn't have a few good moments. One alliance in particular did resonate with me and I reacted emotionally to the death of one character.

My overall impression is one of sadness. Not because of the death of some of the characters, but at what we are becoming as a society. Do we really need to see children fight to the death in order to be entertained? As with modern comedies, we are relying more on shock value than good writing. Katniss Everdeen was portrayed well by a promising actress, but original ideas were few and far between. You know almost exactly what to expect from The Hunger Games before it begins, and most events are thoroughly predictable.

The next three movies will be a huge success, I am sure, but I'm not anxiously awaiting their release. I'm glad that I avoided The Hunger Games in theaters and waited to borrow the Blu-ray from a friend. Don't label me as a prude or someone who is against violence in movies. One of my favorites is Kill Bill, but, unlike the portrayal of Katniss Everdeen, I was shown enough background to care about what happened to The Bride.

This movie does have a huge audience as I outlined at the beginning. If you are the kind of moviegoer who enjoys action, good presentation, and special effects, The Hunger Games will entertain you. You'll need to switch your brain off for a couple of hours, but movies like this do have their place. I guess that's why they get made. I am left wondering about the book and how much was left out. Don't let this review stop you from buying the Blu-ray (which looks and sounds fantastic) or checking out the movie for yourself. I'm clearly in the minority on this one.

(Edit to add: After seeing this movie for the second time, I eventually ended up buying it. It seems that I was in the wrong mood the first time I saw it. Jennifer Lawrence is very good in the role and I am planning to see the sequels and maybe even read the books).

Overall score 3/5 (Subsequently upgraded to 3.75/5)

Return to index of every review on the site.

To Rome with Love

To Rome with Love (2012)
Comedy, Romance, 112 minutes
Directed by Woody Allen
Starring Woody Allen, Ellen Page, Jesse Eisenberg, Alec Baldwin and Penelope Cruz

I would struggle to make a list of Woody Allen films that I don't like at all. I laugh at slapstick efforts like Sleeper, and it's easy to watch Annie Hall or Play it Again Sam from the same period. Recent efforts have changed in tone considerably and critics seem to love one effort and dislike the next. I'm one of the few people who enjoyed You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger, and I believe that Vicky Cristina Barcelona and Midnight in Paris are two of the best films Allen has made in his entire career.

So how does To Rome with Love measure up?

I would say pretty well. As with most Allen efforts, the cast stands out. The film consists of four stories and each segment is worth your attention. I found myself laughing often, and that's quite rare.

One story stars Jerry (Allen) as an opera director who is ahead of his time. One of his productions was performed by actors dressed as white mice. He visits Rome with his wife (Judy Davis), to meet their daughter's fiance. Jerry's creative juices start flowing when he overhears the fiance's father singing in the shower and he attempts to persuade him to star in a future production. Although this segment has a rather predictable outcome, Allen has plenty of amusing dialogue.

Perhaps the most interesting of the stories is the one focusing on Jack (Eisenberg). He's an aspiring architect and lives with his girlfriend, Sally (Greta Gerwig). His life is turned upside down when Sally asks her friend, Monica (Page), to stay with them for a while. I have to admit that Ellen Page can do no wrong in my eyes. I was captivated by Juno and look forward to everything she is involved with. I was particularly eager to see what Allen would do with her in their first collaboration together. My only complaint is that this segment wasn't longer. Eisenberg plays a young neurotic type that Allen would have played in the 1970s. I find Eisenberg a little annoying at times, but I enjoyed his scenes here. The story was improved considerably by the presence of Alec Baldwin, who plays an older, wiser version of Jack. He gives him advice throughout, and his one-liners steal the show. This technique, which breaks the fourth wall, is one of the most enjoyable things about the film.

The third segment tells the story of two young newlyweds, Antonio and Milly. The couple invite Antonio's parents to meet Milly, but she has become lost in the city. Instead, they meet Anna (Cruz), who is a prostitute who was meant to meet someone else, but ended up at Antonio's door. Antonio panics and asks Anna to pose as his wife. This is a pretty funny sequence and it gets better when they encounter Milly, who unwittingly has an adventure of her own. This part of the story is in Italian, so be prepared to read subtitles.

The final story is the weirdest of the four, but it probably made me laugh more than the others. We meet Leopoldo (Roberto Benigni). He's boring. He does the same thing every day, wakes up at the same time, passes the same neighbors, and does the same boring tasks in his boring job. Even his wife looks bored when they are in bed together. One morning, Leopoldo is engulfed by photographers and journalists as he leaves for work. He assumes they have the wrong man, but they are fascinated by him and want to know the smallest details about his mundane existence. He is even asked to appear on TV. Bemused at first, Leopoldo warms to the task, eventually coming to appreciate his fame. Then, just as suddenly, it's gone. I'm sure Allen is commenting on the way the media reacts in modern society, making unremarkable people briefly famous. Did he have reality TV in mind, I wonder?

The whole mix is enjoyable and a pleasure to watch. Writing this, I wish I could see it again right now. One minor complaint is that each story was given a complete resolution and it felt a little cumbersome. I wouldn't have minded if the characters had continued on with their lives and left me wondering a little.

If you are a fan of Woody Allen, it's hard to believe that you won't like To Rome with Love. No, it's not as good as Midnight in Paris, but it's still better than most of the movies released this year. Don't be put off by the critics. See it and make up your own mind. Which European city will Allen take us to next year?

Overall score 4/5

Return to index of every review on the site.

Everlasting Moments

Everlasting Moments (2008)
Biography, Drama, 131 minutes, Swedish (and some Finnish) Language
Directed by Jan Troell
Starring Maria Heiskanen, Mikael Persbrandt and Jesper Christensen

I'm losing count of the number of foreign films I've discovered that I would like to show to friends. Unfortunately, the vast majority would not subject themselves to a subtitled film, so this review will have to be my outlet. Maybe it will persuade one person, somewhere, to watch this wonderful film?

I first saw Everlasting Moments on cable about two years ago. Although I admired it, I felt that it dragged a little at times and I awarded it 3.5/5. I don't know whether my tastes have matured significantly since that time, but I was captivated by last night's viewing on Criterion Blu-ray.

The story tells the true story of Maria Larsson (Heiskanen), who is distantly related to members of director Jan Troell's family. It opens in the first decade of the 1900s and ends in the early 1920s. The story is narrated by Maria's daughter, Maja, and the story is based on her real memoirs.

What can you expect from Everlasting Moments?

The story shows life in Sweden approximately 100 years ago. It's a brutally honest portrayal of poverty and hardship, and how Maria found an escape from that gritty existence through her photography. We are told at the outset that Maria won a camera in a lottery. The ticket was purchased by Sigfrid Larsson (Persbrandt), and he thought the camera should be his because he bought Maria the ticket. She told him that he would have to marry her if he wanted to share it, so he did.

Sigfrid is a complicated character. We discover that he is an alcoholic, and that he also has a weakness when it comes to other women. He appears to love Maria, but he's a violent man when under the influence of drink, causing all manner of problems for Maria and their children.

Maria's life changes when she discovers the camera in a closet one day and decides to pawn it for food. She takes it to a local photography store and encounters the owner, Sebastian Pedersen (Christensen). Maria has no idea of the camera's value, but Pedersen tells her that it is a good one. In fact, he's not completely sure of its value either. He tells her that he will buy it, but that she should keep it and use it until he establishes its value. The cost of the chemicals and photographic plates will be deducted from the price when he eventually buys it. Maria begins to use the camera and discovers that she likes it. Pederson admires her work and thinks she has real skill.

Have you ever uncovered a talent of your own that you never knew you had? That is part of the magic of Everlasting Moments. We live in a world where people are very guarded and often reluctant to show anyone a glimpse of their true feelings. Most reactions we see in others in a social setting are fake to some degree. They feign interest in what you are saying and force themselves to laugh or smile. It's rare to see genuine delight, and when I see it, I remember it. It's more common to see honest reactions from children because they don't care so much about how others perceive them.

I mention all this to illustrate the power of Maria's reaction when she realizes that she has a talent for photography. It is pure magic to her and Maria Heiskanen captures that feeling and depicts it perfectly. It's so effective that I felt everything that Maria might feel and I began to connect deeply with her character and her situation.

Although Maria doesn't boast about her talent or think that it's special, she begins to draw the attention of her friends and acquaintances. Photography was not common 100 years ago, so Maria finds that some people are willing to pay for her work and commission her to do more.

Like all of my favorite dramas, Everlasting Moments takes the time to establish its characters. Maria ultimately has seven children and we learn about what is important to the older ones. Sigfrid does his best to be a good father and husband, but it's not really enough for Maria. However, she takes marriage seriously and we see that she isn't the kind of woman to cheat, even when she observes Sigfrid openly flirting with other women.

Maria develops a deep friendship with Sebastian, which develops as she visits his store more regularly. This relationship is arguably the very heart of the film. Will Maria be tempted to abandon her husband or break her marriage vows?

It's also interesting that Sigfrid is jealous of Maria's relationship with Sebastian, even though he only ever suspects that something might be going on. He conveniently overlooks the fact that he is involved with other women himself and sees it as completely insignificant. He holds Maria to a higher standard of behavior.

I won't reveal the whole story or the ending, but some of the subject matter may disturb a few viewers, even though there is no nudity or bad language. It's a realistic portrayal of Maria's life, and that inevitably leads to a few scenes that are hard to watch.

If you enjoy character studies and seeing how people might have lived a century ago, Everlasting Moments might be for you. The Blu-ray presentation is excellent and exactly what you would expect from Criterion. The special features include a look at Jan Troell's career in film (61 minutes), and two documentaries on the film and Maria Larsson's story (29 minutes and 10 minutes). There's also a 20-page book which includes an essay about the film.

Overall score 4.5/5

Return to index of every review on the site.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (2001)
Adventure, Family, Fantasy
Directed by Chris Columbus
Starring Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Alan Rickman, Maggie Smith, Robbie Coltrane, Richard Harris and Julie Walters

The Harry Potter franchise recently ended after the seven books were transformed into eight movies. Sorcerer's Stone (also known as Philosopher's Stone) was the first entry. It did well at the box office, grossing $975 million worldwide, and was the most successful entry until the final installment in the series beat it in 2011. The eight films grossed $7.7 billion worldwide, so they are enormously popular.

Due to the popularity of the franchise, I'm going to assume that you have read J. K. Rowling's books, seen the movies, or both, so this review will contain spoilers. If you have never entered the world of Harry Potter, stop reading now.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was directed by Chris Columbus, who was responsible for Mrs. Doubtfire and the first two Home Alone movies. The tone of this first Harry Potter movie is quite similar to those three, relying on whimsy and comedy rather than drama. That matches the tone of the book, so it is not a criticism. If you had read the first book, like me, you were probably looking forward to seeing the world of Harry Potter portrayed on the big screen. The adapted screenplay by Steve Kloves didn't disappoint.

There's a lot to like about Sorcerer's Stone; the sets are vast, the important story elements are present, and the majority of the young actors do a good job. It's a tricky business casting children who have to develop over the course of a decade, but I don't find myself disliking any of the choices. It's great to see Hogwarts, the Hogwarts Express, Gringotts, Diagon Alley, and Quidditch brought to life.

Sorcerer's Stone starts slowly and might seem overly long, but it's necessary to introduce the characters and the worlds they inhabit. I could imagine some people viewing this first installment and giving up on the franchise, but that would be a mistake. This is a vast story which starts off as a charming fantasy before quickly becoming much darker in tone. In a way, it mirrors childhood. We are initially fascinated with the world until we mature and realize that it does have plenty of problems. As the series progresses, the films grow more serious as the threat of evil increases.

Some of the best moments include Harry first learning about the existence of Hogwarts, his initial flying lesson, and seeing the teachers demonstrate some of the spells that the children will learn. The main characters are fully realized and we know a lot about them by the end of the movie.

Sorcerer's Stone is a good blend of fantasy and action, with the final part of the film containing the most dramatic sequences as our three heroes try to recover the Philosopher's Stone. The music used in the movie is excellent, and the main theme itself suggests a magical setting. There are a lot of important themes in the series and I think it's generally a good example for children. The importance of friendship is one of the major messages and it all begins with the relationships between Harry, Ron and Hermione.

The Harry Potter franchise isn't just for children. I'm 50 and I have worked my way through the books and the eight movies several times. The adults in the story are played by some of the finest British character actors. Can you imagine anyone other than Alan Rickman as Snape? Dumbledore was played by Richard Harris in this movie and the sequel, and I think I prefer his version to Michael Gambon's portrayal, although Gambon's version did work for the more serious tone present in the other movies.

There's a whole generation of people who grew up loving Star Wars, but here's a franchise for the next generation. Sorcerer's Stone is funny and lighthearted compared to later entries in the franchise, but don't let that deter you from watching all eight movies. The adequate acting improves considerably as the children age throughout the series.

Overall score 4/5

Return to index of every review on the site.

Safe House

Safe House (2012)
Action, Crime, Mystery, 115 minutes
Directed by Daniel Espinosa
Starring Denzel Washington, Ryan Reynolds, Vera Farmiga, Brendan Gleeson and Robert Patrick

I almost went to see Safe House in the theater, and barely resisted the urge to blind-buy the Blu-ray, and I'm glad that I waited. After borrowing the movie from a friend, I know that I saved myself $20.

It's not that Safe House is terrible, it's just formulaic, mediocre, and badly-written.

The basic story is built around Matt Weston (Reynolds), who looks after a safe house in Cape Town, South Africa. The job involves a lot of sitting around, but he springs into action when he learns that Tobin Frost (Washington), a rogue CIA agent, has been captured, and will be delivered into his custody. When a recovery team, led by Agent Kiefer (Patrick), is attacked and defeated, Weston is left to bring Frost in himself.

Weston is ambitious and wants to work at a more high profile location, but he's young and unproven in the eyes of his bosses. We are shown how he is regarded during an exchange involving his superiors, Barlow (Gleeson) and Linklater (Farmiga), at HQ.

Imagine you were given the chance to write the screenplay. How would you make it stand out from previous entries in the genre? We have seen this subject handled well in the Bourne series, and reasonably well in Salt. Safe House doesn't belong in the same class.

What's wrong with the movie? The excellent cast is virtually ignored. Instead of establishing the characters and giving them depth, we are given very little background information. The front cover promises an adrenaline rush, and that's all that we are given. If you love action movies and don't care about the plot, Safe House delivers. But if you want to know why these events are occurring, it's not exactly an important part of the mix. There's a lot of gunfire, but meaningful dialogue is at a minimum.

If I had the pleasure of directing actors like Washington, Farmiga and Gleeson, I would make use of their abilities. Washington doesn't put a foot wrong, he's just given nothing to work with. Farmiga's screen time is extremely limited, but remember how effective she was in a similar role in The Departed? Gleeson is one of a kind and excelled in movies such as In Bruges and The Guard, but his character has no depth in Safe House. I see this as a wasted opportunity.

In the Bourne movies, we see how Jason Bourne meets his girlfriend, and how that relationship becomes meaningful. When she is threatened, we feel his pain and we react. Weston's girlfriend in Safe House may as well have been a cardboard cutout, and as a result, we feel nothing when he examines their relationship.

Safe House focuses on the action element. You'll see shootouts, car chases, explosions and people running. You might even understand why all this is happening, even though it's just a by-the-numbers screenplay. The movie grossed over $200 million and you won't scream for your money back, but I wouldn't bother buying the Blu-ray unless you are an action junkie. I love the cast, but against my expectations, I'm severely disappointed by the end result. Watch Bourne again instead, or watch Anton Corbijn's, The American, as that actually has some fresh ideas.

Overall score 3/5

Return to index of every review on the site.