The Equalizer Begs Us To Ask, “If You Replace Jason Statham With Denzel Washington, Do You Get A Better Movie?”

The Good: Decent acting, Good pacing/direction
The Bad: Very predictable plot, Very generic performances and character arcs
The Basics: The Equalizer is no better than most action-adventure films; it’s just dressed up to get a classier audience.


Last weekend, the movie everyone in the United States seemed most excited to see in the theaters was The Equalizer and it’s easy to understand why – at least in the abstract; Denzel Washington is in a film during Oscar Pandering Season. The logical conclusion is that Washington is giving a dynamite performance in a great film that will be this year’s Oscarbait for the esteemed actor. It seems that most critics and the widespread population took the hook and swallowed the bait, but the truth is, from an objective perspective, The Equalizer is not a great film. It is not even a good film . . . but the audience that has been lured into watching it is blind to that because of how it is packaged.

Some years ago, a con was pulled on the Evangelical Christians that was absolutely brilliant. Mel Gibson made a gore flick and sold it as a celebration of a story the Evangelical right loves and The Passion Of The Christ (reviewed here!) grossed hundreds of millions of dollars, largely from an audience that would never shell out money on a gore/horror movie. In a directly analogous way, Columbia Pictures has managed to sell a Jason Statham-style revenge-based action film to an audience who would vocally balk at ever seeing such a film. But for those who have seen a good Jason Statham film – and they do exist, Redemption (reviewed here!) is one! - The Equalizer is painfully predictable. This is a formulaic vigilante film wherein a good, quiet man reveals himself to be a man with exceptional skills for killing and self-defense. But just as Harrison Ford and Kelsey Grammer appearing in The Expendables 3 (reviewed here!) did not make that an inherently better movie, Denzel Washington’s willingness to appear in The Equalizer does not suddenly make it into a higher level of movie.

The Equalizer is dressed up well by putting Denzel Washington front and center. The viewer goes into the movie with the bias that the film has to be smart because Denzel Washington is a smart man, a great actor and the assumption is that he would only choose to take the project if it lived up to a certain level. The thing is, Denzel Washington’s part of Robert McCall is exactly the part one would expect Denzel Washington to play if he were to appear in a Statham-like action movie. Of course Denzel Washington would play the likable antihero who kills his way through the obviously unethical villains who are tormenting and abusing others. If you were going to put Denzel Washington into The Equalizer, all of his pre-established and revealed talents would dictate that he would be Robert McCall. Just because he is cast in an action film does not mean that Washington gives a great performance; he gives an obvious and predictable performance in The Equalizer that is purely the function of good casting.  In short, there is nothing in the role of Robert McCall that requires Denzel Washington to do anything we have not yet seen from him before.

Robert McCall is a Boston resident working at a big box home improvement store, living a generally quiet life. He is helping his friend and co-worker Ralphie stay on target to get his security guard certification and in the evening, he dines alone at a small restaurant, reading a book. In the restaurant, he encounters an underage prostitute, named Alina. When Alina strikes up a conversation with him, Robert tells her about his reading project and he tries to encourage the girl to take control of her life and believe in her ability to become anyone she wants. One night when Alina refuses to take a call from her pimp, she is smacked around and after Robert comes to her aid, Slavi severely beats Alina. When Robert visits Alina at the hospital, he talks to one of Alina’s fellow prostitutes about how brutally she, Alina, and the rest of Slavi’s hookers are treated.

To try to save Alina’s life, Robert attempts to buy her freedom from Slavi. When he refuses to let Robert buy her freedom outright, Robert kills Slavi and the four other goons working for the Russian mob. That leads the Russian mobster Pushkin to send Nicolai (under the name “Teddy”) to Boston to investigate the murder and get his business back on track. When Ralphie abruptly quits the Home Mart, Robert suspects something more than a fire in his family’s restaurant is going on. Robert exposes a ring of corrupt cops who are extorting local businesses as part of a protection racket. As Teddy starts brutalizing his way through underworld contacts and Pushkin’s network of corrupt cops, he becomes aware of Robert and he smartly realizes he may have met his match. What follows is a game of cat and mouse as Robert decimates the corrupt cops and the mob while Nicolai hunts him and tries to end his life.

To be clear: there have been great movies with strong antiheroes or entirely composed of villains - Payback (reviewed here!) and The Usual Suspects (reviewed here!) jump instantly to mind. But The Equalizer is not one of them and just because Denzel Washington plays a character who, on the surface, has no apparent regard for human life does not make Robert McCall a good performance. Does Denzel Washington play him well? Yes, but given that McCall is characterized instantly as smart, self-disciplined and ethical, the role is the obvious choice for Washington to play. In short, Washington does all he can with the role, but we’ve seen him play roles that are smart, self-disciplined and ethical before. Given how fit Washington is, it’s no surprise that he can run, fire a gun and punch with the best of them in a more physical than cerebral performance. If one wanted to see a great performance from Denzel Washington in The Equalizer, the key would have been to cast him as Nicolai. If Washington could make us believe he is a coldblooded killer whose only purpose is to enforce the will of a ruthless businessman without thought or regard to human life, that would be an acting stretch. Denzel Washington as avenging angel? That’s par for the course for his caliber of actor.

Regardless, The Equalizer suffers from a huge volume of problems that similar films are plagued by. Robert McCall is a floor-level worker at a big box store living in one of the most expensive cities in the United States, but he is able to afford to eat out every night? AND he has $9800 in savings that he can make liquid on a moment’s notice?! If McCall had left the CIA directly, one could make the argument that he had a pension, but more than a decade after he was apparently killed in action, we’re expected to believe he and his wife (when she was alive) were able to make his survivor’s benefits last?! And are we honestly to believe that the Russian mob has an amazing health care program for its prostitutes?! The climax of the film makes absolutely no real-world sense: there is no way that Alina could walk out of the hospital and have so much cash at her disposal (as opposed to crippling medical bills).

Beyond the mountain of minutiae that adds up to smother the movie and make it into a film that can only be taken seriously if one disengages their intellect, The Equalizer suffers because it is predictable and obvious. From the moment McCall attacks Slavi’s men, The Equalizer degenerates into the most obvious possible crime drama action movie. If you’ve seen any vigilante-centered action movie, you’ve seen The Equalizer.

Director Antoine Fuqua dresses The Equalizer up nicely and casting Denzel Washington, Melissa Leo and Chloe Grace Moretz all but guarantees that the film will get some consideration come Oscar time, but the film is no better than similar movies that appeared during Summer Blockbuster Season.

For other films currently in theaters, please check out my reviews of:
Dragons Of Camelot
10,000 Days
Interstellar
Hit By Lightning
Horns
Stonehearst Asylum
John Wick
Listen Up Philip
The Best Of Me
The Judge
Dracula Untold
The Maze Runner
This Is Where I Leave You
The Giver
Guardians Of The Galaxy
The Zero Theorem

4/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2014 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Post-Apocalyptic Christian Theater: The Book Of Eli Is Dark And Troublingly Familiar.

The Good: Themes, Acting, Setting
The Bad: Plot structure is very familiar, Brutal mood
The Basics: Following an apocalypse, a man protects the last known bible in The Book Of Eli.


As I looked through my library of reviews, I was actually shocked to realize how very few films starring Denzel Washington I have actually seen or reviewed. I have long recognized him as a great actor and I have enjoyed the works I have seen that he is featured in, but her remains one of the great actors whose filmography I have limited direct experience with. So, as I debated today which of the films to knock off my “want to watch” list, it was unsurprising that The Book Of Eli with Denzel Washington leapt to the top of the list.

Recently, I saw a preview for The Book Of Eli before another film and I was intrigued. I was quite surprised that I had missed the film in theaters. Perhaps I let it pass by because I was not yet a big fan of The Walking Dead (season 1 reviewed here!) or the whole post-apocalyptic genre. Now that I am, though, I was eager to watch The Book Of Eli and for the most part it did not disappoint.

In the wake of a cataclysm, a lone man hunts a cat in a burned-out forest before wandering on to the nearest shell of a former city. After a night in the house of a hanged man, he encounters a band of ruffians on the road. After dispatching of them and witnessing a motorcycle gang kill and rape two others, he continues west to a small town of survivors. There, the local power is Carnegie – the one who hired the motorcycle gang – whose sole objective is to find a book. The man fends off an attack from the motorcycle gang’s leader when trying to get his water refilled.

In refusing to take advantage of Solara or her blind mother, the man (Eli) inadvertently reveals to Carnegie that he has the very book Carnegie has been searching the world over for. But, while Carnegie wants the book, a bible, to enslave and control, Eli moves west in search of a place where his faith might be rewarded and he can help rebuild the world. After Eli moves on, Solara follows him and he must rescue her from bandits and together the two head west, trying to elude Carnegie and his forces.

My fundamental problem with The Book Of Eli comes from how it buys into the most common conceits of the genre. The post-apocalyptic genre commonly portrays a world where man is set against every other man in a desperate fight for survival. While many of the dystopian situations intrigued me, now it has become a common genre and one where I find myself less impressed by the continuation of. I completely understand how, facing the destruction of the world we know, most people will become frustrated and fight over the last canned foods, stockpile guns and water and hunker down to defend what little they have. I get that (I have a plan for myself and my family in that regard), but the stories that take place longer after the actual apocalypse are rapidly becoming passé. The films seldom illustrate how the human spirit endures and our desire for freedom is stronger than the quest to dominate.

Thirty years after the apocalypse, it is hard to imagine even the degenerates will still believe they can get anything of use by raping and killing anyone who passes by. Far more likely, in the wake of the established world order coming to an end, after a few years of unpleasantness, the survivors hunker down in houses that they do not pay mortgages on, farm what they can grow and hunt what they can eat enough to survive. So, while the setting of The Book Of Eli - the desert wasteland of the American West – seems initially intriguing, it really is more of a cliché now than anything audacious.

That said, I like the philosophical bent of The Book Of Eli. The Book Of Eli is basically about people from the world before the war that wiped out humanity attempting to bring religion back to the world. It’s the classic story of using religion to exert power (as represented by Carnegie) vs. a person of actual faith (Eli). The Book Of Eli is laudable for taking the view that is unpopular in the current political climate that organized religion is the cause of more suffering than it is the source of joy and a positive series of guidelines for people to live by in order to live better with one another. I like that about the film.

As for the characters, they are more average than truly memorable or distinctive. Carnegie is a monolithic villain, a senseless evil who wants to dominate and exerts his power over those around him. Eli is a monolithic good, despite the methods he lives by in order to protect the book. The unfortunate character is Solara. She is a generic sidekick and rapebait, who is not given a real chance to evolve in the film.

Still, the principles in The Book Of Eli are good. Mila Kunis, Ray Stevenson, and Jennifer Beals each make the most out of their time on screen, even if their characters are more one-dimensional than incredible. Gary Oldman plays another villain who is well-created by the versatile actor, though the role seems more familiar than new. The same can be said for Denzel Washington; he plays Eli well, but it seems well within his established range.

Directors Albert and Allen Hughes make The Book Of Eli look good; in fact, in the case of the costumes, too good. Thirty years after the apocalypse, it is hard to believe there are no bibles, but there are (apparently) sweatshops. The clothes on many of the characters look underworn and that is a detail that is way off. The soundtrack sounded a lot like the main theme from Prometheus (reviewed here!), which actually made me respect that film just a little less for being derivative. Even so, The Book Of Eli is good, but for fans of the post-apocalyptic genre, it has very little we have not already seen before.

For other post-apocalyptic visions, please visit my reviews of:
I Am Legend
Doomsday
Jeremiah - Season 1

6/10

For other film reviews, please check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2013 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

A Tight Drama That Resonates On Several Levels, Flight Has Internal And External Conflicts That Work!

The Good: Acting, Dramatic tension, Interesting characters, Good conflict, Decent plot
The Bad: Cliches (romantic subplot), Moments of belaboring its own point.
The Basics: Flight lives up to the hype of a typical Denzel Washington drama film, this time focusing on an alcohol and drug-addicted pilot whose life it changed when he crashes a plane.


As Oscar Pandering Season reaches its zenith this year, the selections are getting a bit obvious. While I loved Argo, a political story that allowed Ben Affleck to make a directoral and acting grab for the big trophies was more obvious than audacious in many ways. In a similar way, Flight is working very hard to fill a niche in Oscar Pandering Season that has been successful in the past, most notably with Million Dollar Baby (reviewed here!). Like Million Dollar Baby, Flight starts as one type of film and then turns into another type of film altogether as it progresses. Actually, Flight is not that abrupt, as the key elements are juggled throughout. There are, however, stretches of the film where it seems uncertain if it wants to be a gripping character study about an addict or a crime drama.

Regardless, director Robert Zemeckis is making Oscarbait with Flight and it seems like it hits all the key elements needed to get the nominations it seeks for Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actor (Denzel Washington). And while I enjoyed it and can think of at least four other films vying for the same nominations that Flight is better than, as the film wound down, I found myself thinking about how the movie lacked a spark of greatness. With the movies I hope might win the big Oscars, I always find myself wanting to watch them more than once (even Crash, reviewed here!). With Flight, I had the feeling when it was over that made me shrug and say “Once was enough.”

Whip Whitaker is a boozer, a coke addict, and a guy who hooks up with whatever woman is most convenient, dependent upon his location. Whitaker is also a pilot and during a flight complicated by weather and turbulence, he makes a daring series of maneuvers and adjustments to save the bulk of the passengers. While the more than ninety survivors of the flight are glad to be alive, the families of the dead quickly look to assign blame. In the hospital in Georgia, Whitaker is visited by elements from both sides; the Union (represented by his friend Charlie) and investigators from the National Traffic Safety Board.

As the investigation proceeds and Whitaker’s defense attorney works to suppress the toxicology evidence that would spell the end of Whitaker’s career, he meets Nicole. Nicole is an addict who is working on getting clean and against their better judgments – especially considering Whitaker is still being visited by his dealer, Harling – they begin to bond. With Whitaker fighting his own inner demons, he and Hugh fight to keep his life as a pilot from falling apart as the investigators dig deeper.

Flight manages to be entertaining in telling the viewer what they have already seen. The crash – which I would have argued should have been kept out of the trailers for maximum impact in the film itself – is experienced and seen by the viewers, yet the forensic detailing of it afterward is presented in a way that manages to be entertaining. In fact, the scenes that could have been dry exposition work hard on the screen to reinforce that the event viewers witnessed was miraculous in many ways. Part of the power of the middle and latter sections of the film come from the technical descriptions and the understanding that the results were atypical. No matter what one’s personal feelings are on addictions, it is virtually impossible to watch the breakdown of the chain of events and not be impressed that Whip Whitaker’s actions manages to save almost everyone aboard the plane.

The fundamental question Flight has to wrestle with, then, is whether or not Whitaker’s actions leading up to flying high (no way around that phrase in this review!) in advance of the initial conditions attributed to the crash contributed to the crash. In other words, would the plane still have encountered the same circumstances from which Whitaker was forced to rescue the plane were it not for him being drunk and on coke at the time? Fortunately, the film belabors the events as they happened and exactly what it means on a personal and professional level. Professionally, it is hard to deny the fact that Whitaker is an ace pilot, reinforced by the simulations that other pilots faced with the same conditions crashed during.

But the personal implications of Flight make for more compelling questions. If Whitaker is such an amazing pilot, does it actually matter that he was drunk at the time of the accident? If Whitaker’s piloting was an element in a divine scheme that cost six people their lives, what does it mean for him to get sober (or not) in its aftermath? Flight satisfactorily presents a sense of that conflict and turmoil.

At the same time, Flight muddies its essential conflict with the superfluous romantic relationship between Whitaker and Nicole in a particularly trite plotline that anyone familiar with treatment knows is against every major therapy style. Whip Whitaker is a pretty classic anti-hero, while Nicole grounds Flight with a greater sense of realism. She is an addict, constantly struggling, outside the limelight and truly with only herself to bear the strain. The sudden celebrity and notoriety Whitaker achieves allows him the chance to avoid some of his own emotional consequences, but makes for a sufficiently complicated character study.

Denzel Washington is obvious, but impressive, as Whip Whitaker. Plausible as a pilot and an addict, Washington brings the character to life, making him seem like much more than just a character type. Washington is balanced well by Don Cheadle (Hugh) and Bruce Greenwood (Charlie) who all have the same level of gravitas in their roles, making the “universe” of Flight seem completely plausible. John Goodman is fun as Harling Mays, but like Kelly Reilly’s Nicole, he seems out of place in Flight.

Even so, Flight manages to live up to the hype surrounding it as an engaging, (mostly) character-driven drama that succeeds in being a contender for this year’s Oscar race.

For other works with Denzel Washington, please check out my reviews of:
Safe House
The Book Of Eil
The Taking Of Pelham 3 2 1
The Siege
Philadelphia

7.5/10

For other film reviews, be sure to check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2012 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Two Men Boxed In: The Taking Of Pelham 1 2 3 In Real Time.

The Good: General idea is interesting enough, Principles act well enough
The Bad: Some bad acting, Pacing, Annoying direction, Overbearing soundtrack, Title blocks
The Basics: Obvious and average, Tony Scott's remake of The Taking Of Pelham 1 2 3 is visually confused and boring.


Last night was a pretty disappointing night for me at the cinema. In addition to taking in one of the worst romantic comedies I have ever seen, I made it to an advanced screening of the new John Travolta/Denzel Washington vehicle (pun intended) The Taking Of Pelham 1 2 3. This is a suspense/thriller which is based upon a novel and a 1974 film by the same name. I believe that the last time I came out of a thriller or conspiracy film this underwhelmed was for Pride And Glory (reviewed here!), though this film did not have the technical issues that that one did, it was still annoying, obvious and ultimately an unpleasant waste of my time.

As is my usual disclaimer for such things, this is an evaluation of the 2009 film The Taking Of Pelham 1 2 3, not the novel upon which it is based or on its quality as a remake. I have neither read the John Godey novel nor seen the 1974 film. As such, this is a rather pure viewing of the film as it was presented. And it was presented poorly by director Tony Scott.

It is an ordinary day in New York City where Walter Garber is working at his Transit Authority desk in Rail Control Center (Midtown). At 1:59 P.M., men board the Pelham 123 train and by 2 P.M., the conductor and the motorman (driver) are hostages and the train is heading into a secure section where it stops. Garber notices the change almost immediately and when the train stops and separates, he tries desperately to raise the motorman. The train is separated and when a transit police officer makes a move on one of the hostage takers, he is killed. The obvious leader, though, makes an unexpected move, which is to have the conductor release everyone on the longer half of the train and walk them all to safety. In the engine car of the subway, then, the leader takes nineteen people hostage and he opens a line of communication with Garber in Rail Control.

Garber and the man, Ryder, then begin a series of negotiations where Ryder demands $10,000,000.01 for the release of the hostages and Garber realizes almost immediately that the hostage taker means business and that he knows his way around the system. A passenger aboard the subway loses his internet access on his laptop while communicating with his terrified girlfriend, setting up future scenes when Ryder and his team set up their own wireless network. Through that, Ryder learns more about Garber and the two begin an intellectual chess match wherein the lives of innocents are placed in the balance for ten million dollars.

The Taking Of Pelham 1 2 3 is supposed to be tense, but unfortunately, it is packed with cliches that utterly gut the suspension of disbelief, not because they are unreal, but because anyone who has seen this type of movie before has seen exactly what Tony Scott and Brian Helgeland (the screenwriter) do in it. So, for example, when the hostage negotiator, Lieutenant Camonetti, arrives and takes over, Ryder becomes furious and demands to speak with Garber, who was sent home moments before. The viewer knows - not just because Garber is played by Denzel Washington and he has top billing - that Garber is Ryder's foil and he will be back the moment he rises from his desk. That Scott and Helgeland expect the audience to believe even for a second that Garber is being replaced is insulting to the viewer and that they played that card sets the viewer up for future disappointments in the film.

The most notable disappointment here is in the character of Garber. Garber is working in the Midtown Rail Control Center because he is under investigation for bribery; he is actually a big shot. When Ryder has a gun to a kid's head aboard the subway car, the viewer is given the full story about that investigation and it seems again like the film is mired in the conceits of the genre rather than telling a story that is truly original. The result here is that there are two minutes of exposition that are less revelatory and more boring. Like the fact that the laptop's feed would somehow be used to gain information on those in the subway car, this conceit is more or less built in to the idea and the concept that Garber is not a perfect angel is more underwhelming than in any way shocking.

Throughout the film, director Tony Scott adds annoying reminders of what time it is (the clock is counting down to 3:13 P.M., when Ryder will start killing hostages for every minute the money is late) which is utterly unnecessary because time is continually being referenced by the characters. Thirty-seven minutes from the deadline, the Mayor agrees to pay the the ten million and that sum becomes a clue into Ryder's mind and history. Scott's annoying notations on-screen about time and location are hardly enough for non-New York City dwellers to truly appreciate the effort. So, for example, as the police transit for the cash is labeled en route from a marker "Midtown Manhattan" viewers who are not fluent in The City are left in the dark because this has no relation to us with the film's other notation "42 and Vanderbilt." The notations are only worthwhile if one has a sense of scale or geography to match them and Scott does not build that into the film.

The only element that is truly clever is Ryder's real plan, which is revealed surprisingly early in the film to anyone who can read and intuit. As well, The Taking Of Pelham 1 2 3 does have some social commentary. Unlike a film like 15 Minutes (reviewed here!), the commentary here is far more subtle and seems to be more general about the state of economics in the world. Capitalism kills in The Taking Of Pelham 1 2 3 and those who play the game and try to fly right will be corrupted in order to save their families.

Ryder is given surprisingly little motivation and the viewer is left wondering what he needs the vast sums of money he sets out to get for. Characters like his assistant from the inside, Phil Ramos, are actually fleshed out more but also leave the viewer wondering why they do what they do. In other words, Ramos could easily be a man bent on revenge from the way he was dismissed from the transit authority. But he is the brains of the operation and there is not a single scene where actor Luis Guzman acts like his character is motivated by revenge.

The acting in the film is average, though John Travolta makes for a convincing bad guy here. The cute 8-year-old boy outshines the acting of the teenage George (the kid with the laptop) though. Denzel Washington is also convincing as Garber, but this is hardly one of his indispensable roles. Instead, this is pretty much the product of great casting, much like Spacey and Jackson in The Negotiator. Like that film, Washington and Travolta play off one another as the viewer awaits the inevitable scene where they meet in the real world and have a chance to play face-to-face. Their acting is good.

But it is not enough to go see this film. The Taking Of Pelham 1 2 3 is one long stretch of boredom punctuated by pointless car chases and witless characters who ask the questions engaged viewers ask about ten minutes after the viewer does. This is an easy film to pass by during Summer Blockbuster Season and only suitable for wasting a rainy day on DVD.

For other works written by Brien Helgeland, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Mystic River
Payback
L.A. Confidential

4.5/10

For other movie reviews, check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2012, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

After Years Of Waiting, I Check Out The Pre-9/11 The Siege And Love It!

The Good: Great acting, Wonderful story and social message, Interesting character dynamics, Educational.
The Bad: No DVD bonus features, Pacing
The Basics: Clever, well-acted and intense, The Siege has Denzel Washington and Tony Shalhoub at the forefront of investigations into terrorist attacks on New York City!


There are few films that have come so highly recommended to me in recent years as The Siege, a film about terrorism in the United States that predates the September 11, 2001 attacks to New York City, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania. It came to me recommended because of my politics and my appreciation of the works of Edward Zwick, who was one of the co-creators of one of my favorite canceled television shows, Once And Again. Given Zwick's adeptness as a writer and director, I had no doubt going into The Siege that I would be entertained at the very least. And given how much I learned during the Bush Administration about international law, counterterrorism methods and intelligence agency turf wars, the only real unfortunate aspect of taking so long to watch The Siege was that a lot of the information was known to me, so it did not have the educational impact I hoped it might have.

Even so, The Siege reminds viewers of the principles upon which the United States was founded and the importance of both civil rights and maintaining national identity based on principles over slogans. Like the two-part Star Trek: Deep Space Nine episodes "Homefront" (reviewed here!) and "Paradise Lost" (reviewed here!), The Siege explores terrorism in the United States (or an evolved society based upon it) as a hypothetical, with the idea of inherent human rights at the forefront of the plot and character issues. As a result, the essential character conflict throughout The Siege is one between those who stand for freedom versus those who stand by the enforcement of law and social order at all costs.

FBI agent Tony Hubbard is working the streets of New York City dealing with an odd crime with his team when all hell breaks loose. Accompanied by his partner, an Arab American agent named Frank, the FBI works to negotiate for the safe release of a busload of hostages who are suddenly covered in blue paint when the bomb goes off. The weird crime, if it is a crime, is soon mirrored by the abduction of a bus filled with people which is detonated with most of the people inside, as the FBI and media crews watch. Tony and Frank work to piece together who is behind the terrorist attacks and stop the next one.

Unfortunately for the FBI, the terrorist cells which have sprung up in New York City seem to be working for a cause and with the knowledge of some of those within the U.S.'s intelligence community. As Tony and Frank investigate the bombings, they encounter Elise Kraft, an N.S.C. agent who has a vested interest in the case, as she is the handler for a prominent asset, Samir. As well, Tony develops a relationship with Major General William Devereaux, a high ranking army officer who has contempt for the President's soft policy on terrorism and has a history with a Sheik allegedly captured by U.S. forces years before. As the situation in New York City degenerates as the result of more terrorist attacks, Tony races to prevent chaos and insure freedom as Devereaux declares martial law and effectively takes over the City in search of the final terrorist cell.

The Siege reminds the viewers what the last several years seem to have caused many of us to forget: that individuals are responsible for their actions and that groups working against the United States often have surprisingly rational reasons for their actions, even if their methods are surprising and incomprehensible. In the first scene in The Siege, the motivation for virtually everything that comes after is given when Devereaux is part of an operation that captures a Sheik. Of course, the tensions go deeper than that; the Sheik is captured for prior acts of terrorism.

What Edward Zwick does exceptionally well with this film is illustrate how proud Americans - especially the naturalized ones - are of their heritage as Americans. At the same time, he creates a piece that has a density to it and is not likely to give easy or convenient answers. So, just as Frank is an obvious and proud American who is part of the FBI's counterterrorism unit and has a clear love for the principles of the United States, Samir's status as an informant and agent for the terrorist cells keeps his true allegiances murky. And while Frank is tested when his son is inadvertently put in the internment camp, his desire to uphold the principles of the United States never waver. Instead, he is always fighting the good fight and he makes for a great partner for Anthony.

Zwick spends a good amount of time illustrating the fundamental problem with intelligence agencies in the United States with the first half-hour or more of The Siege. As Anthony and Frank hunt for the criminals responsible for the first bus hijacking, they encounter Elise, who works for the NSC. The way the FBI, NSC and military trip over one another becomes a contributing factor to the declaration of martial law in New York City and their inability to share with one another helps the terrorist cells operating in New York City to gain strength.

But largely, what Zwick does best in The Siege is illustrate the importance of defending essential human rights in the United States. The U.S. suffers when we discriminate and profile and the result is an ugly situation that is anything but American. By establishing the multiethnic task force well before the declaration of martial law, Zwick uses The Siege to show how the ideal works and what happens when it becomes corrupted. The wonderful foil for a post-9/11 world is that Zwick illustrates how terrorism can be dealt with without giving into fear. Unfortunately, The Siege seems more like an ominous foreshadowing, a playbook for the U.S. government on how to exploit the fear of the populace, as opposed to rallying against it.

The Siege is also remarkably well-cast and Zwick uses all of the actors in the film extraordinarily well. Bruce Willis gives a strong performances as Devereaux and Willis's best moments are not realized until one reflects upon the film. Anthony references Elise and Devereaux, who has an apparent ax to grind with her, plays the scene cool and later when one of Elise's secrets comes out, Devereaux looks surprisingly cool. Willis deserves a lot of credit for that earlier moment as he makes the payoff later in the film truly work. Similarly, Sami Bouajila (Samir) and Annette Bening (Elise) are wonderful and have great on-screen chemistry which keeps the viewer guessing as to all of the angles their characters are playing.

Denzel Washington leads the cast and from his performance here, it is easy to see how and why he was cast for The Taking Of Pelham 1 2 3. Essentially, he is playing the same character in this earlier work, a man who is cool under pressure and fights the good fight day in and day out. Here Washington is utterly convincing as a professional counterterrorist agent and he flawlessly sells the role.

But it is Tony Shalhoub who completely rocks The Siege. From the moment he first appears on screen, Shalhoub is badass. He carries a gun (convincingly!), investigates the crimes and speaks multiple languages flawlessly. For those used to seeing him as Monk or the other hapless sidekick characters he has played, this is a strong departure and he is completely at home in the role of an efficient investigator who is smart, funny and occasionally menacing.

The Siege continues Zwick's tradition of socially smart films with a message that is timely and pro-American. All that truly drags this one down is that it takes a while to get to its point. As well, the DVD was originally released with only the film's trailer. For such an important film, we'd like more in the way of bonus features (the Blu-Ray now has them!). Still, this remains a great film that should be watched by all Americans, if for no other reason than to remind us that fear need not be the only response to horror.

For other works Edward Zwick is associated with, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Dangerous Beauty
Traffic
i am sam
Once And Again - Season 1
Once And Again - Season 2
Love And Other Drugs

9/10

For other film reviews, be sure to check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of all the films I have reviewed!

© 2012, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

A Spy Movie That Remembers The Humanity, Safe House Is Astonishingly Good!

The Good: Character, Action, Acting! Most of the plot.
The Bad: A few obvious plot/character moments.
The Basics: For the first time (maybe ever?!) a film depicts intelligence operatives who make decisions as if they were real, emotionally aware, human beings! Safe House is every bit as impressive as I’d hoped!


Every now and then, I learn something important about movies. Yesterday, I learned two exceptionally important things. The first thing is that movie previews have dramatically changed. It used to be that when one went to the movies, they were treated to two to four movies that might appeal to the same demographic as those watching the film they were about to see. But yesterday, as I sat in the theater waiting for Safe House to begin – and I had a similar experience to this when seeing Chronicle a few weeks back! – I sat through eight previews, most of which were for movies that would not appeal to the Safe House audience. I mean, I was jazzed to see the preview for Prometheus on the big screen (I cannot wait for one that actually has dialogue in it!), but I highly doubt that the audience that might appreciate the smart, tense, sophisticated Safe House is really the audience that is going to see Project X, Battleship and 21 Jump Street. No, it appears that advertisers are going with a shotgun approach and they aren’t even trying to make reasonable associations with the movie one goes to see and the previews shown before it. I suppose I am beginning with this rant because it’s true and because I tend to like to have something concrete to complain about, lest it seems I have gone soft and write a thoroughly gushing review.

Because that was the second thing I learned yesterday: February is no longer exclusively the dumping ground of crap movies. Sure, Ghost Rider: Spirit Of Vengeance (link below) is working desperately hard to disprove that theory, but Safe House is all the proof I need that movie distributors suddenly realized that if you release a truly great movie in February, you can have a memorable winner, as opposed to leaving audiences unenthusiastic about an entire month of February. Safe House, like Defiance a few years back, reminds viewers how great movies do not have to be released only during the Early Push (my new term for the late-August, early-September Oscar Buzz Grab Season) or Oscar Pandering Season (Thanksgiving through the end of the nominating season because, as it turns out, Oscar voters and nominators have the world’s shortest attention span). Will nominators remember Ryan Reynolds, Denzel Washington, director Daniel Espinosa and writer David Guggenheim when next year’s award season begins? Probably not. But they should.

Matt Weston is a housekeeper working at a quiet safe house in Cape Town, trying hard to get transferred from his dull post to France so he and his girlfriend won’t have to break up. Weston is friends with David Barlow, a high-ranking CIA operative, who has the ear of the Assistant Director. When a rogue operative, Tobin Frost, acquires some devastating data in an encrypted file worth millions and is chased by thugs, he makes a tactical decision to enter the U.S. consulate in South Africa. Cooperative and almost eager, Tobin allows himself to be transported to the safe house Weston operates and even allows himself to be interrogated brutally by Kiefer.

But when the same goons attack the safe house, Weston and Frost are the only agents to make it out alive. Fleeing for their lives, Matt follows protocol and tries to keep Tobin Frost safe while keeping Ana, his girlfriend, out of a potential firefight as well. But Tobin Frost soon gets into Weston’s head with the simple question, how did the goons know about the safe house and how to breach it? As Matt runs for his life with Tobin in tow, Barlow and Linklater intellectually duke it out in Washington to try to get Frost and Weston back into the fold. Following their directions, Weston ends up at a stadium where Frost has an opportunity to escape his custody, multiplying his problems!

Safe House is smart, tense and above all, it is character driven. I recall when I saw The Negotiator with my dad and he and I talked about it afterwards. One of the things he liked about it – and I agreed with him – was how both Kevin Spacey and Samuel L. Jackson were so plausible as crisis negotiators. At the time, I think I might have brushed it off as great casting, but the truth is, both actors truly rose to the roles. In a similar way, Ryan Reynolds and Denzel Washington are amazing as Matt Weston and Tobin Frost, respectively. The moment I realized how perfectly cast they were and how they were both playing at the top of their game was when the pair has a surprisingly brutal fight while driving the car away from the safe house. In that fight, both make tactical decisions and there are moments where the viewer can see them calculating behind their eyes, reasoning exactly what they can afford to give up and what they believe they can get out of certain moves. That’s brilliant acting and both seem utterly believable as they make their moves.

While a lot of credit has to go to writer David Guggenheim, the actors truly rose to the wonderful script. Even so, Guggenheim wrote characters who are essentially human and that is why Safe House works so unbelievably well. The characters in Safe House react absolutely like real people. There is almost no suspension of disbelief required and the film is smart enough to not insult the viewers. Even so, it is ridiculously smart. For this, I credit Guggenheim. David Guggenheim has a clear understanding of human psychology and he plays with it very well in Safe House. The relationship between Matt and Ana seems very real. Matt is still young, he is lying to Ana about his profession (which is reasonable in the case of a spy) and he actually seems to love her. So, when his safe house is attacked and he realizes that someone on the inside of the CIA is connected, his first call is to Ana. He tries to get her as far from the impending bloodbath as he can. That’s human.

Matt is not the only deeply human character in Safe House. The film plays out as well as it does because while Tobin Frost is introduced as an antagonist, he is almost immediately revealed to be a patriot. Weston watches in deep discomfort as Frost is tortured by Kiefer, but Frost’s resistance is not bravado. He comes to the situation with realistic expectations and a strong knowledge of the techniques that Kiefer is employing upon him. Frost is presented as more than just a former asset who went rogue, he still has things he deeply cares about. At the same time, he is willing to shoot a man in the face (and he does, several times). Still, one of the best scenes in the film comes late when Tobin meets up with Carlos Villar. That, admittedly, is a treat of watching two great actors – Denzel Washington and Ruben Blades – play off one another.

So, what is there not to like about Safe House? It has an engaging plot, amazing acting, interesting characters and amazing action sequences (I cannot remember the last time I actually enjoyed a car chase in movies). First, for all of the things director Daniel Espinosa does right in Safe House, he goes a bit over-the-top during many of the chase and fight sequences. Using a handheld camera for the fights and chases is supposed to make a moment seem more immediate and real, but it’s passé. It’s been done, we’ve seen it, I’m bored by it. Safe House suffers at a few points because Espinosa is worrying too much about the flash while smearing the substance. Safe House is urgent, tense and exciting; there were moments I wanted to actually see that better. In other words, when all sorts of guns are going off, I know that it’s a dangerous chaotic moment and at this point in filmmaking, I want to be able to enjoy it as opposed to simply feeling like I am watching a movie while on a moving roller coaster. Similarly, if you are going to have two young white guys who look virtually identical duke it out and the only real distinguishing thing about them as they grapple is that one is wearing a flannel with a pattern, for the love of all that is good and holy, light the damn scene so we can see who is who!

And don’t have my favorite actor in the piece be the villain. Seriously. I loved Safe House, but the moment I saw the mole, I knew exactly who it was. And I wanted so much to be surprised!

That said, Safe House is legitimately great. Vera Farmiga gets to move around a bit more as Agent Linklater than she did playing a similar character in Source Code (reviewed here!) and she plays off Brendan Gleeson (Barlow) and Sam Shepard (Assistant Director Whitford) very well. Farmiga, like Reynolds, Gleeson, Shepard and Washington, seems like an absolute professional and entirely plausible as a high-ranking CIA agent. Safe House also features notable supporting performances by Robert Patrick (Kiefer) and Ruben Blades (Villar).

So far in 2012, theatergoers have been bombarded with spy movies and it doesn’t look like that is about to stop this weekend. So far, hands down, the best spy film of the year – and the best film of 2012 this early in – is Safe House. It is worthy of your attention and your dollars and the time to enjoy it on the big screen.

For other works with Ryan Reynolds, be sure to check out my reviews of:
The Change-Up
Green Lantern
The Proposal
X-Men: Wolverine
Definitely, Maybe
Smokin' Aces
Just Friends
Waiting . . .
Blade: Trinity

8.5/10

For other film reviews, please visit my Movie Review Index Page for a complete listing of all the movies I have reviewed! Thanks!

© 2012 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

A Case For Philadelphia

The Good: Excellent acting, Good characters, Good plot, Good direction, Excellent themes.
The Bad: Predictable, Some pacing issues
The Basics: An all-around excellent cast with good direction and a progressive message float Philadelphia through its slow points and obvious nature.


After years of watching and enjoying The Practice, I decided it was time to sit down and watch Philadelphia, which, despite the hype surrounding it still, is just a courtroom drama film. And as far as courtroom dramas go, it's a very good one.

Philadelphia centers around Andrew Beckett, who is played by Tom Hanks, who is terminated from his job at a high priced law firm. Beckett suspects it is the result of him having AIDS and one of the senior partners recognizing that, a suspicion leapt to when an exceptionally important case file disappears only to reappear seconds before the trial is to begin. Beckett hires Joe Miller to represent him in a wrongful termination suit against the firm. What follows is a courtroom drama without any twists or turns or real surprises.

Part of that is the problem. While the film expertly sways from the courtroom action to the character struggles and epiphanies both plod along predictably. That's not to say they aren't interesting, but it is to say they are unsurprising. The moment Miller's prejudices are revealed, it becomes clear it's one of "those films," that is a film with a message. It's a laudable message, but it's still laid on very thick and it's predictable where the film is going.

Surprisingly, considering Hanks gets so much credit for the film (which he deserves), the story is focused on Joe Miller, who is played by Denzel Washington. Washington gives an excellent performance and deserved an award for his portrayal. While his character arc was predictable, Washington played Miller well, with subtlety and distinction. It was more than well written, the direction captured perfectly the expressions in Washington's face and eyes that are hallmarks of great acting.

Outside the obvious social importance of a film decrying the prejudices that exist between the white heterosexual male populace (or financial) majority and pretty much every other group on earth, Philadelphia does it well, mostly because it does it consistently and it has a very real feel to it. The movie exposes the questions that lie at the heart of the prejudice and articulates them openly. For that it ought to be commended.

The only drawback on the entertainment front is, surprisingly, in the courtroom. As a fan of The Practice it's very difficult to watch the inside of the courtroom being so stark, tensionless, and downright slow. The pacing of the epiphanies in Miller's life come with delightful precision and timing, but that same gentle ebb works less well for the dramatics of a courtroom.

Certainly a worthwhile film with an ending that's both satisfying and pyrrhic.

For other courtroom films, please check out my reviews of:
The Social Network
The Life Of Emile Zola
Flash Of Genius

8.5/10

For other film reviews, please visit my index page for a complete listing of all the movies I have reviewed!

© 2001, 2010 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.



| | |