SAFE HOUSE

Safe House (2012)
Grade: B-
Starring: Ryan Reynolds, Denzel Washington, Brendan Gleeson, Vera Farmiga and Sam Shepard
Premise: A young CIA agent suddenly finds a high-priority fugitive in his custody, and must transport him to a CIA safe house miles away while assassins pursue them.

Rated R for strong, bloody violence, language and a brief scene of torture

It’s not hard to think of a way to describe Safe House, a Denzel Washington spy/action vehicle that hit theaters this past February. Think of the Bourne series. Throw out the amnesia subplot. You’re left with a lickety-split spy/action thriller featuring a high-priority agent--who's in possession of certain secrets--on the run, doing his best to thwart foreign field agents while trying to get back to Washington. And, of course, this person is so important that an entire high-tech room back at “headquarters” in Washington is dedicated to the search/research/capture of this person, wherein some tense, well-dressed company bigwigs stand around barking orders and debating with each other about the person in question’s allegiances and ultimate designated fate (i.e. whether to kill him or not). Still with me? Replace Matt Damon with a combination of Denzel Washington and Ryan Reynolds. Replace Joan Allen with Vera Farmiga. Replace Albert Finney/Brian Cox with Sam Shepard. Replace David Strathairn with Brendan Gleeson. Stage the action in South Africa instead of Europe. Put ingredients together, stir and let simmer.

Oh, Safe House is an entertaining watch, to be sure. There’s gunplay and car chases and fisticuffs galore, different whodunit and who’s-side-are-they-on subplots and an ending that leaves you wanting a bit more. It’s a decent action picture—fronted by a pair of very capable leading men, to boot. It just feels so familiar. If Denzel wasn’t it, I’d probably forget all about it. Since Denzel is in it, I might remember it for just a little bit longer.

Plot:

Rookie CIA agent Matt Weston (Ryan Reynolds) undoubtedly wonders why he ever joined the CIA. Though highly trained and highly educated, he was assigned a “house-sitting” position in Cape Town, South Africa, which means he keeps watch over a well-stocked, highly-outfitted, steel-walled CIA safe house just in case the agency ever needs to use it. In other words, his job, 24/7 is to listen for the safe house phone, just in case. But he’s been there a year, and they’ve never used it. Of course, that all changes one day when disgraced CIA field agent Tobin Frost (Washington), a known traitor who leaked secrets to foreign diplomats and spy agencies, is apprehended inside the nearby US Consulate in Cape Town. A special-ops extraction team is immediately summoned, takes Frost into custody, and brings him to Weston’s safe house, where he’s put under interrogation. However, a group of heavily-armed European mercenaries breaks into the safe house halfway through the interrogation and kills off the special ops team, and Weston and Frost just get away.

Forced on the road, Weston is given orders to take Frost to another safe house in the country. But what with the Euro-assassins on their tales, the highly-skilled and intellectual Frost trying to toy with Weston’s mind and escape his custody, and the confusion back at headquarters between different department directors (Brenda Gleeson, Vera Farmiga), whether they’ll even make this new safe house remains a mystery. And, even if they do, the question facing Weston is—what to do with Frost when he gets there?

What Works?

Having Denzel Washington in the movie works, of course! Denzel is no chameleon, but here, as in most of his roles, he radiates charisma and an energy that allows you to take him at his word. A super-smart superspy who can also beat the daylights out of people? Works for me! Frost probably wasn’t a very tough role for Washington to play, but it’s an intriguing and highly-enjoyable performance that more than makes the film. As his opposite number, Ryan Reynolds has neither the acting chops nor the distinguished screen presence of Washington, but he works hard to make you, as the viewer, believe in him. He’s not sleep-walking through this movie, either, and it shows.

While the rest of the cast, though featuring some well-known names, is saddled with a bunch of largely by-the-numbers executive roles, Safe House doesn’t drag. There are several wickedly-intense, edge-of-your-seat action sequences, and only about half of them are ruined by smash-cut editing and shaky-cam cinematography. Washington’s character also displays some cunning ingenuity that makes a fairly cliché spy agency caper like this one a little more intriguing.

What Doesn’t Work?

I already pointed most of it out—one key fight is largely spoiled by poor lighting and hyperactive editing, accomplished actors like Vera Farmiga, Sam Shepard and Brenda Gleeson are stuck in one-dimensional roles anyone could have played, and it’s a little difficult not to roll your eyes during the obligatory third-act “surprises” (this guy was really working with this guy to undermine so-and-so, while So-and-so, contrary to the last hour, is actually a bad guy, which makes him this other person's actual enemy). Sorry if that seems really cynical, but I’ve seen a lot of spy capers with twists and surprises.

Content

Supporting characters in this film have extraordinarily short life spans, and they’re off-ed in ways both subtle and not subtle. There’s a short but intense torture scene early on, a couple of to-a-pulp beatings, a bunch of heavy shootouts, and two extra-brutal fistfights that border on the disturbing in their bone-crunching, pain-inflicting intimate details (Reynolds, playing a rookie agent who's , does make his character’s sense of horror at the escalating violence palpable). Of course, there’s also a couple lines’ worth of four-letter words, but, other than one brief suggestive scene, no hints of sexuality or nudity.

Bottom Line (I Promise): The Bourne Safe House (just kidding) won’t be the most original movie you’ve ever seen, and it doesn’t boast Denzel’s best performance ever, but it’s got enough interesting plot twists and electrifying action sequences that it will keep most viewers entertained. Just try to walk away maintaining some faith in our government’s ability to get things done—that might be this movie’s real challenge.

Safe House (2012)

Directed by Daniel Espinosa

Written by David Guggenheim

Rated R

Length: 115 minutes

LOOPER

Looper (2012)
Grade: B
Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis, Emily Blunt, Pierce Gagnon, Noah Segan, Jeff Daniels and Paul Dano
PREMISE: A master assassin who kills criminals sent back through time is forced to make a series of difficult choices when his next marked target is the older version of himself.

Rated R for bloody violence, language, sexual content including nudity, and some disturbing images

Unfortunately, I didn't go into the movie Looper with a clean slate. Though I had only sparingly seen trailers, hadn't read any official reviews, and hadn't had any in-depth conversations with anybody who'd seen it, people's social media venting about this particular well-reviewed sci-fi thriller made it evident that the movie would end on some very dramatic note. "Incredibly sad," one of my friends wrote. "Depressing" said another. So, while I was engaged-and quite interested in-this impressively trippy original work, I was poised the whole time, just waiting for an attempt to wring out my tear ducts. Thus, the last 10 minutes didn't have as much an effect on me as they could have, because I was waiting for them. I'm also not a particularly big fan of dramatic twist endings (I'm still recovering from the last-minute shockers of The Dark Knight Rises and The Usual Suspects). Well, there...now I've gone and ruined your chance of seeing it with no clue. Sorry.

Plot
In 2074, mankind develops the ability to travel back through time. Organized criminals quickly put this technology to use by sending people they want "gone" back through time to be executed. Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, under an intricate, impressive set of prosthetics) is one of the hired guns from 2044 who does the killing. Give him a time and a place and he waits patiently, stopwatch in one hand and power-packing shotgun in the other. When a person appears, he blows them away without hesitation. He then disposes of the body and is handsomely rewarded. But then Joe's simple routine of killing and then tripping on eye-injected acid drugs is interrupted when his colleague and best friend Seth (Paul Dano) panics after being sent an older version of himself to kill. Joe wants to help, but when he's backed into a corner by his crime lord/father figure (Jeff Daniels), he gives him up. Wracked with guilt, he has barely begun imagining what would happen if his older self was sent back through time for execution when it happens. His older self (played by Bruce Willis) appears, and he can't recover from his shock quickly enough.

The old man escapes, and promptly sets out on a complicated mission to find and kill the younger version of the dictator running the 2074 crime scene, whose latest victim was his beloved wife (Qing Xu). Meanwhile, the younger Joe, desperate to kill or capture his older self and regain his cozy existence, tracks him to the house of a young mother (Emily Blunt), where he's forced to stop and rest while suffering drug withdrawal. But the crime lord's agents are hot on the case, chasing both the younger Joe and his older self, and the former soon realizes the woman and her young son will be targeted for helping him.

What Works?
The film is very engaging, but the first thing I must talk about is the prosthetic set used to make Joseph Gordon-Levitt resemble a mix of himself and Bruce Willis. While it's not perfect, I became considerably less-obsessed with how real or not-real it looked as I became amazed at the way Joe's eyebrows and nose suggest Willis, while the eyes, mouth and expressions remain Gordon-Levitt's. And that's not to mention the always-admirable Gordon-Levitt is a good enough actor to channel rage, grief and anxiety through the makeup. As far as acting goes, Willis also does an impressive job, and Blunt makes the most of a slightly under-written role.

Looper is very likable, though--an original work with a couple surprises in its back pocket (there's a bit with self-inflicted scars bearing messages that is quite intriguing), and the pace is often furious while the stakes are, of course, sky-high. The idea that both men are hunting themselves never loses its luster.

What Doesn't Work?
One of the key developments--it involves some people's ability to use telekinesis to make things levitate--seems shoe-horned in (it brought to mind M. Night Shyamalan at his laziest), and the last third of the running time contains an overall weird feel that belongs in a different movie. There's also a subplot involving a desperate-to-prove-himself hit man-wannabe (Noah Segan) that is needlessly brought back to life so often throughout the film it's annoying.

Content
While Looper earns its R primarily with four-letter words and bouts of stupendous violence (like one scene where dozens of hitmen are offed by a machine-gun-wielding Willis), there's also one instance of graphic nudity and a few disturbing images related to children in peril.

Bottom Line (I Promise): Neither as sad nor as good as I was expecting, Looper is nonetheless an entertaining and well-made original work.

Looper (2012)
Written for the Screen and Directed by Rian Johnson
Rated R
Length: 118 minutes

THE PERKS OF BEING A WALLFLOWER

The Perks of Being A Wallflower (2012)
Grade: A
Starring: Logan Lerman, Emma Watson, Ezra Miller, Mae Whitman, Nina Dobrev, Dylan McDermott, Kate Walsh, Johnny Simmons, Paul Rudd and Melanie Lynskey
PREMISE: A lonely high school freshman falls in with a group of eccentric seniors who help him deal with personal problems in his life.

RATED PG-13 for language, strong sexual content (including partial nudity and suggestive references), intense emotional content, alcohol/drug use, and a fight

Wow. The Perks of Being a Wallflower is a wonderful movie, and a very necessary one. Based on a coming-of-age 1999 novel written by Stephen Chbosky (who also wrote the screenplay and directed the movie), the film deals bravely and directly with a murderer's row of the most important issues of our teenage years--dead-end relationships, suicidal thoughts, prejudice against homosexuality, family tension, sexual tension, peer pressure related to drugs and sex, schoolroom fights, and even the question of what love isn't, and is. I was expecting a boldly offbeat sort of romantic comedy, not this. Not a film that plumbed such dark places in the human mind and heart. Not a film that dared to inspect the sort of things that even sensitive people try to cover up. And certainly not a film that dared suggest, in this day and age, that losing your virginity-even to someone you think you really love-can be a painful and regrettable experience.

Wow.

Plot
Having been sent into a mental/emotional tailspin by the unexpected, unexplained suicide of his best friend, lonely teenager Charlie (the soulful, solid Logan Lerman) is just starting to get a grip on life again. His parents and sister (Kate Walsh, Dylan McDermott, and Nina Dobrev, respectively) watch him cautiously and anxiously, he spills his thoughts into a journal because he has no one to really talk to, and he approaches his first day of high school as someone just trying not to get in anyone else's way. At first, he's just the only kid who participates in discussions in his English class, but, at a rowdy football game, he takes a chance and goes and sits next to excitable class clown Patrick (a wonderful Ezra Miller). Patrick almost immediately takes him in as a friend, and introduces him to his spunky stepsister, Sam (Emma Watson, warm and welcoming), and a group of other friends. Soon enough, he's no longer an outcast, but someone included in a "group of outcasts".

Basically, he gets a nice big handful of life. When he's not dancing, laughing, or exchanging gifts with his friends, he's doing extra reading on recommendations from his kindly English teacher (Paul Rudd, very likeable in a small, straight role), listening to new music and making mix tapes, and slowly regaining normalcy. He helps Sam study for her second go at the SAT so she can be eligible for Penn State. He's able to give up a precious childhood memento that reminds him too much of the untimely childhood death of his beloved aunt (Melanie Lynksey). He gets his first kiss. But with his friends' time in the area winding down (they're seniors, he's a freshman), anxiety, loneliness, and loss threaten to engulf him once more.

What Works?
The film has surprises-and shockers-around every corner, making that plot summary seem even more rudimentary than it is. But I wouldn't dare reveal more, considering what a rich, full movie this is. It can be a hard watch-I won't lie, it is a very bittersweet experience-but, again, it's a surprisingly tough and transparent look at high school/teenage life.

While Lerman can be a little bit bland (see last year's Three Musketeers), he's growing as an actor. Here he shows impressive depth and range, and it's clear he can emote. And it certainly helps to spend so much of your screen time surrounded by showy, life-affirming, delightful characters like those played by Miller, Watson, and Mae Whitman (another one of Charlie's friends). Miller, in particular, really impressed and touched me as someone who's exactly the kind of zealous friend you'd want to have if you were an introverted, not-so-well-connected teen, but whose loud and rambunctious personality is partially meant to cover up his own problems and insecurities. Veteran actors Rudd, McDermott, and Joan Cusack (as a psychiatrist who works with Charlie late in the film) give able contributions as well, but the "kids" are the stars here.

Really, Perks is a strong movie with a good message about going outside your comfort zone, taking chances, and being honest with your feelings. No matter what happens onscreen-and there is some tough stuff-it shows that honesty and good communication are vital, and that is a very important fact in today's fast-paced, electronic-communication-happy world. And several scenes contain outright wonderful moments, topped off by one intimate exchange-"I want your first kiss to be with someone who you know loves you"-that is about as beautiful as movie moments come.

What Doesn't Work?
The movie might pack one or two too many punches into a by turns tense and thrilling final hour, but you won't get many complaints out of me. A sickeningly bad decision is later saved by a powerful moment of redemption, people are there for each other, and the drama might just wring tears out of you (it certainly did to a pair of teenage girls who left the showing I attended positively bawling).

Content:
Perks can be intense for a PG-13, especially in what it reveals about the backstories and dark secrets of characters (like a girl who admits she was forced to have sexual relationships far too early in life and now can't buck the trend). There's language, drug and alcohol use, intimate moments of kissing and touching and even some raunchy performances at a burlesque theater. But most teens are new to none of this, and most parents need to see this to understand-or be reminded-what it's like to live in the world their teens are living in.

Bottom Line (I Promise): By turns funny and dramatic, sad and thrilling, hilarious and haunting, The Perks of Being a Wallflower is a very full and meaningful movie that many, many people will be able to identify with. It's terrific.

The Perks of Being A Wallflower (2012)
Written for the Screen and Directed by Stephen Chbosky; based on his novel "The Perks of Being A Wallflower"
Rated PG-13
Length: 103 minutes

BACK TO THE FUTURE

Back to the Future (1985)
Grade: B+
Directed by Robert Zemeckis
Starring: Michael J. Fox, Christopher Lloyd, Lea Thompson, Crispin Glover and Thomas F. Wilson
PREMISE: When Marty McFly tests his friend/mentor's time-travel machine, his adventures turn out to have unexpected and potentially disastrous results.

RATED PG (contains language, some suggestive material, and a brief violent image)

It's clear that the fact that I hadn't seen the Robert Zemeckis/Michael J. Fox sci-fi adventure classic Back to the Future until earlier this evening was inexcusable, especially for a self-professed movie know-it-all like me. How could I not have seen one of the top most popular movies of all time? One of the most lucrative films of the 1980s. The first film in one of the all-time most popular trilogies. A classic that has its own exhibit at Universal Studios, where I was on vacation almost seven years ago.

Well, check that one off the bucket list. I've seen a lot of classic old movies--Gone With the Wind, Casablance, Dr. Zhivago, On the Waterfront, The Godfather, Goldfinger--but, somehow, BTTF had just slipped through the cracks. And now I've seen it. I laughed, I clapped, I jumped, I gasped, I had a great time. I definitely recommend it.

In the spirit of the (astonishing) fact that I knew very little about the movie before I turned it on, this review will be shorter and briefer than my usual entries. In fact, if you're reading this review, you're probably more familiar with Back to the Future than I am, and I just watched it.

It's 1985, and Marty McFly (a fantastic Michael J. Fox) is your typical teenager. He has a cute girlfriend, a car, a band, and a bit of a tough-guy persona. Yet all is not as it seems. He only gets to borrow his parents' car on occasion; he could never afford his dream car. His band is mediocre; his dreams of being a rock star continue on unrealized. His dad (Crispin Glover) is a grown-up loser bullied by his boss (Thomas F. Wilson), and his mom (Lea Thompson) is a boring, dumpy sort who nonetheless seems way out of his dad's league. He often wonders how they got together.

But when Marty's friend, Dr. Emmett Brown (Christopher Lloyd), asks for his help on a new experiment late at night, Marty attends only to find: his friend, a scientist who's long lost any credibility, has created a car that can time travel. And, obviously, to see if it really works, he has to test it.

And that's all I will say of the plot. Sure, just from the title, you probably figured, but that's all I'll say. There, the movie veers from teen rom-com to coming-of-age tale, to rollicking adventure to hilarious farce, all the while keeping a few tricks in its back pocket. Fox, Lloyd, Glover and Thompson all give dynamic, loveable performances (Thompson, in particular, is a scream as a feisty go-getter), and the film, while occasionally on the far side of sappy, does their characters justice. The special effects are good (put in perspective, seeing as this was 1985, they're rock-solid), as are the makeup effects (which have an important role several times over), and the pace is quick. At a shade under two hours, the movie might be a scene or two too long, but it's wildly entertaining all the way. Like I said, I laughed hard.

Back to the Future is a classic for a reason. There's a quartet of delightful, iconic performances, some wonderfully absurd situations and some hilarious lines. It's fun, it's funny, and, even though it's more than 25 years old, it feels fresh. If you haven't seen it, trust me when I say you probably should.

Back to the Future (1985)
Directed by Robert Zemeckis
Written by Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale
Rated PG
Length: 116 minutes

ARGO

Argo (2012)
Grade: B+
Directed by Ben Affleck
Starring: Ben Affleck, Bryan Cranston, Alan Arkin, John Goodman, Victor Garber, Scoot McNairy, Tate Donovan, Kerry Bishe, Clea DuVall, Christopher Denham and Rory Cochrane
PREMISE: After six American diplomats escape captivity during the 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis, a CIA exfiltration expert devises a way to get them safely out of Tehran and back to the United States.

Rated R for language and some violent images

Argo is a rare thing. Here is one major studio produced film bearing the 'Based on a True Story' disclaimer where the said story actually deserves to be told. I might even go so far as to say it needs to be told. Coming from one of the darkest periods in American history (the 1979 Iran Hostage Crisis, in which 52 American embassy workers were kidnapped and held hostage by extremist Islamic militants for over a year), it brings a ray of hope and, even better, a spectacular ring of authenticity. Because there's no way this particular story--six embassy workers who escaped the embassy are given asylum in a Canadian ambassador's house for two months, and later smuggled out by the CIA without the aid of military personnel--would be believable were it simply made up. If fictionalized, in today's environment, it would have to be a military action picture, or no one would watch it. And then the story would undoubtedly strain credulity. To know that this is true, to know that it really happened, really makes the movie worth watching. And the story, which was kept in the CIA's Classified files for years, has only recently become common knowledge--the case was 'declassified' by President Clinton in 1997, and popularized in a 2007 Wired magazine article by Joshuah Bearman.

That it's true makes it credible and inspiring--two things Americans sorely need to feel during this highly unpopular election season.

Plot: By the late 1970s, Iranian militants had ousted the unpopular, westernized Shah and replaced him with the Ayatollah, a fanatical religious leader who led the whole country back to its Islamic roots. In 1979, enraged that the Shah was undergoing chemotherapy treatments in the US and not back home answering for his "crimes", angry mobs broke into and swarmed the American embassy in Tehran, binding and dragging off 52 American citizens. However, unbeknownst to the Iranians, six embassy workers escaped through a side door, fleeing to the nearby house of a Canadian ambassador (Victor Garber), where they were given shelter and food. Several weeks after the taking of the hostages, the US Government learned of the six's plight, and realized they must be extracted before the mobs of bloodthirsty militants find them.

CIA agent Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck) is an exfiltration expert, hired to "get people out" of tight, backs-to-the-wall scenarios. After laughing off department suggestions that the escapees try to make for the Iran border on bicycles or try posing as Canadian crop investigators in order to gain diplomatic immunity (it's winter in Iran, after all), he receives a stroke of genius: have the six escapees pose as Canadian filmmakers location-scouting for a science fiction movie, wherein the exotic peoples and locales of Iran would be appropriate; give them thorough fake identities, real Canadian passports, and have them walk through airport security and out of the country. While his colleagues are initially skeptical of his idea, when he gets Hollywood big guns John Chambers (John Goodman) and Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin) on his side--not to mention an actual sci-fi script, the alien-world-war extravaganza Argo, as a front--he gets the green light. Once he acquires the passports, the paperwork and the fake identities, Mendez flies to Tehran and meets the six escapees. While they're by turns skeptical and terrified at his fake-moviemakers idea, he makes it clear that his idea may be the only one that will get them home.

What Works?
Again, the fact that this is all real--and painstaking research was clearly done to ressurect old newsreel footage or to re-create certain images of the Hostage Crisis--adds an enormous amount of credibility, and dread. This two-hour film is bookended by scenes dripping with suspense (the embassy takeover and the escapees' slow trip through airport security), and, in between, has a little bit of everything, from boardroom meetings and white-collar arguments to farcicial scenes of the Goodman and Arkin characters taking digs at Hollywood. And, of course, the scenes with the six escapees (played in subtle but effective performances by Tate Donovan, Clea DuVall, Christopher Denham, Scoot McNairy, Kerry Bishe and Rory Cochrane) are wrought with tension, fear and claustrophobia. Argo also has one hell of an edge-of-your-seat, heart-pounding ending, capped off by one of the most gratifying moments I can remember seeing in a movie in a while. You could almost hear everyone in the theater give a collective sigh of relief, and many were wiping tears.

Argo is not an actors' movie, but the roles are all well-cast and well-played. It takes a while for the escapees to really become characters, but, until then, Affleck keeps us in good company with himself (in an impressively understated performance), Bryan Cranston (superb in a tense role as Mendez' overworked right-hand man), and Goodman and Arkin (both having a ball). There are real laughs to be had, as well as moments of pathos and fear, and, of course, the movie rises to the occasion, rewarding the audience's attention with a real-life happy ending. Ex-President Jimmy Carter-on whose watch the Iran Hostage Crisis occurred-graces the credits with a short, meaningful voiceover.

What Doesn't Work?
There isn't much to say here. Only very late in the proceedings does Argo begin to feel long, and few moments feel manufactured. This is a very well-made movie.

Content:
Of course, there's cussing, but, refreshingly, there are no romantic interludes, and no unnecessary (and untrue) action or gunplay. Anyone expecting an us-against-them military adventure is going to be disappointed--this movie does its work-and succeeds at it-in the realms of dialogue, suspense, and attention to detail.

Bottom Line (I Promise):
Often feeling more like a documentary rather than a feature film, Argo tells an important, powerful true story with purpose and aplomb. The happy ending is genuine, but hard-earned after a quality exercise in pacing and suspense. Want a history lesson? Here's a great one for ya. It might just make you feel a little patriotic, too.

Argo (2012)
Directed by Ben Affleck
Written for the Screen by Chris Terrio; Based on the Wired magazine article by Joshuah Bearman
Length: 120 minutes
Rated R