ViewGuide

Created Feb 14, 2012 07:29AM PST • Edited Feb 18, 2012 10:15PM PST

1. Quality

2. Summary

   Good 3.0

   Denzel Washington as a bad-ass CIA agent gone rogue is reason enough to watch Safe House. Good thing, since the rest of the movie is just OK: weakly acted aside from the superstar, ridiculously plotted, unconvincingly over-the-top in its action. Plus it’s consumed with a WikiLeak-like passion for sliming America.

   Denzel is worth the price of the ticket however.

   Even better, wait for it on-demand. Watching a great movie-star will feel like a bargain then.

4. Acting

   Good 3.0

   Denzel’s summa cum laude movie-star charisma means we root for him no matter how evil he seems to be. More please. Never model-handsome, he’s now even a bit doughy-faced. (Of course that happens to many of us guys-of-a-certain-age.) But man does he own the screen!

   The main acting skill demonstrated by Ryan Reynolds is screwing up his face when trying to think, which doesn’t comport with his character’s Yale Law backstory. The upshot is that Reynolds’ action movie future goes no higher than the sort of second banana he plays here.

   The fairly weak supporting players:

   • Vera Farmiga’s tepid line delivery lacks gravitas.
   • Sam Sheppard’s brush cut and craggy face are straight from central casting for the role of CIA mucky-muck, though he’s not given much to work with from a script POV.
   • Brendan Gleeson isn’t especially charismatic or even interesting.
   • Robert Patrick looks a bit silly with a spindly goatee, especially for a CIA heavyweight.
   • French cutie Nora Arnezeder is fetching but not especially adorable as Reynolds’ girlfriend.
   • Rubén Blades sighting.

5. Male Stars Great 4.0

   Denzel really great, Ryan Reynolds good.

6. Female Stars OK 2.5

   Vera Farmiga

7. Female Costars OK 2.5

   Nora Arnezeder

8. Male Costars OK 2.5

   Sam Sheppard, Brendan Gleeson, Robert Patrick

10. Film

    OK 2.5

    A decent premise – rogue super agent lands in the lap of rookie agent – goes awry amid ridiculously over-the-top action sequences, absurd plotting and Left Wing fever-dreams.

    As to the last, it’s one thing for a cartoonish arch-villain to employ countless sacrificial foot soldiers. Such Dr. Evil behavior is absurd, so it’s entertaining. It’s another for a nominally serious action film like Safe House to have American agents behave so insanely. It not only ethically wrong, it’s flat out unbelievable.

11. Direction Good 3.0

12. Play Barely OK 2.0

13. Music OK 2.5

14. Visuals OK 2.5

    The action sequences tried to play it straight but were unbelievable. Willing-suspension-of-disbelief went out the window by the second reel and so did serious enjoyment of the film.

15. Content

16. Edge

    Sordid 2.7

    Brutal beatings, gunshot wounds – all in a day’s work. Make that an hour’s work, ’cause the victims are back up and fighting again in no time flat.

17. Sex Innocent 1.5

18. Violence Brutal 3.3

19. Rudeness Profane 3.4

21. Reality

    Surreal 2.9

    Action movies that take themselves seriously shouldn’t have an rFactor above 2.0. Breach that and you’re into the Surreal territory of can-you-believe-they-pulled-that-off, where it takes charm to be successful. Think Salt. Safe House’s problem is that it takes itself seriously but presents itself surreally.

    Its other problem is its litany of anti-American fever-dreams: waterboarding and WikiLeak-like espionage, in particular. Oddly, the waterboarding comes across just as sober-minded experts have described it – awful in the moment but harmless in the end. IOW, not torture. Whoops.

22. Circumstantial Surreal 2.9

23. Biological Surreal 3.0

24. Physical Surreal 2.8