Even dumb Hollywood movies are noticeably smarter these days.
Whilst it is still true that a computer can’t create a piece of art, the current prevalence of scriptwriting programs mean that, even if you are watching the worst kind of cinematic pabulum, in which the only object seems to be to create enough plausibility to move from one action set-piece to another, you can be certain that a spurious thematic depth lurks in the background: each character has their own backstory and motivation, however half-heartedly it is developed.
Welcome to the 90s
In Safehouse, a film in which the only unpredictable element is just how predictable it is, we are invited to a mid-nineties action-movie retro party. The plot is reminiscent of every straight-to-video action movie you’ve ever seen, from the 90s. It looks like it was directed by Tony Scott, in the 90s, but wasn’t, but has his penchant for shaky cameras and pointless captions like “11:43am, Washington”, which I thought Team America: World Police would have put a stop to. It even stars, alongside the charisma-free Ryan Reynolds, that old 90s action standby, Denzel Washington.
Who the hell is Ryan Reynolds anyway? I sure as hell didn't order him. He's another one of those pre-packaged stars that come up every couple of years, seemingly already famous before they have done a decent movie. Before long, you can't move without hearing about who they are dating, or how much they are making per movie, but you still, for the life of you, can't name one decent movie they have made. It's like Brad Pitt. He's a walking advertisement for Brad Pitt, but no good at anything else.
Who the hell is Ryan Reynolds anyway? I sure as hell didn't order him. He's another one of those pre-packaged stars that come up every couple of years, seemingly already famous before they have done a decent movie. Before long, you can't move without hearing about who they are dating, or how much they are making per movie, but you still, for the life of you, can't name one decent movie they have made. It's like Brad Pitt. He's a walking advertisement for Brad Pitt, but no good at anything else.
The first 30 minutes or so of Safehouse are actually pretty good. Denzel Washington is one of the best actors on the action circuit. He actually reminds us that 'action' has the verb 'act' in it. He has 3 or 4 facial expressions to Ryan Reynolds 1. Sadly, it is in these 30 minutes that the film runs through its entire premise and out the other side. That premise is that Ryan Reynolds (CIA, first job) finds himself guarding Denzel Washington (veteran, ex CIA) in a Safehouse in Johannesburg. But the safehouse is compromised, and soon they are under siege from armed hitmen. It’s no surprise that the heroes escape somehow, but, like Wile E. Coyote bursting through a door conveniently placed on the top of an Arizona mesa, the film finds itself running on thin air from that point, and, once it realises this, it takes a sharp plummet to a foreseeable conclusion.
It's dire, it's cliched, but what annoyed me most was, as I suggested at the outset, the cynical attempt to bring depth into an otherwise shallow film, by implying there was more going on between the characters than there actually was. In Safehouse, Reynold’s character, “Matt” has an elder mentor in the CIA, Brendan Gleeson.
Now I like Brendan Gleeson. Good guy. But you’ve heard of good actors ‘phoning in’ a performance; when I say that here, I don’t just mean he’s hacking it. I also mean that Gleeson is literally on the phone for the whole of this movie, saying things like, “don’t worry, we’re coming to get you”. I'd really like to know what he got paid for this. Just out of interest.
Now I like Brendan Gleeson. Good guy. But you’ve heard of good actors ‘phoning in’ a performance; when I say that here, I don’t just mean he’s hacking it. I also mean that Gleeson is literally on the phone for the whole of this movie, saying things like, “don’t worry, we’re coming to get you”. I'd really like to know what he got paid for this. Just out of interest.
A piece of backstory about Matt is casually dropped early in the movie. You gotta love action films: they can just provide background for a character by a CIA boss shouting: “What have you got on X?” and then an underling, with a headset on, goes: “born 1981, raised by penguins in the wild, scored off the charts in blubbing like a baby and smashing up cars.” (So many people score ‘off the charts’ in CIA-themed action movies that you can’t help thinking, "Why don’t they have bigger charts?")
Matt’s father, we learn, died when he was young. Drink driving. Hmm, absent and irresponsible. Could Matt be in need of a father figure? What about Brendan Gleeson? or wait a minute, what about Denzel Washington? It was at this sort of quandary that the writers of Safehouse parked the script, deciding that was about enough depth to fool the audience into thinking this was somehow meaningful subtext. But, and this is just an idea, in order for Brendan Gleeson to have been a plausible father figure, he and Reynolds would probably have had to share a scene or two, perhaps even in the same room, rather than on the phone. Merely because of his physical proximity, there was distinctly more potential in Denzel Washington as father figure, and what an irony that would be, because he's supposed to be the one Matt is taking into custody. I think that this could have been the whole point of the movie, but the director missed it.
Sadly, Matt and Denzel are too busy being shot at and driving like crazy to take up the offer of a surrogate father/son relationship. Besides, that would kind of remind the audience that Denzel is Getting Too Old for this Shit. Despite the fact that neither of these relationships is implied in any meaningful way, in the end, it is annoying that, like a drunk absent father that tries to make up for the childhood he missed, the film tries in the end to cram the replacement father theme into the last two minutes, in some desperate bid for the audience's affection. But the audience instinctively rejects this late attempts to play on affections. Instead it laments: “Where were you when I needed you?”
Matt’s father, we learn, died when he was young. Drink driving. Hmm, absent and irresponsible. Could Matt be in need of a father figure? What about Brendan Gleeson? or wait a minute, what about Denzel Washington? It was at this sort of quandary that the writers of Safehouse parked the script, deciding that was about enough depth to fool the audience into thinking this was somehow meaningful subtext. But, and this is just an idea, in order for Brendan Gleeson to have been a plausible father figure, he and Reynolds would probably have had to share a scene or two, perhaps even in the same room, rather than on the phone. Merely because of his physical proximity, there was distinctly more potential in Denzel Washington as father figure, and what an irony that would be, because he's supposed to be the one Matt is taking into custody. I think that this could have been the whole point of the movie, but the director missed it.
Sadly, Matt and Denzel are too busy being shot at and driving like crazy to take up the offer of a surrogate father/son relationship. Besides, that would kind of remind the audience that Denzel is Getting Too Old for this Shit. Despite the fact that neither of these relationships is implied in any meaningful way, in the end, it is annoying that, like a drunk absent father that tries to make up for the childhood he missed, the film tries in the end to cram the replacement father theme into the last two minutes, in some desperate bid for the audience's affection. But the audience instinctively rejects this late attempts to play on affections. Instead it laments: “Where were you when I needed you?”
No comments:
Post a Comment