For some reason whenever I see a Denzel Washington movie being previewed I think of Megatron because usually Denzel plays a hardcore dude and megatron is like that.
So Denzel plays a ex cia agent who now sells secrets and is an infamous wanted fugitive or whatever. He basically gets caught up in some stuff and has to walk into some US embassy place and gets put into a safe house that gets attacked and Ryan Reynolds has to protect him. There is that love / hate relationship like other movies and by the end they totally love each other.
I thought the movie was decent with its good acting and cool scenery (South Africa) but the plot and story was pretty cliche. The action scenes were kind of hit and miss, they had a lot of punch to them in terms of sound and tension but there was a lot of shaky camera or I guess it's now called "close ups" which is the same thing to me when I can't see shit. Probably the best scene in the movie was when they are all in the Safe House and like tons of guys start piling up outside and they try to defend it, that was a pretty cool scene and it also had Robert Patrick in it.
Overall it felt like a standard action/Thriller movie with top cast and the same old story. For your amusement I was talking to Walter on facebook and he got all butt hurt about the movie:
Walter Wolfman:
Quick Movie Review - "Safe House": I can't think of many movies with Denzel that I felt jipped about and this is no exception; he's sublime in this role and wears it like a glove. Ryan Reynolds does a good job as lead and really my only complaint is the lack of Robert Patrick. Despite the lack of T-1000, I couldn't help but feel that this is the movie Mission Impossible 4 should have been. Definate recommendation.
Like · · Saturday at 7:40pm ·
Pooperscooper:
I wouldn't go that far but I think the movie was decent. It had good acting and a good location. Everything else was cliche and has been done many times before. I think the action scenes would have been pretty good if they hadn't over done the shaky cam, they seemed decent even if with the shakes but you know how it is.
Yesterday at 10:49am · Like
Walter Wolfman: I barely noticed the shakey cam this time as there weren't as many cut-aways as in most other films that use it exclusively. It was there, but it was utilized better than usual. It's a spy movie - there are only a handful of ways to do em, but I thought this movie did a good enough job at atleast attempting to keep things fresh. Just because something isn't NEW doesn't mean it isn't good or recommended. I found both Reynolds and Denzel's characters much more interesting than Damon's personality devoid Bourne, who is apperently the king of the spies, and that has to speak for something.
Yesterday at 10:56am · Like
Pooperscooper: In regards to the action, you're wrong it was full of shaky cam and if you didn't notice it then they have you trained into being a little girl. I agree things don't have to be new to be good but in this case it wasn't very good. I will make a review for you on DACK.
Yesterday at 11:11am · Like
Walter Wolfman: Or maybe you're just one of those folks who likes to harp on everything. If I didn't find the shakey came any worse than any other movie and was loads and beyond above say The Dark Knight where the action was almost intelligable, it's better than the norm. It wasn't overdone and while I would have prefered a straight up cut over shakey cam, the shakey cam wasn't terrible. That's the difference. So it wasn't very good simply because of shakey cam and because you felt it was cliche? That's a pretty cruddy basis for an opinion of saying a movie is no good, but if that's your opinion, that's your opinion.
SafeHouse
-
POOPERSCOOPER
- Paparazzi
- Posts: 5035
- Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2003 1:50 am
- Location: California
-
Wolfman Walt
- Mamma's Gang member
- Posts: 5243
- Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 1:31 pm
- Location: La Grange, Kentucky
- Contact:
true story