So you have this old friend who tells you a new story involving people from your youth. This story plays on nostalgia and features plenty of old faces in familiar situations. By the end of the story, you smile. You’ve enjoyed yourself perhaps a little more than you would have because of the nostalgia value. The story presented, after all, wasn’t all that earth-shattering or, to be blunt, particularly good.
But the nostalgia had you.
That’s the way I felt about the first Expendables film released back in 2010. It wasn’t a great film, in fact I felt that the almost concurrently released The Losers featured roughly the same concept (a motley group of modern warriors) but, in fact, had an overall slightly better story. Still, I enjoyed The Expendables more because, again, of the nostalgia. I loved seeing Sylvester Stallone, Bruce Willis, and Arnold Schwarzenegger share the screen together, even if their collaboration in the film amounted to about five minutes of movie time, if that.
With the success of The Expendables, a sequel was a natural, and this time around a greater effort was made to show more of what the audience demanded. Thus, instead of a few minute cameo, Bruce Willis and Arnold Schwarzenegger share considerable more screen time (and actually fire weapons!) in The Expendables 2. And if that wasn’t enough, the movie increased your ’80’s action stars quotient by adding Chuck Norris and Jean-Claude Van Damme (effectively menacing as the movie’s villain, a character named…Vilain) to the mix.
…but…
It didn’t work as well for me. Despite the fact that I feel The Expendables 2 is an overall better movie than the first Expendables, that nostalgic feeling I had has since dissipated and I’m left focusing more on the film before me rather than the thrill of seeing all these older actors together.
And, frankly, the film only worked in spurts. The opening was pretty good, if a little too (CGI) gory. Then we get a long slow buildup to the main story and…well…there’s not much there there. Something about plutonium buried away and forgotten and the villain trying to get it out in a hurry (no real explanation for why) which leads to the heroes chasing said villain until a final, bloody, confrontation. It all plays out like a video game, with the bad guys having a near army of red shirts ready to bite the dust with no real repercussions felt (bad guys, after all, have no family or friends!).
The Expendables 2 is a mediocre action film, alas, a return trip that may charm (if that’s the right word!) those who still have those feelings of nostalgia for the heroes of the ’80’s. Others may have less patience.
I saw Killdozer exactly one time before yesterday. Back when I first saw this film, I was an 8 year old boy and it aired for the first time in 1974 on television. Despite the fact that thirty eight (OH MY GOD!!!!) years have since passed, I still had memories of this film.
When I got my DVR setup, I put the film under the que, to record whenever it might show up. A couple of years passed and the film never did show up on any channels. Then, a few days ago, I casually made a search of the film on Amazon and, to my surprise, the film was available as a “manufactured on demand” DVD via Universal.
After thirty eight years (CHRIST I’M OLD!!!), I had a chance to finally see this film from start to finish.
Would it live up to my childhood memories? Would it still be the suspenseful film that eight year old enjoyed so much back then?
Frankly, I was expecting the worst. I had a couple of memories of the film -three to be exact (including the ending)- but I couldn’t help but fear that this long-forgotten-by-most film might not have aged particularly well over time.
As it turned out, I was pleasantly surprised.
No, Killdozer isn’t one of the best of the “machines gone homicidal” suspense sub-genre…I still feel the Steven Spielberg’s 1971 breakout movie (and probable influence to Killdozer) Duel is the best of the lot there, but the movie is still quite entertaining.
Based on a short story (and teleplay) by noted sci-fi author Theodore Sturgeon, the plot of Killdozer is simplicity itself: On an island off the coast of Africa a group of six construction workers have been tasked with clearing a section of the island. The group is led by Lloyd Kelly (Clint Walker, still as tall and massive as a mountain), a man who drives his workers perhaps a little too hard. There is some resentment among his men, but nothing terribly serious until their main bulldozer rams a meteorite and Mack McCarthy (a very young Robert Urich in one of his earlier roles) is fatally burned by the radiation (or whatever) emitted by bulldozer slamming into the rock.
Things go from bad to worse quickly as the bulldozer begins operating on its own. Isolated on this island, the construction crew rapidly comes to the realization that the bulldozer has a homicidal mind of its own and that they must somehow stop the machine before it kills them all.
As I said before, I came into watching Killdozer after all these years (whimper) fearing the worst. I’ll grant you that modern audiences may find the pace of this film wanting. Further, this being a TV movie there is virtually no gore (and not a single drop of blood) at all to be found. Still, the implied brutality of various crew members’ deaths shocked me as a child (particularly the first person to actually fall to the “kill” dozer).
All in all, I’d recommend this film to those who, like me, have a fondness for these type of films and are forgiving toward the pace of films from the past. Killdozer may not quite live up to Duel, but it is worth a look-see.
Having caught up with many of the “must see” films recently released, I had a chance to explore some recent vintage films that were a little farther down on my radar yet intrigued me. None did so more than the 2012 romantic comedy/sci fi (?) film Safety Not Guaranteed.
Written by Derek Connolly and directed by Colin Trevorrow, Safety Not Guaranteed concerns a (at first) obnoxious journalist for a Seattle magazine who takes two geeky interns off to a nearby coastal town to find and investigate the man who posted a strange notice in the want ads concerning looking for a companion to time travel with. The second to the last line of the want ad states that “safety not guaranteed”.
Without giving too much away, we quickly find that the outwardly obnoxious lead journalist, Jeff (Jake Johnson) could care less about this assignment and, in reality, asked to do it so that he could reconnect with an old love of his that lives in that town. Thus the main investigator of this story becomes the shy and (possibly) damaged Darius (Aubrey Plaza) who, after finding and befriending Kenneth (Mark Duplass), the man behind the mysterious ad, begins to wonder if perhaps he’s not quite as crazy as he seems.
I really liked most of this movie. It had a great independent vibe to it and, despite presenting some of the typical “romantic comedy” tropes (in particular the “main character gets close to other main character for secret reasons and falls in love but when the secret is revealed will love survive?!”), the movie nonetheless delivers plenty of fresh material and oddball situations to keep us involved in the story’s progression.
If there’s a complaint to be made, and it is a minor one to me, it is that the film’s ending felt a little too…obvious. I wish that instead of giving us such a concrete ending the filmmakers had instead offered us a more ambiguous conclusion that hinted to the possibility of Kenneth being right but also left the door open to him maybe being…off. In the end, love can still conquer all.
Having said that, let me reiterate: It is a minor complaint and Safety Not Guaranteed is certainly worthy of your attention. Recommended.
The Unknown, running a mere 63 minutes, is probably one of the most twisted love stories you’re likely to run up against. Director/Writer Tod Browning was known to make some pretty bizarre films, and while this one isn’t quite as bizarre as, say, his 1932 film Freaks, it certainly falls within the ballpark, at least with regard to setting.
For The Unknown, like Freaks, features a circus setting. In this case, there are no actual “freaks”, though Lon Chaney stars as Alonzo, a man seemingly without arms who specializes in trick shots and throwing knives…with his feet. Mr. Chaney’s work in the film is nothing short of astonishing. I doubt there are many actors today who could portray Alonzo as well as he did and with as much dexterity in the use of his feet as surrogate arms.
As for the plot of the movie, Alonzo is in love with his assistant/target, Nanon, played by legendary actress Joan Crawford in one of her earlier roles. My own personal greatest exposure to Ms. Crawford was through her work from roughly the very late thirties/early forties and on, so it was pretty eye opening to see her in her formative years. Ms. Crawford’s Nanon is the object of affection to the scheming Alonzo, who we quickly find out is a criminal on the lam that actually has both arms. In one of the movie’s greatest scenes, we are given a look at how Alonzo (and Chaney, of course) “hides” his arms and makes it appear he is armless.
Alonzo loves Nanon but Nanon has feelings for the Circus’ strongman, Malabar (Norman Kerry). However, she also has psychological issues regarding men. She hates the way men try to “paw” her with their arms, and therefore feels safe around Alonzo (who, as noted, appears not to have any arms and therefore cannot “touch” her). Meanwhile, whenever Malabar tries to take her in his arms, she is repulsed. One gets the feeling, purely by implication, that Nanon suffered some kind of sexual abuse in her past and it may be why she has such trouble “giving in” to her love of Malabar. Of course, this opens the door for Alonzo to try to gain control of her, acting as a friend to Malabar and Nanon while working to keep them apart and ultimately bring Nanon to his side.
Pretty wild stuff.
I don’t want to get into the big plot twist toward the later half of the film, but suffice to say it is a doozy and shows the lengths Alonzo goes to to try to win Nanon’s heart. Though he is clearly the “bad guy” of the feature, Lon Chaney’s Alonzo winds up being surprisingly sympathetic, especially in the scene where Nanon announces her love (and upcoming marriage) to Malabar. The mix of grief, anger, and, yes, utter madness shown by Mr. Chaney in that one take is a thing of acting beauty. Though Mr. Chaney may be known to some more for his incredible make up work in features such as London After Midnight or The Hunchback of Notre Dame or The Phantom of the Opera, there is little doubt he was an extraordinary actor.
Do I recommend this film? To film fans, absolutely, though I recognize modern audiences may find it difficult to sit though this relatively short film because it unwinds at a much slower pace to modern films. Regardless, if you’re curious to see the great Lon Chaney at his most devious and Joan Crawford at her most beautiful, by all means give The Unknown a look.
Usually when I settle down in my theater seat and watch a film, I tend to soak in what’s going on before me. I try not to be too terribly judgmental of the things going on…unless, of course, there’s just no way to avoid critiquing them.
In the case of Skyfall, it is a credit to director Sam Mendes, Daniel Craig, and all those in front of and behind the cameras who delivered a movie that it moved as well as it did. In fact, so well did it move that with one exception, it wasn’t until after the movie was over that I realize the screenwriters delivered a truly underwhelming, ultimately silly story.
OK, if you want, you can add to the fact that Silva also wanted to destroy her career as well. But that secondary goal was achieved fairly early on. No, she wasn’t completely repudiated in the MI6 circles, but she was already being pushed into retirement as a kindness by her superiors. Her career was effectively done.
Thus, when Bond shows up unannounced in her flat (so much for security!), it could just as easily been Silva there to kill her. Had he been there instead of Bond, the film would have been over close to two hours earlier!
Still, at that point we as viewers weren’t aware of Silva’s endgame. Instead, we get some great scenery as Bond gets back into the service after being thought dead (death and rebirth are a big subtext within this film). He follows an assassin and winds up meeting the beautiful Severine (Bernice Marlohe) who eventually gets Bond to Silva.
Severine’s story winds up being the one truly sour element of the film to me while first watching it and before realizing what the whole story entailed. Her total screen time runs to little more (perhaps even less!) than ten minutes and Bond’s flippant comment following her death was needlessly cold (he showed more emotion to the loss of his Goldfinger Aston Martin car than to her!). Yet in that brief time with her I felt she should have had far more to do than be a tragic messenger delivering Bond to Silva.
What a missed opportunity!
But getting back to the film in general: Yes, the plot/story ultimately is so small scale and full of logic flaws that I can’t blame some for hating the film outright. Yet I can also sympathize with those who love the film because the fact of the matter is that this film moves like lightning and entertained me to the point where I only considered most of its defects after the fact.
In the end, I recommend Skyfall. It may not be among the all time best of the Bond films and the villain’s goal may be underwhelming, it is nonetheless a pretty good ride.
First off, the 1927 Todd Browning/Lon Chaney feature London After Midnight is perhaps one of the more famous “lost” films of the silent era. Perhaps even THE most well known of them all, given the talents involved. (lists of famous Lost Films can be found here and here and here)
According to IMDB: (London After Midnight) is believed that this film existed until 1967. Inventory records indicated that the only remaining print was being stored in MGM’s vault #7 which was destroyed by fire in 1967. By that time, all other elements had been destroyed or were missing.
On TCM the other night, however, they aired a slightly under one hour “reconstruction” of the film. Since there is no actual footage remaining of the film, they used still and creative zooming/panning along with title cards to give viewers a sense of what this lost film was.
Visually, I have to say the film (or rather the still) sure deliver the goods. Lon Chaney’s vampire character is certainly memorable, as is Edna Tichenor as Luna the Bat Girl, the vampire’s assistant.
But the story…well…
Look, its silly. Perhaps even beyond silly. London After Midnight is, at its heart, a murder mystery. Five years before the patriarch of a family dies in what the detective in charge (Chaney) rules a suicide. But he clearly doesn’t believe this to be the case. Five years later, the house beside the deceased man’s estate is rented to what appear to be a pair of vampires (Chaney and Tichenor) who creep out the neighbors…one of whom may be a murderer.
Again, what follows is rather silly, storywise. If you must know, much of the vampire subplot is nothing more than a way for the detective to push the people next door into thinking that the suicide (actually murder) victim may be brought back to life…and therefore expose his murderer.
I am, however, pleased with the presentation, limited though it was to static stills. The people behind this “reconstruction” did a pretty good job of giving us what we needed to know so that we could at least visualize the lost film.
One remains hopeful, however, that sometime in the future a print of the actual movie will be found. Silly plot aside, I’d love to see the great Lon Chaney’s every scene as the vampire!
When early word got out about the then upcoming film Looper, like many others I was intrigued. I’ve always been fascinated with the whole time travel genre, even though so much has been written about it since author H. G. Wells essentially created it with his 1895 novel The Time Machine.
What was most fascinating about the early reports on the film was that the film would feature Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Bruce Willis playing the same person, old and young versions of a hitman whose job in our near future is to kill people sent back in time and dispose of their bodies.
The wrinkle to the story is that these hitmen, known as “Loopers”, eventually wind up killing their thirty year later future selves. This winds up being their “last” job and is paid for in bricks of gold. The Looper then has thirty years to live out their life as they please, owing no one anything, only with the knowledge that after those thirty years are up, they will be sent back in time and killed by themselves.
Got that?
Personally, I find it an intriguing concept but one that, on the outset, is somewhat flawed…though ironically enough that central flaw plays a big role in the film’s ultimate resolution. Without getting into too many details (or spoilers), what young Joe realizes at the end of the film applies not just to him, but to everyone who has been sent back.
Anyway, the film was released in, frankly, a very dead time for movies, which made me curious. Early word was that the film was very good, yet the release date is usually a movie dead zone, a time when the studios release films they don’t think/expect to be quite worthy of summer or major holiday blockbuster release. Still, the film has done well, though after three weeks it does appear to be on the verge of dropping out of the top ten list.
Which is kind of a shame, for Looper is a very solid piece of entertainment.
Granted, there are elements of other films here, most notably the essential structure of The Terminator (or, if one wants to really get into it, a pair of Harlan Ellison stories, particularly Demon With a Glass Hand and Soldier, both of which appeared on the original Outer Limits tv show).
The big twist here, and what separates Looper from these works, is that in this case the old and young versions of Joe, the protagonist, are both operating with a different perspective. Old Joe (Willis) has seen an unpleasant future and, upon being sent back for his execution at his own hands, manages to escape from his younger self. His goal is to save the future in this past. The Young Joe (Gordon-Levitt), meanwhile, knows his older self is just one possible future, and that if he gets rid of him like he’s supposed to (and get the mobsters that are now coming after him for this botched assassination of his future self) he can effect change from the present on.
Frankly, I love the fact that one can look at both perspectives and realize both Joes are right in wanting to fix things their way. And as the film progresses, one of the central questions becomes just what is the right way to go about fixing the future.
But, but…but…
SPOILERS FOLLOW!
YOU’VE BEEN WARNED!
One of the little wrinkles this film presents is that in this future world of Looper assassins, a group of people have developed telekinetic powers. The powers are nothing terribly big, those able to can lift small objects (usually coins) six or less inches off the palms of their hands.
However, in the future of “Old” Joe, one person, the mysterious “Rainmaker”, has taken over all the mobs and is intent on ridding the world of all Loopers and assuming all power for himself. No one knows who this “Rainmaker” is, but he is effectively terrorizing the entire power structure of the future world. When “Old” Joe returns to the past, thus, he is intent on finding and killing this future “Rainmaker”.
Like the Terminator searching for Sarah Connor, “Old” Joe has three possibilities, children born at the same time and at a particular Hospital his future self determined was where the “Rainmaker” was born. His grim task is to assassinate these three children, one after the other, in the hopes that one of them will turn out to be this “Rainmaker”.
As it would turn out, young Joe gets to the future “Rainmaker” and his mother first. The young child has telekinetic abilities far beyond those of everyone else, and it is through these abilities that his future self is able to rule the criminal world. However, in the present, young Joe who comes to realize that this boy can turn out to be good rather than evil, provided his mother is there to raise him as she has been. Old Joe, on the other hand, is set on killing the boy and, in so doing, risks killing the mother and setting off the very thing he is, ironically enough, trying to avoid: Making the “Rainmaker” evil.
Thus, young Joe comes to realize that he’s effectively witnessing a time loop that’s bound to go on again and again and again, where the “Old” Joe and the “Young” Joe will inevitably butt heads and the “Old” Joe will inevitably kill the young child’s mother and the young child will escape and become an evil figure.
So, the young Joe realizes there is only one solution: Suicide. By killing himself, the “Old” Joe will cease to be and mother and child will live to a (we presume) better world.
The problem? The time loop, as I said before, applies to everyone sent back in time, not just to this situation.
Person “A” kills his older self “B”. He then lives thirty years and becomes “B” only to then go back in time and be killed by “A” who then lives thirty years and becomes “B” only to then go back in time and so on and so on and so on.
In the case of old and young Joe, however, another wrinkle is set up:
Person “A” fails to kill his older self “B”. “B” heads after child but never gets him and the “Rainmaker” grows to become a powerful mob figure. “A” grows up into person “C” (person “B” might, after all, still be around in this new reality, though a very old man by that point) and is sent back in time where he either merges with “B” (two people appearing in the same space at the same time=splat?!) and “A” wonders just what the hell that was all about. Then person “A” grows up to be “B”, is sent back in time, escapes (because he knows the evils of the “Rainmaker”), fails to get the boy, “A” grows up and becomes “C” again and splat! once again.
Or…there is no splat and each subsequent “Old” Joe appears before “Young” Joe until there is literally a field of “Old” Joes sitting before “Young” Joe, all intent on killing this one boy.
As I said before, and it bears repeating: The first time loop applies to ALL the Looper killings, not just to “Old/Young” Joe. They’re all in a time loop, young and old versions, all killing their older self and growing up to be older people who are then sent back in time, are killed, and grow to be older and are killed again and again and again.
Time travel stories can really make your head hurt.
Still, if you aren’t like me and don’t get so damn anal (like me) about these things, I nonetheless recommend you go out and see Looper. While it may not leave you cheering at the end, it is nonetheless a great diversion and an intelligent take on the whole time travel concept.
With a few exceptions. Like interesting characters. A scenario that, clever as Mr. Whedon and company made it, also expected the audience to accept our villains were also incredibly, mind-numbingly stupid.
But let’s back up for a moment. The film starts with two seemingly divergent sets of characters. On the one hand we have a bunch of office drones in some strange, undefined worker setting complaining about your typical office drone problems with management or the job itself. Then, you have a group of five rather old looking “teens” (I suppose the satire element has begun!) who are about to embark on a vacation. Their destination? A…cabin in the woods…
Strange stuff subsequently happens and our two seemingly divergent sets of characters are slowly brought together into a single gory (but not too gory) story.
As a fan of horror films and the horror genre, Cabin In the Woods sounded like something in my wheelhouse. Early word was that this was a clever deconstruction of the modern “slasher” genre, and I was certainly game for a clever horror film.
As the film played out, it was hard to miss the references to other famous (and infamous!) horror films like Evil Dead, Friday The 13th, Hellraiser, Psycho, etc. And that’s not even mentioning the very obvious shout out to Scooby Doo via the group of teens themselves.
But, but, but…
As clever as all these little tips of the hat were, as the movie went on, I found myself less and less engaged in what was going on. Yes, there were moments I chuckled. But there were very few moments I actually felt any horror. After a while, I realized that part of the problem was that as clever as the script was in riffing off other films, the characters we were suppose to sympathize with were simply…flat.
In many ways, Cabin in the Woods seems to be trying, more than anything else, to be this generation’s version of the 1981 film An American Werewolf In London. Both films featured clever (and plentiful) riffs on other films, but An American Werewolf In London worked better, to my mind, because the characters were far more genuine and interesting. Thus, the shocks, the gore, and the laughs were that much bigger when they came at you versus Cabin In The Woods.
In the end, Cabin In The Woods winds up being a disappointment. It’s not a bad film, mind you. It is perfectly watchable to any horror fan out there. But by the same token it never quite reaches the heights of what I felt it was trying for.
The last time I saw Hard Rain (which could well be called the wettest movie ever) it was during its 1998 original theatrical run. Though overall I felt the film was a disappointment, unlike many films I see and promptly forget about, the movie’s setting stuck with me over all these years and, when the film played on cable the other day, I couldn’t help but revisit it.
So, did my opinion of the film change in the fourteen or so years since its initial release?
Alas, not all that much.
Hard Rain, as already mentioned, could well be the wettest film ever made. It involves a town that is facing a flood, a security truck filled with loot, thieves (and other unsavory types) using this disaster to enrich themselves on said loot, and the honest security truck driver who tries his mightiest to thwart the crooks from getting the loot.
The honest security truck driver, Tom, is played by Christian Slater in a role very reminiscent of his straight arrow (ouch) role in the John Woo directed Broken Arrow, released only two years before this film. In fact, it doesn’t surprise me to much to find, while investigating this film, that John Woo was in fact originally slated to direct Hard Rain but ultimately, obviously, didn’t.
The director of this film, Mikael Salomon, does a good job presenting the incredible flooding sequences and semi-submerged buildings. His action scenes, on the other hand, don’t have the zip of a John Woo, and one can’t help but wonder if this movie might have worked better had a more established action director taken the helm.
For you see, the movie’s main problem, the one that had me leaving the theater disappointed when I first saw the film all those years ago, remains: The script is simply lackluster. Yes, there are attempts to create interesting drama by shifting character’s loyalties. However, the fact remains that the characters in this film are all…characters. Not for a second did I feel we were watching anything but a film. Thus, there was never any sense of dread or danger, something we should obviously have felt. Or, to put it another way, the movie’s many sequences (action or otherwise) play out one after the other and while there is some suspense, there just isn’t enough.
So what remains is what stayed in my mind all these years: Those incredible water filled sets. I can’t even begin to imagine the misery involved in making this film. I can’t imagine the number of hours the cast and crew had to spend soaked to the bone while wading through all that water and being drenched in all that rain.
Hard Rain is a truly unique film to see. I can honestly say you will never see the likes of it on almost anything else out there. Unfortunately, as an “action” film it fares less, raising just a little above mediocre but not all that much more. Given the unique setting, I would recommend this film to anyone curious to see a truly staggering water logged set. It is impressive as hell. But realize that the film itself isn’t the action and suspense classic it could have been.
I’ve presented the movie’s trailer below. However, be forewarned: One of the film’s bigger plot twists is revealed within it!
If there seems to be one thing you can expect to find every few months in the theaters is a Jason Statham action/adventure film. You have to admire the man’s ability to find steady work. In 2011, for example, IMDB lists four films he appeared in…though at least one, Gnomeo & Juliet, only featured his voice work.
2012 was a little “slower” a year for him as he appeared in only two features, Expendables 2 and the film that’s the focus of this review: Safe.
Like too many of Mr. Statham’s latest films, this one seemed to come and go rather abruptly from theaters, yet I recalled reading several positive reviews and decided to give it a try.
Did I waste my time?
As it turned out, I didn’t, though as good as I ultimately felt the movie was, it had the potential to be a truly great film…and just fell short.
Safe treads plenty of familiar ground. We have Mr. Statham playing the role of Luke Wright, a moody fellow who somehow got involved in an MMA fight that went horribly wrong and put him on the bad side of some Russian mobsters. They killed his wife and effectively (so it seemed!) shut his life down. The Russian mob warned him they would constantly watch his movements and anyone he got to close to would be killed. Likewise, he was told he could not put down any roots, as any home or apartment he tried to live in would be destroyed and anyone living near him would be killed.
Meanwhile, the mob in China has sniffed out a gifted young student named Mei (Catherine Chan) and transferred her to New York, where her incredible gift for mathematics allows them to use her to keep track of all their numbers. As the leader of the Chinese mob notes, he favors using this gifted girl as that way there is no “paper or electronic trail” to point incriminating fingers toward his organization.
Ultimately, Mei is tasked to see and recall a series of mysterious numbers for some mysterious purpose. She does as asked, but before she can use the numbers the Russian mob (the same individuals that crossed Luke Wright) kidnap the girl. The police get involved, but it turns out they’re just as corrupt as both the Chinese and Russian mobs, and a three way power play results when Mei escapes her captors and is loose on the streets of New York.
While loose, who do you suppose she happens to run into?
What follows are some good stunts and bone-crushing (yet not overwhelmingly bloody) violence as the damaged Wright takes Mei under his wing and tries to skirt the minefield erected by the various corrupt officials…including, as we soon find, the mayor of New York himself.
It is at that point, I felt, that the movie was at its best. When the revelations were made about who exactly Luke Wright was and what his place in this chain of corruption was, I found myself quite excited. Though the movie isn’t exactly the most original thing I’ve seen (the 1998 Bruce Willis/Alec Baldwin film Mercury Rising had a very similar plot), the revelations regarding Wright were intriguing and produced an almost Yojimbo-like sequence where our anti-hero began playing the players against each other.
Add to that a very intriguing (and surprising!) main villain showdown in the later stages of the film and there were certainly the potential for this film to really knock it out of the park.
But what was the potentially strongest part of this film, the surprise main villain, unfortunately played out a little too quickly for my taste. I wish more time could have been devoted to explaining who this person was and why he and Wright were destined to collide.
Having said that, Safe is one of the better of the more recent Jason Statham vehicles. Despite some flaws, I would certainly recommend it as a good action time-killer.
