Yes, I get a kick out of seeing two movies that are so completely different, and then trying to write about each concisely and thoughtfully. I must begin by noting that my friend Rob chose the first movie, while I pushed for the second; you may not even need to read the following reviews to know which one of us least affected by Hollywood's flashy marketing...
Robert Redford surprised me with some of the conclusions his characters make in "The Company You Keep". This is a subtle thriller, which is peopled entirely by hippies, liberals, and other like-minded extremists (with the exception of one cop, who is merely a personification of how liberals view conservatives). It's actually quite funny to see a group of whackos taking themselves so seriously, only it's tragic because the believe that they are completely normal. Of course, isn't this how we all live? The reason I was surprised, is that Redford allows his main character to make some really selfless and honorable decisions towards the end of this film; despite advice and expectations to the contrary. In a culture where "principles" outweigh any sense of morality, it is quite amazing to see the hero actually do the right thing.
Redford both stars in this film and directed it. Redford knows how to tell a good story, and I thought the pacing (which was quite slow) was fitting. It's too bad that Redford made a number of really poor casting choices, one of which was himself. Unfortunately bad acting and unconvincing characters seriously degrade an otherwise good film.
"The Company You Keep" refers to relationships which were established 50 years ago, when Redford's character was an anti-war activist. He is forced to face consequences of past actions when a newspaper reporter begins to uncover pieces of the puzzle. Shia LaBeouf plays the reporter, and while I don't necessarily have any complaints about his performance, it was a unneeded narrative device. In the end, all that we are really interested in, is will Redford's character do the right thing, or will he do what "he believes in"? Perhaps, after 50 years, it's now the same thing.
Where should I begin with "Pain and Gain"? Why did I want to see this movie in the first place? These are the kinds of questions which become difficult and elusive once I've actually seen the movie. Now yes, I did know that it was directed by Michael Bay before I went in; but somehow I was thinking it would be the Michael Bay of "The Rock", "The Island", and even "Bad Boys"... I honestly wasn't thinking about the Michal Bay of "Transformers 2" and "Transformers 3". Bay is great at what he does, which is generating energy, an energy that permeates the movie theater. He's the jet fuel of directors, he burns the images into your brain with immense intensity; unfortunately once the movie is over there's nothing left. Correction; once the movie is over you realize that there was nothing there in the first place. Bay blatantly disregards the first law of thermodynamics by creating energy out of nothing... Here's a movie about three dumb bodybuilders who decide to kidnap rich people and steal all their possessions. If this had been an original screenplay by a creative writer I'm convinced that the premise has possibilities. Too bad that this is based on a true story and the events actually occurred more or less as they are portrayed. I am reminded of the far superior film, "Fargo" that claims at the beginning to be a true story, which is the part of its genius. The outrageousness of "Fargo" is contrasted with a genuine understanding of the human condition. Bay simply makes an episode of "World's Stupidest Criminals", a rated-R, over-the-top, throbbing-with-steroids, so-unbelievable-it-has-to-be-true dark comedy that's barely funny.
Rob, you picked a better movie this time. So when are we going to go see "The Hangover 3"?
No comments:
Post a Comment