"Safe House" with Ryan Reynolds and Denzel Washington - movie review

If I have to describe "Safe House" in one word, then it would be "Typical" with a capital "T". Typical from the first to the last minute, typical of each of his elements, he is the embodiment of the current state of the spy action thriller and why, although they have certain shortcomings, films like "Haywire" deserve much more attention. From our well-known story in which you know who is and why he is, even before the film itself, through the performance of the actors to the overall vision, "Safe House" is a movie that takes no risks and there is nothing in it, to surprise in one direction or another.

Denzel Washington is Tobin Frost, a legend of the CIA ranks, who has become a persecuted renegade, selling secret information to anyone willing to offer a reasonable price. Once he gets a microchip full of information that will send all major world intelligence agencies, Frost is forced to surrender to the US Consulate in South Africa. From there, he was transferred for questioning in a "secret quarters," whose "landlord" was young Mark Weston (Ryan Reynolds), dreaming to replace the boring and lonely job of "real" field agent work. With Frost's appearance, Weston's dreams are about to come true, but not the way he hoped. After such a performance, most likely, most of you will make the assumption, which immediately gets in the eye - that "Safe House" is another Washington-Tony Scott production! Although everything in this movie screamed Scott's name, he has nothing to do with him - apparently the man was busy. Scott's lack is compensated by the Swedish director Daniel Espinoza, who (let's suppose he is not deprived of talent because, as typical and trivial as the movie, he still has some qualities) he has copied perhaps the most annoying part of style instead of expressing his own point of view and giving the film at least some personal identity.

In addition to Scott's spirit, the film (and especially the action) is entirely under the Bourne series - hand-shooting, frenetic fitting and footage less than a second or a half. But as long as the style is part of the essence of the movies, it seems to be the same here, and often the screening is an absolute conundrum. And I do not want to imply anything, yet 99% of modern action movies are shot in this style, but the fact that the filmmaker Oliver Wood and the fitter Richard Pearson worked on Bourne is eloquent enough and their work stands out in front plan instead of the director's. The actors should be clear to you. In the film, one of the minor heroes likens Dorian Gray's Frost image, the best definition we can give to Washington, capable of playing the role, and sleeping to push it. As always he is on the level, but is far from his interesting and truly memorable performances. Ryan Reynolds is undoubtedly a talented man, but he does not manage to show us that he's as lucky as his acting roles.

As for the others, Vera Farmie, Brendan Gleisson and Sam Shepard are mostly unleashed at the CIA headquarters, each playing at the level we are accustomed to expecting. Only where their roles are exactly what you thought when you saw their names. In very episodic roles enjoy the accomplished Robert Patrick and Liam Cunningham, but they are on the screen for so little that it is really worth noting them. One of the reasons I'm so harsh for Secret Service is that he's not quite lacking in entertainment - I think that against the backdrop of "Killer Elite," "Hijacked," and other similar action movies is definitely a step forward. But it's just so sure, without a millimeter deviation from the well-traced paths and clichés of the genre that it's almost totally disfigured, and that's something I can not tolerate. Better to risk something new and make mistakes instead of cycling and "repainting" endlessly.

image source 1, 2