Jason Rogers - The Final Take

Safe House - No actors can keep the script safe

Matt (Ryan Reynolds) and Tobin (Denzel Washington) are on the run in Safe House

Safe House - ★★½ out of 5
Starring: Denzel Washington, Ryan Reynolds, Vera FarmigaDirected by Daniel Espinosa (Outside Love)
"It is the characteristic excellence of the strong man that he can bring momentous issues to the fore and make a decision about them. The weak are always forced to decide between alternatives they have not chosen themselves." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Anti-Fascist German



It appears the stars are aligned to carry material beyond what it is capable of. In an effort to turn material into something amazing, Hollywood seems to pick up stars with a lot of box-office draw to help elevate a crappy script they have received. Sometimes, miracles happen. Other times, material cannot be saved. What this means is that films rarely have to try anymore because stars bring in the money. But the stars are trying their hardest to entertain you. Because in the end, it is about what you thought of the movie. Movies work best when the writer, director and actors are all in synchronous harmony about creating that entertainment for you.But even if not everyone is in sync, stars can still save the day. Look at the comedy Date Night. The plot is horrendous, but the pairing of Steve Carell and Tina Fey makes the entire experience enjoyable. The pairing of the popular Denzel Washington and the underrated Ryan Reynolds should be able to elevate the thriller Safe House as well. Both have interesting characters that play off each other. If only the material gave them more to explore.

Safe House begins with the mundane life of safe house keeper Matt Weston (Reynolds) whose life is in for a huge shock. One of the most wanted men in the world Tobin Frost (Washington) has just checked into his house. But the CIA isn’t the only one hunting frost. The safe house is attacked, and Matt is left to try and get Tobin back into the hands of the Americans. Unfortunately, Tobin is a master of interrogation psychology and begins to manipulate Matt for his own means.Safe House seems like an inappropriate title for this movie. Shoot Out would have been a better title. For a film that sells itself on the performances and psychological warfare, there seems to be very little to fight over. Bullets create and fill holes of emptiness. While the stars are together, the film rises on the questions of espionage and violence they endure. When the plot kicks in, the generic and repetitive attitude of the film shine way too brightly.Where Safe House excels in acting it fails in development. Throughout the film, the characters don’t seem to change. They become victims of the action around them. A crime film that does this much better is Michael Mann’s Collateral. The characters toy with each other, always in the midst of a power struggle. The action has consequences and slowly throughout the night, they change personas. Safe House also has a collapsed timeline of a couple days. Yet the script by David Guggenheim offers no development of character and only a hackneyed plot. I rarely see a spy film these days that doesn’t vilify the government.This is a classic case of material that runs out of steam. Everything is initially interesting. That brief buzz of excitement and content slowly begins to decline. What I ask you is why this keeps happening. Why is so much talent trying so hard and delivering only mediocrity?Characters are not actors, and Hollywood needs to learn this. Relying too heavily on its star power, Safe House becomes a victim of its own style. The action is loud and frenetic. The plot is highly unimaginative. All Washington and Reynolds can do is stare at each other and hope for a better project. Tobin needs to work his interrogation magic on Hollywood. Convince them that it is not about the accessibility and simplicity. It is about how a story that we have paid to see will affect the people in it. That’s all. Simple enough?

The Pink Ribbon - Not so pretty in pink

The Pink Ribbon - ★★★½ out of 5




Breast cancer is nothing to joke about. Yet, according to The Pink Ribbon, breast cancer is becoming a joke. Delving deep into the commercialization of breast cancer awareness, The Pink Ribbon uses a penetrating, didactic style to cause a stir in the breast cancer community. At the same time, this documentary reaches too far. The Pink Ribbon strays away from its core issue, bringing to light subjects that have no merit in this film, or any solid proof. Still, the comparisons they draw to advertising and consumerism about breast cancer are definitely different than other awareness groups. The Pink Ribbon is more of a discussion piece than a provocative documentary, but it asks some tough questions about the senseless, exploitive use of the pink ribbon.
The Pink Ribbon has a goal which is to make you aware of the awareness. The film argues that many people are not aware of how the pink ribbon is pasted on large companies to make them look good. This makes the cause for breast cancer seem like a giant party rather than a serious disease. The film also argues that this happy, celebration is a departure from the real issue at hand. People are dying from this disease everyday, and not enough is being done.
The success of this argument is mixed throughout the film. On the one hand, watching large companies garner even more money off a serious cause is disheartening. These companies have enough money, and using an honourable organization like breast cancer to improve their funds, and giving little in return, is very self centered. These arguments have a basis. More can and needs to be done, yet it won’t be done.
However, the breast cancer organizations still receive money from these company. Every little bit counts. The film makers and subjects seem very unappreciative of what funds the research is getting. Despite the fact that the companies are raking in more dough than they need, The Pink Ribbon cleverly disguises the fact that the pink ribbon has benefited breast cancer funding, and the interviewees are on an extreme end of the spectrum against the pink ribbon.
The Pink Ribbon also reaches for what it cannot grasp. While their argument is against how the pink ribbon has lost its original value, there is also an attempt to retort that cancer research is focusing in the wrong places. The documentary then follows this up with numerous graphs, testimonials. Not only is there no clear evidence of this study, but it is completely unnecessary. That subject is meant for another documentary.
In conclusion, The Pink Ribbon is so dense, and so eager to share its plea that something it goes beyond its documentary boundaries. This should no detract from the fact that The Pink Ribbon is awareness about awareness. It does exactly what every documentary should do. Address and issue and just ask its audience to think about that issue from another perspective. Make that issue relevant to their lives. That is how the documentary can provoke and create movements of people and protest. 

Chronicle - What are you capable of?

Andrew, Steve and Matt are in over their head in the found footage film Chronicle

Chronicle - ★★★ out of 5



Starring: Dane DeHaan, Alex Russell, Michael B. Jordan
Directed by Josh Trank (theatrical debut)


"Whatever life holds in store for me, I will never forget these words: "With great power comes great responsibility." This is my gift, my curse. Who am I?" - Peter Parker from 2002's Spider Man



After only a couple years, this found footage genre is getting old. And what is worse is that these films are financially viable options for studios. Low budget, unknown actors, and lots of cash is raked in whether the film is received well or not. Found footage is more like found cash. Chronicle attempts to incorporate a subject matter everyone loves. Disgruntled teens! No, actually superheroes. But these are not the ones you see in comic books, these are ones that don’t know how to use their power. Good thing they got it on film!

Chronicle is, well, a chronicle of three teenagers living in Seattle who stumble across something really strange in the woods outside of a party. From the perspective of a troubled teen named Andrew (Dane DeHaan), we find out that he has some serious power. Along with the hugely popular Steve (Michael B. Jordan) and his cousin Matt (Alex Russell), they being to grow in strength with this telekinesis-like powers. Blessing or curse, these kids are changed forever.I feel if Chronicle was released earlier, before this found footage genre became so overtly a cash grab, then perhaps my opinion would be different. It does some wild things with the camerawork for a found footage film. It uses its characters, and even their powers to control the camera. There’s the abrupt cuts, the jarring angles as usual. But there is also a smoothness to it. A craft that seems to quietly enter the lives of its characters rather than exploit them with blunt confessions.Be it repetition or the limits of the genre, the found footage style requires many gimmicks to be interesting. Chronicle uses Andrew’s powers as an excuse to levitate the camera, gliding it over and under the characters. This is an attempt to make the film feel more cinematic and jarring. The result is mixed switching between smooth, audacious camerawork and needless, facile style.The second half of the film switches gears when Andrew’s bottled up anger and rejection reach a breaking point. What was a quiet, very humorous study of teenagers with powers turns into a loud, bombastic assault on the eyes and ears. There is a way to show this breaking point in a less destructive manner. If this action was more personal and confined among the characters, it would have meant more. Seattle is turned into Chicago from Transformers: Dark of the Moon as the destruction comes with a lot of noise and incomprehensible editing. The second half also loses much of the attempts to do something different with this genre. Looking like a dumbed down version of Cloverfield, the special effects and technical wizardry don’t pull the film through. There is a scene where Andrew yanks all of the laptops and cameras away from everyone in the Seattle Needle, and then circles them around him. Why? Is he really thinking about filming since he’s one off the deep end? This is where the use of way too much “found footage” becomes overblown and repulsive.However, what saves this film is its incredible attention to character and its surprising teen performances. They are entertaining and thoughtful, transcending their high school cliches, becoming a falsified friendship. These powers are a burden more than they are a pleasure. And that is where Chronicle succeeds. Daring to make superpowers a test of character, Chronicle manages to still seem fresh amongst a sea of amateurish unoriginality. The market today will eat this film up, but it will stick because of the characters. The youth talent here, both director Josh Trank and the cast, give me hope for future talent, and that they will not abuse their Hollywood powers. 

The Woman in Black - Radcliffe back in black

Daniel Radcliffe waves an axe instead of his usual wand in The Woman in Black

The Woman in Black - ★★½ out of 5


Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Ciaran Hinds, Mary Stockley
Directed by James Watkins (Eden Lake)


Mr. Daily: If we open the door to superstition, where does it lead?



It has been over 100 years since the birth of cinema, and horror movies are beginning to have a pattern. The creepy story, the build up, the scare and the laughing at how you were scared. Not much has changed over the years. Some have had revolutionary special effects. Some made us scared to go back into the water or shower. Some even went meta by trying to escape themselves. But horror is a done deal as far as I’m concerned, and this new “found footage” genre of horror is getting tired after only a couple years.However, among the darkness, The Woman in Black is a period piece horror film that prefers to take a quiet, old-fashioned approach to the idea of terror. A haunted house, mysterious deaths, a man in a new, strange environment. They are cliches, but The Woman in Black wants to take an old style and make it fresh. Daniel Radcliffe waved his last wand this past summer with the spectacular finale of Harry Potter, and now we get to see him in a full, fleshed out adult role.
The Woman in Black is a typical ghost story with well realized atmosphere and jumps galore. For nearly 20 minutes of this film, we are following Arthur (Radcliffe) around a mysterious house, looking for noises, opening doors, lighting candles. It is simple, but surprisingly effective. Rather than pounding us with tiresome jump scares, it remains reserved. This makes The Woman in Black simmer with a paranoia that another scare is along the way. However, these scares are also the fault of the film. Relying heavily on atmosphere and silence, director James Watkins fails to give this ghost story any meaning or impact on his characters. Arthur is a young lawyer who comes to this very small village that just seems cursed from the bleak, but brilliant, cinematography. So of course things are meant to go wrong. But this story is bland and underdeveloped making the scares a distraction rather than a story distinction.This is a tough film to think about for today’s audiences. They are so saturated with shocks and pretty people getting slashed that a film like this, going for mood over gore, just won’t catch on. Horror films create nothing but apathy for me, but Woman in Black earns my admiration because it takes mainstream ingredients (big star, typical ghost story) and actually puts effort into an eerie feel with questionable characters.Radcliffe also has some great moments. He struggles a bit with the dialogue, but he convinces us that he can express a lot in silence. He guides us around the house convincingly. It is difficult to be convincing when nothing is happening. Radcliffe pulls it off. But he needs a better role than this so his true potential can be found.Garnering my admiration rather than my affection The Woman in Black is successful in proving that Radcliffe has a future outside of Hogwarts. As a film though, a story is needed. The Woman in Black has such a meaningless plot that the scares feel like cheap entertainment after you have left the theater. For the last time, don’t go in the scary house. No matter what silly legends you have heard. If you are Daniel Radcliffe, they are probably true.

The Iron Lady - A huge iron deficiency

Margaret Thatcher (Meryl Streep) looks out on the world she rules in The Iron Lady

The Iron Lady - ★ out of 5


Starring: Meryl Streep, Jim Broadbent
Directed by Phyllica Lloyd (Mamma Mia!)


"Being powerful is like being a lady. If you have to tell people you are, you aren't." - Margaret Thatcher



Some of the best biographies that I have seen over the years are able to look at a famous figure in history and depict them in a way that has not been seen before. In fact, Clint Eastwood’s J. Edgar from this year brings to light how to depict a controversial figure. Depict the figure as honestly as you can while creating your own vision of that person. Find an actor willing to give his/her all to the role and commit to making this person a central magnet in the film. And finally, J. Edgar also questioned many aspects of its subject’s life, whether they be confirmed facts or edgy rumors, the interest is in what position to take. Well, I will say that The Iron Lady did get one of these aspects in their film.
Margaret Thatcher is a woman who begs to have a film made about her. Her controversial actions, her womanhood and her inability to back down makes her such a prominent figure. Rich with questions about her political life behind closed doors and her personal life, Thatcher was as loud about her opinions as she was quiet about her later struggles with strokes and public speaking later in life. Whether you agreed with her strict politics or not, the Russian’s nickname for her, which is also the film’s title, was definitely the right one.So why I ask is The Iron Lady such a complete disaster of a biopic? Just read a Wikipedia article and you will know why. So much information and emotion on a computer screen and such a lack of that on the big screen. The Iron Lady seems like one big feminist movement for Thatcher’s character. Now granted, Thatcher being a woman was a big part of her story, but nowhere close to the whole story. That is the problem. Director Phyllida Lloyd (Mamma Mia) and writer Abi Morgan (Shame) ride the womanhood train until the film seems to have absolutely no clue where it is going.Making Margaret Thatcher this role model for all woman isn’t the problem. The problem is how Lloyd wants to glorify Thatcher rather then let us make an opinion of her. Lloyd and Morgan are so intent on making you feel the cost of such a cruel and merciless woman that Thatcher’s life seems nothing more than a memoir written by her herself. This is just Margaret Thatcher at an old age reminiscing about Margaret Thatcher when she was in power. It seems very self-indulgent, never letting the audience in to learn, wonder or discuss who Thatcher really was. A sin in biopics if I ever saw one.What is worse is how Llyod glosses over events as if they were nothing. There is a solid montage of about 10 years of power compressed into about 20 minutes, This footage consists of nothing but news footage, protesting and Thatcher signing a document once in awhile. Where is the controversy? Where is the internal conflict of Thatcher? The public is nothing more than scenery as Thatcher’s decisions are made in 30 seconds and the most controversial events of her leadership are glossed over and rendered irrelevant.Even Thatcher’s life is underdeveloped. Personal biographies definitely have a more intimate and emotional portrayals than a biography that focuses only on significant events. But Thatcher’s personal life is, again, glossed over. About 10 minutes on her youth, 30 minutes on her rise to power and way, way too long on her old, fragile age after her reign as prime minister. There is literally no information, no suggestion of feelings, no sign of significance that The Iron Lady seems like another lady, just with a flickering flame just begging to be put out.The Iron Lady has absolutely nothing to say about its subject and nothing about the period in which it took place. Her family doesn’t matter. Her controversy doesn’t matter. Her political actions seem to have no purpose. Her iron fist seems non existent. Notice how I haven’t even mentioned Meryl Streep, who indeed disappears into her role behind wonderful make up. She has all the mannerisms and speech patterns down pat as well. Too bad she is in a film about her that has no time for her. Seriously. A movie about Margaret Thatcher with no time for anything, even Thatcher herself. The Iron Lady is a travesty. A biography that is so stupefyingly misguided that the rioters in the film are a reflection of the audience. You learn absolutely nothing and feel absolutely nothing. Thatcher ruled her land with the utmost integrity, and that was her downfall. The tagline for this film was “Never Compromise”. The downfall here is that this film sacrifices all of Thatcher for a blip of feminism with no importance thereafter. How can the writer of Shame, a deep, dark penetrating film about a fictional character, be able to make a famous political figure with publicly known information seem unbelievably bland. This isn’t even a checklist, The Iron Lady has no list and no clue.