Dear genre filmmakers - If you want your surprise reveals to be surprising, don't make the opening credits the ultimate spoiler.

SPOILER warning - this post contains third-act spoilers for a handful of recent and not-so recent thrillers, including Safe House, which just opened on Friday.

I'm not going to go into too many details about Safe House, but I will say that it's such a painfully conventional thriller that it could have been written in a Mad Libs book.  If I crack that it would have possibly been a riveting thriller in 1988, that's not entirely an insult.  In 1988, the film would have seemed a little less boiler-plate and its now-standard political cynicism wouldn't have been quite as formulaic.  Moreover, the picture likely would not have been shot with a puke-filter over the camera and wouldn't have been edited within an inch of its life, rendering its shoot-outs and fight scenes incomprehensible.  It's not especially more violent or action-packed than something like Andrew Davis's The Package (another genre entry that also somewhat deals with getting a dangerous prisoner from point A to point B), but the moments of action and violence were cleanly shot and coherently edited.  But its most frustrating element is something that has been a problem for decades.  Like so many thrillers over the last 20-30 years, a large chunk of the tension in Safe House depends on trying to uncover which of the alleged good guys may actually be a bad guy.  And like so many genre entries of late, the would-be mystery is anything but mysterious due to some inexplicably obvious casting.

Review: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011) is Smart, Suspenseful, Engaging, Terrific.

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier Spy
2011
128 minutes
rated R

by Scott Mendelson

Tomas Alfredson so badly wants to concoct a 1970s-style thriller that it would be laughable if the final product weren't so darn good.  From the somewhat hazy cinematography to the John Barry-ish score to the overtly cold and clinical nature of the narrative, this is a film that (appropriately) wants to take us back to what many consider to the peak of mainstream adult filmmaking.  What makes the picture work as more than just an acting-treat or period-homage is the undertone of impotence and irrelevance that makes the film into a grand tragedy.  By retaining the 1970s setting, Alfredson makes potent commentary about the futile and possibly irrelevant nature of modern espionage.  Point being, forty years later, none of the secrets that were fought over mean a damn thing anymore.

Too grownup for grownup movies? Or why the movie I'm most looking forward to this Oscar season is Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows.

This was a bit more free association than I intended.  Do forgive me...

As of this writing, I have not yet seen Clint Eastwood's J. Edgar.  I had some free time on Monday and, faced with two new releases that were both playing around the same time, I chose Immortals in 2D.  I actually had a few opportunities to see the Leonardo DiCaprio picture prior to release, but passed each time.  Like a lot of would-be Oscar contenders that drop during this time of the year, the poorly reviewed 'good for you' picture felt less like nutritious entertainment and more like homework. The conventional wisdom is that the problem with mainstream Hollywood is that it fashions its films for the tastes of fourteen-year old boys, while adult films for adult film-goers are relegated to the art-house if they are released at all.  But my situation is a little different.  I find that as I get older I am less and less enticed by the so-called grownup films.  Faced with a choice between seeing the newest Oscar-bait film immediately upon release (or at a press screening downtown at 'pain-in-the-ass-traffic o'clock') or checking out something vaguely more escapist, the choice is harder and harder.  I used to relish the opportunity to see the so-called 'grown up movies' as soon as possible.  Now, due to obvious demands on my time, the insane time-crunch that is the year-end release schedule, and the glut of often mediocre art-house product (Gee, I sure hope that sensitive, quirky, and somewhat handsome young man overcomes his problems with the help of an out-of-his-league hottie who exists purely to make him enjoy life again), it sometimes seems more like a burden.

Trailer: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy showcases old-school thrills with character actors (Gary Oldman! John Hurt!) galore!

I have not read the John le Carre novel that this film is based on.  But just the cast (Gary Oldman, John Hurt, Thomas Hardy, Mark Strong, Colin Firth, etc!), the director (Tomas Alfredson, who helmed the original Let the Right One In), and genre (old-school spy thriller!) puts this one near the top of the must-see list.  We can all decry the unending parade of remakes, sequels, and fantasy films, especially in the summer time.  But as long as stuff like this is still being made and being given a wide release, then the game is not lost.  Let us hope that John Hurt provides the exposition, while Gary Oldman again plays with low-key anguish, which has become his strength of late.  And since I have not read the novel or seen the 1979 miniseries, I do not know if the film continues the classic Gary Oldman tradition.  Ironically, Focus Features is putting it out on November 18th, against Happy Feet 2 and The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn part I.  So while it won't win its opening weekend, it will likely far outpace its rivals on the Tomato-Meter.  

Scott Mendelson