Although not one of Redford's best, "The Company You Keep" is still way better than the majority of so called thriller/dramas produced these days in my humble opinion...excellent acting all round, Redford is good as usual (if looking a little too old maybe for this role) and the supporting cast (Cooper, Tucci, Christie and Gleeson in particular) are a credit as well. Whilst there are not a lot of twists and surprises that you can't see coming, it's the way the story is told and unfolds, and it makes you think about your ideals and sacrifices and plotted that really counts. Although I'm a Brit in my 40's and the material is not familiar to myself at all I really enjoyed the ride. Solid, if not spectacular, but definitely worth the time to view.
153 Reviews
great cast in this grim reminder of another time
blanche-215 August 2013
Robert Redford stars with a wonderful cast of golden oldies in "The Company You Keep," a 2012 film.
Redford plays Jim Grant, an attorney and widower, who is contacted by a friend to help a former activist (Susan Sarandon). Now a housewife, she has just been arrested for the murder of a bank guard during a robbery many years earlier. At that time, she was a member of the notorious underground Weathermen group, which protested the Vietnam war, the killings at Kent State, and were part of the violence and chaos of the time. She was intending to turn herself in, but the FBI got to her first.
Grant says he can't help, but that puts an ambitious reporter, Ben Shepard (Shia LeBoeuf) onto him. It doesn't take long for Shepard to find out that Jim Grant is in reality Nick Sloan, part of the Weathermen, who has changed his identity. Grant/Sloan goes on the run, leaving his 11-year-old daughter with his brother (Chris Cooper). This tells the reporter that Sloan is not intending to go underground and take on a new identity, or he would have taken his daughter. Shepard thinks that Sloan is thing to clear his name once and for all, and is trying to locate other Weathermen in order to help him.
The cast includes, besides those listed above, Julie Christie, Stanley Tucci, Sam Elliot, Nick Nolte, and Brit Marling.
I had two major problems with this film, which was actually good if not terribly suspenseful. The first is, I was around during the era talked about in the film; and the second thing is, I remember what Robert Redford used to look like.
This film I believe is supposed to take place in the present day, yet everyone talks about these events that occurred "thirty years ago." Well, not to be picky, but "thirty years ago" is what, 1981, since the film was made in 2011. Youthful uprisings, protests against Vietnam, the Kent State killings -- I'm sorry, those happened 40-45 years ago. What happened thirty years ago? Dynasty. Ebony and Ivory. Diana and Charles got engaged. Reagan.
The second issue I had is this: Susan Sarandon, Richard Jenkins, and Stephen Root were the right age to play aging hippies (so is Chris Cooper but he didn't play one); Christie I could buy - first of all, she's fabulously beautiful and doesn't look her age - and secondly, her character was a Jane Fonda type, so she would have been active in her early thirties, as the character still was an activist. Nick Nolte - I'm not totally convinced that his character was an activist in his late twenties and thirties.
But Robert Redford is 76. Now, I've read where people think he looks good. I think he looks every millisecond of 76. He's obviously supposed to be playing someone 10 years younger, and to me, he doesn't pull it off. And the 11-year-old daughter - I find that interesting. They cast women as mothers who in real life are one year older than the person playing their sons, but no one blinks when Redford or Eastwood have children under ten.
Unfortunately, those distractions took away from this film for me. If I hadn't lived through that time, I could have gotten into it more. I admire Robert Redford, I like that he does this type of film, but he needs a small reality check. He wasn't a hippie then, and he's not an aging hippie now.
Redford plays Jim Grant, an attorney and widower, who is contacted by a friend to help a former activist (Susan Sarandon). Now a housewife, she has just been arrested for the murder of a bank guard during a robbery many years earlier. At that time, she was a member of the notorious underground Weathermen group, which protested the Vietnam war, the killings at Kent State, and were part of the violence and chaos of the time. She was intending to turn herself in, but the FBI got to her first.
Grant says he can't help, but that puts an ambitious reporter, Ben Shepard (Shia LeBoeuf) onto him. It doesn't take long for Shepard to find out that Jim Grant is in reality Nick Sloan, part of the Weathermen, who has changed his identity. Grant/Sloan goes on the run, leaving his 11-year-old daughter with his brother (Chris Cooper). This tells the reporter that Sloan is not intending to go underground and take on a new identity, or he would have taken his daughter. Shepard thinks that Sloan is thing to clear his name once and for all, and is trying to locate other Weathermen in order to help him.
The cast includes, besides those listed above, Julie Christie, Stanley Tucci, Sam Elliot, Nick Nolte, and Brit Marling.
I had two major problems with this film, which was actually good if not terribly suspenseful. The first is, I was around during the era talked about in the film; and the second thing is, I remember what Robert Redford used to look like.
This film I believe is supposed to take place in the present day, yet everyone talks about these events that occurred "thirty years ago." Well, not to be picky, but "thirty years ago" is what, 1981, since the film was made in 2011. Youthful uprisings, protests against Vietnam, the Kent State killings -- I'm sorry, those happened 40-45 years ago. What happened thirty years ago? Dynasty. Ebony and Ivory. Diana and Charles got engaged. Reagan.
The second issue I had is this: Susan Sarandon, Richard Jenkins, and Stephen Root were the right age to play aging hippies (so is Chris Cooper but he didn't play one); Christie I could buy - first of all, she's fabulously beautiful and doesn't look her age - and secondly, her character was a Jane Fonda type, so she would have been active in her early thirties, as the character still was an activist. Nick Nolte - I'm not totally convinced that his character was an activist in his late twenties and thirties.
But Robert Redford is 76. Now, I've read where people think he looks good. I think he looks every millisecond of 76. He's obviously supposed to be playing someone 10 years younger, and to me, he doesn't pull it off. And the 11-year-old daughter - I find that interesting. They cast women as mothers who in real life are one year older than the person playing their sons, but no one blinks when Redford or Eastwood have children under ten.
Unfortunately, those distractions took away from this film for me. If I hadn't lived through that time, I could have gotten into it more. I admire Robert Redford, I like that he does this type of film, but he needs a small reality check. He wasn't a hippie then, and he's not an aging hippie now.
Interesting character development. Stellar Cast
JohnRayPeterson20 April 2013
Warning: Spoilers
If you are at all familiar with Robert Redford's recent productions, you may very well have noticed that he is, as director and producer, very much interested in character development within unique stories, whether he co-stars in the movie or not. He also has a knack at picking a good cast; such is the case here with Shia Labeouf, Susan Sarandon, Stanley Tucci, Chris Cooper, Terrence Howard, Nick Nolte, Brendan Gleeson and Julie Christie.
Redford plays a former political activist, Jim Grant, on the run for thirty years for terrorist related charges including murder; having built a new life, widowed with a teenage daughter, he is found out by up and coming reporter Ben Shepard, played by Shia LaBeouf. Shepard's boss, played by Stanley Tucci, reluctantly provides him the support to pursue the story. Grant entrusts his daughter to his brother, played by Chris Cooper, whilst FBI agent played by Terrence Howard is hot on his heels. Shepard suspects Grant is not guilty of the charges but the reporter's quest for the truth unravels secrets Grant has kept for very personal reasons. With the help of old friends and sympathizers, played by Nick Nolte and Brendan Gleeson, Grant eludes the FBI for a while. To mention more would spoil your pleasure to discover how all the guilt floating around is dealt with and how Shepard's life is changed, not to mention other characters lives as well.
I had expectations from such a cast and from the basic promotional synopsis; I was not disappointed, nor will you.
Redford plays a former political activist, Jim Grant, on the run for thirty years for terrorist related charges including murder; having built a new life, widowed with a teenage daughter, he is found out by up and coming reporter Ben Shepard, played by Shia LaBeouf. Shepard's boss, played by Stanley Tucci, reluctantly provides him the support to pursue the story. Grant entrusts his daughter to his brother, played by Chris Cooper, whilst FBI agent played by Terrence Howard is hot on his heels. Shepard suspects Grant is not guilty of the charges but the reporter's quest for the truth unravels secrets Grant has kept for very personal reasons. With the help of old friends and sympathizers, played by Nick Nolte and Brendan Gleeson, Grant eludes the FBI for a while. To mention more would spoil your pleasure to discover how all the guilt floating around is dealt with and how Shepard's life is changed, not to mention other characters lives as well.
I had expectations from such a cast and from the basic promotional synopsis; I was not disappointed, nor will you.
A competent political thriller with a few quiet things to say.
JohnDeSando22 April 2013
"When we revolt it's not for a particular culture. We revolt simply because, for many reasons, we can no longer breathe." Frantz Fanon
In Robert Redford's The Company You keep, Jim Grant (Redford) is an attorney on the lam for participating in Weather Underground anti-Vietnam activities over 40 years ago. That a bank robbery resulted in the death of a guard has made the revolutionaries fugitives from murder charges.
This political thriller, in which the FBI has finally zeroed in on the robbers because Sharon Solarz (Susan Sarandon) has decided to turn herself in, devolves into a formulaic chase with helicopters and frantic cell calls, but along the way has some engaging dialogue ("Yeah we all died. Some of us just came back." Donal Fitzgerald, played by Nick Nolte) often given in the repartee style of screwball comedy without the comedy.
I am most surprised at director Redford's political restraint, given his inclination to preach baldly in previous films and in his personal life. The Company You Keep smoothly combines the pacing of a race for survival with the consciousness of a moderate liberal trying to show the unglamorous effects of sins, like excessive ambition and murder, over a lifetime. In its favor the film does not overdo its sympathy for the kids of these radicals, although Brit Marling as Rebecca Osborne would make anyone cry over her, so innocent-looking she is.
While the film tends to emphasize the personal effects on lovers and families to the exclusion of the Weatherman history, it still is instructive about the radical movements decades ago. Although the theme of the ramifications of keeping a secret are parsed by Grant in a too-contrived monologue, the point is well taken, for each secret revealed adds another layer of punishment for all, even children.
If Redford weren't so wrapped up in nostalgia and stuck to the hard-core reasons for some very bright people's stupidity, this could have been a soaring achievement of documenting history in dramatic form. As it is, it's a smart thriller that has some lessons, both political and personal, for all the audience.
In Robert Redford's The Company You keep, Jim Grant (Redford) is an attorney on the lam for participating in Weather Underground anti-Vietnam activities over 40 years ago. That a bank robbery resulted in the death of a guard has made the revolutionaries fugitives from murder charges.
This political thriller, in which the FBI has finally zeroed in on the robbers because Sharon Solarz (Susan Sarandon) has decided to turn herself in, devolves into a formulaic chase with helicopters and frantic cell calls, but along the way has some engaging dialogue ("Yeah we all died. Some of us just came back." Donal Fitzgerald, played by Nick Nolte) often given in the repartee style of screwball comedy without the comedy.
I am most surprised at director Redford's political restraint, given his inclination to preach baldly in previous films and in his personal life. The Company You Keep smoothly combines the pacing of a race for survival with the consciousness of a moderate liberal trying to show the unglamorous effects of sins, like excessive ambition and murder, over a lifetime. In its favor the film does not overdo its sympathy for the kids of these radicals, although Brit Marling as Rebecca Osborne would make anyone cry over her, so innocent-looking she is.
While the film tends to emphasize the personal effects on lovers and families to the exclusion of the Weatherman history, it still is instructive about the radical movements decades ago. Although the theme of the ramifications of keeping a secret are parsed by Grant in a too-contrived monologue, the point is well taken, for each secret revealed adds another layer of punishment for all, even children.
If Redford weren't so wrapped up in nostalgia and stuck to the hard-core reasons for some very bright people's stupidity, this could have been a soaring achievement of documenting history in dramatic form. As it is, it's a smart thriller that has some lessons, both political and personal, for all the audience.
Tough questions, cuddly answers
paul2001sw-124 November 2013
There's a lot to think about after watching Robert Redford's movie, 'The Company You Keep', although sadly, some of the ideas are provoked by their absence in the film, rather than their presence. The story is based on the real life activities of the Weather Underground, a radical left- wing organisation of then1970s; in this story, the police are finally closing in on the remnants of the gang (who are still wanted, among other things, for murder) after over 30 years. It's a good premise, and the movie is unfashionably sympathetic to its protagonists, respecting their idealism whatever wrong they did. Yet in some way it's the wrong kind of sympathy: the individuals are shown as parents, grandparents, living conventional lives, not completely rejected their own past but nonetheless no longer people one could imagine committing such acts. I think there's an interesting subject: what conventionally speaking might be considered defects would drive someone to ignore their own immediate interests for the sake of a cause (and ultimately drive them beyond mere idealism to take a Raskolnikovian view that their cause gives them the right to decide who lives and who dies). The idea of idealism as a social disease (because society depends on its members not asking too many questions) is an obvious and interesting question to raise in this film; but instead we see a group so well-socially adjusted that it's hard to believe in any of them as trigger-pullers, even in a former life.
There's a second strand to the film about a journalistic investigation of one of the suspects. Redford, of course, acted in one the great journalistic movies ('All the President's Men') and this one can't hold a candle to that; the story is obvious and feels basically unnecessary (except, presumably, that you can't get a film made these days unless you have some actors in it under the age of 30). I still quite liked the movie, but overall, it's a little too kind on the nature of journalists, terrorists and society alike; and fundamentally cuddly where it should be disconcerting.
There's a second strand to the film about a journalistic investigation of one of the suspects. Redford, of course, acted in one the great journalistic movies ('All the President's Men') and this one can't hold a candle to that; the story is obvious and feels basically unnecessary (except, presumably, that you can't get a film made these days unless you have some actors in it under the age of 30). I still quite liked the movie, but overall, it's a little too kind on the nature of journalists, terrorists and society alike; and fundamentally cuddly where it should be disconcerting.
Peter Pan isn't alone!
ken_bethell24 April 2013
The first thing I would like to say about this film is that it kept me entertained for two hours without once glancing at the clock.This in itself is no mean achievement in an age where many movies are unnecessary long. Hollywood obviously believes length is important if you want to be successful. Entertaining as it was I'm not so sure it was plot that kept me watching as much as the parade of veteran actors on display. A rather disparaging comment and maybe one that should have been reserved for the confusing historical context of the storyline itself. Being of an age that remembers the activities of the Weather Underground I was under the impression that their acts of terrorism had ceased by the time the Vietnam peace agreement was signed in 1973 since the Vietnam War had been the organisation's raison d'etre but in this film the Weather Men are still on a mission as we approach 1980. The film also has amusing parallels with another piece of Redford left-wing theatre, 'The Way we were'. In this 1973 film the Redford character, a talented screen writer, backs away from confrontation with the Communist witch-hunt in Hollywood and seeks respectability by compromising his ability and forsaking the woman he loves in the process. His 2012 alta ego also loses his passion for the cause and sacrifices love and a daughter by walking away, 'I grew up'. In both films Redford played people much younger than himself. I'm not sure what this says about Robert Redford but I think my wife summed it up when she remarked after watching an early scene in 'Company, 'He's not the father of that young girl, is he?' Exactly, a 75 year old unconvincingly playing somebody twenty years younger while in 1973 film he was a 36 year college student! Anyway,enough of Redford who otherwise gives a competent performance. It was good to see Julie Christie again and who along with Nick Nolte, Susan Sarandon and Chris Cooper and still capable of teaching the young pretenders a thing or two. All in all and enjoyable and nostalgic evening's viewing.
Sure he keeps good company, but...
RolyRoly17 September 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Robert Redford can certainly muster an impressive list of acting talent, but this film is a reminder that there is more to a good film than that.
Like many others at TIFF this year, particularly baby boomers like myself, I was keen to see how Redford would go about dealing with an especially controversial aspect of recent American history. The premise here is compelling: members of the Weather Underground who are accused of murder after what appears to have been a bungled bank robbery have gone to ground, have built lives with varying degrees of success and respectability, only to have it all reopened years later when one of them decides to turn herself in. An earnest young reporter at a small newspaper is given (or seizes) the opportunity to dig into the story and finds out more than he bargained for.
There are several problems, though. For one, the film pulls its main punch, and telegraphs that move so early on that the natural tension is never allowed to build. I know that Redford is an old-fashioned movie star, and the prospect of his having actually been guilty is perhaps just not in the cards, but knowing this in the first few minutes makes the rest of the story rather unsuspenseful. Instead of wondering whether this (frankly rather dull) single father really did what he was accused of, we are left with watching him try to exonerate himself in a cross-country odyssey that is implausible and often tedious.
To be sure, there are some fine performances. The scene between Susan Sarandon and Shia LaBeouf in prison, as she tries, with only limited success, to explain herself to a sceptical and ambitious young journalist from such a different era, is very convincing.
Redford himself, though, does not really command our attention or interest. If you're going to star in your own movie, you should be sure that you really are the best choice for the role. At the age of 76 (and yes, despite being fit and well put together, he really does look his age), Redford is at least ten years older than his role would demand. And he has a 12 year old daughter!
Moreover, he fails to infuse the role with any real passion. Now, raw emotion has never been Redford's strong suit. He is just too cool for that. But here is a role that really calls out for something other than his typical calculated, rational, "nice guy" approach.
As a director, Redford is more successful. For movie buffs, it's fun to watch the train scene, for example, (how many directors have train scenes anymore?) which pays homage to some of the great train scenes from older suspense films like North by Northwest.
With this subject matter, The Company You Keep could have been an edgy and provocative political thriller, with a resonance that makes connections between the student terrorism of the 1970's and the burning economic and social issues of today. The fact is that many of the same underlying problems that led to the formation of the Weathermen - foreign military involvement, economic disparities, reactionary social policies - remain with us. Instead, however, the film never really brings itself to confront these issues except in the most oblique and politically correct fashion. It is an opportunity squandered.
Like many others at TIFF this year, particularly baby boomers like myself, I was keen to see how Redford would go about dealing with an especially controversial aspect of recent American history. The premise here is compelling: members of the Weather Underground who are accused of murder after what appears to have been a bungled bank robbery have gone to ground, have built lives with varying degrees of success and respectability, only to have it all reopened years later when one of them decides to turn herself in. An earnest young reporter at a small newspaper is given (or seizes) the opportunity to dig into the story and finds out more than he bargained for.
There are several problems, though. For one, the film pulls its main punch, and telegraphs that move so early on that the natural tension is never allowed to build. I know that Redford is an old-fashioned movie star, and the prospect of his having actually been guilty is perhaps just not in the cards, but knowing this in the first few minutes makes the rest of the story rather unsuspenseful. Instead of wondering whether this (frankly rather dull) single father really did what he was accused of, we are left with watching him try to exonerate himself in a cross-country odyssey that is implausible and often tedious.
To be sure, there are some fine performances. The scene between Susan Sarandon and Shia LaBeouf in prison, as she tries, with only limited success, to explain herself to a sceptical and ambitious young journalist from such a different era, is very convincing.
Redford himself, though, does not really command our attention or interest. If you're going to star in your own movie, you should be sure that you really are the best choice for the role. At the age of 76 (and yes, despite being fit and well put together, he really does look his age), Redford is at least ten years older than his role would demand. And he has a 12 year old daughter!
Moreover, he fails to infuse the role with any real passion. Now, raw emotion has never been Redford's strong suit. He is just too cool for that. But here is a role that really calls out for something other than his typical calculated, rational, "nice guy" approach.
As a director, Redford is more successful. For movie buffs, it's fun to watch the train scene, for example, (how many directors have train scenes anymore?) which pays homage to some of the great train scenes from older suspense films like North by Northwest.
With this subject matter, The Company You Keep could have been an edgy and provocative political thriller, with a resonance that makes connections between the student terrorism of the 1970's and the burning economic and social issues of today. The fact is that many of the same underlying problems that led to the formation of the Weathermen - foreign military involvement, economic disparities, reactionary social policies - remain with us. Instead, however, the film never really brings itself to confront these issues except in the most oblique and politically correct fashion. It is an opportunity squandered.
What Punishment? For What Crime?
boblipton4 February 2022
Forty years ago, members of the Weathermen robbed a bank in Michigan, killing a woman in the event. The people involved scattered into the wind. Now Susan Sarandon, has been arrested by the FBI for her part in the murder, and the police are looking for her accomplice, Robert Redford. For the past quarter of a century he has been keeping his head down as a lawyer in Albany, New York, raising his daughter, mourning the death of his wife. Plus he wasn't at the robbery, but the only person who can prove that is Julie Christie, and he has no idea where she is.
As the movie progresses we see former campus radicals, and the staid individuals they have become. Judging by the quality of the actors, they are a minorly distinguished bunch: Nick Nolte, Chris Cooper, Stanley Tucci, Richard Jenkins, Sam Elliott.... it's the sort of cast that Sundance founder, director/producer Robert Redford could assemble for a meditation on right and wrong and issues about whether the ends justify the means, and what punishment can be added to four decades in hiding, terrified that you'll be sent to jail.... and wriggles out of the dilemma by making Redford innocent. Of course we're on his side! He's Robert Redford! He's a good dad! He didn't do anything!
Still, it's good to watch these expert thespians at work.
As the movie progresses we see former campus radicals, and the staid individuals they have become. Judging by the quality of the actors, they are a minorly distinguished bunch: Nick Nolte, Chris Cooper, Stanley Tucci, Richard Jenkins, Sam Elliott.... it's the sort of cast that Sundance founder, director/producer Robert Redford could assemble for a meditation on right and wrong and issues about whether the ends justify the means, and what punishment can be added to four decades in hiding, terrified that you'll be sent to jail.... and wriggles out of the dilemma by making Redford innocent. Of course we're on his side! He's Robert Redford! He's a good dad! He didn't do anything!
Still, it's good to watch these expert thespians at work.
This movie deserves a better rating than the one it has received here.
beabt120 April 2013
The acting by a stream of well known faces who were young I when I was also young are very good, and being a similar age as them I could relate to some of what they were experiencing in the story. I listened to a review on the radio criticising the movie because of the difficulty of enjoying watching people past their prime in a suspense movie. Maybe the reviewer should have stuck to the Bourne movies to get their kicks.
Well age has nothing to do with it but maturity certainly does. The appealing theme here is that we don't leave our past so far behind us that it doesn't exert any major influence on us years later. In fact the more years that pass the more significant the past can become. I suggest you don't be put off by the negativity of what some others say and see the movie.
Well age has nothing to do with it but maturity certainly does. The appealing theme here is that we don't leave our past so far behind us that it doesn't exert any major influence on us years later. In fact the more years that pass the more significant the past can become. I suggest you don't be put off by the negativity of what some others say and see the movie.
"Now we're just a story told to children"
doug_park200114 August 2013
First off, THE COMPANY YOU KEEP is by no means a "thriller." There is nothing in the way of fast action, not a shred of violence, no harrowing chase scenes, etc. The pacing throughout is slow yet steady. The first three-quarters of the film are simultaneously engagingly and ho-hum. I kept hoping that it would somehow pay off, and it does: The subtle threads come together, and there are some true surprises. By "true," I do not mean anything earth-shattering, just, well, truly surprising. THE COMPANY YOU KEEP quietly touches on a lot of themes, but in the end it's more about the camaraderie (as well as suspicion) that endures between old friends/conspirators than it is about what's happening with all of them in the here and now.
Redford gives a nice performance as Jim Grant/Nick Sloan, but Shia LaBeouf steals the show as idiosyncratic reporter Ben Shepard. Julie Christie, Susan Sarandon, Brendan Gleeson,and most of the rest of the cast under-act; still, the under-acting is oddly effective and in keeping with the other minimalistic elements of this film.
Several plot holes and too-easies that will hopefully not be too ruinous if you are willing and able to suspend disbelief. THE COMPANY YOU KEEP might also have been enhanced by more in the way of flashback(s)to the big event back in the '70s that brought about everything that's happening in the present.
THE COMPANY YOU KEEP may leave you wondering who the real criminals, both within the film and elsewhere, are. I've never seen anything quite like this, and I'm not sure why I like it as much as I do (but I do).
TIP: Younger audiences--or anyone without an interest in the Vietnam years--are likely to be bored by this film.
Redford gives a nice performance as Jim Grant/Nick Sloan, but Shia LaBeouf steals the show as idiosyncratic reporter Ben Shepard. Julie Christie, Susan Sarandon, Brendan Gleeson,and most of the rest of the cast under-act; still, the under-acting is oddly effective and in keeping with the other minimalistic elements of this film.
Several plot holes and too-easies that will hopefully not be too ruinous if you are willing and able to suspend disbelief. THE COMPANY YOU KEEP might also have been enhanced by more in the way of flashback(s)to the big event back in the '70s that brought about everything that's happening in the present.
THE COMPANY YOU KEEP may leave you wondering who the real criminals, both within the film and elsewhere, are. I've never seen anything quite like this, and I'm not sure why I like it as much as I do (but I do).
TIP: Younger audiences--or anyone without an interest in the Vietnam years--are likely to be bored by this film.
Waste of time...
moush16 November 2012
Warning: Spoilers
Robert Redford's latest film has nothing original to offer as far as the story goes. Group members of a radical organization from the 70s, living a life with new identities for the last 30 years, have to face their past crimes when one of its members surrenders to the authorities. It focuses on Robert Redford's character, Jim Grant, a single father with a 12 year old daughter who makes a run for it to clear his name from an alleged bank heist and subsequent murder, and avoid getting caught at the same time.
With some characters being introduced too late in the story, it is hard to care or give a damn about the situation in general. As far as the story goes, things just fall into place too easily without any interesting obstacles. The main character being on the run or even the reporter's investigation for that matter is just too convenient.
I would have personally liked to see more of Susan Sarandon's character, her back story, what drives her to surrender to the authorities after 30 years and why. Her character is the main catalyst that sets the events in motion but without knowing or understanding her relation to the main character (besides the bank heist) and what's really at stake, it just seems pointless.
125 minutes was too long for this movie especially considering it was just a waste of time. By the end of it, I frankly just didn't care.
With some characters being introduced too late in the story, it is hard to care or give a damn about the situation in general. As far as the story goes, things just fall into place too easily without any interesting obstacles. The main character being on the run or even the reporter's investigation for that matter is just too convenient.
I would have personally liked to see more of Susan Sarandon's character, her back story, what drives her to surrender to the authorities after 30 years and why. Her character is the main catalyst that sets the events in motion but without knowing or understanding her relation to the main character (besides the bank heist) and what's really at stake, it just seems pointless.
125 minutes was too long for this movie especially considering it was just a waste of time. By the end of it, I frankly just didn't care.
A Better Title: "The Price One Pays"
FridayBridge28 April 2013
I AM CONVINCED THE CONSERVATIVE PRESS MISSED THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE MOVIE.
While I'm totally conservative, the talking heads that trashed this film blew it completely.
This film does not glorify terrorism. Quite the opposite. It shows how a person can cross the line from being an "activist" to being a felon/terrorist. It is sort of a retrospective of an activist's two lives - one he abandoned once he crossed the line, the other, the stolen life he built afterward.
There is a price one pays to the public through the court system. There is also a private price, or a personal price one also pays. In both cases,the focus is more on the private price he foisted off on loved ones to avoid paying his public price for his acts.
(The reader must understand that Sloan was guilty of some felony activities, but NOT the murder of the bank guard. His crimes, if caught, were worth some jail time, but not a life sentence for murder.)
People should watch this just so they could consider the idea that actions they might start can easily spin out of control, leaving them with consequences they might be forced to live with for the rest of their life, and MORE IMPORTANTLY, exact an even worse price upon all their loved ones.
This is a VERY tightly packed movie, hardly a word that isn't important to the development of the plot. Watch it closely.
This movie does need a bit more tension and rage at one particular point, but that's about the biggest flaw I saw.
Just so you know, Redford, 76, is playing the role of a late 60 year-old, and there are very important reasons why he has a young daughter. Now, it is up to you to see this film and figure out why.
By the way, this movie has a lot of great talent in it, and they each do very well for themselves and the presentation of the movie's theme. There are 14 class act performers, plus one. This would be a hard cast to play against, but "plus one" did a super job in her first movie role.
While I'm totally conservative, the talking heads that trashed this film blew it completely.
This film does not glorify terrorism. Quite the opposite. It shows how a person can cross the line from being an "activist" to being a felon/terrorist. It is sort of a retrospective of an activist's two lives - one he abandoned once he crossed the line, the other, the stolen life he built afterward.
There is a price one pays to the public through the court system. There is also a private price, or a personal price one also pays. In both cases,the focus is more on the private price he foisted off on loved ones to avoid paying his public price for his acts.
(The reader must understand that Sloan was guilty of some felony activities, but NOT the murder of the bank guard. His crimes, if caught, were worth some jail time, but not a life sentence for murder.)
People should watch this just so they could consider the idea that actions they might start can easily spin out of control, leaving them with consequences they might be forced to live with for the rest of their life, and MORE IMPORTANTLY, exact an even worse price upon all their loved ones.
This is a VERY tightly packed movie, hardly a word that isn't important to the development of the plot. Watch it closely.
This movie does need a bit more tension and rage at one particular point, but that's about the biggest flaw I saw.
Just so you know, Redford, 76, is playing the role of a late 60 year-old, and there are very important reasons why he has a young daughter. Now, it is up to you to see this film and figure out why.
By the way, this movie has a lot of great talent in it, and they each do very well for themselves and the presentation of the movie's theme. There are 14 class act performers, plus one. This would be a hard cast to play against, but "plus one" did a super job in her first movie role.
Halfway failed thriller
JvH4826 October 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I saw this film at the Ghent filmfestival 2012. It was not part of the official selection nor the official competition section, but rather put in a "miscellaneous" section called Previews.
A considerable part of the story line is about the contrast between a resourceful young journalist who finds out interesting things on his own devices, compared with the FBI continuously running behind the facts. Both stories run in parallel, thereby creating some weak form of tension, but not too much while it is obvious that the eager journalist will win the race eventually. We've seen a plot model like this many times before, and variants thereof in the form of an amateur detective versus the police. In other words, not very original, but it works here only to a certain degree. Some of the time I even found it a bit of a stretch, wondering why the young journalist had so much luck in his discoveries.
A more interesting topic is how the past comes back to bite our main character. In his younger years when the underground movement where he belonged to, undertook several illegal actions, each participant could depend on the others to keep things secret. The anti-Vietnam movement as of 30 years ago probably will not ring a bell with most modern viewers, failing to appreciate how radical some such actions were at the time. It went much further than the rather peaceful movements we saw recently, like Occupy and the like. In other words: we would call them "terrorists" nowadays. Placing bombs and killing adversaries were tools of the trade, when deemed necessary in view of the greater good.
Our main character (Jim Grant, played by Robert Redford, starring in his own movie) has a new identity since a failed bank robbery, where people were killed and video images suggest that Jim shot someone in the process. An eager young journalist happens to unravel some loose ends, and partly finds out what has been hidden for more than 30 years. This starts two parallel chases after Jim, one by the journalist (Ben Shepard) and an other one by the FBI. Most of the time we see the FBI always behind the facts (might be construed as intentional satire). The route Jim follows as a fugitive, looks random at first sight, but in fact rounds up a series of former team members to find out who really did the killing he is still accused of. For spoiler's sake I won't go further with summarizing the story line. The basic ingredients can be derived from the above.
All in all, I found a lot to be desired for a movie labeled "thriller". Indeed, there is a reasonable amount of tension throughout, where one wonders what will happen next. However, I saw several things happen that seem far fetched, too much for my taste. That applies to Jim's route he follows as a refugee, as well as the hunt by journalist Ben. Both are running far too smooth, a bit unrealistic given the circumstances. When one looks for a thriller deservedly labeled as such, I can think of several better choices.
A considerable part of the story line is about the contrast between a resourceful young journalist who finds out interesting things on his own devices, compared with the FBI continuously running behind the facts. Both stories run in parallel, thereby creating some weak form of tension, but not too much while it is obvious that the eager journalist will win the race eventually. We've seen a plot model like this many times before, and variants thereof in the form of an amateur detective versus the police. In other words, not very original, but it works here only to a certain degree. Some of the time I even found it a bit of a stretch, wondering why the young journalist had so much luck in his discoveries.
A more interesting topic is how the past comes back to bite our main character. In his younger years when the underground movement where he belonged to, undertook several illegal actions, each participant could depend on the others to keep things secret. The anti-Vietnam movement as of 30 years ago probably will not ring a bell with most modern viewers, failing to appreciate how radical some such actions were at the time. It went much further than the rather peaceful movements we saw recently, like Occupy and the like. In other words: we would call them "terrorists" nowadays. Placing bombs and killing adversaries were tools of the trade, when deemed necessary in view of the greater good.
Our main character (Jim Grant, played by Robert Redford, starring in his own movie) has a new identity since a failed bank robbery, where people were killed and video images suggest that Jim shot someone in the process. An eager young journalist happens to unravel some loose ends, and partly finds out what has been hidden for more than 30 years. This starts two parallel chases after Jim, one by the journalist (Ben Shepard) and an other one by the FBI. Most of the time we see the FBI always behind the facts (might be construed as intentional satire). The route Jim follows as a fugitive, looks random at first sight, but in fact rounds up a series of former team members to find out who really did the killing he is still accused of. For spoiler's sake I won't go further with summarizing the story line. The basic ingredients can be derived from the above.
All in all, I found a lot to be desired for a movie labeled "thriller". Indeed, there is a reasonable amount of tension throughout, where one wonders what will happen next. However, I saw several things happen that seem far fetched, too much for my taste. That applies to Jim's route he follows as a refugee, as well as the hunt by journalist Ben. Both are running far too smooth, a bit unrealistic given the circumstances. When one looks for a thriller deservedly labeled as such, I can think of several better choices.
So Disappointed
diane-660-27358917 April 2013
With a stellar cast and Robert Redford directing, the expectations are high, which is why the final result was so disappointing. Billed as a Thriller, this storyline had all the hallmarks of a great, edge-of-your-seat, surprise-around-the-corner true thriller but it just didn't cut it.
The cast was outstanding but all wrong! Sorry, but Mr. Redford you're 77 years old, hardly an impressionable college kid in the 70's when The Weather Underground was active. Likewise Julie Christie at 71 (both of these people look fantastic for their age but...) was too old for her role. Oh yeah, and Brendan Gleeson (who I adore) would have been no more than 15 when he was the officer investigating the crime that ties this all together. For some viewers these details may not have mattered (clearly they didn't based on reviews) but it was a big deal to me.
I may have been able to get past what I thought were serious casting mistakes if the story had lived up to what it could have been, suspenseful, exciting, intelligent drama. Instead it was weak and boring.
The Company You Keep certainly isn't the worst movie of the year and it might be an okay rental if you aren't expecting too much from the start.
The cast was outstanding but all wrong! Sorry, but Mr. Redford you're 77 years old, hardly an impressionable college kid in the 70's when The Weather Underground was active. Likewise Julie Christie at 71 (both of these people look fantastic for their age but...) was too old for her role. Oh yeah, and Brendan Gleeson (who I adore) would have been no more than 15 when he was the officer investigating the crime that ties this all together. For some viewers these details may not have mattered (clearly they didn't based on reviews) but it was a big deal to me.
I may have been able to get past what I thought were serious casting mistakes if the story had lived up to what it could have been, suspenseful, exciting, intelligent drama. Instead it was weak and boring.
The Company You Keep certainly isn't the worst movie of the year and it might be an okay rental if you aren't expecting too much from the start.
Could have been even better
Gordon-1121 April 2013
This film is about a journalist who uncovers the hidden truth of the events of a failed bank robbery by a radical anti-war group thirty years ago.
"The Company You Keep" looks amazing on paper, with an impressively stellar cast. The plot involves both a journalist and the FBI chasing after Robert Redford, which appears to have much tension but there really isn't. The journalist has the upper hand in unravelling the stories, making the FBI rather displeased. This supposed rivalry between the two parties is not portrayed deep enough, for example, the search warrant subplot was not followed through. How the journalist uncovers all that information was not presented, and hence I was confused about a few things, such as how he knew about the former policeman's daughter's true identity, and how he knew the true intention of Robert Redford's cross-state travels. There are too many loose ends and unexplained subplots, and too little tension. "The Company You Keep" could have been better, but is still worth watching for the stellar cast.
"The Company You Keep" looks amazing on paper, with an impressively stellar cast. The plot involves both a journalist and the FBI chasing after Robert Redford, which appears to have much tension but there really isn't. The journalist has the upper hand in unravelling the stories, making the FBI rather displeased. This supposed rivalry between the two parties is not portrayed deep enough, for example, the search warrant subplot was not followed through. How the journalist uncovers all that information was not presented, and hence I was confused about a few things, such as how he knew about the former policeman's daughter's true identity, and how he knew the true intention of Robert Redford's cross-state travels. There are too many loose ends and unexplained subplots, and too little tension. "The Company You Keep" could have been better, but is still worth watching for the stellar cast.
Redford on the run
Prismark104 September 2013
A film about radicalism, regret and redemption. Robert Redford has managed to attract an all star cast ranging from the up and coming, stars of yesteryear and some solid character actors.
It's not a high octane thriller but it moves at a good space and there are some smart moves.
As a director, Redford is solid, getting good performances from his actors and getting the younger ones to raise their game and they have to as there are several Oscar winners and nominees in the cast.
Visually Redford has never been the one to try new tricks although his past films have had great cinematography such as 'A River Runs Through It.'
What we have here is Redford on the run, trying to clear his name and meet up with old radicals who might aid him in his endeavour. Some have regrets, others do not.
This film was never likely to be a blockbuster but is a good, well made film. If you like the stars here, you will like this.
It's not a high octane thriller but it moves at a good space and there are some smart moves.
As a director, Redford is solid, getting good performances from his actors and getting the younger ones to raise their game and they have to as there are several Oscar winners and nominees in the cast.
Visually Redford has never been the one to try new tricks although his past films have had great cinematography such as 'A River Runs Through It.'
What we have here is Redford on the run, trying to clear his name and meet up with old radicals who might aid him in his endeavour. Some have regrets, others do not.
This film was never likely to be a blockbuster but is a good, well made film. If you like the stars here, you will like this.
Loses the Attention Span Halfway Through
chicagopoetry14 April 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Let's appreciate The Company You Keep for what it is, potentially Robert Redford's last movie before he's too old to make any more movies and yes, he's old and I mean old in this one. The plot starts out solid enough, the entire premise is sound, the cast of actors is top notch, yet somehow halfway through everything becomes muddled and we lose interest (at least I did). There's really no suspense involved, Redford is on the run, some rookie journalist played by a miscast actor has all the answers that he pulls out of thin air, Susan Sarandon just sort of disappears into thin air, and everyone seems to be saying no matter what they are saying "Okay let's get this over with already we're all tired and we need to take a nap." Really? Couldn't one of the Weather Underground maybe blow off a few modern day explosions as least to keep us entertained or couldn't there have been a more Tommy Lee Jonesish pursuit or any kind of cliff hanger whatsoever? This film really feels like it's made by a really old person too tired to color outside the lines and that's sad because it's a film about the Weather Underground, one of the most radical organizations of American History. I don't know why anyone would want to make a film about radicals that isn't radical.
another good one from redford
ksf-21 November 2022
After a local woman (sarandon) is arrested for a crime from years ago, it opens up a can of worms for the others who were also involved. She was part of the weather underground, a group of war protesters who resorted to bombings and violence to get attention. When a determined reporter (shia) tracks down one of the other original activists (redford), grant makes a run for it, leaving his daughter with his own brother. Now the chase is on, with the fuzz after him, as well as the reporter. Co-stars stanley tucci, julie christie, nick nolte. A really good story, that slowly unfolds. And like grant tells the reporter, you'd better be ready to deal with the secrets that you uncover. Loosely based on the real activities of the weather underground. Directed by redford. Good mix of action and talking. And ten years after this film, redford is still working!
Dull Company
TheFilmFreak13 May 2013
In the wake of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, it's only appropriate that we should get a generic political thriller to remind us of one of the US' earlier international farces: the Vietnam War. 'The Company You Keep', directed by and starring Robert Redford (yeah, he's still alive), is that thriller.
Redford plays Jim Grant, a widowed lawyer and father who gets exposed by investigative journalist Ben Shepard (Shia LaBeouf) as a former member of Weather Underground (Google it) responsible for the death of a security guard during a botched bank robbery. Forced to go on the run, Grant must dodge the police as Shepard starts to doubt whether Grant is actually guilty of the guard's murder.
Seeking to combine a chase movie with a detective story, the film is bogged down by superfluous characters, caricatured villains, and a third-act that feels more like a soap-opera than a suspense picture. I wouldn't go so far as to say the film has a bad script, but it does have a clunky one. What makes this even more egregious is that 'Company' is filled to the brim with great veteran actors such as Stanley Tucci, Richard Jenkins, Julie Christie, and Susan Surandon (to name a few ), which almost always indicates that the producers have less faith in the script than they do that a Justice League film will actually be made (we all know it won't).
I don't want to make out that this was a bad film, though. In its own unambitious and minor way, it's reasonably entertaining. It could be argued that the actors alone are worth the price of admission. But I can assure you of one thing: when you leave the multiplexes after seeing this, you'll be hard pressed to remember even the last minute of it.
Redford plays Jim Grant, a widowed lawyer and father who gets exposed by investigative journalist Ben Shepard (Shia LaBeouf) as a former member of Weather Underground (Google it) responsible for the death of a security guard during a botched bank robbery. Forced to go on the run, Grant must dodge the police as Shepard starts to doubt whether Grant is actually guilty of the guard's murder.
Seeking to combine a chase movie with a detective story, the film is bogged down by superfluous characters, caricatured villains, and a third-act that feels more like a soap-opera than a suspense picture. I wouldn't go so far as to say the film has a bad script, but it does have a clunky one. What makes this even more egregious is that 'Company' is filled to the brim with great veteran actors such as Stanley Tucci, Richard Jenkins, Julie Christie, and Susan Surandon (to name a few ), which almost always indicates that the producers have less faith in the script than they do that a Justice League film will actually be made (we all know it won't).
I don't want to make out that this was a bad film, though. In its own unambitious and minor way, it's reasonably entertaining. It could be argued that the actors alone are worth the price of admission. But I can assure you of one thing: when you leave the multiplexes after seeing this, you'll be hard pressed to remember even the last minute of it.
Provocative throwback to another era
Emma_Stewart14 April 2013
The Company You Keep has a startlingly star-studded cast and I was surprised to see that most of them were in small, thankless roles. People like Sam Elliott, Nick Nolte, Chris Cooper and Stanley Tucci have a couple, three scenes at most and aren't given much of anything to sink their teeth into. What I think this suggests is an immense respect for Robert Redford - there are very few directors who could assemble actors of that caliber for roles that probably anyone could play. And that respect is merited - with Company, Redford proves once again that he is an exceptionally talented director who deserves to be taken more seriously than he is.
It begins with the abrupt arrest of Sharon Solarz (Susan Sarandon), an American terrorist who had been living in hiding for decades since she was connected to a robbery that resulted in the murder of a security guard. Her arrest sparks renewed interest in the case and as a reporter (Shia LaBeouf) starts to dig deeper, a lawyer and newly single father (Robert Redford) realizes he is about to be uncovered and flees, leaving his daughter to stay with his younger brother (Chris Cooper) while he searches for an unknown something.
The foundation of Company is a clever, taut screenplay reminiscent of classic 70's American thrillers. It shocks the audience with reveal after reveal, always bringing up more questions and arousing more suspicions, but does so without a hint of self-importance and gracefully avoids inflated tension. Redford's graceful direction brings the electric writing to life and creates a suitably foreboding atmosphere - it's gritty, but not too dark; fast-paced, but not so much that it sacrifices plot or character; emotional, but not saccharine. For such an outlandish plot, Redford makes it feel as real as it possibly could. Too many modern thrillers like this try to make every beat into a high emotion scene, or build around the twist so it's as dramatic as possibly. Company avoids that - there is a refreshing lack of forced grandeur, and in its wake we get a surprisingly intimate film filled with truly fascinating characters and provocative moral questions that the screenplay doesn't answer for us.
The cast, as expected, are uniformly excellent. If there is a weak link it's Shia LeBeouf, whose real-life smug vanity suits the character but can only carry him so far when he's up against acting titans. He seems amateurish in his one-on-one scenes with Redford and Sarandon even though neither of them give especially domineering performances. Redford is an appropriately sympathetic lead but the supporting actors steal the movie - Susan Sarandon sets the bar very high right from the off. In her two or three short scenes, she reveals everything about her secretive, stony character; her microexpressions tell all. Cooper, Nick Nolte, Sam Elliott and Richard Jenkins light up their segments with their presences alone, while Brendan Gleeson delivers a hauntingly conflicted portrayal.
Julie Christie, though, is the standout. If this has to be her last screen appearance, it's comforting to know that she went out with a loud bang, playing a character so unlike anything she's ever done before. Her Mimi is ferocious and spirited, but her steely conviction can't quite mask the naive little girl who never really grew up hiding underneath. She communicates a world of internal conflict with a simple raise of her eyebrows, a pang of regret merely by letting her mouth fall open; she's a master of her craft, fully realizing her character in maybe 15 minutes of screen time where most of her lines hit the same note.
If there's one problem with the movie, it's that it's too short. A significant plot point towards the end isn't given the time and attention it deserves, considering its weight and implications. It felt like a wasted opportunity for an amazing, thematically fathoms-deep ending. However, the ending as it is is satisfying and well-done nonetheless, and cleanly wraps up an expertly crafted breath of fresh air for the genre. If only it had come out 35 years ago where it would have been right at home and probably would have garnered a better reception.
It begins with the abrupt arrest of Sharon Solarz (Susan Sarandon), an American terrorist who had been living in hiding for decades since she was connected to a robbery that resulted in the murder of a security guard. Her arrest sparks renewed interest in the case and as a reporter (Shia LaBeouf) starts to dig deeper, a lawyer and newly single father (Robert Redford) realizes he is about to be uncovered and flees, leaving his daughter to stay with his younger brother (Chris Cooper) while he searches for an unknown something.
The foundation of Company is a clever, taut screenplay reminiscent of classic 70's American thrillers. It shocks the audience with reveal after reveal, always bringing up more questions and arousing more suspicions, but does so without a hint of self-importance and gracefully avoids inflated tension. Redford's graceful direction brings the electric writing to life and creates a suitably foreboding atmosphere - it's gritty, but not too dark; fast-paced, but not so much that it sacrifices plot or character; emotional, but not saccharine. For such an outlandish plot, Redford makes it feel as real as it possibly could. Too many modern thrillers like this try to make every beat into a high emotion scene, or build around the twist so it's as dramatic as possibly. Company avoids that - there is a refreshing lack of forced grandeur, and in its wake we get a surprisingly intimate film filled with truly fascinating characters and provocative moral questions that the screenplay doesn't answer for us.
The cast, as expected, are uniformly excellent. If there is a weak link it's Shia LeBeouf, whose real-life smug vanity suits the character but can only carry him so far when he's up against acting titans. He seems amateurish in his one-on-one scenes with Redford and Sarandon even though neither of them give especially domineering performances. Redford is an appropriately sympathetic lead but the supporting actors steal the movie - Susan Sarandon sets the bar very high right from the off. In her two or three short scenes, she reveals everything about her secretive, stony character; her microexpressions tell all. Cooper, Nick Nolte, Sam Elliott and Richard Jenkins light up their segments with their presences alone, while Brendan Gleeson delivers a hauntingly conflicted portrayal.
Julie Christie, though, is the standout. If this has to be her last screen appearance, it's comforting to know that she went out with a loud bang, playing a character so unlike anything she's ever done before. Her Mimi is ferocious and spirited, but her steely conviction can't quite mask the naive little girl who never really grew up hiding underneath. She communicates a world of internal conflict with a simple raise of her eyebrows, a pang of regret merely by letting her mouth fall open; she's a master of her craft, fully realizing her character in maybe 15 minutes of screen time where most of her lines hit the same note.
If there's one problem with the movie, it's that it's too short. A significant plot point towards the end isn't given the time and attention it deserves, considering its weight and implications. It felt like a wasted opportunity for an amazing, thematically fathoms-deep ending. However, the ending as it is is satisfying and well-done nonetheless, and cleanly wraps up an expertly crafted breath of fresh air for the genre. If only it had come out 35 years ago where it would have been right at home and probably would have garnered a better reception.
Could have been better
bbewnylorac20 April 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Somewhere in this movie is a great film waiting to get out. The cast is great, the acting is generally solid. The script is OK. The locations are good. I love the concept -- of the past catching up with you. I think the problem is the plot. I noticed quite a few holes. For example, the characters keep referring to the bank robbery as 30 years ago. Which means the early 1980s: didn't all those anti-Vietnam rallies happen in the early 1970s, a decade before? Shia LeBoeuf's character has way too much good luck for a journalist. For example, he happens to find out that the police chief's daughter is adopted? Then seemingly within hours, he joins the dots that she must be Robert Redford's daughter? And would Shia also manage to find the cabin in the woods well ahead of a big portion of the FBI staff? And finally the ending. I frankly did not believe that any journalist would throw away such a huge story, and in addition ignore the truth, just because he feels sorry for the guy, or likes him. It ties everything up neatly, but it doesn't ring true. Redford's character was a fugitive, and he was effectively harbouring a criminal in the Julie Christie character. If it was real life, Shia's character would have been fired for being on the spot and not doing his job.
A poorly written and thriller-less "thriller"
kamagla25 September 2013
Warning: Spoilers
I've just watched the DVD and I have to say I'm puzzled by the description of the film as a "thriller" by some of the reviews I had read. I was expecting something much better than what the film delivered. It's a very flat movie and that seems to be the fault of script, performances and editing. It has the odour of "high art" film making, sententious and vacuous by turns. "Let this be a lesson unto you..." and "The past isn't another country..." Ponderous! Particularly I found Shia LeBeouf's performance as the young reporter rather too bright-eyed and perky. The character lacked a sense of the growing excitement I would have expected as he started to understand the history of the people he's investigating and as he drew closer to his quarry. It's a very "Johnny one-note" performance - no development. I was increasingly irritated by a mannerism - his repetitive touching the bridge of his glasses. And why the glasses? So he could deliver the character defining mannerism? I was shocked when I first saw Julie Christie's character appear. I had difficulty in recognizing her. The immediate thought was that plastic surgery is not always a wise choice with a good result. I simply focused on the face and found it impossibly to see the character in the film. It disrupted the movie for me. And the performance was as featureless as the face. At least Susan Sarandon appears to have by-passed on facial reconstruction and, with little to do, did it well.
Redford was simply too old for the part he played. And the final scene, as he walked away from the camera with his adopted daughter, was very mechanical - the waving hand gestures.
All of these actors have been better in other films. Not a must see.
kamagla
Redford was simply too old for the part he played. And the final scene, as he walked away from the camera with his adopted daughter, was very mechanical - the waving hand gestures.
All of these actors have been better in other films. Not a must see.
kamagla
A subversive, courageous and clever movie about American revolutionaries
scottmontreal20 July 2013
Warning: Spoilers
The plot is simple, an underground former radical, now father, (Robert Redford), is smoked out and on the run, meeting with former comrades. Does he want to escape, or does he want to clear his name? Both an investigative reporter and the FBI are chasing him.
However, weaved into this clever plot is the intellectual substance of the movie - how do we understand, (and judge) today, former armed Weather Underground members who fought against the U.S. war on Vietnam?
They took armed action after non-violent protests failed to stop the war. They are fugitives after robbing a bank and consequently killing a bank guard. They too, also failed to end the war.
"We made mistakes, but we were right." says one arrested radical (Susan Sarandon).
The elderly revolutionaries now with kids, honestly debate their choices and the times. The "establishment" won, and gets to write the history of those years.
These white revolutionaries were terrorists, or were they freedom fighters? "The Company You Keep" encourages us to judge these revolutionaries with an open mind - something that seems downright subversive in today's America.
However, weaved into this clever plot is the intellectual substance of the movie - how do we understand, (and judge) today, former armed Weather Underground members who fought against the U.S. war on Vietnam?
They took armed action after non-violent protests failed to stop the war. They are fugitives after robbing a bank and consequently killing a bank guard. They too, also failed to end the war.
"We made mistakes, but we were right." says one arrested radical (Susan Sarandon).
The elderly revolutionaries now with kids, honestly debate their choices and the times. The "establishment" won, and gets to write the history of those years.
These white revolutionaries were terrorists, or were they freedom fighters? "The Company You Keep" encourages us to judge these revolutionaries with an open mind - something that seems downright subversive in today's America.
Redford's Star-Heavy Paean to a Bygone Era of Political Radicalism Feels Somewhat Amiss
EUyeshima5 August 2013
As much as I respect Robert Redford as an actor, director and founder of the Sundance Institute, I just find him too hard to swallow as the father of an 11-year-old girl, especially the one played so precociously here by singing prodigy Jackie Evancho. This is one of several perceptible discrepancies that kept me from becoming fully engrossed in this fitfully suspenseful 2013 political thriller. At 76, he still looks great for his age and has a long legacy of starring in similarly themed movies like "All the President's Men" and "Three Days of the Condor", but our suspension of belief is put to the test when we are expected to believe that his character, a small-town lawyer named Jim Grant, turns out to be Nick Sloan, a former 1970's radical who would have been a fearless political agitator in his forties. While I believe it's never too late for anyone to start their lives over, there is an air of vanity in Redford's self-selection since he is also the director. Fortunately in that role, he shows his unerring professionalism and keeps the pacing tight despite the convolutions brought on by Lem Dobbs' screenplay.
The story begins when a middle-aged woman is suddenly arrested at a suburban gas station. Her real identity is Sharon Solarz, a former anti- Vietnam War radical who has been hiding in Canada under an alias for all these years. She makes one of her allowable calls to Grant, who becomes a person of interest for an intrepid newspaper reporter looking for his big break. Grant knows it's a matter of time before the FBI starts looking for him and goes on the lam, leaving his confused young daughter with his long-estranged brother. As Sloan, he is accused of participating with Solarz in a bank robbery that left a security guard dead. His former paramour Mimi Lurie is the only one who can prove his innocence, but she's in hiding as well and far less repentant about her radical activities. What follows is a series of encounters a bedraggled Sloan has with several former Weather Underground comrades. Each of them greets Sloan with different degrees of emotion depending on how they have carried on with their lives in the interim.
At the same time, Redford and Dobbs want to make a point of showing how history appears to be repeating itself with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and pointing to the role of current tabloid-style journalism in fanning the embers in an irresponsible way. The movie ends up simplifying its points by turning the story into a morality play where key characters have to decide when to take a stand and when to concede if there is something even bigger to consider than political convictions. Beyond Redford's craggy presence, there is a starry mix of old and new faces that make the cross-generational casting appear even more pronounced. Julie Christie as Lurie, Susan Sarandon as Solarz, and Richard Jenkins and a vocally challenged Nick Nolte as fellow ex- radicals all make welcome appearances in the story, though their roles feel somewhat truncated. Shia LaBoeuf plays the reporter with his usual veneer of smarminess, but Brit Marling and Anna Kendrick lend surprising sharpness in small roles. Terrence Howard, Chris Cooper and Stanley Tucci fill in other supporting roles with aplomb.
The story begins when a middle-aged woman is suddenly arrested at a suburban gas station. Her real identity is Sharon Solarz, a former anti- Vietnam War radical who has been hiding in Canada under an alias for all these years. She makes one of her allowable calls to Grant, who becomes a person of interest for an intrepid newspaper reporter looking for his big break. Grant knows it's a matter of time before the FBI starts looking for him and goes on the lam, leaving his confused young daughter with his long-estranged brother. As Sloan, he is accused of participating with Solarz in a bank robbery that left a security guard dead. His former paramour Mimi Lurie is the only one who can prove his innocence, but she's in hiding as well and far less repentant about her radical activities. What follows is a series of encounters a bedraggled Sloan has with several former Weather Underground comrades. Each of them greets Sloan with different degrees of emotion depending on how they have carried on with their lives in the interim.
At the same time, Redford and Dobbs want to make a point of showing how history appears to be repeating itself with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and pointing to the role of current tabloid-style journalism in fanning the embers in an irresponsible way. The movie ends up simplifying its points by turning the story into a morality play where key characters have to decide when to take a stand and when to concede if there is something even bigger to consider than political convictions. Beyond Redford's craggy presence, there is a starry mix of old and new faces that make the cross-generational casting appear even more pronounced. Julie Christie as Lurie, Susan Sarandon as Solarz, and Richard Jenkins and a vocally challenged Nick Nolte as fellow ex- radicals all make welcome appearances in the story, though their roles feel somewhat truncated. Shia LaBoeuf plays the reporter with his usual veneer of smarminess, but Brit Marling and Anna Kendrick lend surprising sharpness in small roles. Terrence Howard, Chris Cooper and Stanley Tucci fill in other supporting roles with aplomb.
Unexpectedly cheesy and boring
engelst26 September 2013
I fell asleep halfway the movie. I've seen a few Redford movies (as a director of course), and although I'm not a hardcore fan, I certainly sympathize with his efforts for the film industry and respect his work as a director. His acting career being beyond criticism.
Much to my surprise, the movie not only was slow and missing true development and plot twists. It was also quite cheesy.
E.g., to have the main character drive around in the politically correct car of the 80s and 90s, the ubiquitous Volvo station car, was a bad choice. This Volvo has been used too many times as a lifestyle prop.
Then there's Redford's age. Much like a recent Pacino movie, we see here the limits of aged actor casting. Redford is just not convincing in this role. His age betrays him when he interacts with his teenage daughter.
More importantly though, the plot feels somehow contrived. Shia Laboeuf is ill at ease as the 'smart' reporter uncovering secrets that have been lying around in plain sight for ages. It makes him look silly.
Redford seems to have gone against better judgment to direct a movie that is meant to wake up the average US citizen, but ends up preaching for his own congregation.
Clearly, Redford did have no trouble convincing the cream of the crop of Hollywood's freethinking actors, namely Susan Sarandon and Laboeuf. They should have spent a bit more time on reading the script. The movie is trite and relies too much on the would-be shocking subject-matter. Once we come to accept the fact that the movie is about people with ideals having crossed that thin line between political action and murder, we're left with a predictable story, and very little sympathy for the characters interpreted by these fine actors. This must be the only movie where I actually yawned when Susan Sarandon came on screen. Her lines were so poor, trite and unconvincing.
I'm going to force myself to watch the rest of the movie, out of respect for the Hollywood monument Redford. I have little hope it will be worth my time.
Much to my surprise, the movie not only was slow and missing true development and plot twists. It was also quite cheesy.
E.g., to have the main character drive around in the politically correct car of the 80s and 90s, the ubiquitous Volvo station car, was a bad choice. This Volvo has been used too many times as a lifestyle prop.
Then there's Redford's age. Much like a recent Pacino movie, we see here the limits of aged actor casting. Redford is just not convincing in this role. His age betrays him when he interacts with his teenage daughter.
More importantly though, the plot feels somehow contrived. Shia Laboeuf is ill at ease as the 'smart' reporter uncovering secrets that have been lying around in plain sight for ages. It makes him look silly.
Redford seems to have gone against better judgment to direct a movie that is meant to wake up the average US citizen, but ends up preaching for his own congregation.
Clearly, Redford did have no trouble convincing the cream of the crop of Hollywood's freethinking actors, namely Susan Sarandon and Laboeuf. They should have spent a bit more time on reading the script. The movie is trite and relies too much on the would-be shocking subject-matter. Once we come to accept the fact that the movie is about people with ideals having crossed that thin line between political action and murder, we're left with a predictable story, and very little sympathy for the characters interpreted by these fine actors. This must be the only movie where I actually yawned when Susan Sarandon came on screen. Her lines were so poor, trite and unconvincing.
I'm going to force myself to watch the rest of the movie, out of respect for the Hollywood monument Redford. I have little hope it will be worth my time.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
