The Company You Keep

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.