Although I realize that the movie is based on a novel and is entirely fictional, my first hope when I decided to watch it was that I might nevertheless learn something about the Weather Underground. I'm fairly familiar with US history, but I have to confess that all I knew about the group was that it was a violent anti-Vietnam group, so I looked forward to gaining a little more knowledge. That possibility was put to rest by the fact that the movie has the group pulling off a bank robbery in 1980 - long after the group had ceased to exist. (Why the bank robbery wouldn't have been put farther back into the past to make this more believable is a mystery.) So my primary hope in watching this really wasn't achieved. But how did it work as a movie; as a piece of entertainment? I can't say that I found it a gripping two hours.The movie started far too abruptly with the arrest of Sharon (Susan Sarandon) for the long ago (even if it was 1980) robbery and murder of a bank guard. The basic story really needed to be introduced a bit more before that happened. But after that happens, the film settles into its basic story, as with the FBI searching for him, Jim (really Nick - played by Robert Redford) suddenly has to go on the run, seeking out the one person who can confirm that he wasn't a part of the robbery and murder. For the most part I just didn't find this very interesting. It features a lot of well known names (Redford - who also directed - and Sarandon, but also people like Nick Nolte and Sam Elliott and Julie Christie) but, for me, it didn't feature a lot of performances that really stood out. Redford's age (he was 76 when this as made) was a big problem for me - especially as he was portrayed as the father of an 11 year old daughter. Not impossible, I agree, but it seemed far-fetched - and I thought Redford at times looked his age. Shia LaBeouf, who played a reporter, was entirely unnecessary to the story, quite frankly. I didn't really need the reporter to push this story forward to be honest. The closest thing to a plot twist in this (revolving around the adopted daughter of the sheriff who investigated the bank robbery years before) was one I had figured out almost from the beginning.There was a bit of intensity toward the end of the movie when we wondered if Mimi (Christie) was going to escape to Canada or return to save Nick's skin, but aside from that I found that my attention simply kept wandering as the movie plodded along. (3/10)

Normally one does not expect a suspense thriller to offer much insight or depth of thought. What Robert Redford accomplished here is quite a piece of work as he brings a lot of real life issues seamlessly into that framework. The major one is the generation gap - the difficulty of a younger generation to really grasp what the old timers (played by legacy greats such as Susan Sarandon, Julie Christie and so on) are so painfully trying to gab about. Think of Eastwood's Grand Torino and you get the general idea. Another issue is the role of media and nature of journalism, handled very intelligently and in depth (trust me, I'm a journalist so I should know). I found the interplay between Redford as the old lawyer and Shia LaBeouf as the young journalist to be absolutely exemplary. The chase plot was really not the reason for the film to be made but it worked fine for me. I also enjoyed the fact that some key turns of the plot are not explained verbally but are quickly and clearly shown to the viewer. A sure sign of a master director.

Last decades have seen massive release of action thrillers with diverse chases, shootings and intrigues, often excessively. That is why is pleasant to see a "calm" related movie, in the style of 1960-70ies, with focusing on dialogs, explanations and recollection. The Company You Keep is a pleasant example of this - based on the 2003 novel of the same name by Neil Gordon - where things having roots in the past progress steadily and logically, without constant yelling and chasing. At times, however, the focus is on too many links, some of them seem perfunctory, the others unnecessary, and the ending could have had a "nudge" or a twist.But the most valuable part of the movie are actors; even small supporting roles are performed by Academy Award winners (Julie Christie, Susan Sarandon), moreover, there are many more good character actors visible. The leading performances - Robert Redford as Jim Grant/Nick Sloan and Shia LaBeouf as Ben Shepard are both professional as well, LaBeouf lives easily up to Redford, chemistry is there between them (I am pleased that LaBeouf has moved away from being "cute" in movies meant for teens mostly).Thus, a good political action thriller, not just an opportunity to see many talented actors together, but with a lot of food for thought as well.

It's a snoozer for folks who want action, but quite the nailbiter for folks who follow story, interpersonal conflict/resolution, and (in general) engaging dialog that closely and meticulously (and yet warmly) tracks character motivation and development.It's interesting that there's a lot of kneejerk ire being raised over the release of this flick, mostly over precipitous assumptions of its being an apologetic for domestic terrorism. This flick is nothing of the sort. At worst, it commits the "sin" of reminding us of political realities that refuse to be flushed down the memory hole. For tending to that Orwellian duty (in the positive sense of that concept), and doing so with aplomb and artistry, the film will be appreciated by the circumspect.As much as I liked Lions for Lambs, I have to be honest with myself and reflect on how sadly low my sights were set as I watched it. The Company You Keep exceeds LfL on counts both of artistic integrity--with a special shoutout to the writing--and message payload.Here's a political jab that seems timely: I appreciate this flick for adding yet-another data point to the mix, apropos contemporary interest in "radical" pop libertarianism (read: tea party). This flick helps put things into context: People who fulminate on government abuses these days have been exposed as martyr-complex drama queens: They wring their hands over a looming "police state", then side with the police on extra-judicial killings of actual American citizens. They froth and foam over the threat of international terrorism, but don't seem to notice that they have the power to actually *do something* about it, by working to stop it when it emanates from their own establishment in Washington. They decry modest steps to stem systemic abuses in the health care system as spendthrift behavior, but turn a blind eye to trillions borrowed and spent on needless and cowardly warmongering.I daresay this flick comes close to being a definitive American statement on the issue of terrorism, with specific focus on our ever-pressing need to reevaluate who our *real* friends and *real* enemies are. And Redford continues to be someone who strives to live up to the ideal he expressed so eloquently when he received his "lifetime achievement" award at the Oscars in 2002.