[psmith2.0]

I was actually wanting to see this movie ages ago when I first heard about it, but, over time, my enthusiasm waned. I've read some advance reviews from screenings and it kinda put me off. Plus, frankly, I'm not a fan of any of the main players (Brolin, Penn, Gosling, Nolte), so I was wondering "how am I going to like something when I can't stand any of the cast?"

Anyway, I set all that aside and went anyway. I'm now back on 4/10's day shift (Monday-Thursday) and it was pouring rain today. So I thought it was a good day to go see a movie since I didn't have to be at work, and the cold wet weather was going to keep me indoors anyway.

It's not bad. Now, don't get me wrong. I've seen this movie already, a dozen times. And so have all you. If you took Mulholland Falls, L.A. Confidential and The Untouchables (hell, even toss in a little The Rocketeer, Miller's Crossing, parts of Bugsy and Depp's recent Public Enemies flick), put them all into a blender, you've seen this movie already. Every single frame.

That's not to say it's worthless. It's fairly entertaining and has a great look (as all the above movies do). As some here know (because of other things I've written, particularly about my ideal cinematic take on Superman), I'm a total fan of movies from, or set in, this era. Crime stories centered around cities (L.A. in particular) in the 30's and 40's, men in fedoras with Tommy guns, hardboiled gangsters, tough cops, sexy dames and molls with hair/clothes/makeup from that era, great cars, stylish nightclub/lounge sets, great music and singing from that era, etc. That's my cinematic Achilles heel...slap a 30's/40's L.A. noir sheen on a Lipton soup or car muffler commercial, and I'm basically gonna go bonkers.



In fact, that was 88% of the reason I even went. I just wanted to take in the visuals, despite my aversion to the main leads and the less-than-glowing reviews I've read.

At first I thought things were cheesy (Brolin's voiceover narration, the very simplistic, cut-and-dry acting/sequences with little-to-no nuance or subtlety, etc.). But then it hit me "they're doing a straight lift of that 30's noir style itself, where everyone talks and acts in this nuts-and-bolts, campy, comic book style". Once I got my head around that, I enjoyed it more and quit thinking "what a trite, overwrought hunk of crap".



The acting is nothing to write home about. Penn make's DeNiro's Al Capone from The Untouchables look wimpy and understated. If there's scenery around, he's chewing it. Then spitting it out, picking it, putting it back in his mouth and chewing it some more. Still, it was actually kinda neat to see ol' sourpuss Penn lay into such a outsized, over-the-top and brash role. But I'm sorry...despite everything he's done, personally and professionally, all I still see is Jeff Spicoli. That's just how I'll always remember him...ordering a pizza in Mr. Hand's class.

Nick Nolte, bless his heart, is a bloated, nearly-unrecognizable mess these days (and has even managed to achieve a more gravelly growl than he had in 48 Hours decades ago). He doesn't play too large a role, but has a few key scenes. But man, I was shocked to see how badly he's aged.

The best part of the movie, in the way that Val Kilmer was the best part of Tombstone, was Robert Patrick and his character. A cowboy gunslinger type turned city detective (and the shooter of the team). Giovanni Ribisi pretty much continued playing the same role he's been playing for a decade-and-a-half (he's the Charles Martin Smith of this movie...the brains of the outfit and not much of a tough guy). In fact, this was pretty much a re-take on his Dex character from Sky Captain, I thought. Tech/lab geek and second (although more like fourth or fifth) banana here.

The other two members of the squad, played by Anthony Mackie and Michael Pena, I've seen in other movies or TV shows and they were good. But kinda predictable and "I've seen all this before too". It kinda felt like someone at the studio said "we need a black and Latino character...preferably good guys!". They were given nothing to do, and, as is too often the case, what little dialogue or screen time they had, it was played for comedic effect. They could've gone a half-dozen ways with both, or either, of these guys (I think of how Andy Garcia's character really grew and came into his own throughout The Untouchables), but here it was just "give 'em a few wisecracks to say, and let them join in on the gunplay." They felt wasted, which is unfortunate because I've seen both of these guys do solid work over the years. The movie could've beefed up/fleshed out their roles and completely omitted the following actor's part and it would've made for a better movie, IMO.

...which brings me to the female lead, played by Emma Stone. Who was just...there. She could've been removed and the movie wouldn't have been one ounce different. She was attractive, but a more bland and "why is she even here?!" character, I've not seen in ages. Strictly there to be someone for Ryan Gosling to smooch on to help draw in (or appeal to) the female audiences, is my honest take on it. Because he got to play the boyish scoundrel type in her presence, and I could overhear the giggles and coos from females in the theater whenever he did, or said, something particularly cute or charming. So that kinda backed up my initial feelings on it.

It was weak, I thought. In fact, whatever studio guy requested the black and Latino characters (but then gave them nothing to do or no real reason to exist) most likely was the same one that said "hey, we also need a chick/love interest, even if we don't fully flesh it out and make anyone give a crap about her presence or participation".

Moviemaking by numbers, I call it. Gotta fill this slot, that slot, etc. to hit all your targets and demographics...even if they don't serve the story or truly contribute anything important. I don't like that. It almost works counter, and feels a bit insulting. Why waste good actors on bland, unimportant roles just to "check all your boxes"? If they don't serve a true need, don't waste their talent (and take away from other areas in the movie that could be expanded or built on) and hire them to begin with. So much of this movie felt "checklist by committee" to me, which was odd...because the inspirations I listed above don't (to me). It's like this one took all the surface stuff and physical trappings of those other (better) movies, but wrapped it all around thin air. And gave a lot of talented folks little, or nothing, much to do. And saddled the rest with some pretty cringeworthy lines or moments throughout.

I thought she was awesome in The Amazing Spider-Man, so this is absolutely no slam on Stone or her abilities. She just didn't have to be in this movie, that's all.

It's a neat little movie, don't get me wrong. But it's neat/entertaining in spite of all the above, as opposed to "great writing, acting and characters" (because there really weren't any). Like so many others I seem to see, I wouldn't waste money on a nighttime showing, or fight the opening weekend evening crowds. But on a rainy matinee, like today, it's totally fine. A nice way to pass a couple of hours.

The story was a predictable crock (again, you've seen/heard it all before), but it had a great look. The sets, cars, gunplay, wardrobe, music, matte paintings/visuals, etc. were all great. And definitely stick around for the closing credits...the design/execution here is really cool. Like old vintage L.A. postcards, overlaid with the credits. The music, typography and design on the closing credits was one of the best parts of this. I realize that's a bit of a backhanded compliment...I sat through two hours of "meh" to see a really good art/design exhibit!

I give it about a six-out-of-ten. Kinda conflicted, because if this was set in modern-day L.A., I know damn well I'd give it about a 2. It's totally playing on my fondness for these stylistic trappings, and I fully am aware of, and admit, that.

If you like the movies I named above, you'll dig this okay. If you don't, there's probably nothing here for you. Let it be a Netflix rental in a few months...

[drewprops]

Long review, I will read later.

Going to see to see it with one of the Art Directors tonight!



...

[psmith2.0]

That's the funny thing...I've written such a long review on a movie that is entirely undeserving of the time and attention!

Tell your buddy that he/she did a great job. The problems are NOT in that area, at all.

[Maciej]

Where's the flick-o-meter?

[psmith2.0]

I forgotted. I forget that I can use Dropbox to host images. I'm just used to uploading it to my iDisk as I did for years and years. I'll make one in a bit for this movie.