Is it REALLY just me? I mean, judging by Rotten Tomatoes rating, it sure seems that way. (I do see that Roger Ebert not only doesn't fall for it, but also has some of the same criticisms I have. I always knew he was a good critic.) But seriously… what are they seeing that I'm missing? Or maybe it's what I'm seeing that they're not?
(I guess now is the time to shout out SPOILER WARNING!!! If you haven't seen this movie yet, and have any interest in seeing it, go away now. I guarantee I'm going to ruin it for you.)
The sad thing is, I was really along for the ride for about the first 100 minutes (give or take). Looks like we've got a good caper film in the works, there's lots of questions as to how they're going to pull it off, what they're actually pulling off, who gets what in the end… everything you'd expect and want from a movie like this.
But then we get to that last half hour (give or take). The hostages are freed, the police are trying to figure out what really happened, we're wondering if the bank robbers really HAVE gotten away with it and, if they have, we still don't know what they've gotten away with.
And suddenly we are left with, quite possibly, the longest denouement in recent memory (We're talking Return of the King long, here, for those of you keeping track). Denzel's character can't let it go, since there are too many unanswered questions. He's told to drop it, then he's promoted as incentive to drop it. Meanwhile, Clive's character is still missing and we have no idea where he is nor what he's up to. Denzel finds the incriminating evidence that Christopher Plummer's character didn't want found and now he's got to expose Plummer as the war criminal he was 60 years ago… and on and on and on. Clive finally walks out of the bank, a week later, just like he promised at the beginning of the movie and we find out just what he was up to and how he and his partners pulled it off… and I was left thinking, "that's it? I've sat here for 2+ hours, for THIS???" (To be honest, this obviously wasn't the denouement, but it certainly felt like it was supposed to be.)
Of course, with distance, and the taint of my unimpressed final reaction to the film, I found more questions and more things that bothered me than just an ending that left me flat. I found Spike Lee's insistence on "deeper meanings" annoying in this film. I don't go to a bank caper film for a message on the evils of war profiteering. Not that it can't be in there… I'd just prefer something with a lighter touch, perhaps. More annoying, since we're talking about messages, was the utterly pointless scene with the young kid, working so hard to be gangsta, with his ultra-violent videogame. We all get it… violent videogames are not for kids. I don't need a PSA in my movie trying to convince me that videogames are evil because children might play them.
Then there's Jodie Foster's character. She's great, of course. She's manipulative and amoral and must have been a lot of fun for Foster to play. Part of me is convinced she took the role simply because it's probably the first time she's been called a cunt on film. But what REAL purpose does the character serve in the film? She comes in, threatens, cajoles and throws a little seduction into the mix with Denzel, she talks to Clive Owen's character, but doesn't accomplish anything, and she ends up the person Denzel goes to at the end of the movie with the ring that will prove Plummer was a war-profiteer. She's a freaking plot device, and all the cool writing and fun scenes she may have had can't hide that fact.
Early on, there's the scene when she first meets Denzel's character and she makes the commercial-friendly comment "there are matters here above your paygrade" which, in my book is a condescending little put-down telling Denzel to just get back to doing what she tells him needs to be done. But it turns into this discussion about him getting promoted and his problems with an ethics investigation… as if the idea of promoting him to a higher paygrade would actually solve the issue of whether he's supposed to know what's up. It's like they took this cliche threat literally!
And finally… Clive's "escape" from the bank. There was all that hubbub in the storeroom during the "robbery" and we never really knew why or what's up. So we find that they built Clive a little hideout at the back of the storeroom, where he and the diamonds they've stolen from Christopher Plummer can hide out while the heat cools down. An interesting twist and a kind of cool reveal, until I have to ask myself… he's been hiding out there for a week and no one in the bank has noticed their storeroom is 3 feet shorter than it used to be? How the hell did anyone let the screenwriter get away with that ridiculous contrivance?
I read somewhere that this is the screenwriter's first produced screenplay. Pardon the accusation from someone that still hasn't finished the screenplay that's been sitting on his harddrive for years, but it shows. The main conflict is fun, and exciting and interesting, but everything else is all scattershot, as if they threw a bunch of ideas at the screen to see what would stick, and then forgot to wipe them off afterwards. The performances are all great, Spike Lee is, as always, an interesting director, but the film just falls apart once you get to the actual story.
(I guess now is the time to shout out SPOILER WARNING!!! If you haven't seen this movie yet, and have any interest in seeing it, go away now. I guarantee I'm going to ruin it for you.)
The sad thing is, I was really along for the ride for about the first 100 minutes (give or take). Looks like we've got a good caper film in the works, there's lots of questions as to how they're going to pull it off, what they're actually pulling off, who gets what in the end… everything you'd expect and want from a movie like this.
But then we get to that last half hour (give or take). The hostages are freed, the police are trying to figure out what really happened, we're wondering if the bank robbers really HAVE gotten away with it and, if they have, we still don't know what they've gotten away with.
And suddenly we are left with, quite possibly, the longest denouement in recent memory (We're talking Return of the King long, here, for those of you keeping track). Denzel's character can't let it go, since there are too many unanswered questions. He's told to drop it, then he's promoted as incentive to drop it. Meanwhile, Clive's character is still missing and we have no idea where he is nor what he's up to. Denzel finds the incriminating evidence that Christopher Plummer's character didn't want found and now he's got to expose Plummer as the war criminal he was 60 years ago… and on and on and on. Clive finally walks out of the bank, a week later, just like he promised at the beginning of the movie and we find out just what he was up to and how he and his partners pulled it off… and I was left thinking, "that's it? I've sat here for 2+ hours, for THIS???" (To be honest, this obviously wasn't the denouement, but it certainly felt like it was supposed to be.)
Of course, with distance, and the taint of my unimpressed final reaction to the film, I found more questions and more things that bothered me than just an ending that left me flat. I found Spike Lee's insistence on "deeper meanings" annoying in this film. I don't go to a bank caper film for a message on the evils of war profiteering. Not that it can't be in there… I'd just prefer something with a lighter touch, perhaps. More annoying, since we're talking about messages, was the utterly pointless scene with the young kid, working so hard to be gangsta, with his ultra-violent videogame. We all get it… violent videogames are not for kids. I don't need a PSA in my movie trying to convince me that videogames are evil because children might play them.
Then there's Jodie Foster's character. She's great, of course. She's manipulative and amoral and must have been a lot of fun for Foster to play. Part of me is convinced she took the role simply because it's probably the first time she's been called a cunt on film. But what REAL purpose does the character serve in the film? She comes in, threatens, cajoles and throws a little seduction into the mix with Denzel, she talks to Clive Owen's character, but doesn't accomplish anything, and she ends up the person Denzel goes to at the end of the movie with the ring that will prove Plummer was a war-profiteer. She's a freaking plot device, and all the cool writing and fun scenes she may have had can't hide that fact.
Early on, there's the scene when she first meets Denzel's character and she makes the commercial-friendly comment "there are matters here above your paygrade" which, in my book is a condescending little put-down telling Denzel to just get back to doing what she tells him needs to be done. But it turns into this discussion about him getting promoted and his problems with an ethics investigation… as if the idea of promoting him to a higher paygrade would actually solve the issue of whether he's supposed to know what's up. It's like they took this cliche threat literally!
And finally… Clive's "escape" from the bank. There was all that hubbub in the storeroom during the "robbery" and we never really knew why or what's up. So we find that they built Clive a little hideout at the back of the storeroom, where he and the diamonds they've stolen from Christopher Plummer can hide out while the heat cools down. An interesting twist and a kind of cool reveal, until I have to ask myself… he's been hiding out there for a week and no one in the bank has noticed their storeroom is 3 feet shorter than it used to be? How the hell did anyone let the screenwriter get away with that ridiculous contrivance?
I read somewhere that this is the screenwriter's first produced screenplay. Pardon the accusation from someone that still hasn't finished the screenplay that's been sitting on his harddrive for years, but it shows. The main conflict is fun, and exciting and interesting, but everything else is all scattershot, as if they threw a bunch of ideas at the screen to see what would stick, and then forgot to wipe them off afterwards. The performances are all great, Spike Lee is, as always, an interesting director, but the film just falls apart once you get to the actual story.
Comments
Good performances...Denzel just does his own thing for Spike nowadays, and it comes through great. Interesting characterizations and tics...but, Denzel is the only fully realized character in the whole film. And, a fun NY feel.
But, overall? Crap.
Q
Or just stunned into submission by the overwhelming load of crap films from the past few months.