Skip to main content

Land shark!


Striking Distance
(1993)

For a star who became very quickly identified with action heroics on the big screen, it took Bruce Willis a few years to succumb to formula vehicles. Partly, this was no doubt down to his desire to stretch himself (the variety of parts, lead and supporting, in a variety of genres between ’88 and ’95 is testament to this, the consequent number of turkeys not withstanding). Partly I like to think it was because he had an eye for a script with a bit more to it. Of late, I’ve realised that was most likely wishful thinking, based on the guy who made Die Hard, Hudson Hawk and Last Boy Scout (and even Death Becomes Her) in quick succession. Rather than the one who picked Color of Night. Striking Distance is the first time Willis looks to be in real danger of losing his new crown. Fortunately, reinvention in Pulp Fiction and Twelve Monkeys would keep him ticking over until The Sixth Sense, but Rowdy Herrington’s film is a harbinger of how it will all go pear-shaped for action-Bruce in the years to come.

A big part of it, and something Willis still doesn’t seem to realise, is that Bruce the action star requires a sense of humour, self-effacement if you will, to work. It’s a combination of an essentially unassuming physical presence combined with a Moonlighting delivery that made him so appealing in the first Die Hard. Take away the latter and you get a run of dry any-lead-will-do vehicles that do middling-at-best box office. See Last Man Standing, Mercury Rising, Tears of the Sun, Hostage, Lucky Number Slevin, Surrogates. The list goes on. There is the occasional exception, with Bruce either rediscovering his comic chops (The Fifth Element) or being well cast in a character/action piece (16 Blocks), but he decided he wanted to be a serious actor in the mid-90s. And became a boring one.

So why did Striking Distance bomb so badly? One might blame audience preconceptions or reshoots, but really the problem is that the script is a derivative stinker. Director Rowdy Herrington received a lot of attention for Patrick Swayze-starrer and surprise hit Road House, and I recall thinking at the time that he was a solid choice for the next big Bruce movie. But he also co-scripted the film, which wasn’t, in bare bones at least, another action flick. No, it was a serial killer movie. Given how tired and formulaic the genre became so quickly, the only surprise is its legs. Seven came along to completely reinvigorate the genre a few years later, both stylistically and in terms of motive.

In Striking Distance, the writers take their cues from other movies rather than strike out in new directions. It’s not as if a cop-turned-serial killer was a new idea (I’m not giving anything away here, since Willis’ character is convinced of this from the first scene) and Herrington fails to imbue the premise with any freshness.

Then there is the use of a classic song as a calling card of the killer (Little Red Riding Hood); anyone seen Sea of Love? A few years later Fallen would repeat the trick with Time Is On My Side). Red herrings are liberally daubed throughout the screenplay, such that when the killer’s identity is eventually revealed it is the most ridiculous choice possible. And therefore, perversely, the most appropriate. For someone convinced for years that the identity of the killer is a law enforcement officer, Willis appears to have done zero investigative work for all this time. Every obfuscation he encounters, or signpost hanging over a suspicious character, yells, “Look into this further” but he does nothing, so allowing the killer to lead the plot (a good method when a writer doesn’t wish to do any heavy-lifting).

Willis plays former homicide detective Tom Hardy (no, not that Tom Hardy), reduced to working for the Pittsburgh River Rescue following the death of his cop father (John Mahoney) during an attempt to apprehend the Polish Hill strangler; Hardy became a persona non grata with the force when he gave evidence against his former partner (Robert Pastorelli). This was only compounded by his partner’s subsequent suicide, and the final straw was his claim that the suspect apprehended for the killings was just a patsy; that the killer was still free and a police officer. When we join Hardy as a river cop two years later, he has turned to the bottle (of course) and is given the prerequisite young female cop, Jo Christman (Sarah Jessica Parker), as a new partner. And then the Polish Hill strangler starts calling Hardy, playing the song and leaving a trail of fresh victims; all of whom Hardy has formerly had a relationship with.

It’s all too hyperbolic to be taken seriously, and as a result Herrington makes heavy weather of it when he tries to apply gravity to the proceedings. The original title was Three Rivers, and the beefed-up title is symptomatic of the reshoots that took place, following negative test screenings, to increase the action quotient. It’s unclear what was added when (the romance subplot with Parker was amended), but far-and-away the most successful scenes are ones not involving the main plot. Basically, anything where Willis has to apprehend a suspect or momentarily forget how tortured he is and break into a wise-ass mode.

Was the ever a concrete plan to set Die Hard 3 on a boat? We can at least be certain that that Under Siege got in there first. Striking Distance gives us an inkling of what it might have been like, as Hardy singlehandedly storms a hijacked river barge and takes out the bad guys armed with a shotgun and some choice quips (“Land shark!”). Throughout, you can see a better film struggling to get out, but it would need to divest itself of the portentous tone that is part and parcel of the serial killer flick.

Willis comes off none-too-well when he’s doing the po-faced emoting, such that you end up recalling his piss-taking of such modes in Hudson Hawk. But when he’s verbally sparring with a foe or romancing his partner, he’s all-together better-served.

Jo Christman: There’s something I should tell you.
Hardy: Are you really a man?
Jo Christman: No.
Hardy: Good.

A particularly amusing exchange given the number of comments there have been about Parker’s… er, man-ish looks. Elsewhere, every scene with Brion James is dynamite. James plays Detective Eddie Eiler, a thundering douchebag who crassly bags Hardy at every opportunity. Every scene between them ends in a physical altercation, and James knows not to take the part too seriously; if he’s going to play a complete prick, he’s going to have some fun with it. Honestly, I miss a good Brion James supporting turn; he passed on far too early.

The consequence of such digressions is a film tonally all over the shop. With the main meat consisting of characters blustering aggressively at each other, it’s an exercise in keeping the big reveal at bay. Herrington has assembled a strong supporting cast; Michael Mann favourite Dennis Farina plays Uncle Nicky (a cop, surprise!) and filling out the ranks are Tom Sizemore (younger and almost fresh-faced!) and Andre Braugher (in his first year of Homicide: Life on the Street). You never once buy Parker as a cop, but everything else here is so daft that her presence doesn’t stand out that much.

Bruce is on a cusp in 1993, clearly having one long bad hair day. He’d ditch his receding fronds completely over the next couple of years (the odd toupee job aside). In Striking Distance, whether or not its a combination of rug and comb-over, the results aren’t pretty. Indeed, the actor takes every opportunity to don a baseball cap. At one point he seems to be wearing very similar clothes to Butch in the following year’s Pulp Fiction. He apologised for the film a couple of years later. But this is a guy who approved John Moore to direct Die Hard 5, so any perspective he claims requires a pinch of salt.

Not helping matters is a cheese-laden score from Brad Fiedel that does all the wrong things at all the wrong moments.

When the climax comes, the number of false finishes for the villain reaches new heights of idiocy; he just keeps coming back, all-the-while screaming, “Who’s the best cop?” It’s painful, and never self-conscious enough (like most of the film) to become fun.

The wonderfully-named Rowdy Herrington’s career appears to have dried up; he’s hasn’t directed or written anything that has made it to screen in nearly a decade and Striking Distance remains his most high-profile assignment. It’s a serviceable time-passer if you have nothing better to do and a high tolerance for idiocy; worth a look for Brion James’ screen time at very least.

**1/2

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Must the duck be here?

The Favourite (2018)
(SPOILERS) In my review of The Killing of a Sacred Deer, I suggested The Favourite might be a Yorgos Lanthimos movie for those who don’t like Yorgos Lanthimos movies. At least, that’s what I’d heard. And certainly, it’s more accessible than either of his previous pictures, the first two thirds resembling a kind of Carry On Up the Greenaway, but despite these broader, more slapstick elements and abundant caustic humour, there’s a prevailing detachment on the part of the director, a distancing oversight that rather suggests he doesn’t feel very much for his subjects, no matter how much they emote, suffer or connive. Or pratfall.

Whoever comes, I'll kill them. I'll kill them all.

John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) There’s no guessing he’s back. John Wick’s return is most definite and demonstrable, in a sequel that does what sequels ought in all the right ways, upping the ante while never losing sight of the ingredients that made the original so formidable. John Wick: Chapter 2 finds the minimalist, stripped-back vehicle and character of the first instalment furnished with an elaborate colour palette and even more idiosyncrasies around the fringes, rather like Mad Max in that sense, and director Chad Stahleski (this time without the collaboration of David Leitch, but to no discernible deficit) ensures the action is filled to overflowing, but with an even stronger narrative drive that makes the most of changes of gear, scenery and motivation.

The result is a giddily hilarious, edge-of-the-seat thrill ride (don’t believe The New York Times review: it is not “altogether more solemn” I can only guess Jeannette Catsoulis didn’t revisit the original in the interven…

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

I don’t know if what is happening is fair, but it’s the only thing I can think of that’s close to justice.

The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017)
(SPOILERS) I think I knew I wasn’t going to like The Killing of a Sacred Deer in the first five minutes. And that was without the unedifying sight of open-heart surgery that takes up the first four. Yorgos Lanthimos is something of a Marmite director, and my responses to this and his previous The Lobster (which I merely thought was “okay” after exhausting its thin premise) haven’t induced me to check out his earlier work. Of course, he has now come out with a film that, reputedly, even his naysayers will like, awards-darling The Favourite

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …