Skip to main content

The whole town's underwater. You're grabbing a bucket when you should be grabbing a bathing suit.


Gangster Squad
(2013)

Substitute Al Capone for Mickey Cohen, and you have a gangster movie closely following The Untouchables’ formula but devoid of that film’s style and wit; an elite squad of police misfits are assembled to bring down a mob boss, and they aren’t afraid to get their hands dirty.

Director Ruben Fleischer (whose Zombieland was a lot of fun, but it’s difficult to see how anyone thought he’d bring out the best in this material) and writer Will Beall are no Brian De Palma and David Mamet, but I think they’d quite like to be. The Untouchables played on the clichés of the crime fiction and Mamet delivered an intentionally straightforward morality play; the flourish of De Palma’s direction and Ennio Morricone’s score transformed it into something indelible. The writer/director team of Gangster Squad simply delivers the B movie material in B movie fashion.

The production design and period trappings furnish the production with the kind of finesse you’d expect, but Fleischer’s approach is resolutely cartoonish. This is one step up from Dick Tracy, rather than one step down from serious mob fare. As if to emphasise its true heritage, Sean Penn’s Cohen is buried under ridiculous prosthetics; he looks nothing less than a supporting villain in Warren Beatty’s take on the comic book detective. Sure, the director can handle an action sequence. But he has no take on the material other than to render it as blandly pulpy as possible. When Cohen informs a henchman “You know the drill”, and seconds later the boss and a couple of goons make mince of his brains with an electric drill, it’s clear that this film has few aspirations to intelligence or refinement.

Needless to say, the script plays fast and loose with the history of the case. Early on, it looks like it might have the balls to eke out a distinctive path as squad leader John O’Mara (Josh Brolin) takes an unwise brawn-before-brains approach and nearly gets the team killed. But, with only a couple of sequences illustrating their approach and almost no insight into Cohen and his activities (other than that he is nasty, has designs on expanding his empire, and has a squeeze – Emma Stone – who is also seeing squad member Jerry Wooters (Ryan Gosling)), it’s set to end up shallow and dissatisfying. Lip service is paid to outsmarting Cohen, but the film is really only interested in over-the-top shootouts and car chases with tommy guns blazing. Such an approach could only take off if told with vibrancy, but what we get is so-so pastiche.

As such the cast is a waste; Brolin and Gosling give shading to the honourable cop and the jaded cop respectively. Brolin, at least, is something of a hardnosed variation on Costner’s clean-cut Elliot Ness. Mireille Enos also provides a different take on the devoted wife; pregnant and reluctant to see her husband killed, she gives his list of squad candidates the once-over to ensure he has adequate protection. Stone has great chemistry with Gosling, but her role is entirely derivative. Penn is unimpressive; most likely the script is partly to blame, but he’s your standard rent-a-thug. In The Untouchables, De Niro has considerably less screen time as Al Capone but the impact and economy of Mamet’s writing ensures that his presence is felt throughout. Other members of the squad are given little chance to make an impression, with Beall hoping the audience will pick up on their “types” in the place of characterisations (Anthony Mackie, Giovanni Ribsi – not mugging frantically for a change -, Michael Pena and Robert Patrick). It’s a predictable measure of Beall’s indebtedness to The Untouchables that the brains and old-timer in the squad don’t make it to the end credits; there is none of the pathos of the 1987 film, however.

The film required reshoots when a sequence in a movie theatre was cut following the Aurora shootings. It was replaced with the film’s Chinatown sequence; the makers would have better spent their time attending to the telegraphed plotting and lack of intrigue, rather than adding more explosions and bullet-riddled bodies. It is a violent film, but one with little impact; you don’t care much for the protagonists or their agenda and, by the time of the wearisomely inevitable fistfight announces the climax, Fleischer has completely lost any grip on the material.

**1/2

Popular posts from this blog

If I do nothing else, I will convince them that Herbert Stempel knows what won the goddam Academy Award for Best goddam Picture of 1955. That’s what I’m going to accomplish.

Quiz Show (1994) (SPOILERS) Quiz Show perfectly encapsulates a certain brand of Best Picture nominee: the staid, respectable, diligent historical episode, a morality tale in response to which the Academy can nod their heads approvingly and discerningly, feeding as it does their own vainglorious self-image about how times and attitudes have changed, in part thanks to their own virtuousness. Robert Redford’s film about the 1950s Twenty-One quiz show scandals is immaculately made, boasts a notable cast and is guided by a strong screenplay from Paul Attanasio (who, on television, had just created the seminal Homicide: Life on the Streets ), but it lacks that something extra that pushes it into truly memorable territory.

Your Mickey Mouse is one big stupid dope!

Enemy Mine (1985) (SPOILERS) The essential dynamic of Enemy Mine – sworn enemies overcome their differences to become firm friends – was a well-ploughed one when it was made, such that it led to TV Tropes assuming, since edited, that it took its title from an existing phrase (Barry Longyear, author of the 1979 novella, made it up, inspired by the 1961 David Niven film The Best of Enemies ). The Film Yearbook Volume 5 opined that that Wolfgang Petersen’s picture “ lacks the gritty sauciness of Hell in the Pacific”; John Boorman’s WWII film stranded Lee Marvin and Toshiro Mifune on a desert island and had them first duking it out before becoming reluctant bedfellows. Perhaps germanely, both movies were box office flops.

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

Say hello to the Scream Extractor.

Monsters, Inc. (2001) (SPOILERS) I was never the greatest fan of Monsters, Inc. , even before charges began to be levelled regarding its “true” subtext. I didn’t much care for the characters, and I particularly didn’t like the way Pixar’s directors injected their own parenting/ childhood nostalgia into their plots. Something that just seems to go on with their fare ad infinitum. Which means the Pixars I preferred tended to be the Brad Bird ones. You know, the alleged objectivist. Now, though, we learn Pixar has always been about the adrenochrome, so there’s no going back…

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

I’m just the balloon man.

Copshop (2021) (SPOILERS) A consistent problem with Joe Carnahan’s oeuvre is that, no matter how confidently his movies begin, or how strong his premise, or how adept his direction or compelling the performances he extracts, he ends up blowing it. He blows it with Copshop , a ’70s-inspired variant on Assault on Precinct 13 that is pretty damn good during the first hour, before devolving into his standard mode of sado-nihilistic mayhem.

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991) (SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

When we have been subtle, then can I kill him?

The Avengers 6.16. Legacy of Death There’s scarcely any crediting the Terry Nation of Noon-Doomsday as the same Terry Nation that wrote this, let alone the Terry Nation churning out a no-frills Dalek story a season for the latter stages of the Jon Pertwee era. Of course, Nation had started out as a comedy writer (for Hancock), and it may be that the kick Brian Clemens gave him up the pants in reaction to the quality of Noon-Doomsday loosened a whole load of gags. Admittedly, a lot of them are well worn, but they come so thick and fast in Legacy of Death , accompanied by an assuredly giddy pace from director Don Chaffey (of Ray Harryhausen’s Jason and the Argonauts ) and a fine ensemble of supporting players, that it would be churlish to complain.

You ever heard the saying, “Don’t rob the bank across from the diner that has the best donuts in three counties”?

2 Guns (2013) (SPOILERS) Denzel Washington is such a reliable performer, that it can get a bit boring. You end up knowing every gesture or inflection in advance, whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy. And his films are generally at least half decent, so you end up seeing them. Even in Flight (or perhaps especially in Flight ; just watch him chugging down that vodka) where he’s giving it his Oscar-nominatable best, he seems too familiar. I think it may be because he’s an actor who is more effective the less he does. In 2 Guns he’s not doing less, but sometimes it seems like it. That’s because the last person I’d ever expect blows him off the screen; Mark Wahlberg.