Skip to main content

You’re cheap to hire and you’re cheaper to throw away.


Broken City
(2013)

Mark Wahlberg has lately proved himself a shrewd judge of material, as both actor and producer. Perhaps he saw Broken City, for which he wears both hats, as a chance to transpose something of (a contemporary version of) the political intrigue and corruption found in his HBO series Boardwalk Empire to the big screen. Unfortunately, this private detective yarn is left flailing in a sea of clichés and undernourished plotting, both in terms of scope of Brian Tucker’s screenplay and the crude machinations of his antagonists.


Wahlberg’s resurgence over the past few years has partially resulted from sticking to the kind of parts that suit him best. So we haven’t seen a repeat of his ill-advised turns in supernatural/fantasy fodder (The Happening, Max Payne, The Lovely Bones), where his what-you-see-is-what-you-get persona proved ill-fitting with the heightened milieu. Instead, he has capitalised on his relatability as a blue-collar guy and a surprisingly skilled deadpan comedian. His bread-and-butter thrillers may not past muster in the company of his Oscar-nominated turn in The Departed, but they deliver on the level of solid, reliable crowd-pleasers. Wahlberg is usually cast as an essentially good guy dealing with a troublesome past. That’s fine in a pacy heist thriller (Contraband) or an action-packed conspiracy yarn (Shooter). Put that type, particularly when he’s in the most fanciful of movie professions (the private detective), in the corridors of power and you really need to bring something more to the table.


There’s a vague acknowledgement that ex-cop Billy Taggart (Wahlberg)’s profession is anachronistic (“Do private eyes still exist?”), but it’s insufficient to counterbalance the very retro intrigue in which he finds himself entangled. Taggart was persuaded to leave the force quietly seven years earlier, following his trial for shooting a murderer-rapist; New York Mayor (this may be New York, but it could be any-movie city USA) Nicholas Hostetler (Russell Crowe) buried evidence against Taggart to guarantee a self-defence verdict, but informed him that he will could on his services again. When he does, it’s because he believes that his wife (Catherine Zeta-Jones) is having an affair and he wants Taggart to procure evidence. The Mayor’s re-election campaign is coming up, and the rather straightforward trail of clues leads Taggart to Paul Andrews (Kyle Chandler). Andrews is the campaign manager for Hostetler’s opponent Jack Valiant (Barry Pepper). Taggart soon learns that the Mayor hasn’t been exactly transparent with his reasons for engaging his services.


There are no half-measures with storylines of this ilk; if the construction is insufficiently intricate, and the world lacks a believably murky underbelly, it will prove impossible to sell the conceit. And that’s the problem here. Tucker is probably looking to greats such as Chinatown for his cues on rampant profligacy but ends up making City Hall look like a hard-hitting dissection of the mayoral office. There just aren’t the necessary layers of subterfuge to make the dodgy dealing convincing. And, to locate his information, Taggart has the easiest ride of any detective ever; he just happens to find a box full of evidence next to a dumpster. Lucky, eh? Later, we discover that his quarry has helpfully put his name plain-as-day to the company’s articles of association; this company being the one behind a huge development project. 


Tucker’s script has the feel of a first draft, one where characters have affairs to enable plot twists rather than because their behaviour is remotely believable. When you hear, several times, how Taggart has quit drinking it is tiresomely inevitable that he will fall of the wagon (that he does so with such unintentional hilarity is a surprise, though). The subplot involving his girlfriend’s (Natalie Martinez) appearance in a movie is rather silly and overwrought. Perhaps the makers realised this as she disappears halfway through, never to return.


The moral posturing of the film is curiously indistinct also. Political corruption and big business duplicity is bad, obviously, but the implication is that Taggart’s initial action, even if it was outside the law, was good. He took down one of the scum, Dirty Harry-style, and there is no suggestion that he is contrite when he shows willingness to face the music for what he has done. Indeed, the repeated validation of his action by the family of the victim reinforces the Old Testament judgement meted out by Taggart (Wahlberg, as a Christian, may be endorsing this type of behaviour; who knows?)


That’s about the extent of how provocative this material is, however. Otherwise, it’s heavy-handed every step of the way. Director Allen Hughes, in his first solo effort away from brother Albert, furnishes the visuals with the kind of polish you’d expect, but he also retains a lazy eye for story. He has filled the cast out nicely, but the script limitations ensure this feels like a city with only seven or eight people living in it.


Russell Crowe, Jor-El aside, has made surprisingly little of his supporting turns, and this is no exception. He isn’t the kind of actor who comes on and does a larger-than-life turn, overpowering the picture, like a Hoffman or a Spacey. Ironically, given his early promise in The Insider, he isn’t much of a chameleon either. Here he plasters himself in fake tan and bad hair, but furnishing his character with a distinctive look doesn’t make him any more compelling. Crowe hams it up, but in a rather disinterested manner. For what it’s worth, he and Wahlberg do have reasonable chemistry; it just isn’t in support of anything worthwhile. Across the board, however, there’s a sense that the performers are trying to play big to make up for the spaces between their dialogue and their wafer-thin characters. Zeta-Jones, Pepper, Chandler, Griffin Dunne are all fine, but they’re playing comic strip parts. Jeffrey Wright’s police captain, meanwhile, is plain ridiculous, both on the page and in Wright’s over-exerting performance.


Tucker’s script was part of 2008’s black list of best-unproduced screenplays, which is fairly clear indication that unwarranted hype can open doors. The type of film Wahlberg and Hughes are angling for is commendable (a mainstream thriller with some substance) but the political world it occupies is shallow in conception and uninspired in content.

**

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I think I’m Pablo Picasso!

Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) (SPOILERS) I get the impression that, whatever it is stalwart Venom fans want from a Venom movie, this iteration isn’t it. The highlight here for me is absolutely the wacky, love-hate, buddy-movie antics of Tom Hardy and his symbiote alter. That was the best part of the original, before it locked into plot “progression” and teetered towards a climax where one CGI monster with gnarly teeth had at another CGI monster with gnarly teeth. And so it is for Venom: Let There Be Carnage . But cutting quicker to the chase.

Are you, by any chance, in a trance now, Mr Morrison?

The Doors (1991) (SPOILERS) Oliver Stone’s mammoth, mythologising paean to Jim Morrison is as much about seeing himself in the self-styled, self-destructive rebel figurehead, and I suspect it’s this lack of distance that rather quickly leads to The Doors becoming a turgid bore. It’s strange – people are , you know, films equally so – but I’d hitherto considered the epic opus patchy but worthwhile, a take that disintegrated on this viewing. The picture’s populated with all the stars it could possibly wish for, tremendous visuals (courtesy of DP Robert Richardson) and its director operating at the height of his powers, but his vision, or the incoherence thereof, is the movie’s undoing. The Doors is an indulgent, sprawling mess, with no internal glue to hold it together dramatically. “Jim gets fat and dies” isn’t really a riveting narrative through line.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.

Fifty medications didn’t work because I’m really a reincarnated Russian blacksmith?

Infinite (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s as if Mark Wahlberg, his lined visage increasingly resembling a perplexed potato, learned nothing from the blank ignominy of his “performances” in previous big-budget sci-fi spectacles Planet of the Apes and, er, Max Payne . And maybe include The Happening in that too ( Transformers doesn’t count, since even all-round reprobate Shia La Boeuf made no visible dent on their appeal either way). As such, pairing him with the blandest of journeyman action directors on Infinite was never going to seem like a sterling idea, particularly with a concept so far removed from of either’s wheelhouse.

I can do in two weeks what you can only wish to do in twenty years.

Wrath of Man (2021) (SPOILERS) Guy Ritchie’s stripped-down remake of Le Convoyeur (or Cash Truck , also the working title for this movie) feels like an intentional acceleration in the opposite direction to 2019’s return-to-form The Gentleman , his best movie in years. Ritchie seems to want to prove he can make a straight thriller, devoid of his characteristic winks, nods, playfulness and outright broad (read: often extremely crude) sense of humour. Even King Arthur: Legend of the Sword has its fair share of laughs. Wrath of Man is determinedly grim, though, almost Jacobean in its doom-laden trajectory, and Ritchie casts his movie accordingly, opting for more restrained performers, less likely to summon more flamboyant reflexes.

Five people make a conspiracy, right?

Snake Eyes (1998) (SPOILERS) The best De Palma movies offer a synthesis of plot and aesthetic, such that the director’s meticulously crafted shots and set pieces are underpinned by a solid foundation. That isn’t to say, however, that there isn’t a sheer pleasure to be had from the simple act of observing, from De Palma movies where there isn’t really a whole lot more than the seduction of sound, image and movement. Snake Eyes has the intention to be both scrupulously written and beautifully composed, coming after a decade when the director was – mostly – exploring his oeuvre more commercially than before, which most often meant working from others’ material. If it ultimately collapses in upon itself, then, it nevertheless delivers a ream of positives in both departments along the way.

I’ll look in Bostock’s pocket.

Doctor Who Revelation of the Daleks Lovely, lovely, lovely. I can quite see why Revelation of the Daleks doesn’t receive the same acclaim as the absurdly – absurdly, because it’s terrible – overrated Remembrance of the Daleks . It is, after all, grim, grisly and exemplifies most of the virtues for which the Saward era is commonly decried. I’d suggest it’s an all-time classic, however, one of the few times 1980s Who gets everything, or nearly everything, right. If it has a fault, besides Eric’s self-prescribed “Kill everyone” remit, it’s that it tries too much. It’s rich, layered and very funny. It has enough material and ideas to go off in about a dozen different directions, which may be why it always felt to me like it was waiting for a trilogy capper.

Madam, the chances of bagging an elephant on the Moon are remote.

First Men in the Moon (1964) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen swaps fantasy for science fiction and stumbles somewhat. The problem with his adaptation of popular eugenicist HG Wells’ 1901 novel isn’t so much that it opts for a quirky storytelling approach over an overtly dramatic one, but that it’s insufficiently dedicated to pursuing that choice. Which means First Men in the Moon , despite a Nigel Kneale screenplay, rather squanders its potential. It does have Lionel Jeffries, though.

Beer is for breakfast around here. Drink or begone.

Cocktail (1988) (SPOILERS) When Tarantino claims the 1980s (and 1950s) as the worst movie decade, I’m inclined to invite him to shut his butt down. But should he then flourish Cocktail as Exhibit A, I’d be forced to admit he has a point. Cocktail is a horrifying, malignant piece of dreck, a testament to the efficacy of persuasive star power on a blithely rapt and undiscerning audience. Not only is it morally vacuous, it’s dramatically inert. And it relies on Tom’s toothy charms to a degree that would have any sensitive soul rushed to the A&E suffering from toxic shock (Tom’s most recently displayed toothy charms will likely have even his staunchest devotees less than sure of themselves, however, as he metamorphoses into your favourite grandma). And it was a huge box office hit.