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

If you never do anything, you never become anyone.

An Education (2009)
Carey Mulligan deserves all the attention she received for her central performance, and the depiction of the ‘60s is commendably subdued. I worried there was going to be a full-blown music montage sequence at the climax that undid all the good work, but thankfully it was fairly low key. 

Alfred Molina and Olivia Williams are especially strong in the supporting roles, and it's fortunate for credibility’s sake that that Orlando Bloom had to drop out and Dominic Cooper replaced him.
***1/2

Do you read Sutter Cane?

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
(SPOILERS) The concluding chapter of John Carpenter’s unofficial Apocalypse Trilogy (preceded by The Thing and Prince of Darkness) is also, sadly, his last great movie. Indeed, it stands apart in the qualitative wilderness that beset him during the ‘90s (not for want of output). Michael De Luca’s screenplay had been doing the rounds since the ‘80s, even turned down by Carpenter at one point, and it proves ideal fodder for the director, bringing out the best in him. Even cinematographer Gary K Kibbe seems inspired enough to rise to the occasion. It could do without the chugging rawk soundtrack, perhaps, but then, that was increasingly where Carpenter’s interests resided (as opposed to making decent movies).

Can you close off your feelings so you don’t get crippled by the moral ambiguity of your violent actions?

Spider-Man Worst to Best

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel (2019)
(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.

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…

What, you're going to walk in there like it's the commie Disneyland or something?

Stranger Things 3 (2019)
(SPOILERS) It’s very clear by this point that Stranger Things isn’t going to serve up any surprises. It’s operating according to a strict formula, one requiring the opening of the portal to the Upside Down every season and an attendant demagorgon derivative threat to leak through, only to be stymied at the last moment by our valorous team. It’s an ‘80s sequel cycle through and through, and if you’re happy with it functioning exclusively on that level, complete with a sometimes overpowering (over)dose of nostalgia references, this latest season will likely strike you as just the ticket.

How can you have time when it clearly has you?

Dark  Season 2
(SPOILERS) I’m not intending to dig into Dark zealously, as its plotting is so labyrinthine, it would take forever and a day, and I’d just end up babbling incoherently (so what’s new). But it’s worth commenting on, as it’s one of the few Netflix shows I’ve seen that feels entirely rigorous and disciplined – avoiding the flab and looseness that too often seems part and parcel of a service expressly avoiding traditional ratings models – as it delivers its self-appointed weighty themes and big ideas. And Dark’s weighty themes and big ideas really are weighty and big, albeit simultaneously often really frustrating. It came as no surprise to learn of the showrunners’ overriding fixation on determinism at work in the multi-generational, multiple time period-spanning events within the German town of Winden, but I was intrigued regarding their structural approach, based on clearly knowing the end game of their characters, rather than needing to reference (as they put it) Post-It…

I should have mailed it to the Marx Brothers.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
When your hero(es) ride off into the sunset at the end of a film, it’s usually a pretty clear indication that a line is being drawn under their adventures. Sure, rumours surfaced during the ‘90s of various prospective screenplays for a fourth outing for the whip-cracking archeologist. But I’m dubious anyone really expected it to happen. There seemed to be a natural finality to Last Crusade that made the announcement of his 2007 return nostalgically welcome but otherwise unwarranted. That it turned out so tepid merely seemed like confirmation of what we already knew; Indy’s time was past.

Doesn't work out, I'll send her home in body bag.

Anna (2019)
(SPOILERS) I’m sure one could construe pertinent parallels between the various allegations and predilections that have surfaced at various points relating to Luc Besson, both over the years and very recently, and the subject matter of his movies, be it by way of a layered confessional or artistic “atonement” in the form of (often ingenue) women rising up against their abusers/employers. In the case of Anna, however, I just think he saw Atomic Blonde and got jealous. I’ll have me some of that, though Luc. Only, while he brought more than sufficient action to the table, he omitted two vital ingredients: strong lead casting and a kick-ass soundtrack.

Spider-Man with his hand in the cookie jar! Whoever brings me that photo gets a job.

Spider-Man 3 (2007)
(SPOILERS) Spider-Man 3 is a mess. That much most can agree on that much. And I think few – Jonathan Ross being one of them – would claim it’s the best of the Raimi trilogy. But it’s also a movie that has taken an overly harsh beating. In some cases, this a consequence of negative reaction to its most inspired elements – it would be a similar story with Iron Man Three a few years later – and in others, it’s a reflection of an overstuffed narrative pudding – so much so that screenwriter Alvin Sargent considered splitting the movie into two. In respect of the latter, elements were forced on director Sam Raimi, and these cumulative disagreements would eventually lead him to exit the series (it would take another three years before his involvement in Spider-Man 4 officially ended). There’s a lot of chaff in the movie, but there’s also a lot of goodness here, always providing you aren’t gluten intolerant.