Have you ever seen anybody do anything like this before?

The Frozen Ground

(2013)

Does John Cusack have troubles with the taxman, on the scale of Nicolas Cage and Val Kilmer? An actor who used to appear in a couple of movies a year showed up in seven during 2013, and has another eight pencilled for 2014. What gives, John? Nicolas Cage meanwhile, whose wigmaker also appears to have fallen on hard times, seems to be curtailing the quantity if not the dubious quality. So the two of them together, realising the vision of first-time director Scott Walker, didn’t bode well. The results bear this out, which is especially unfortunate as Walker’s subject matter had the potential for a gripping piece of work.

The Frozen Ground is based on the 13-year killing spree of Robert Hansen, outwardly a respectable family man and member of the community, but whose rap sheet testified to a history of criminal activity and violence against women. Hansen abducted, raped and murdered at least 17 women. A hunter, he would fly his victims out to the Alaskan wilderness where he shot and buried them. It’s a grisly tale, the sort of material one could imagine David Fincher casting a meticulous eye over (he does adore his serial killers, does David). Scott Walker is most definitely David Fincher. He may have the eye for a compelling story, but neither his script nor direction are up to the challenge of translating it to screen.

While Walker hits the essential beats of the tale, he also makes a right botch of Hollywood-ising it in all the wrong places. His attempts to amp up traditional thriller elements are never less than risible. This is particularly ironic, as he announces with great sincerity that this is Cindy Paulson’s story and ends the movie with a roll call of all Hansen’s (known) victims. This would be a nice touch if it the movie weren’t so ham-fisted and straight-to-video in its dramatic content.

Vanessa Hudgens does a tolerable job as panda-eyed Paulson, but she’s saddled with a character required to repeatedly put herself in harm’s way so as to maximise the tension. Are we really supposed to believe that Hansen hired a heavy (Justified’s Brad William Henke) to dispose of Paulson? Has Walker managed to convince himself he’s telling her story, complete with Fiddy Cent as Paulson’s pimp? The attempts to enliven the interrogation of Hansen are no better, with the crucial evidence of Hansen’s map (showing the sites he flew his victims to) introduced as a sudden revelatory moment. “I’ve got it! That’s what these little “X”s mean!” Hansen’s eventual spilling of the beans is toe-curlingly inept as devised and staged.

There’s little to commend him for in terms of the other characters either. There’s zero insight into Hansen, the hows and whys. He may as well be the standard issue boogeyman, despite assurances that we would be presented with the opposite. Cusack is okay, but just being subdued and glowering is no substitute for motivation. Cage’s Sergeant Jack Halcombe is standard issue Cage. He’s fine (I’ll big up Cage in any role; I’m fully aware of the brickbats he takes but I find him enormously entertaining, even when the enjoyment may be inadvertent on his part), but Halcombe is as wafer-thin as Nic’s syrup. He even has a wife (Radha Mitchell) ragging on him who then comes round to his way of thinking when she sees how important his case is. Poor Mitchell; her relocation from Oz has all gone a bit wrong. Also popping up uneventfully are Dean Norris (playing a cop!) and Kevin Dunn (playing a lieutenant; virtually the same role as in True Detective, but not nearly so auspiciously).

Even less assured are Walker’s stylistic flourishes. He appropriates handheld camera as if it’s going out of fashion. There are few directors with the assuredness to use handheld well. Paul Greengrass is one, so much so that his name is virtually synonymous with shakycam. Walker attempts no visual gymnastics, but his technique is horribly distracting. His camera moves and darts without rhyme or reason, an approach bereft of any understanding of the dramatic integrity of a scene and how it fits into the film as a whole. Close-up of a hand, a face, move the camera randomly to suggest import or momentum, cut; stir and repeat. If it looks like he doesn’t know what he’s doing as a storyteller, I’d suggest that’s because he doesn’t. There’s a nice shot with an ethereal moose wandering the city, but it’s an ill-fitting affectation.

As straight-to-video fare goes, this is probably about what you’d expect. But it’s the sadder testament that lingers. Two stars reduced to slumming it in rote roles (is it really 17 years since Con Air?) and a true story executed in an at best mechanical and at worst borderline inept fashion. The morbid fascination of the crimes ensures The Frozen Ground holds interest, but Walker’s floundering take guarantees it will be another decade before anyone goes near Hansen’s story again and attempts to do it the justice.

**1/2

Comments

How would Horatio Alger have handled this situation?

Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998) (SPOILERS) Gilliam’s last great movie – The Zero Theorem (2013) is definitely underrated, but I don’t think it’s that underrated – Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas could easily have been too much. At times it is, but in such instances, intentionally so. The combination of a visual stylist and Hunter S Thompson’s embellished, propulsive turn of phrase turns out, for the most part, to be a cosmically aligned affair, embracing the anarchic abandon of Raoul Duke and Doctor Gonzo’s Las Vegas debauch while contriving to pull back at crucial junctures in order to engender a perspective on all this hedonism. Would Alex Cox, who exited stage left, making way for the Python, have produced something interesting? I suspect, ironically, he would have diluted Thompson in favour of whatever commentary preoccupied him at the time (indeed, Johnny Depp said as much: “ Cox had this great material to work with and he took it and he added his own stuff to it ”). Plus

No matter how innocent you are, or how hard you try, they’ll find you guilty.

The Wrong Man (1956) (SPOILERS) I hate to say it, but old Truffaut called it right on this one. More often than not showing obeisance to the might of Hitchcock during his career-spanning interview, the French critic turned director was surprisingly blunt when it came to The Wrong Man . He told Hitch “ your style, which has found its perfection in the fiction area, happens to be in total conflict with the aesthetics of the documentary and that contradiction is apparent throughout the picture ”. There’s also another, connected issue with this, one Hitch acknowledged: too much fidelity to the true story upon which the film is based.

To survive a war, you gotta become war.

Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) (SPOILERS?) I’d like to say it’s mystifying that a film so bereft of merit as Rambo: First Blood Part II could have finished up the second biggest hit of 1985. It wouldn’t be as bad if it was, at minimum, a solid action movie, rather than an interminable bore. But the movie struck a chord somewhere, somehow. As much as the most successful picture of that year, Back to the Future , could be seen to suggest moviegoers do actually have really good taste, Rambo rather sends a message about how extensively regressive themes were embedding themselves in Reaganite, conservative ‘80s cinema (to be fair, this is something one can also read into Back to the Future ), be those ones of ill-conceived nostalgia or simple-minded jingoism, notional superiority and might. The difference between Stallone and Arnie movies starts right here; self-awareness. Audiences may have watched R ambo in the same way they would a Schwarzenegger picture, but I’m

You were a few blocks away? What’d you see it with, a telescope?

The Eyes of Laura Mars (1978) (SPOILERS) John Carpenter’s first serial-killer screenplay to get made, The Eyes of Laura Mars came out nearly three months before Halloween. You know, the movie that made the director’s name. And then some. He wasn’t best pleased with the results of The Eyes of Laura Mars, which ended up co-credited to David Zelag Goodman ( Straw Dogs , Logan’s Run ) as part of an attempt by producer Jon Peters to manufacture a star vehicle for then-belle Barbra Streisand: “ The original script was very good, I thought. But it got shat upon ”. Which isn’t sour grapes on Carpenter’s part. The finished movie bears ready evidence of such tampering, not least in the reveal of the killer (different in Carpenter’s conception). Its best features are the so-uncleanly-you-can-taste-it 70s New York milieu and the guest cast, but even as an early example of the sub-genre, it’s burdened by all the failings inherit with this kind of fare.

He’s so persistent! He always gets his man.

Speed (1994) (SPOILERS) It must have been a couple of decades since I last viewed Speed all the way through, so it’s pleasing to confirm that it holds up. Sure, Jan de Bont’s debut as a director can’t compete with the work of John McTiernan, for whom he acted as cinematographer and who recommended de Bont when he passed on the picture, but he nevertheless does a more than competent work. Which makes his later turkeys all the more tragic. And Keanu and Sandra Bullock display the kind of effortless chemistry you can’t put a price tag on. And then there’s Dennis Hopper, having a great old sober-but-still-looning time.

But everything is wonderful. We are in Paris.

Cold War (2018) (SPOILERS) Pawel Pawlikowski’s elliptical tale – you can’t discuss Cold War without saying “elliptical” at least once – of frustrated love charts a course that almost seems to be a caricature of a certain brand of self-congratulatorily tragic European cinema. It was, it seems “ loosely inspired ” by his parents (I suspect I see where the looseness comes in), but there’s a sense of calculation to the progression of this love story against an inescapable political backdrop that rather diminishes it.

What do they do, sing madrigals?

The Singing Detective (2003) Icon’s remake of the 1986 BBC serial, from a screenplay by Dennis Potter himself. The Singing Detective fares less well than Icon’s later adaptation of Edge of Darkness , even though it’s probably more faithful to Potter’s original. Perhaps the fault lies in the compression of six episodes into a feature running a quarter of that time, but the noir fantasy and childhood flashbacks fail to engage, and if the hospital reality scans better, it too suffers eventually.

The game is rigged, and it does not reward people who play by the rules.

Hustlers (2019) (SPOILERS) Sold as a female Goodfellas – to the extent that the producers had Scorsese in mind – this strippers-and-crime tale is actually a big, glossy puff piece, closer to Todd Phillips as fashioned by Lorene Scarfia. There are some attractive performances in Hustlers, notably from Constance Wu, but for all its “progressive” women work male objectification to their advantage posturing, it’s incredibly traditional and conservative deep down.

One final thing I have to do, and then I’ll be free of the past.

Vertigo (1958) (SPOILERS) I’ll readily admit my Hitchcock tastes broadly tend to reflect the “consensus”, but Vertigo is one where I break ranks. To a degree. Not that I think it’s in any way a bad film, but I respect it rather than truly rate it. Certainly, I can’t get on board with Sight & Sound enthroning it as the best film ever made (in its 2012’s critics poll). That said, from a technical point of view, it is probably Hitch’s peak moment. And in that regard, certainly counts as one of his few colour pictures that can be placed alongside his black and white ones. It’s also clearly a personal undertaking, a medley of his voyeuristic obsessions (based on D’entre les morts by Pierre Boileau and Thomas Narcejac).

You don’t know anything about this man, and he knows everything about you.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s two-decades-later remake of his British original. It’s undoubtedly the better-known version, but as I noted in my review of the 1934 film, it is very far from the “ far superior ” production Truffaut tried to sell the director on during their interviews. Hitchcock would only be drawn – in typically quotable style – that “ the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional ”. For which, read a young, creatively fired director versus one clinically going through the motions, occasionally inspired by a shot or sequence but mostly lacking the will or drive that made the first The Man Who Knew Too Much such a pleasure from beginning to end.

Now In Full Color, with a Happier Ending

Search This Blog