Skip to main content

I never met nobody got away with anything ever. You?

Hell or High Water
(2016)

(SPOILERS) Of the 2016 Best Picture nominees, Hell or High Water is the one that most felt like it was there to make up numbers, the one no one really thought was in any serious contention for taking the top award. Why, it stood even less chance than the science fiction nominee. Maybe that’s why it turns out to be one of the most satisfying of the nine: it has no pretensions to leading with an earnest statement (not that it doesn’t have things to say), concentrating instead on occupying its crime genre status to the best of its abilities. It additionally helps that the movie was roundly passed over, as it can avoid accompanying defamatory cries of undeserved recognition.


Taylor Sheridan’s screenplay is as satisfying as his previous for Sicario was a disappointment. That was a beautifully shot movie whose delusions of seriousness evaporated once its third act opted to revolve around the exploits of a lawyer turned ninja assassin (for some unearthly reason, Benicio Del Toro’s crackpot character was so popular, he’s back for the sequel). Hell or High Water is, in contrast, resolutely grounded. It has a conceit, sure, but it’s a conceit that knows how unlikely it is, and when the conceit partly pays off, Sheridan and director David Mackenzie are careful to establish that there can be no peace of mind from living the kind of life that only happens in movies. Or, as a witness comments, their actions “seems foolish”, as the days of trying to live by robbing banks are long gone.


The days of making any kind of living appear to be long gone, and while Sheridan continually references the death of towns and industries, he’s never in danger of polemicising.  We’re put in a position of rooting for Chris Pine’s Toby Howard (accompanied by his hot-headed ex-con brother Tanner, played by Ben Foster) on his quest to steal enough undetectable cash to pay off the mortgage on his mother’s property before it defaults, so the oil found on it remains in the family (he sets up a trust so his sons are entitled to it).


Toby’s a driller by trade, but there’s no call to square off the rock and hard place of the bank versus the environment (at least it isn’t fracking); anything that’s one in the eye for the lenders, squeezing the life out of the little people, is something to get behind (the irony of “Let me ask you a question, d’y’all manage trusts?” is lovely, signing up the very people he robbed, and it works like a charm, since all they’re interested in is the money their customer will bring in).


And yet, there’s a down-at heel-inevitability to all this, a situation where the only choices available are ones of perpetuating the beyond-repair system. Toby is under no illusions that this has given him anything, and doesn’t even really know if this will be good for his kids. But there’s a principal to which he has married himself, to his cost, and the low-key final scenes suggest a man who would perhaps take it as no great loss if his life too was forfeit, even if he poses it in terms of the Ranger’s (Jeff Bridges’ Marcus Hamilton) burden (“Maybe I’ll give you piece of mind”: “Maybe I’ll give it to you”).


If Toby, typically of such tales, ends up in a situation with repercussions he did not intend (because, typically of such tales, a capable but reckless wild-card character is essential to disrupt the best-laid plans), he wins sympathy for intentions. Although, one wonders at the conveniently against-the-clock timing, that he left it until a week before foreclosure to initiate his plan.


Lost hope is all around. At one point, we hear a rancher leading cattle away from an oncoming bush fire opine “Is it a wonder my kids won’t do this for a living?”, while the towns on the brothers’ list are exhausted of inhabitants due to the entropic effect of big business sucking them dry. On the other hand, Ranger Alberto Parker (Gil Birmingham) is there to draw attention to this not being some new phenomenon; Native Americans have been disenfranchised long before the white man’s current woes.


Toby: I didn’t kill your partner.
Marcus: Yes, you did, by setting this in motion.

And just as the myth of the bank robber, the death or glory, hell or high water, is shown to be, at best, in the mind of a maniac getting high on the sheer escalation of events, so justice itself is something less fixed and reliable than in storybooks. Hamilton dispatches Tanner with due precision, but he isn’t happy about it; relieved might be the best way of putting it.


He never expected to have his friend and colleague Alberto shot in the head (fair to say, neither did we) and his presumption of confrontation with the surviving member of the duo is left in a state of impasse, neither party able to resolve matters, and perhaps in part reluctant to do so. It’s underlined, sure, but the coded costuming of the principals is effective here; earlier, Marcus mocks Alberto for copying his dress sense, a suggestion of aspiration to the better ranger, the more experienced justice bringer, yet in the final scene Hamilton is outfitted as Toby is, for now he is outside the law in his uncertain mission.


Marcus: This is what they call the white man’s intuition.
Alberto: Sometimes a blind pig finds a truffle.

Sheridan has also created a quick-witted, frequently very funny piece, from Marcus’ casual racism/sly teasing as he affectionately pushes Alberto’s buttons, attempting to get him to meet him on the same level (it seems to work, as eventually he does respond in kind, as per the exchange quoted above). The banter between Tanner and Toby, when not sparring, is often humorous, or a combination of the two, and there are well-observed incidental pleasures throughout; the waitress attracted to Toby who refuses to return Marcus his tainted tip has, we later learn, also failed to identify him from his photo. Marcus and Alberto frequent a diner where they can order anything as long as its steak (“Well, I tell you one thing, nobody’s going to rob this son of a bitch”). 


The brothers’ pursuers, after the reckless final robbery, hightail it when Tanner pulls out an automatic rifle and lets loose. And the latter’s last stand makes for a curiously unexpected diversion into fatalism; Tanner doesn’t expect to get out of this, and doesn’t appear to mind, although perhaps he wasn’t expecting such a sudden exit (“Lord of the plains! That’s me”). The concerned public citizen who takes Marcus to a vantage spot is just itching to do the deadly himself (“Let me take the shot. It’s my gun”) to Marcus unwavering dismissal (“Not on your life”).


Bridges is served a feast of a character and duly tucks in, such that his Best Supporting Actor nod was a no-brainer. Marcus nonchalantly pursues his prey like a 10-gallon Colombo, with a near-unerring insight into their types, goals and modus operandi. To be honest, I could do without the actor’s now habitual choice of mumble mouth, though, like he’s just tucked in to a whole bag of dentures.


It seems like Foster’s probably played the crazy one time too many by this point, but the character is saved by the brotherly affection he holds for Toby, despite their being worlds apart in temperament and intent (questioned on why he agreed to the scheme if he thought they couldn’t succeed, he replies, “Because you asked, little brother”). And, between this and Z for Zachariah, Pine shows he’s at his best avoiding the blockbusters (or at least letting them allow him to navigate this kind of fare).  


Hell or High Water is also a movie possessed a satisfyingly-considered scheme on the part of the hoodlums, no matter how wrong it goes; the plan for laundering and then protecting the money has the ring of veracity, even if the likelihood of it working out, had Toby’s culpability been established, is debatable. Many of the reviews cited this as a western, which in terms of setting, and certainly in terms of hats, I guess it is, but I watched it with the eyes of the crime/heist genre, a picture sharing a cross-pollinated affinity with the likes of No Country for Old Men. Director David Mackenzie has had a patchy career, in terms of material rather than proficiency, but this and Starred Up represent a significant uptick (I’m only grateful Peter Berg didn’t make the picture; we dodged a particularly knuckle-brained bullet there). Certainly, Sheridan will have his work cut out for him if he’s to match the quality of either Mackenzie and Villeneuve on his upcoming Wind River. Hopefully, his torture porn debut Vile won’t prove representative of his talents behind the camera.


Agree? Disagree? Mildly or vehemently? Let me know in the comments below.

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…

Well, we took a vote. Predator’s cooler, right?

The Predator (2018)
(SPOILERS) Is The Predator everything you’d want from a Shane Black movie featuring a Predator (or Yautja, or Hish-Qu-Ten, apparently)? Emphatically not. We've already had a Shane Black movie featuring a Predator – or the other way around, at least – and that was on another level. The problem – aside from the enforced reshoots, and the not-altogether-there casting, and the possibility that full-on action extravaganzas, while delivered competently, may not be his best foot forward – is that I don't think Black's really a science-fiction guy, game as he clearly was to take on the permanently beleaguered franchise. He makes The Predator very funny, quite goofy, very gory, often entertaining, but ultimately lacking a coherent sense of what it is, something you couldn't say of his three prior directorial efforts.

Right! Let’s restore some bloody logic!

It Couldn't Happen Here (1987)
(SPOILERS) "I think our film is arguably better than Spiceworld" said Neil Tennant of his and Chris Lowe's much-maligned It Couldn't Happen Here, a quasi-musical, quasi-surrealist journey through the English landscape via the Pet shop Boys' "own" history as envisaged by co-writer-director Jack Bond. Of course, Spiceworld could boast the presence of the illustrious Richard E Grant, while It Couldn't Happen Here had to settle for Gareth Hunt. Is its reputation deserved? It's arguably not very successful at being a coherent film (even thematically), but I have to admit that I rather like it, ramshackle and studiously aloof though it is.

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 …

My pectorals may leave much to be desired, Mrs Peel, but I’m the most powerful man you’ve ever run into.

The Avengers 2.23: The Positive-Negative Man
If there was a lesson to be learned from Season Five, it was not to include "man" in your title, unless it involves his treasure. The See-Through Man may be the season's stinker, but The Positive-Negative Man isn't far behind, a bog-standard "guy with a magical science device uses it to kill" plot. A bit like The Cybernauts, but with Michael Latimer painted green and a conspicuous absence of a cool hat.

The possibilities are gigantic. In a very small way, of course.

The Avengers 5.24: Mission… Highly Improbable
With a title riffing on a then-riding-high US spy show, just as the previous season's The Girl from Auntie riffed on a then-riding-high US spy show, it's to their credit that neither have even the remotest connection to their "inspirations" besides the cheap gags (in this case, the episode was based on a teleplay submitted back in 1964). Mission… Highly Improbable follows in the increasing tradition (certainly with the advent of Season Five and colour) of SF plotlines, but is also, in its particular problem with shrinkage, informed by other recent adventurers into that area.

Dude, you're embarrassing me in front of the wizards.

Avengers: Infinity War (2018)
(SPOILERS) The cliffhanger sequel, as a phenomenon, is a relatively recent thing. Sure, we kind of saw it with The Empire Strikes Back – one of those "old" movies Peter Parker is so fond of – a consequence of George Lucas deliberately borrowing from the Republic serials of old, but he had no guarantee of being able to complete his trilogy; it was really Back to the Future that began the trend, and promptly drew a line under it for another decade. In more recent years, really starting with The MatrixThe Lord of the Rings stands apart as, post-Weinstein's involvement, fashioned that way from the ground up – shooting the second and third instalments back-to-back has become a thing, both more cost effective and ensuring audiences don’t have to endure an interminable wait for their anticipation to be sated. The flipside of not taking this path is an Allegiant, where greed gets the better of a studio (split a novel into two movie parts assuming a…

Bring home the mother lode, Barry.

Beyond the Black Rainbow (2010)

If Panos Cosmatos’ debut had continued with the slow-paced, tripped-out psychedelia of the first hour or so I would probably have been fully on board with it, but the decision to devolve into an ‘80s slasher flick in the final act lost me.

The director is the son of George Pan Cosmatos (he of The Cassandra Crossing and Cobra, and in name alone of Tombstone, apparently) and it appears that his inspiration was what happened to the baby boomers in the ‘80s, his parents’ generation. That element translates effectively, expressed through the extreme of having a science institute engaging in Crowley/Jack Parsons/Leary occult quests for enlightenment in the ‘60s and the survivors having become burnt out refugees or psychotics by the ‘80s. Depending upon your sensibilities, the torturously slow pace and the synth soundtrack are positives, while the cinematography managed to evoke both lurid early ‘80s cinema and ‘60s experimental fare. 

Ultimately the film takes a …

What a truly revolting sight.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge (aka Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales) (2017)
(SPOILERS) The biggest mistake the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels have made is embracing continuity. It ought to have been just Jack Sparrow with an entirely new cast of characters each time (well, maybe keep Kevin McNally). Even On Stranger Tides had Geoffrey Rush obligatorily returning as Barbossa. Although, that picture’s biggest problem was its director; Pirates of the Caribbean: Salazar’s Revenge has a pair of solid helmers in Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg, which is a relief at least. But alas, the continuity is back with a vengeance. And then some. Why, there’s even an origin-of-Jack Sparrow vignette, to supply us with prerequisite, unwanted and distracting uncanny valley (or uncanny Johnny) de-aging. The movie as a whole is an agreeable time passer, by no means the dodo its critical keelhauling would suggest, albeit it isn’t even pretending to try hard to come up with …

Believe me, Mr Bond, I could shoot you from Stuttgart und still create ze proper effect.

Tomorrow Never Dies (1997)
(SPOILERS) Some of the reactions to Spectre would have you believe it undoes all the “good” work cementing Daniel Craig’s incarnation of Bond in Skyfall. If you didn’t see that picture as the second coming of the franchise (I didn’t) your response to the latest may not be so harsh, despite its less successful choices (Blofeld among them). And it isn’t as if one step, forward two steps back are anything new in perceptions of the series (or indeed hugely divisive views on what even constitutes a decent Bond movie). After the raves greeting Goldeneye, Pierce Brosnan suffered a decidedly tepid response to his second outing, Tomorrow Never Dies, albeit it was less eviscerated than Craig’s sophomore Quantum of Solace. Tomorrow’s reputation disguises many strong points, although it has to be admitted that a Moore-era style finale and a floundering attempt to package in a halcyon villain aren’t among them.

The Bond series’ flirtations with contemporary relevance have a…