Skip to main content

Dude. You’re my hero and shit.

El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie
(2019)

(SPOILERS) I was going to say I’d really like to see what Vince Gilligan has up his sleeve besides Breaking Bad spinoffs. But then I saw that he had a short-lived series on CBS a few years back (Battle Creek). I guess things Breaking Bad-related ensure an easy greenlight, particularly from Netflix, for whom the original show was bread and butter in its take up as a streaming platform. There’s something slightly dispiriting about El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie, though. Not that Gilligan felt the need to return to Jesse Pinkman – although the legitimacy of that motive is debatable – but the desire to re-enter and re-inhabit the period of the show itself, as if he’s unable to move on from a near-universally feted achievement and has to continually exhume it and pick it apart.

And maybe there’s a bit of fear in there too. I doubt anyone stipulated that, if he was returning to the well, Walter White had to be in there – I mean, this is Netflix, laissez-faire is how it is, until they cancel you – but he includes a flashback nevertheless, in a movie that is so predicated on the same, it barely has a chance to breathe or find anything approaching an identity of its own. These are the things you loved about the series, Gilligan seems to be saying. Oh, and here’s a bone of some other stuff that’s happened to Jesse since. Which is basically his escape to Alaska. I think I’d rather have re-joined him somewhere down the line, rather than Gilligan meticulously documenting the hours and days subsequent to his taking off. But that’s what we’ve got, so…

Jesse’s quest to secure some escape money requires Gilligan to fashion a backstory showing where Todd (Jesse Plemons) stashed his cash. At least, before he stashed it somewhere else. If this is slightly inelegant – Gilligan isn’t able to pull existing threads from the original but has to weave in new ones – if feels less so because he does create a series of engrossing scenarios. While on the one hand you have the return of Robert Forster (RIP) as a character he played right near the end of the series’ run, a fugitive relocation specialist, you also have Gilligan coming up with two new characters (the always great Scott Shepherd as Casey and Scott MacArthur as Neil), who require a flashback to establish that Jesse has previously met them. Again, it isn’t the most elegant of manoeuvres.

The Neil and Casey plotline nevertheless provides the dramatic meat of El Camino, including a fine sustained sequence in which Jesse first breaks into Todd’s apartment and spends the night searching for his money; when he finally finds it, he’s inevitably interrupted, by the duo posing as cops. The following confrontation allows that Jesse is still something of a resourceful idiot, failing to recognise them as impostors, but then compelled to revisit them to ask of them the shortfall he needs for Forster to deliver him from peril. The subsequent “hero” scene has Jesse despatch both antagonists in a duel, providing a highly unlikely – on all sides of the equation – if satisfyingly cathartic resolution to his trials.

Flashbacks wise, we naturally get all the favourites – Krysten Ritter, Jonathan Banks, Bryan Cranston in a rather obvious bald wig – but such fan-service feels inessential in all cases, and while they’re nice enough to see, they’re ultimately a disservice to Jesse’s tale, even cumulatively suggesting Gilligan might be concerned that Paul can’t carry the story himself. Which he more than can. I don’t think Paul is necessarily a great all-rounder – of the various sore thumbs in Exodus: Gods and Kings, he stuck out by far the most – but in a role like this, he’s riveting. The flashback scenes that work best are all ones between Jesse and Todd, showcasing the captive, oppressed Pinkman; Paul gets to follow this up with convincingly disoriented PTSD. And as a director, Gilligan is particularly assured in characterising his protagonist’s mental state, while in general embracing the opportunity to go more cinematic.

Gilligan leaves Jesse much where he left him before: free. More emphatically so, perhaps, but enough to justify El Camino? I’d say probably not. He hasn’t convinced me he really needed to tell this story, and the dominance of flashbacks serve to underline that. As for further revisits? It might be inherent to the character that he needs a foil, or to be a foil, in which case Gilligan would really need a proper idea. But then, if he has a proper idea, it should really be in the service of a whole new original series (or film).


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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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.

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.

Another case of the screaming oopizootics.

Doctor Who Season 14 – Worst to Best The best Doctor Who season? In terms of general recognition and unadulterated celebration, there’s certainly a strong case to be made for Fourteen. The zenith of Robert Holmes and Philip Hinchcliffe’s plans for the series finds it relinquishing the cosy rapport of the Doctor and Sarah in favour of the less-trodden terrain of a solo adventure and underlying conflict with new companion Leela. More especially, it finds the production team finally stretching themselves conceptually after thoroughly exploring their “gothic horror” template over the course of the previous two seasons (well, mostly the previous one).

He is a brigand and a lout. Pay him no serious mention.

The Wind and the Lion (1975) (SPOILERS) John Milius called his second feature a boy’s-own adventure, on the basis of the not-so-terrified responses of one of those kidnapped by Sean Connery’s Arab Raisuli. Really, he could have been referring to himself, in all his cigar-chomping, gun-toting reactionary glory, dreaming of the days of real heroes. The Wind and the Lion rather had its thunder stolen by Jaws on release, and it’s easy to see why. As polished as the picture is, and simultaneously broad-stroke and self-aware in its politics, it’s very definitely a throwback to the pictures of yesteryear. Only without the finger-on-the-pulse contemporaneity of execution that would make Spielberg and Lucas’ genre dives so memorable in a few short years’ 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.

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.

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.

They literally call themselves “Decepticons”. That doesn’t set off any red flags?

Bumblebee  (2018) (SPOILERS) Bumblebee is by some distance the best Transformers movie, simply by dint of having a smattering of heart (one might argue the first Shia LaBeouf one also does, and it’s certainly significantly better than the others, but it’s still a soulless Michael Bay “machine”). Laika VP and director Travis Knight brings personality to a series that has traditionally consisted of shamelessly selling product, by way of a nostalgia piece that nods to the likes of Herbie (the original), The Iron Giant and even Robocop .

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

That’s what people call necromancer’s weather.

The Changes (1975) This adaptation of Peter Dickinson’s novel trilogy carries a degree of cult nostalgia cachet due to it being one of those more “adult” 1970s children’s serials (see also The Children of the Stones , The Owl Service ). I was too young to see it on its initial screening – or at any rate, too young to remember it – but it’s easy to see why it lingered in the minds of those who did. Well, the first episode, anyway. Not for nothing is The Changes seen as a precursor to The Survivors in the rural apocalypse sub-genre – see also the decidedly nastier No Blade of Grass – as following a fairly gripping opener, it drifts off into the realm of plodding travelogue.