Bad Influence

"Bad Influeince:" Yup, that's a good title for one of the main characters in this movie: "Alex," played by Rob Lowe. His grin alone is pure evil! In fact, Lowe's character is one of the lowest I've encountered in these modern-day thrillers. This also could be called a modern "noir," because it has a lot of that genre's qualities. This also is different from the normal cops-vs.- crooks film.

As bad as "Alex" was, I couldn't root for the other main character, either: "Michael Boll" (James Spader). Spader is one of these actors that seems to play very snotty, unlikeable people. Maybe he's just good at play annoying characters.

An odd character, and one that added to this film, was the guy (Christian Clemenson) who played Spader's older, stoned-out brother "Pismo." What a loser.....but an interesting person.

I really was intrigued by this film the first time I saw it but less so in the next two viewings, finally trading this in for something else. But for one viewing, it's recommended for crime fans, or people who just plain like evil characters.

To me this movie was about a lifestyle. The music in this movie was very underground and featured Skinny Puppy tracks ('Who's Laughing Now?')along with a host of other interesting songs. The main dance-floor scene was very well done and gave a glimpse into the underworld of recreation drugs. Rob Lowe and James Spader delivered convincing roles and were a perfect fit for this cult classic. I'm still looking for the song featured on this movie with the lyrics "I wanna take you down"... It was cool. The movie was cool. Guess you have to appreciate the music at one point in your life to appreciate this type of movie...

regards...

Rob Lowe plays the strikingly good looking GQ styled stranger who befriends an affluent wimp named Michael. He also introduces him to evil, threesomes and robbery. You never know why Rob Lowe does what he does(maybe it's sexual?) but it doesn't spell it out for you. He even tapes him while having sex so Alex clearly has a sexual power over Michael. Rob Lowe in his early movies was just a pretty boy who had cool hair but he was awesome in this movie. He taped himself having sex with minors just two years before this movie(he's facing his demons in this one). Oh well, Rob Lowe was the movie. Billy Zane's sister is ridiculously goodlooking and she has the mysterious, sexy look which makes her perfect in this. One question though, what is up with his stoner brother? The actor was pathetic and he looked like a librarian. He wasn't even necessary and his stupid scenes ate up time that we could have had more of the Rob Lowe-James Spader dynamic. That was bad casting but other than that this movie owns.

I enjoyed this movie very much, which is why it got seven stars from me, but it's by no means a fantastic or transcendent experience. It does it's job as a thriller ably, and it's worth watching.

The good: You do care about the characters, and James Spader and Rob Lowe are both fantastic actors who are on the top of their game here. It's interesting to see Spader play a guy who isn't super cool and self assured for a change, and he handles it well. Lowe channels a bit of Patrick Bateman and creates a great GQ sociopath. The supporting cast is quite good as well, however this could very well have been a two-man film, as you can fit the dialog of all the other characters in the movie combined onto maybe two sheets of paper. The director also had a great eye for style, as the locations, clothing and music were gorgeous and perfectly suited to the era, and gave the film a great deal of authenticity.

The bad: I'm not entirely convinced why Spader was so quick to discard his fiancé (who was beautiful, rich and from all indications a very nice person that cared for him a great deal). The film never really sets up any kind of conflict or apprehension between the couple to justify Spader's truly rash behavior. Yes, I get that he wanted a taste of the bad-boy life that Lowe was a part of, but he seemed to throw it all away far too easily and willingly. For the type of character that he was, I'd expect a little more internal conflict, moralizing and apprehension to go along with a decision like that. It just seems like his descent was inexplicably rapid and left a lot of questions unanswered. Beyond that, I think the ending (or last 30 minutes or so) could have been done a little better.

The good does really outweigh the bad, and the movie is genuinely worth watching if you're a fan of the genre. Don't expect a Michael Mann film, but you can definitely get some solid entertainment value out of it nonetheless.

When you encounter a bad movie, the tendency is to just blow it off. After all, most folks are largely incompetent at what they do. But if you check the credentials of the people involved, you have to think again.

The writer has written successful movies as well as fine ones. "Snake Eyes" is great until the end, a fine examination or watching for us to watch. And "Panic Room" is an experiment in making a building a character.

The director has written and directed films that show he understands the mechanics of noir, the very thing being tinkered with here. Spader has been involved in several noir-bending adventures, always as a contributor.

What went wrong? The pitch certainly would have been "noir personified," specifically by mixing in the "visitor that changes lives" genre. Noir is when a man or couple get accidentally caught up in mischievous fate, fate that seems to actively play with their lives.

A well established derivative is the "omniscient serial killer" genre, which to some extent puts a face on fate. "Funny Games" is a similar experiment in building calmly human dervishes. But it is an entirely different matter to make fate a friend. That's what's attempted here. It may be possible, but not the simple way that's tried.

The minor fold here is that fate uses film (video) in the two events around which the story turns.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.