jeromewillner

Werner Herzog's 2009 rendition of this movie's theme title, looks great throughout, and is carried well by an intriguing cast ensemble, including a strong lead performance by Nicolas Cage. It might be claimed this movie's limited release was why it failed to recoup it's budget of $20M, gaining only $10M at the box offices. Despite it's limited release and subsequent lack-lustre box-office performance, this movie was listed as one of Roger Ebert's best movies of 2009. This movie does touch on the inter-twinned corruption of the legal system, the police, the legislature, and even the sports industry, so was Roger tipping a 'quiet' nod of support for this aspect of the movie which does set it apart from it's fellow stable-mates in the genre? The Plot's strong beginnings, gradually give way to muddier waters before verging on blatant contrivance. In some ways, the degenerative effect of this upon the plot's coherence and credibility, may cleverly and subtly mirror the degenerative effects of corruption upon the fabric of American Society, itself. Before writing this concept off as a bit-far-fetched, the viewer should bear in mind the appearance of several scenes that clearly warn us that things may not be as straight forward as they appear to be. You could feasibly argue, that these strangely out of place scenes, may serve as cunning devices to shake us out of our apathetic entertainment consumption mode, and to promote a deeper engagement and reflection upon the themes being explored within the movie's narative. If that is the case, then this movie's structure and deeper signposting belie it's apparently shaky narrative by being instead, a vehicle for a subtly and purposefully skewed one. If intentional, this surely ranks this movie amongst the very clever, and the very subtle, which definately deserves merit, as per Roger Ebert's 2009 review, titled - 'The man who stares at iguanas', which incidentally makes no mention what-so-ever, of the movie's narrative on the degenerative effects of corruption on American Society, but which does alude in it's title and content, to a movie called "The Men Who Stare At Goats", released just two months earlier in September 2009, in which Roger Ebert's review reminds us of a line from that movie - "More of this is true than you would believe ...". It could perhaps be feasibly argued, that whilst Abel Ferarra's 1992 (Bad Lieutenant), movie explores police corruption as psycho-drama, Werner Herzog's 2009 movie (Bad Lieutenant - Port of Call New Orleans), explores the intersection between crime and institutional corruption, through the perspective, personality, and experiences of a corrupt cop.

"Director Carl Franklin's Career as a Movie Director spans from 1986 to 2012 (26 years). His career as a director in TV spans from 1993 to present day (30 years), and his work as an actor began in 1973 and ran until 1992 (19 years). At the time of making this, (his fourth movie), he had 20 years of experience as an actor, having appeared in luminary shows such as The Streets of San Francisco, The Incredible Hulk, The Rockford Files, Quincy, M. E, The A-Team, Hill Street Blues, and Roseanne (among others). This exposure meant he brought an incredible breadth of material, style, and talent, from which to synthesize his own directorial vision. With his largest budget so far ($2M), and under the auspices of heavyweight freelance Media Producer & Consultant, Jesse Beaton (whome he would later marry in 2000); Carl Franklin set to work. It's worth mentioning, this movie had originally been intended as a Straight-To-Home-Video production. Co-Writers, Billy-Bob-Thornton, and Tom Epperson had previously Co-written and sold other material, but this offering of theirs, under the Beaton-Franklin influence, gained so much traction and unexpected support, the project was re-purposed for theatrical release. So what we have here, are a relatively unknown writer, and a promising director, both at an early point in their 'new' trajectories in 'the business', and who both 'spring-board' to better and bigger things. That having been said, just what makes 'One False Move' such a stand-out movie in the early 90's?

This movie places drugs and drug-dealing, principally in a black African-American community. From there it explores themes of betrayal, and extreme brutal violence. What may make this movie so different, is how it then uses a plot-shift to widen the horizon and explore the contrast between urban and rural communities, and how these very different communities view one another through different stereotypes. Finally, there is a further plot-shift that arguably explores how the echoes of colonial dominance and despotism, not only shape human behavior today, but also and insidiously, 'perhaps even inevitably', shape all of our futures, to the extent to which we may allow them to do so. These are unfathomably deep multi-layered-themes, and to succeed so well in exploring them, within this crime & justice genre, is surely a sign that we should be paying attention to.

Exploring the early-violence themes in this movie ... It could potentially be argued, that some of the early violent scenes, threatened to damage the movie's credibility because they are so extreme. One could imagine the censors, considering these early scenes, then considering the movie in its entirety; and making a favorable judgement overall; based not on the early gratuitous violence, but on what would be explored later on. Not having been there, this is no more than speculation, but the impact of such brutality, and the visceral reactions these will provoke, may serve to shock the audience into a heightened sense of alertness. In this 'heightened' state, the audience may be better prepared to pay attention, and to also be more receptive to, the more complex ideas that would follow. This 'possible-tactic', weather accidental or purposeful, should surely be watched and guarded carefully. There can be no denying that this movie 'literally' rides the knife-edge between what is acceptable to show on-screen and what is definitely not acceptable. Subtle speculation about censors and motivations aside; one could wonder that a movie of this impact and quality, failed to enjoy wider release, and commercial success; precisely because of the choices made, to include (and not to cut), certain of its violent early scenes. With these 'difficult' scenes only being alluded to, and not directly challenged, by critics such as Hal Hinson (Washington Post), or Roger Ebert; this 'critical-anomaly' may reveal a fracture-point-paradox between a (desire or need) to shock, thrill, entertain, and/or to disturb; and a responsibility to control this impulse, and moderate the 'message', for the greater-good.

This surely then, is a quality, movie with an undeniably troublesome moral-payload, reflected in its own genesis and our 'informed' choice to either watch it, or to avoid it."

After a shaky start, and a few early-on 'bad-movie tropes', Cop Shop settles down to be of much finer material. The female lead is strong but empathic, which is unusual for this genre. The plot's bad-guy themes of psychopathy, murder, and betrayal, are routine if not pedestrian, but set jarringly at-odds with the home-stead family vibe, of the good-guys. And finally we have some character-reveals and plot-shifts that take this beyond the stale fare of good-guy bad-guy narratives, leaving us a few things to raise an eyebrow at, and perhaps, to reflect on. Last but not least, the music score, pace, and dialogue, are surprisingly punchy, with more than a slight echo of Tarrantino-esque style. An unexpectedly better-than-average cop-gangster thriller, with some intelligent twists.