Movie Review SWAT

S.W.A.T (2003) 

Directed by Clark Johnson

Written by David Ayer, David McKenna

Starring Samuel L. Jackson, Colin Farrell, Jeremy Renner, L.L Cool J, Josh Charles, Michelle Rodriguez, Olivier Martinez 

Release Date August 8th, 2003

Published August 7th, 2003

Can anyone give me one plausible reason why this film is related to the 70's TV show indicated in its title? Other than that killer theme song that is. Outside of the song, there is no necessity to relate this movie to that lame Robert Urich lead TV serial, other than maybe to avoid the hassle of having to explain that they are not related. Why tie the film to this sinking lead weight of a 70's TV bomb? S.W.A.T only lasted one season on ABC. It's not as if remakes of 70's TV shows are guaranteed blockbusters. That only works when you can populate the lead roles with super hot babes like Charlie’s Angels.

Then again, maybe that is the theory here, but with reverse genders. Colin Farrell, LL Cool J and even Sam Jackson to a point could be considered eye candy for the ladies. That said you could do that without the TV connection. So we are back to my original question. Regardless of the TV connection or the eye candy, S.W.A.T. as directed by cop show vet Clark Johnson is a somewhat competent action movie/police procedural.

Colin Farrell stars as Jim Streets, the same role as Bobby Urich on TV but the comparison ends there. Streets is a swat team member who joins his fellow teammates at the site of a bank robbery. It's a nightmare scenario that evokes memories of a real life incident in Brentwood, California just last year where two heavily armed men shot it out with police in broad daylight, a scenario they were rumored to have cribbed from the Michael Mann’s Heat. Call it art imitating life, imitating art.

Anyway, Street and his partner Gamble (Jeremy Renner) are deployed on the roof and gain access to the hostages being held by two more armed men inside the bank. Despite being told to wait, Street and Gamble make a move and put down the bad guys and save the hostages. Unfortunately one hostage is wounded during the rescue and the boys are rewarded with a demotion for Street and firing for Gamble who pulled the trigger.

Cut to six months later, Street is stuck cleaning guns amongst other of the worst jobs a cop can do and still be a cop. Things change though when an ex swat leader named Hondo Harrelson (Jackson) returns from retirement. Hondo's gig is to help the LAPD remake its image by assembling a top-notch new SWAT team, a team more competent and efficient than ever before. Hondo's first choice is Street, but not before he jumps through some hoops and watches the rest of the team come together. The recruits are Deke (LL Cool J), Sanchez (Michele Rodriguez), McCabe (Sports Night's Josh Charles) and Boxer (Brian Van Holt).

There’s a couple of montages of the personal lives and training sequences and one very well choreographed training sequence set on a decommissioned airplane. We then move headlong into the main plot of the film which is the transfer of a high profile prisoner, an international drug runner named Montel (Olivier Martinez). Sounds easy, and it would have been except Montel has, through the throng of media covering his shootout with police and eventual arrest, offered 100 million bucks to anyone who can get him out of police custody and back home to France.

What's surprising is that despite the typicality of the stunts featured in the film’s trailer, S.W.A.T. unfolds very logically from the opening hostage sequence to the training all the way to the final gun battles. Director Clark Johnson makes even the biggest stunt sequences that have never been seen in real life seem perfectly plausible in the context of the film. Though I must quibble with the drug dealers who happen to have rocket launchers laying around just in case they have to break a rich guy out of jail for 100 million dollars. Hey, that is why we have the willing suspension of disbelief?

Almost everything in S.W.A.T. is pro quality, especially the casting which smartly unites a number of recognizable faces both well known and the type that you know you've seen before but you've never known the name. The cast makes any of the rough spots of the film easier to take because we like the actors. Each actor is very sympathetic to the audience.

However, despite all that I liked about S.W.A.T., the film has two massive, nearly unforgivable flaws. One is its ending which goes ten minutes too long. The other is one massive lapse in the otherwise impeccably logical flow of the film. There is a decision made by one character that calls that character's sanity into question. It's a decision that is so highly illogical that it renders what comes after it ridiculous. It's one of those moments where if the character makes the right decision, the one that is obvious to everyone but him, the film would be over right then. If you can't fix a logical hole better than this, don't make the movie.

For most of the time S.W.A.T. is a suspenseful, action filled thriller. It's a rare actioner with a logical narrative thrust to it. Until, of course, the demons of film shorthand step in and ruin everything. It's a shame because there are elements of a pretty good movie sprinkled throughout this otherwise dreary television retread. 

Movie Review: Dark Blue

Dark Blue (2003) 

Directed by Ron Shelton

Written by David Ayer

Starring Kurt Russell, Ving Rhames, Scott Speedman, Michael Michele, Brendan Gleeson 

Release Date February 21st, 2003

Published February 20th, 2003

The corrupt cop movie has become a genre all it's own and a surprisingly compelling one. Two of the genres most recent entries are Joe Carnahan's Narc and Antoine Fuqua's Training Day, two well-acted and well-written films. However, the genre is also a convenient backdrop for straight to video exploitation films starring Baldwin brothers. So to which extreme does the Kurt Russell-Ron Shelton teaming Dark Blue lean? Sadly a little bit of both.

Set in Los Angeles in 1992, one year after the Rodney King beating and just four days before the acquittal of the four officers involved in the beating, Dark Blue stars Russell as LAPD detective Elden Perry. A member of LA's feared S.I.S unit, Perry and his young partner Bobby Keogh (Felicity's Scott Speedman) have a “play by their own rules” style that flies in the face of legality but does get things done.

As we join the story, Keough is in front of an investigative board to determine whether his use of deadly force in a recent bust was justified. The investigators seem to be willing to accept that the shooting was justified, all of them accept Deputy Chief Arthur Holland (Ving Rhames) who has been suspicious of S.I.S tactics for a very long time. As we soon find out the shooting wasn't clean and Keough wasn't the one who actually pulled the trigger. Indeed, it's questionable whether the guy they shot was even the right criminal.

The S.I.S is headed up by a corrupt lifetime cop Jack Van Meter (Brenden Gleeson), who served with Elden's father and taught Perry the tactics of planting evidence and closing cases regardless of the evidence.

The ambitious Arthur Holland sees the S.I.S for the criminals they are but also as an opportunity. Take down the S.I.S, clean up the department’s most corrupt cops and make a run at becoming LA's first black police chief. With the help of his assistant, SGT. Beth Williamson (Michael Michele), Holland begins an investigation into the S.I.S and Williamson discovers that the cop she has been dating anonymously is Bobby Keough.

The odd thing about Dark Blue is how little screentime Ving Rhames actually has. The films ad campaign plays up the rivalry between Rhames' and Russell's characters. However, most of that war is off screen and what we see more often is the interaction between Russell and Scott Speedman as they investigate a crime they have been instructed not to solve.

The film is based on a story by James Ellroy, best known for LA Confidential. Dark Blue was actually written with the Watts riots of the 1960's as the backdrop. The time shift from then to the 90's and the LA riots touched off by the Rodney King verdict doesn't hurt the story. In addition, the 1992 riots are a good touchstone for modern audiences who still haven't forgotten the riots themselves even if not much was learned from their brutality.

A lot has been made of Russell's performance, which some have said is the best of his career. I disagree. I found Russell's performance to be mostly on the surface. He is the anti-hero, at first he is a bad guy because he plants evidence and believes that cops who beat Rodney King were right to have done it. But he is also conflicted about his work and drinks heavily to cover his emotions. Whether he gets the right bad guy or not, he always busts criminals. Still, Russell never seems to believe the things he says or does. I'm sure the character is supposed to believe them but Russell's laid-back line delivery betrays that.

As for Scott Speedman, there is a reason why his character has little face-time in the film’s marketing. It’s because in every scene he communicates how over-matched he is by the material. Russell and Michael Michele do what they can to carry Speedman but his performance never comes together. Ving Rhames,  meanwhile, really gets abused in Dark Blue. He gets star billing and little screen time. The screen time he does get is mostly silent brooding and pious speechifying. This amazing powerful actor deserves far better than this underused and underwritten character.

Dark Blue isn't a bad film and indeed once it begins dramatizing the beginning of the LA riots, it takes on a visceral excitement that puts the film’s many problems in the background if only momentarily. It's only moments later that we get to Russell's big scene where he gives a rather long-winded speech as the city burns to the ground.

Director Ron Shelton is a technician who knows how to frame the film’s action. Problem is, the script spends too much time painting its characters motivations and not enough time dealing with it's politics about race and corruption in the LAPD. That is the story the film wants to tell but disregards in favor of a more action-centered plot involving a pair of criminals bankrolled by Gleeson's corrupt cop.

There is a film to be made about the racial politics of the LAPD leading from the Rodney King case to the LA riots but Dark Blue is not that film.

Movie Review Street Kings

Street Kings (2008)

Directed by David Ayer

Written by James Ellroy, Kurt Wimmer, Jamie Moss

Starring Keanu Reeves, Forest Whitaker, Hugh Laurie, Chris Evans, Common, The Game 

Release Date April 11th, 2008 

Published April 10th, 2008 

In her review of Street Kings Manohla Dhargis calls the film 'accidentally entertaining'.  What the hell does that mean? Were you entertained or not? It seems she was but she was embarrassed about it. No such shame for this reviewer. Street Kings is a violent, not so bright thriller that succeeds because it is so competently compelling.

Keanu Reeves, at his monotone blank slate best, stars in Street Kings as corrupt cop Tom Ludlow. As he drinks himself into stupor, Ludlow takes comfort in the fact that his corrupt behavior gets the bad guy when the system can't or won't. Thus, when we meet Tom he is busting up a group of Korean gang members, shooting and killing four and making it look like a legit bust. In the process of his crime he saved the life of a pair of missing, kidnapped twins.

The ends however do not justify the means for his ex-partner (Terry Crews) who suspects immediately the real story of Tom's 'heroism'. Thankfully for Tom he has a powerful commander (Forest Whitaker) on his side along with a cew of fellow corrupt Vice Cops willing to falsify evidence and cover his backside.

When Tom's former partner goes to internal affairs, headed up by House star Hugh Laurie, Tom is ready to punch his ticket but he gets beaten to the punch when the two are ambushed in a shady convenience store robbery. Tom survives, his partner takes 18 bullets in what is obviously more than a wrong place, wrong time incident.

The death of his partner sparks a new conscience for Tom the rogue gunfighter cop and searching for the killers brings about an awakening that is as dangerous as any case he's ever busted with his dirty cop schtick.

Street Kings was directed by David Ayer who debuted last year with the highly overrated vigilante actioner Harsh Times. That film featured an over the top performance by Christian Bale that contributed to the film's troubled tone and lack of any semblance of realism. In Street Kings, Ayer is plagued by the opposite kind of performance from Reeves, a monotone, relatively colorless performance that fails the film's emotional connectivity.

Not that Reeves' performance is not effective. In fact, this is one of the more engaged and active performances of Reeves' career. However, he simply isn't well suited to this role. Reeves' brand of earnest seriousness combined with a limited emotional range is not well suited to such a broadly emotional role.

Tom Ludlow is a vaguely racist, angry, drunken mess who kills criminals to deal with his pain and begins to feel guilty about his place in the world. The role calls for an actor who doesn't overplay the emotional extremes but unlike Reeves is not stoney eyed and inscrutable. A slightly younger Denzel Washington could have knocked this one out of the park.

That said, I don't mean to trash Reeves who I think is more talented than he is often given credit for. Yes, his limitations are well demonstrated but what he lacks in emotional demonstration he makes up for in many roles with his body language. He is a tremendous physical actor who uses his wiry frame to great effect.

In Street Kings Reeves' physicality gives him a presence that he's never had before. Adding a few pounds of muscle and a couple pounds around the midsection, Reeves communicates both his toughness and his destructive nature with his body.

The film remains hamstrung by Reeves lack of emotion but Director David Ayer still manages to make something of what he has. Using Reeves' man of action physical presence, Street Kings plays loose with the emotional stuff and becomes more of a straight action movie, heavy on bloodletting violence and light on the aftermath.

The content of Street Kings could have been something special with a more rangey actor in the lead but Reeves doesn't kill the movie. With Reeves in the lead we get a solidly crafted action flick that nails you to your seat with suspense and raises you from it with stunning acts of action movie violence. Nothing to be embarrassed about, Street Kings is a flawed, messy, yet highly entertaining old school action flick.