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 How to Lose A Guy in 10 Days

How to Lose A Guy in 10 Days (2003) 

Directed by Donald Petrie 

Written by Kristen Buckley, Brian Regan, Burr Steers 

Starring Kate Hudson, Matthew McConaughey, Adam Goldberg, Michael Michele, Shalom Harlow 

Release Date February 7th, 2003 

Published February 6th, 2003 

In Almost Famous, Kate Hudson blew away audiences and critics with her beauty and talent. She had a charisma that melted the hearts of the audience and she and Billy Crudup had chemistry that melted the screen. Since that 1999 film, however, Hudson has struggled to recapture that star quality. Her latest attempt, the romantic comedy, How To Lose A Guy in 10 Days, is a step in the right direction, though she could have used a little better direction from director Donald Petrie.

Hudson is an advice columnist for a women's magazine, writing in-depth articles about how to get a date and how to shop for clothes. However, she longs to write about important things like politics and religion. When a friend loses another boyfriend, Andie gets the idea to write a column about all the things women do to screw up a relationship, an article that shares the title of the film. She and her friends descend upon a Manhattan bar to find the man who will provide the basis for her research.

At the bar is an advertising exec. Ben Barry, trying to save an account that his boss wants to give to another co-worker. The account is with a major diamond company, which his boss (Robert Klein) believes could be better served by two female execs (Michael Michele and Shalom Harlow). So Ben cuts a deal if he can prove he understands women he can keep the account. He can prove it by convincing a woman to fall in love with him in less than 10 days. Little does Ben know that his competitors know just the girl to choose, and Ben is introduced to Andie.

At first Andie is her cool sexy self, a package that a man who wasn't working on a bet couldn't resist. Their first date is all mind games with both Andie and Ben trying to gain the upper hand. After the first date hooks him, Andie sets her plan in motion. On the second date, she ruins Ben's time at a Knicks game. From there, she becomes the girlfriend from hell - clingy, and whiny and just generally abominable. Still, Ben is game; he refuses to give up. Not only because his professional life is riding on the relationship, but because there is still a little spark of the Andie he first met inside this frightening package.

The first half of the film is its strongest as these two likable, intelligent characters set the stage for their courtship, laying out the stakes and letting the games begin. On their first date as they jockey for position, I was reminded of a couple lines from an episode of Seinfeld where Elaine is talking about her boyfriend who doesn't play games and Jerry's appalled response "No games? But how do you know who's winning".

As fun as the first half of the film seems, there was something wrong throughout it. Some scenes, like a fight outside of a movie theater or an embarrassing scene where Andie decides to name Ben's penis, play like extended takes where the actors continued ad-libbing while waiting for the director to call cut. Then there is the director's odd choice in some scenes, especially outdoor scenes, to cover the actors in this gauzy haze that reminded me of those lame Lifetime movies. It's the kind of haze Barbara Streisand uses to make herself look younger on camera. Why director Donald Petrie would think a woman as beautiful as Kate Hudson would need the help of this Vaseline lens is beyond me.

The film's biggest problem though is its inevitability. Falling into that same romantic comedy trap, the film throws up obstacles that are easy to overcome except that if they were overcome intelligently there wouldn't be a film. If Andie and Ben would be honest with each other after it was obvious that the relationship had grown past what they had intended, we wouldn't have to put up with the big reveal scene that you get in every romantic comedy. The scene that calls for each character to accidentally learn about the other's deception and get hurt and run away from each other only to get over it in the next scene, then cry, then kiss and live happily ever after. Been there and done that.

Director Donald Petrie is a master of this crowd pleasing, easily digestible, claptrap. His resume includes Miss Congeniality, My Favorite Martian and Grumpy Old Men. He is a pro director who knows how to point the camera but needs to pick scripts that are more entertaining. Too often Petrie's films skate on the charm of his actors. Though he is blessed with a pair of wonderfully charismatic actors in McConaughey and Hudson, he gives his actors so little to do that they at times look a little lost and forced to fend for themselves.