Street Kings - Review

Los Angeles police officers are corrupt. Really corrupt. We get it Hollywood. Here’s yet another in a long line of films about corruption in the LAPD. Don’t believe the film’s misleading trailers. Street Kings is not a movie about cops cleaning up the streets. This is a movie about cops cleaning up after themselves.

Take Training Day and cross it with the FX television series The Shield, and you have Street Kings. Keanu Reeves plays Detective Tom Ludlow, a dirty cop who works with a team of dirty cops. The difference between Tom and the rest of his squad is that he doesn’t seem to realize he’s a sleaze. His commander describes him as “the point of the spear”, and they use him whenever they want to abuse their badges to have a bunch of bad guys executed quickly, cleanly, and without the reading of Miranda rights. Tom is pretty good when it comes to killing and his commander is even better when it comes to covering up for his wanton slaughter.

Things change for Tom when his ex-partner is murdered in what appears to be a random act of gang violence. Ludlow may be a point and shoot killing machine, but he’s also loyal to his brothers in blue. He’s rocked by the death of his partner, and when the department inexplicably refuses to investigate his killing, Tom takes it on himself to figure out what the hell is going on. For Keanu Reeves, that means a lot of looking bewilderingly constipated, something he’s pretty good at.

Making fun of Keanu Reeves’ limited acting range is kind of like throwing rocks at a retarded kid though, and I’ve always been a big supporter of his. Sure he has only a scant a few facial expressions at his disposal, but they’re good expressions, and when he’s put in the right situation Keanu Reeves really works on screen. Unfortunately, he’s not give much to work with here. He guzzles vodka from tiny airplane-sized bottles, but it’s more of an affectation than a genuine character flaw. Tom and Street Kings are both standard stuff. Another convoluted cop corruption movie filled with unlikable characters and a dubious anti-hero who is only a hero because he seems to think he is, or because he shoots first.

Some of the action is good, and Chris Evans is interesting as a minor character who doesn’t get a lot of play. Forest Whitaker huffs and puffs his way through the movie like a walking corpse, he’s good at looking like he’s about to drop dead from a heart attack. Unfortunately there’s not enough originality here to deliver anything better than a few cheap shootouts, and there aren’t enough action sequences to qualify Street Kings as a serious shoot-em-up movie. Director David Ayer seems to be trying to put together some sort of commentary on our violence soaked culture, but if he has a message it never quite comes through. Street Kings isn’t a bad movie, it’s just that it’s also not a very new one.

Vantage Point - Review

In Vantage Point, an action movie masquerades as an intelligent mystery, and nothing is really what it seems to be. Normally I’d be opposed to watching a terrorist attack played over and over and over again, but that’s what the movie does for its first sixty minutes or so. It does so under the pretense of showing us the attack from different perspectives as a way of uncovering what’s happening, but all it’s really doing is introducing us to all of the movie’s major players before abandoning it’s multiple perspective conceit and launching into a big, no holds barred, car chase finish filled with coincidence.

It stars, among others, Dennis Quaid, Matthew Fox, and Forest Whitaker. Quaid and Fox are secret service agents assigned to protect the president (William Hurt) while he makes a speech in Spain. Quaid is the old agent whose lost is nerve and probably should have retired, and it’s the kind of role Dennis could probably have pulled off in his sleep. Whitaker is an American tourist, who happens to be in the crowd with a camcorder when the president is suddenly shot, and for no apparent reason gets it into his head that the best way to help the Secret Service is to chase after them on foot with his camcorder. It’s a bizarre decision, one of many which the movie pursues simply because it’s a movie and they needed an excuse to get these people where they want them for the aforementioned, guns blazing finale.

The movie introduces each character one at a time, following them right up until the attack and then shortly thereafter. Then it stops, literally rewinds and shows us the same thing from a new character’s perspective, following that character until he too reaches a predetermined cut off point. At the end, everyone is in the same place and Vantage Point abandons its gimmick and simply lets fly.

Aside from that gimmick, it’s a pretty standard case of “save the president”, and Vantage Point pulls that off admirably. It’s consistently taut and intense. Sometimes the specifics of the chase get a little silly, but it’s largely entertaining, and only becomes even more so once the movie stops rewinding and simply starts going. The movie’s script asks little of its actors, except to stand around looking determined and grim. It’s almost like a vacation for someone as accomplished as Whitaker, who normally makes his living playing deeply troubled dictators or tackling roles that might earn him an Oscar. He and everyone else involved in the film is good, but they ought to be in something so simple.

If there’s anything to complain about, besides the script’s occasional dependence on coincidence and unrealistic behavior, it’s that the movie’s vantage point gimmick serves no real purpose. It’s there because the script is too lazy to weave all its characters together into one narrative, and not because they’ve thought of some unique and interesting way to tell this story. It works, but Vantage Point would have worked just as well told traditionally, maybe even better. Sure the movie's multiple viewpoint contrivance is just an excuse to get to a car chase, but it's a good car chase.