TheFilmGuy1
This is a film that I wanted to like, but just didn't quite do it to me. It's a fairly basic plot that's redeemed by a few really good sequences. There's also some great performances which help it, but it doesn't live up to what it could have been.The story is about two brothers, one who's a cop and the other who runs a nightclub and is involved with some criminals. A series of events causes the one brother to choose between his lifestyle and his police family members. The big issue is that it doesn't really give us anything original. It hits a lot of the plot points you would expect a movie like this to have, which is disappointing. It also feels really slow, but not in a good way. It just seems like they could have showed us what they wanted to show but in a more time efficient way.I wanna talk about the three sequences I liked the most, because these scenes really impressed me and just made me feel that the rest of the film was lacking. The first sequence is the drug house scene. While what occurs during it is mostly cliché, there is some crazy action towards the end that impressed me. Then comes the car chase. It's filmed from within the car essentially looking from Joaquin Phoenix' characters point of view. It's pretty tense and has not music, which makes it feel more real. The only issue is that there's something not visually right with it. What might that be? It was apparently filmed during a sunny day, and they then digitally made it stormy looking and rainy, giving it a slightly unreal look which takes away from it. Regardless, it's a good scene. Finally, my favorite sequence is the whole end shootout. There some stuff involving a field of tall bushes which makes for some intense moments, and it really looks good. Sadly, the rest of the film looks and feels pretty uninspired, aside from these three sequences.This is a film that is in need of some more creativity. Only those few sequences I mentioned feel like the director had some kind of creative ideas, but the rest is filmed so basic that it takes away greatly. Some people might be able to look past it's flaws, but I personally wanted more from it.
tieman64
This is a review of "Little Odessa", "The Yards" and "We Own the Night", three crime dramas by director James Gray.Released in 1994, "Little Odessa" stars Tim Roth as Joshua Shapira, a volatile criminal who has been exiled by his family. A "prodigal son returns" narrative, the film watches as Roth returns to his family home. Though his relatives still distrust him, Joshua is idolised by his younger brother, little Reuben Shapira (Edward Furlong). The film ends, as most "prodigal son" tales do, with Reuben dying, paying for his brother's sins."Little Odessa" was Gray's debut. It's a very good drama, well acted by the always electric Tim Roth, but the film's ethnic details are unconvincing and Gray falters in his final act with an obvious, overblown sequence in which little Reuben is accidentally gunned down.Gray followed "Odessa" up with "The Yards" (2000), a crime drama set in the commuter rail yards of New York City. The film's structure is similar to "Odessa", and sees Mark Wahlberg playing an ex-convict who returns home after a short stint in prison. Wahlberg attempts to stay clean, to keep his nose out of crime, but is drawn back into the criminal underworld by a friend played by Joaquin Phoenix. The film retains the "brotherhood dynamics" of "Odessa", Wahlberg playing the "good son" who eventually turns on his suffocating sibling. Once again the film ends with a ridiculously over-the-top death sequence.While "The Yards" has a certain, smothering pretentiousness about it, convinced about its own importance (it's lit like Rembrandt, street fights are filmed like Visconti's "Rocco and His Brothers" and it's reaching for the tone of Coppola's "The Godfather"), Gray nevertheless cooks up some wonderful strokes, like a beautifully sensitive welcome-home party, a wordless assassination attempt and a fine, aching performance by Wahlberg. It's a great mixed bag.Gray then directed "We Own The Night", arguably his best crime flick. The "good brother/bad brother" motif returns, this time with Mark Wahlberg and Joaquin Phoenix playing a pair of brothers on either side of the law. Phoenix's a perpetually high playboy who owns a nightclub frequented by drug-runners and mafia types, and Wahlberg's a straight-arrow cop trying to keep the streets clean. When the mafia unleashes an assassination campaign on local cops, Phoenix switches allegiances, goes undercover and attempts to take down the mob. There are touches of "Donnie Brasco", "Rush", "Point Break", "Serpico", "State of Grace", "Infernal Affairs" and every other "undercover cop" movie you can think of, but the film is beautifully lit, is atypically straight-faced and features a superb, rain-soaked car chase.Some have suggested that Gray's trilogy should be celebrated for working in a "classical", almost conventionally Greek mould. That his conventionality suggests that all his characters are at the mercy of already in place contours, their fates forgone. Mostly, though, Gray's trilogy highlights the ways in which contemporary artists have struggled to conceive of a response to postmodernism. The crime movies of, say, Tarantino and Scorsese, are unashamedly postmodern, toying with and regurgitating clichés from 1930s Warner machine gun operas and MGM crime flicks. They aren't about "crime", so much as they're pastiche jobs, jazzed up films about crime films. As a response to this aesthetic, artists who deem themselves "serious", who rightfully ask "what exactly comes next?", tend to look backwards at what came before, as though post-war modernism, by virtue of being modernism, is intrinsically "the solution". This leads to classically shot and written but wholly regressive fare like Gray's trilogy, which essentially unscrambles the world's Scorseses and Tarantinos and puts you right back in the 1940s, minus the irony and flippancy.But you can't go backwards in this way; your audience will always be ten steps ahead and there will always be a huge chasm between your solemnity and the tired insights your film delivers. This is why true progressive works in the genre, for example fare like "The Wire", which actively attempts a cognitive mapping of both global capitalism and crime, are neither modernist or postmodern, whilst possessing the vital traits of both. Philosophers have alternatively coined this new movement "neoprimitivism", "pseudomodernism", "participatism", "post-post modernism", but the one that seems to be sticking is "new modernism".Whatever you call it, this hypothetical movement rejects postmodern nihilism (nothing matters, there is no "truth", it's just a film), actively tries to convey the complexities of our world, and covertly believes that it is possible and necessary for individuals to make value judgements, take stands, approach objectivity, and back facts up. It is modernist in its desires to "understand", "teach", "decipher" and "make better" the world, and in its emphasis on culture, society, technology and politics. The movement doesn't reject postmodernism, but co-opts its tropes and bends them to suit its aim, questioning agency, subjectivity and attempting to piece together the fragments and multiple perspectives that typify complex systems. In short, truly relevant crime films simultaneously simulate our contemporary environment of junk, noise, commerce and static, before proceeding to decode, organise and target roots. As William Gibson said way back in the 1980s, future great artist will function like search engines, mapping and making sense of the detritus. Gray goes backwards to when there was less noise.7.9/10 - Worth one viewing.
FatMan-QaTFM
James Gray, also a tea brand, is your typical writer/director, as in he needs to pick one or the other and focus on it. For Jimmy G, I'd definitely point him in the direction of the typewriter. Although I could blame poor casting, I think the real issue is that Gray could be replaced on set with a poster that read "Act Angry" that was just waved at the actors before each scene shot. I've never seen such limited range purposely put onto film. Everybody knows how to act angry. It's what you tell actors NOT to do when they need to be "emotional."My other issues with the movie could probably be blamed on Joaquin Baca- Asay, the DP, but if the director walks up and accepts an award for a film, he takes the fall as well. Plus Baca-Asay DP'd Thumbsuckers and Super Troopers. To the point: far too many stylized shots mixed in with a very standard shooting style. The one that really stood out was the cool looking shot of Man-jaw Mendes walking down a hallway smoking a cigarette. It was excellent in the trailer, but was completely out of place where they decided to cram it. Another pointless Hollywood moment, one of many in the film.I'm also going to question Gray's sanity as a writer with is bizarre choice to set We Own the Night in 1988. Who sits down and writes a period piece based 20 years ago? I might have been more okay with it, but there's nothing significant about that year that would be a compelling reason for a crime/drug drama. They only indicators were typical 80s Buicks, and a few big hair women. Beyond that, it didn't matter and you didn't notice it was anything besides now. I guess that's an achievement. Nah.Overall, a very slow, predictable story. I enjoyed the absolute bleakness of it all, but the performances were weak, and the cinematography average. Better luck next time!
