Posts tagged as:

Ethan Hawke

In Brooklyn’s Finest, Anthony Fuqua applies his wonky, gritty vision of police-realism to a triumvirate of NYPD officers whose fates will eventually intermingle prior to the unnecessarily frozen and symbolism-riddled final frame that captures Eddie’s eyes, filled with pent-up rage that is snuffed by twenty two years of learned indifference and futility sullenly staring at the audience. Translation: we are foot-soldiers in a war propagated by city officials whose focus is the statistical bottom line and ammunition for personal promotion.

And, this is how Brooklyn’s Finest works.

Eddie (Richard Gere) is seven days from retirement. He is indifferent and just trying to make it through the week so that he can hand over his shield – which is melodramatically tossed into a box with dozens of other badges.  Intended translation: thanks for the twenty-two years.  Next!

However, this scene is so heavy handed that it loses any intended steam, not to mention that Eddie is portrayed as a rather lazy curmudgeon, who’s also an alcoholic, which must come from the job and his feeling of futility. In order to battle this futility, Eddie visits Chantel, a prostitute.  It’s always the same prostitute, so there is some loyalty implied by their trysts, but this vehicle hits a telephone pole when Eddie professes his love for her a la Pretty Woman.

Unfortunately, Chantel’s a business woman and angry that Eddie has mistaken coke-fueled humping for love-making. (Haven’t we all?) So, this time, Gere’s arrival on the top of a white limo won’t wash the diseases out of this hooker with the heart of gold. There’s very little redemptive about Eddie, so the audience shouldn’t necessarily care if he’s treated like a stray dog when he hands over his gun and badge. And judging by the laughter echoing through this serious crime-drama, no one did.

There’s also Sal (Ethan Hawke), a Brooklyn narcotics officer who is in dire need of a new house. We know this because every time Sal in on screen, he (or someone near him) reminds us that he needs a new house. His wife has asthma that is exacerbated by the wood mold within the walls of his current house. Plus, he has two children already and another two on the way, which seems to function as a makeshift twist since we learn this three-quarters of the way through the movie and are informed by a doctor that one of the twins is smaller than the other – because of the wood mold in the house that’s affecting his wife’s asthma. Seriously, his house problems seemingly rival those folks from Amityville and the little girl from Poltergeist.

Sal has a purpose, but his character exists on a treadmill.  He loves his family. He needs a new house. He needs money to buy said house. He is tempted to steal from the drug dealers that he busts to buy this house. Fine setup, but every time we see Sal, we are reminded of each facet of his plight, as if we were going to forget from fifteen minutes prior.

Perhaps even Fuqua knew that the attention of the audience would be driven away from Ethan Hawke’s frantic, overly twitchy performance and drift to the stickiness of the theater floors more often than follow the belabored exposition that injects random religious imagery to suggest that Sal is trying to stay on the righteous path, but he needs to provide for his family. Because they need a new house.

In what should be no surprise, the best part of the film is Don Cheadle, who plays Token (insert racial joke here), an undercover police officer whose faux-life on the streets as a drug trafficker is mingling dangerously close to his rationale, blurring the lines between what he has been employed to do and the life he is leading.  While this portion of Brooklyn’s Finest is a truncated version of The Departed, Don Cheadle plays Token with a steady subtlety, so his outbursts are much less hyperbolic that Richard Gere’s or Ethan Hawke’s.

Additionally, Token’s real-life identity, Clarence is a touch different than his street persona, which further shows off Cheadle’s acting ability even if he has been surrounded by villainous caricatures, particularly Agent Smith (Ellen Barkin), whose agenda includes securing herself a “high-profile drug bust.”  This isn’t a subtle inference either. It’s a sledgehammer. She couldn’t have been portrayed as more of a villain if she had a greasy, black, handle bar mustache that she continuously twisted betwixt her thumb and forefinger before declaring “I never cared much for baby seals or puppies.”

Aside from Cheadle, the saving grace of Brooklyn’s Finest is the action sequences. For the most part, they are well-handled, and the best are slowly played and avoid the ever-popular quick-cut-hand-cam cinematography, particularly the first scene that finds Sal in a parked car with Carlo (played briefly and solidly by Vincent D’Onofrio).  There is no soundtrack, so there’s no intended build-up to a crescendo, but when it hits, it takes you by surprise and establishes the duality of Sal’s character.

Likewise, the final act of Brooklyn’s Finest is shot quite well. Even if the coincidental arrival of all three officers to a single apartment building is rather derivative, and thematically unrelated, two of the three confrontation scenes are steadily handled and provide the majority of suspense from the entire movie.  On the other hand, the third confrontation borders on silly, and is something out of Friday the 13th or any other horror film where the bad guy refuses to die even though a bullet has torn straight through his heart.

DYL MAG Score: 6

{ 1 comment }

The vampire mythology fascinates me.  Zombies get a bad rap because their pallid skin is usually bruised and covered in sores; they lack coordination and an adequate vocabulary beyond the oft-repeated “braaaiiins,” meander wildly from side to side and often have entrails hanging from their incisors.  They can’t really be blamed for this affliction — everyone goes a little mad sometimes.  Werewolves suffer a similar stigma.  Although they move gracefully and fluidly, any compassion locked within is overshadowed by drool-glistening fangs, a full-body coiffure of fur, and a pension for hunting chickens and baying at the moon.

Vampires on the other hand represent a marriage of villainy and beauty — not simply immortal and doomed to pine on the Earth forever, vampires perpetually wear the visage of beatific youth to transcend generations by assimilating into the privileged bourgeoisie.  They maintain a nightlife that twenty-somethings revel in and forty-somethings use as nostalgic fodder.   Moreover, their sole function is to seduce — not for love, but for survival: one that consists of consuming and relishing in the most poignant moments of each decade.

Imagine being thirty years old for the last century — privy to the development of the American economy, the birth of two world wars, two wars in Asia, the Civil Rights Movement, the liberation of India, and the destruction of the World Trade Center without ever being dismissed as too young or out-of-touch. Vampires are the voyeurs of civilization; yet, they are isolated and unable to foster an emotional connection that is not superseded by the need to survive.

This is where Twilight falls short of the mythology: it negates the inherent isolation and mingles the plight with clichéd romance.  If Edward has learned to feed off animal blood, then the worry that he will drink Bella’s blood is less a plight and more a forced storyline. Plus, allowing Twilight’s undead to venture out in daylight negates the isolating darkness that vampires must seek; thus, what’s the danger aside from UV rays? Where is the plight? In other words, Twilight is more like the Marilyn Manson and Evan Rachel Wood-biopic (he might bite her; she’s okay with it; CGI the werewolf).

Daybreakers deviates from this recent glut of vampire- media and mingles the vampire mythology with the social discourse of Darwinian evolution.  Overall, the premise is astute and shows a wealth of promise.  In addition, the first hour of the movie fosters an eeriness that emits isolation, using direct sound (a wine glass set down on marble counter tops, heavy feet climbing up stairs, flesh splattering against a window, or the sound of scalpel hitting a surgical tray) to score the film. Similarly, Daybreakers relies on cold blues and greens to accentuate the gray-hued palate.  The experience is creepy and doesn’t set you up for cheep screams like House of Wax or Shutter.

In 2019, virtually everyone is a vampire, and the blood supply has nearly vanished — most animals have been consumed (except bats — turns out vampires aren’t cannibals; would you eat a monkey?), and the existent humans are either vigilantes being hunted by the vampire Army or being farmed like delicious baby cattle so that their blood can be harvested.  Most impressively, the mass transformation from human to vampire is diplomatically conveyed — Charles Bromley (Sam Neil) views his transformation as a blessing that prevented him from dying of cancer; likewise, Frankie Dalton turns his brother Edward (Ethan Hawke) so that neither will ever have to watch the other perish.  On the other hand, Edward resents his transformation because he is unable to disassociate himself from the humans that the vampires must farm and consume.  Disturbed by this focus on hunting and harvesting humans, Edward becomes a hematologist whose goal is to develop a blood substitute.

While Daybreakers offers the benefit and plight of vampirism, it also solidly presents a moral conflict.  Edward searches for a blood substitute to propagate a human/vampire coexistence, but the inherent problem in this coexistence is that the blood substitute becomes unnecessary if humans are available, which happen to be the prefered sources of vitamin B and iron for vampires.   The introduction of Elvis Cormac (Willem Defoe), a former vampire whose humanness was restored through a freak accident, becomes the impetus for Edward’s quest for a cure.

However, this is where the film becomes a bit confused.  The story is consistent throughout, but the last forty minutes of the film feels as if the writers/directors said, “Hey, let’s make sure there’s some carnage in this film.”  I am far from being against carnage, but the silent, desolate imagery that charged the beginning of the film transition to melodramatic, slow-motion blood-letting — particularly the Trail-of-Tears-style scene where blood-starved, mutated vampires are yoked to one another and dragged out into the sunlight, burning and falling to piles of ash on the pavement.  Could have been a powerful scene and parallel to the opening scene where a young female vampire holds a suicide note and waits patiently for the sun to crest the tops of distant trees; instead, it becomes a bit sappy.

In the end, the Spierig brothers (co-writers and directors) revisit the original mythology when the Eden of a mutual existence is rendered improbable given the need to consume in order to survive. Thus, as select vampires are turned back into humans, they become immediate buffets of juicy intestines and tender livers for the blood-deprived vampires.  Perhaps the Thunderbird that escapes the carnage and drives toward the sun-drenched dessert that lies at the horizon portends a sequel; though, Daybreakers is a fine extension of the mythology that doesn’t require closure. (Unless the directors decide to do an Alien vs. Predator-style venture where the vampires from Daybreakers feast on the pasty, whiney, Twilight brood).  Dear Santa,

DYL Mag Score: 7

{ 1 comment }