Hey guys, BC here. It's been awhile, work and such, not to mention a lack of invites I had any interest in seeing (I highly doubt they'd want my opinions on Nacho Libre, which honestly looks like the worst movie ever made). Anyway, I just got back from a test screening of Joe Carnahan's followup to NARC, which is called SMOKIN' ACES. Some spoilers follow, sort of unavoidable.
Film starts with 2 FBI agents (Ryan Reynolds and Ray Liotta) listening into phone conversations of some mob boss. The topic is Buddy "Aces" Israel, a mafia goon/vegas entertainer who has decided to turn state's evidence against the mafia family head, Sparazza. A hit has been ordered on Buddy for 1 million, which means every hit man in the world is going to come after him trying to collect. We are introduced to 7 different hitmen, all with their own quirks and backstories. Complicating matters, Buddy has holed up in a Lake Tahoe penthouse, skipping out on his bail in the process. So there are also 3 bail bondsmen (Ben Affleck, Peter Berg, Martin Henderson) trying to bring Israel back. So it's up to the 2 feds (and Andy Garcia as their superior) to bring Buddy back or else they don't have a case.
Now, there's nothing wrong with that setup, except the fact that this is all spooled out to us in 20 nonstop minutes of exposition. And I'm leaving out the histories of the different hit men, as well as some other information about an undercover fed, some other mafia guys, etc.
So once every character is introduced (complete with the ever annoying "character name" titles) and we are given a whole movies' worth of information at once, the actual movie begins, which is close to a realtime account of all these different teams and sides closing in on Buddy at the hotel. Needless to say, paths are crossed, some good guys are killed, some bad guys get away, etc. The whole thing ends in a bloody shooutout that one ups the similar one from True Romance by having it take place in 2 areas, before a somewhat telegraphed twist is revealed in Usual Suspects style montage of flashbacks.
The odd thing is you have a movie with all these pretty hilarious people (I didnt even mention Jason Bateman and Curtis Armstrong who show up as lawyers): Reynolds, Piven, Affleck (and YES, the man is quite funny, just listen to one of his commentaries for Pearl Harbor or Armageddon), and the screening invite even listed it as a comedy, and yet it's one of the darkest and even somewhat depressing movies i've seen in a while. Sure, there are funny parts (Bateman is hilarious, and Piven gets to be Piven in one scene before he gets coked out of his mind and spends the rest of the movie basically crying or looking dazed), and a completely bizarre and pointless subplot about a little kid who plays with nunchucks (reminiscent of the "PANCAKES!" kid in Cabin Fever but in this case, not funny in the slightest), but for the most part, its played straight and dark.
However I am not knocking on it, in fact i was a bit relieved. It would be fair to label the movie as a Tarantino wannabe, but not the popculture/everyone is hipper than everyone else way that stereotype usually brings to mind. Instead, it's the tight plotting/careful use of flashback/multiple stories colliding side of Tarantino, aka the interesting side, which is refreshing. In a way, it was actually brilliant casting, because you expect things to get funny and instead they just get darker and darker, and not in a comedic way. Reynolds is actually quite good as an FBI agent, and it's nice to see Piven get to do something other than be the slimy jerk and/or sarcastic friend. Most surprising was Alicia Keys, in what I believe is her film debut, as one of the hitmen. She's playing a role, not parlaying her popstar status into a glorified version of a music video character, as most pop stars do in their debuts (Aaliyah's ridiculous dance sequence in Romeo Must Die comes to mind). All of the acting is quite good across the board, and the heavy unloading at the beginning actually works once the film gets going because there are no obvious "main" characters and therefore when someone dies it isn't entirely expected. Only gripe here is a cameo late in the film. I despise cameos, especially when they come late in a film and you're fully into the story and suddenly taken out of it by the appearance by the star of a hit TV show (IMDb hasnt spoiled it yet, neither will I).
I must admit I haven't seen Narc yet, though I am definitely more interested in doing so now. The brief amount of action makes me wonder what Carnahan could have done with MI3. His script is tight, and although I was initially annoyed with the nonstop barrage of exposition at the beginning, once the film gets going you'll realize it was for the best, as slowly dealing out the exposition would have killed the pace. Bizarrely, someone on IMDb who went to a previous test said the film was like Saw and Seven, so either the film has been completely re-edited or the guy is just an idiot, as it is nothing like those (one hitman is known to torture his victims, but thats about 30 seconds of the movie?), and it seemed pretty tight to me, no obvious re-editing or gaps in the storytelling.
Anyway, it's not coming out till 2007, but it looked finished to me other than the temp score, which for the most part worked perfectly despite being recognizable (Thin Red Line for example). Fans of Snatch and other crime ensembles should enjoy it, provided they have the patience to deal with the opening in order to get to the satisfactory payoff. I just hope Universal is smart enough not to use what little funny stuff it has and try to market it as a comedy to appeal to the actors' usual audiences. BC
Carmine Falcone said:
Lily Adler#forthecontent! 📹 (she/her)
DKDetectiveElementary, Dear Robin (he/him)
Discussion: Media, The Press, Journalism, Cable News, Media Bias, and Other Media Issues (4 Viewers)
