Bandits (2001)

TWO'S COMPANY, THREE'S A CRIME

Today, we reach a milestone… the 100^th review on this poky little blog, so let’s get on with it. Yesterday, we looked at Bande à part, a story about two young wannabe criminals who coerce a girl they know into assisting them in robbing the house where she lives, with the situation becoming complicated when both guys try to woo the girl. Today, we’re looking at Bandits, a story about two career criminals who wind up taking a strange woman along on bank robberies, with the situation becoming complicated when both guys try to woo the girl… it’s a funny old world we live in, isn’t it?

Two escaped convicts, the charismatic Joe (Bruce Willis) and the hypochondriac Terry (Billy Bob Thornton), begin a bank robbing spree under the plan of kidnapping bank managers the night before, then going with the managers in the morning to rob the banks. When a getaway goes wrong, they wind up bringing a bored housewife, Kate (Cate Blanchett), along with them, which only complicates things further when an awkward romantic triangle develops between them.

Of course, I’m not actually suggesting that Bandits is some sort of remake of Bande à part. The original conception of the project was actually to adapt the novel Bandits by Elmore Leonard, to which Bruce Willis owns the film rights. However, it was apparently deemed that it was too weak a story to adapt, so they simply kept the title and brought in a new writer to come up with a completely new concept. The writer they brought in was Harley Peyton, known best for working on Twin Peaks in the early 90s, with the bulk of season two coming from him. His other work was sporadic after the end of that show, and Bandits was his first film of the 00s. There may have been some degree of influence going on with Bande à part, but perhaps it’s just sheer coincidence that I happened to see both of these films one after the other, thereby making it seem way more relevant than it actually is. Certainly, it’s no stretch of a writer’s imagination to have a story of two thieves whose work gets compromised when a third party comes between them.

As it is, Bandits is a relatively clever script, although it actually does have just as many downfalls. The characters are pretty well drawn, distinctive and fairly memorable. Joe is the doer of the team, possessed of confidence, charisma and a willingness to get the job done, although he’s also got a bit of a problem with anger management. Terry is the thinker, a very smart guy, but often crippled (sometimes literally) by an array of insecurities, allergies, fears and neuroses. Of the two, Terry is the better character, primarily because he has more potential for comedy and drama, given that he’s more prone to bouts of mild hysteria and panic than his cooler partner. Joe can still fly off the handle, but it never comes at a time that would cause untoward conflict. The character of Kate is somewhere between the two, a woman of great spirit and passion, though it’s buried under so much domesticated unhappiness and boredom. When she runs into the criminal pair (well, one of them, anyway), she rather quickly jumps on the opportunity for some excitement and thrills in her life. The reasons for her domestic hell is obvious when we see a news broadcast featuring her husband. With everyone believing she has been kidnapped, his plea to get her back includes the point, “I’m going to Spain next week, so if your kidnappers would like to contact me, they can get in touch with my people, and you know who they are.” Classy guy. Like I said, these characters are pretty good and all have decent motivations behind them.

There are a handful of other characters to proceedings, of varying degrees of importance, although they are more hit-and-miss in the overall picture. Joe and Terry’s lookout/getaway driver is Harvey, Joe’s cousin. Harvey is a stuntman with a penchant for pyro work. He’s also an idiot. Honestly, Harvey is one of the ‘miss’ characters mainly because of that last point, since he does stupid things that are a bit infuriating, like leaving the getaway vehicle because he sees a girl he likes, though I’ll get to this in a bit. On the other side, one of the ‘hit’ characters would be Mildred, a bank manager who is genuinely thrilled to meet the famous bank-robbing duo, but refuses to go along with their plans because she can’t take them seriously. She tells Joe that everyone knows that he wouldn’t hurt anyone, so she isn’t that frightened. A point on this, though, since we have seen that Joe has anger management issues, you’d expect more of a reaction than a frustrated sigh.

As to the actual story of the film, it’s got an interesting central premise around which to build some good stuff. The romantic triangle dynamic can yield some fine conflict on its own, but that it’s set within the context of a series of bank-jobs does give it an extra boost. What does create something of an imbalance is that there’s never a definite tone struck in the picture, which makes things feel a bit uneasier than they should, though this is as much the fault of director Barry Levinson as it is Peyton. Levinson has normally shown himself to be quite adept at nimbly juggling tonal shifts without problem, but there’s the odd fumble here and there. And I swear, the first time Terry and Kate spend time together being intercut with Joe taking his frustrations out on a makeshift punch bag is similar to something done in Double Impact, a Jean-Claude Van Damme film from ten years prior.

This is where Harvey’s own romantic subplot could have had the most direct effect. With the primary love triangle, the problem in tone comes from what seems to be the indecision of the filmmakers as to whether or not it’s mainly comedic or mainly dramatic. The amount of time spent on it would suggest the latter, but the lack of real engagement would suggest the former. If they wanted to make it more comedic, they could have easily cut back on the three leads and given a bit more time to Harvey’s time spent chasing a blonde hitchhiker in pink boots. Like I said, this is in need of further development if we’re to believe in it more. As it is, there’s a couple of moments (not scenes, moments) where Harvey doesn’t pick the girl up, then eventually one where he does, and then suddenly they’re living together as a couple… wait, what? That’s a lot of off-screen relationship building for us not to be in on it. That this relationship does have some importance in the final 20 minutes or so just puts more strain on the already thin link. With just a bit more time spent here, the relationship between Harvey and the pink boots girl would feel more authentic, and put less weight on the leading trio to cover all generic bases.

You’d maybe think that this all amounts to a pretty lacklustre film, with good moments and bad fighting each other for supremacy. As it is, the film is more enjoyable than not mainly because of the fine performances given throughout. Bruce Willis still has a great line in wry smirks and easy charm, coupled with a solid physical presence, so Joe is ably handled. Billy Bob Thornton is on great form as Terry, showing off an array of tics, twitches and fast-talking that makes his feeling of simmering panic ever so slightly infectious. Cate Blanchett goes for Kate with a great abandon, offering bad dancing and singing without a hint of shame because it’s finally about her character being free to do so. And, as much the character can occasionally annoy, Troy Garity does give Harvey some kind of humour, which he needs so as not to be completely off-putting. That all of the performances are strong and that the characters are (for the most part) likable goes a long way to raising the game of the whole film. It doesn’t solve all of the problems, but it makes much more enjoyable.

Bandits is a bit messy when it comes to finding the right overall tone to the picture, and the script has its share of drawbacks, like a secondary romantic subplot that’s so underdeveloped it could qualify as a sub-sub-subplot. That said, there is enough fun there to keep it entertaining, it is pretty brisk for a two-hour film and the central performances are thoroughly enjoyable, especially in Billy Bob Thornton. It certainly could have been much better, but it’s far from a complete disaster.

...And Justice for All. (1979)

THIS MAN NEEDS THE BEST LAWYER IN TOWN. BUT THE PROBLEM IS... HE IS THE BEST LAWYER IN TOWN.

Today we continue our filmic look into the world of the law, and it continues to be a sad and sordid world for those in the legal profession. For all the idealism of justice being served, the guilty being locked up and the innocent protected from the criminal element, the reality seems to be a far cry from this. The legal system is a maelstrom of legal jargon, bureaucratic jumbling, back-room deals and raging egos. The system is there to dispense justice, but to serve the people who can play the game the best. Here, the guilty get off on technicalities and the innocent get unjustly locked up because their court-appointed attorney couldn’t care less about them. Ethics? Morals? These are bad things for a lawyer to hold onto.

Arthur Kirkland (Al Pacino), an idealistic defence attorney in Baltimore, cares about his clients more than any other lawyer, which frequently puts him at odds with others in the legal system. His rough caseload is weighted further when Judge Fleming (John Forsythe), a by-the-book tyrant Arthur hates, demands that Arthur defend him when he is accused of sexually assaulting on a young woman.

Writers Valerie Curtin and Barry Levinson paint a vivid picture with the script to …And Justice for All. The world they’ve created is populated with a varied swirl of characters, perfectly designed to tell their story. Almost all of the lawyers are amoral sharpshooters, who only want to win the case to keep their game alive; the judges are lunatics and tyrants, given to revel in the amount of power they hold over people; the police are incompetent bullies, taken to making fun of the obviously weaker elements that cross their path. How exactly can justice be won in this kind of environment? It’s almost like a reworking of Kafka’s The Trial, only this time Josef K is represented in Arthur Kirkland, the one honest guy in town. The depth of the legal woes befalling system are directed towards Arthur, who spends virtually all of his time trying to help an innocent man who’s been stuck in jail for over a year, trying to defend a transvestite who’s too afraid of the system to survive in it, trying to defend himself in front of an ethics committee. He’s forced to yell, beg and cajole people into getting help when he needs it. That so much is packed into the film is a testament to the writing on show.

Honestly, Norman Jewison’s direction isn’t really his best work. The opening credit sequence, a short montage of courtrooms and buildings with the American pledge of allegiance as recited by some, no doubt, very cute little kids, sets things up badly. Its cuteness just makes the film seem like a crossover between Law & Order and Sesame Street. The music for the film is also something of a tonal misfire. It’s too jaunty, too whimsical, too much like a lighter episode of Cagney & Lacey. This level of inconsistency is rather obvious throughout. At times, it seems like the hard-bitten legal drama that’s expected, but other times it feels more like a romance of sorts, and other times make it seem like a flat-out comedy. The scene in which Judge Rayford takes Arthur for a helicopter flight is really funny, but is nevertheless a bit out of place in the overall effort. Also, look back up at that tagline at the top, which utterly mis-sells the nature of the film's story. It doesn’t leave you feeling as battered as some other films with the same problem do, but it still compromises the full intention of the piece. And the film itself ends badly, with a rather bizarre bit of humour that completely defuses the big moment of catharsis from only a moment before.

That we are able to really the feel the journey of these characters is not because of Jewison’s direction, but the talent of the superb cast assembled. John Forsythe’s Judge Fleming is a smug, nasty piece of work. He has the look of someone who enjoys the position of power, the ability to dominate those weaker than him. Forsythe is damn good. Jeffrey Tambor, here in his feature film debut, is hilarious and tragic in equal measure. The scene where he arrives drunk at Pacino’s door at two in the morning is played beautifully by Tambor. Jack Warden is great as Judge Rayford, a guy straight out of the Wild West, but utterly suicidal as well. Lee Strasberg and Sam Levene make for superb watching, both of them wonderfully affecting and heartfelt. However, it’s Pacino’s show all the way. In fact, it’s the power of Pacino’s performance that really directs this film, not Jewison. In the hands of someone less capable, the film would feel much more episodic, like a series of legally-themed vignettes. As it is, Pacino is able to play each scene so very well, but is also able to maintain a consistency throughout. It’s superb work from the man.

If there is one thing to hobble the film somewhat, beyond the problems with the direction, it’s the feeling that some people may get that it’s just a bunch of liberal wailing. To be fair, they would have a point. So much of the time is spent saying that there’s something wrong with the system, the system is broken, “You’re out of order! You’re out of order! The whole trial is out of order!” However, there’s little in the way of addressing anything like a solution. Now, of course it’s the point of the film to highlight a serious societal problem in the hope of making a change for the better. That’s what most art tries to do. However, many people watching will find this unwelcome, and more than a little biased. For a film about justice, there doesn’t seem to be much in the way of balance. Cops here are only incompetent; judges are only insane; committees are only useless; only the innocent are imprisoned; only the guilty are freed. Yes, okay, something is clearly wrong here… but only in this world that you’ve created for the film. In reality, not all cops are incompetent, not all judges are insane. You may feel like cheering when Arthur makes his big speech at the end, decrying the system and how it gets used, but some people will just feel like they’re on the receiving end of an unwelcome sermon. If you’re looking to push for change in society, you’re not going to get much done if you instantly alienate half of the audience. The spirit is commendable, but the tactics may backfire.

…And Justice for All. is a rather uneven picture, with Jewison occasionally losing focus on just what kind of picture he’s making. Also, the script, though otherwise a fine work, will turn some off with the rather confused “liberal” bent. However, it’s the acting that really drives the picture, and Al Pacino is on stellar form here. The performances and the genuinely good moments of drama in the picture are enough to warrant the watch, so long as you overlook the tonal shifts.