Woody Harrelson is a surprising actor if you first met him on a little comedy called Cheers where he was a dimwit bartender with unexpectedly witty insight. Since then his resume has grown incredibly but none of it has been in comedy, or almost none. His style has an almost Bryan Cranston type of hutzpah. This is one of those examples where Harrelson gives us a standout performance, and in fact there are many big names in this film. Someone born in the late 90s or early 2000s may be asking why or even who are they. They're also likely to feel that this film has almost nothing to do with the situation we see today .
The reason is because back in the 90s police corruption was a new topic and one that had been kept underground for as long as possible. So in its time, this film would have been very controversial and surprising to most of the audience. It attempts to address the issue by imagining one of the corrupt cops and how his life turned out.
The problem I have with this film is that it asks us to visualize that this misogynistic arrogant narcissist probably eventually loses his position in the police department and has lost his family and lost the respect of his children - in other words we're supposed to imagine the poetic justice that should happen to someone of his caliber but which doesn't usually actually happen. He doesn't have a friend to speak of because he's treated everyone so badly, even letting his attorney friend die on the beach rather than call an ambulance. Would such a murderous personality who doesn't really think that he's done anything wrong just hang around in town waiting to be put in handcuffs? Just no real ending to this film other than for the audience to believe that a corrupt cop eventually gets fingered- not by observant citizens but by cops and higher ups who are determined to take him through the process.
I just find it very unrealistic. When we consider that Derek Chauvin had 17 complaints from civilians and four complaints from fellow officers yet was still on the street to continue and eventually murder someone. I look at this film and I wonder, did Chauvin also kill other people before George Floyd? I realize it's popular these days correlate Floyd with the blm movement and try to dismiss them both for the ensuing riots. But if you watch the trial you can't really come away and say that Chauvin was innocent. Still there are those who take that stance. And they're always will be. But hopefully there are enough people who know right from wrong instead of just supporting a group or a department regardless of what it's made up of.
What I did like about this film is that it does show us the type of person who would be this arrogant and narcissistic, in whose own mind they are some sort of hero, taking out the trash, as so many people like to say, and excusing their crimes upon criminals.
But that's my main concern, that it tries to imply such cops are not only rare but meet their ultimate fate. I just don't think that's true. I also think it skirted around the main issue of brutality against minorities.
So, I'm giving six stars which is actually a high score. I felt that the acting was great but the film itself was just a character study that spent too much time showing him drinking and womanizing instead of showing him on the streets as a cop. I can appreciate that the intention was to show a character study of someone who is capable of those actions but it would be kind of like showing Charles Bronson in the mechanic but not having him kill anyone and for me, whether in 1999 or in 2024, this movie falls short.
This is a man who truly believed that everyone else is wrong and that he was right. And that is exactly the kind of person who would be a rogue cop. But I just think this film was trying too hard to help the audience perceive it as something rare and that is appropriately dealt with and that also has a Poetic Justice aspect but that's just not the most common scenario.
The reason is because back in the 90s police corruption was a new topic and one that had been kept underground for as long as possible. So in its time, this film would have been very controversial and surprising to most of the audience. It attempts to address the issue by imagining one of the corrupt cops and how his life turned out.
The problem I have with this film is that it asks us to visualize that this misogynistic arrogant narcissist probably eventually loses his position in the police department and has lost his family and lost the respect of his children - in other words we're supposed to imagine the poetic justice that should happen to someone of his caliber but which doesn't usually actually happen. He doesn't have a friend to speak of because he's treated everyone so badly, even letting his attorney friend die on the beach rather than call an ambulance. Would such a murderous personality who doesn't really think that he's done anything wrong just hang around in town waiting to be put in handcuffs? Just no real ending to this film other than for the audience to believe that a corrupt cop eventually gets fingered- not by observant citizens but by cops and higher ups who are determined to take him through the process.
I just find it very unrealistic. When we consider that Derek Chauvin had 17 complaints from civilians and four complaints from fellow officers yet was still on the street to continue and eventually murder someone. I look at this film and I wonder, did Chauvin also kill other people before George Floyd? I realize it's popular these days correlate Floyd with the blm movement and try to dismiss them both for the ensuing riots. But if you watch the trial you can't really come away and say that Chauvin was innocent. Still there are those who take that stance. And they're always will be. But hopefully there are enough people who know right from wrong instead of just supporting a group or a department regardless of what it's made up of.
What I did like about this film is that it does show us the type of person who would be this arrogant and narcissistic, in whose own mind they are some sort of hero, taking out the trash, as so many people like to say, and excusing their crimes upon criminals.
But that's my main concern, that it tries to imply such cops are not only rare but meet their ultimate fate. I just don't think that's true. I also think it skirted around the main issue of brutality against minorities.
So, I'm giving six stars which is actually a high score. I felt that the acting was great but the film itself was just a character study that spent too much time showing him drinking and womanizing instead of showing him on the streets as a cop. I can appreciate that the intention was to show a character study of someone who is capable of those actions but it would be kind of like showing Charles Bronson in the mechanic but not having him kill anyone and for me, whether in 1999 or in 2024, this movie falls short.
This is a man who truly believed that everyone else is wrong and that he was right. And that is exactly the kind of person who would be a rogue cop. But I just think this film was trying too hard to help the audience perceive it as something rare and that is appropriately dealt with and that also has a Poetic Justice aspect but that's just not the most common scenario.