Adec

Just got back from an advance screening, and not that anyone cares what I think, but if I had one piece of advice for anyone considering whether or not to go see the new Ghostbusters film, it is that the trailers are extremely indicative of the final film. So if you thought the trailers looked good and were funny, you'll more than likely enjoy the film, so have at it. If, however, you didn't like what you saw, I'd suggest not wasting your money, because what you saw is very much what you get. There's no surprises here, folks, the trailers are the film. For better or for worse, depending on your point of view. And don't believe anyone who tries to tell you otherwise.

Now personally, I was never all that invested in either side of any of the various arguments or debates that flared up during production, it was just another reboot to me. Hollywood is going to keep pumping them out, so not much point screaming into the wind about it, at least in my view. Instead I just don't bother going to see most of them, unless they actually do show some definite promise, which, sadly, is all too rare these days. And I'm sure no one needs me to point out how poor most remakes actually are, either. In fact, to be honest, I probably would have skipped this one, too, had I not gotten a free invite courtesy of a theatre manager friend of mine to see it. A free film is a free film, and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't at least curious, so off I went.

So what did I think? Without going into spoilers, I think it's an underwhelming paint-by-numbers mediocrity that will more than likely be largely forgotten about as soon as it is out of theatres, regardless of how much money it does or doesn't make, or what controversies were drummed up beforehand. Neither terrible enough to create too much of a post release backlash, nor good enough to do a very good job of actually providing much in the way of actual entertainment, mostly I just found it rather flat, terribly uninspired, and exceedingly dull.

I didn't care about or connect with any of the characters, the story is an ill-fitting frankensteining of old and new, which often don't sit well together, and the callbacks are mostly done in such a pandering way that they actually start to become irritating distractions. To me, it wasn't quite the train wreck that many predicted (and some even hoped for), it's more like the cinematic equivalent of a flat tire, rapidly losing air, making a lot of noise, but really going nowhere fast.

Will it make money? Probably. Will it deserve to, in my opinion, not really. Unfortunately it's just another half-cooked slice of Hollywood laziness. Yet another charmless, aimless, factory remake to add to the pile marked mediocrity. Those in attendance at the screening were mostly pretty muted on the way out, as well, so I don't think my view is too far out on a limb here, and I just can't see word of mouth being very positive or giving this much of a boost in the long run. It was just a bit of a non event, really. Rarely managing to be even moderately amusing, and utterly underwhelming overall. Or it was to these eyes, anyway.

I'm sure many other people will have many other views, that's just mine.

Oh, and just a heads up, but if you do go see the film, you might want to stick through the end credits as well, as there's an added scene at the end.

Drugstore Cowboy is an honest, realistic of drug culture in the seventies that tells it's story with an unflinching eye for detail and without any sugary sentimentality, the latter being a trap that many similar films fall into, and is all the better and more powerful because of it.

A very well written script by Gus Van Sant and Daniel Yost (based on the novel by James Fogle) and stylish direction by Van Sant are the bones of the films success, however the real meat is the plethora of utterly convincing performances.

Matt Dillon, Kelly Lynch, James LeGros and Heather Graham are all very good, and totally convincing in their roles as the small time crew ripping off drugstores for whatever drugs they can get their hands on to support their habits, while fine support comes from James Remar, Max Perlich and especially cult novelist William S. Burroughs (writer of 'Naked Lunch', 'Junky' and 'Interzone' amongst many others) as an aging, strung out ex-priest all adding significantly to the films overall impact and believability.

Gritty, smart and realistic Drugstore Cowboy is an impressive piece of work for all concerned, and more than that a damn good film in it's own right. The only real fault that could be perhaps levelled at the film is that it, due in large part to it's relatively short running time, doesn't delve deep enough into the drug lifestyle of it's characters, it's more about the events rather than the life itself, and as such may not be 'deep' enough for some. However that said this is still a very good film and one that is heartily recommended.

One Man's Opinion. 8.5/10

Despite being based on a novel ('Blood On The Moon') by prolific and acclaimed crime writer James Ellroy (probably best known for writing the novel L.A. Confidential, which was later turned into the Oscar winning film of the same name) Cop is a crime thriller that just lacks, well thrills and crime in large doses. It's more a drama than anything else, only the drama isn't that well handled or particularly interesting.

Despite some good ideas the script (by James B. Harris) lacks any real cohesion and is for the most part rather contrived, worse than that the dialogue is also pretty flat and uninteresting, with the characters all painted as rather one dimensional. In fact is seems as though writer Harris didn't really have any room for any of the characters except for Woods central cop, with the rest all pretty much falling by the wayside. As such most of the characters are lacking any real...character.

As for the direction, also by James B. Harris, it's workmanlike but hardly inspiring, the nature of the story requiring a certain edge and grit to the direction that Harris just doesn't manage to deliver. That's not to say that either the script or direction are outright bad, they aren't, it's just that neither has the impact, style or strength to carry off this type of film or story, and because of this it all just comes off as rather flat and unexciting.

Performance wise James Woods is very good in the title role, which is good because it's basically down to him to carry the whole film, a feat that he almost, but not quite manages to do. He does receive some assistance, with both Charles Durning and Charles Haid giving good, solid performances despite their rather underwritten roles.

However the other actors aren't so lucky, with Randi Brooks, Raymond J. Barry and Steven Lambert merely passable in their roles, while Lesley Ann Warren's performance borders on schitzophrenic, with neither her radical mood swings nor motivations ringing true. Jan McGill as Wood's wife meanwhile is just so outright bad that it's no wonder that Wood's character doesn't seem all that effected when she (thankfully) leaves him not long after the film begins (I'd be relieved too).

All in all Cop isn't a bad film, it's just not a particularly good one either. It has it's moments and is a good showpiece role for the always entertaining (and underrated) Woods, it's just that the story and the film itself doesn't stand up to his fine performance. If it had spent more time detailing the characters and concentrating on the plot then it may well have been quite an effective little thriller, however as it stands it's merely just a passable one with a strong central performance.

7/10 One Man's Opinion.