Rating: 
Summary: Fashionable traits sabotage a potentially great picture!
Review: "L.A. Confidential" possesses many of the good qualities that the great 40's film noirs displayed, but the filmmakers' desire to resort to fashionable 90's movie trends unfortunately riddle their piece with fatal flaws. First the good--1.) The visual style of the film: In an age where many movies look like nothing so much as feature length trailers, ("Usual Suspects," "The Negotiator," MOST others) "L.A. Confidential" was refreshingly filmed with truer visual integrity. Also aiding is Dante Spinetti's exquisite color cinematography. 2.) The approach to character portrayal: This is one of the few films you will see nowadays in which the performances are fully worked out, and not sold on cute little epigrams, and other such stupid cop-out devices. 3.) Guy Pearce: Among the performances in "L.A. Confidential," his impressed me the most, successfully avoiding most of the cliched personalities of this criminally weak movie age. His effort goes further in establishing him as a multi-dimensional character than the script does. 4.) The prescence of intelligence in the script: Such a hard commodity to come by anymore, scriptwriters Curtis Hanson and Brian Helgeland seemed to be interested in doing more than just selling the story with star names, big budget, and promotion. Now for the unfortunate bad--1.) The body count: This offends on several points. A, not only does the ludicrously enormous body count of about two dozen not fit the time period of the story, but no realistic reaction of horror and outcry from government or public towards the mass butchery ever comes up, making it seem not out of the ordinary for the 1950's, seriously undermining its persuasiveness; B, the widespread killing does not fit the spirit of film noir, which always had discreet and realistic body counts ("Maltese Falcon," 3; "Big Sleep," 5; "Chinatown," 4; etc.); and usually the deaths occured offscreen in order to enhance the plot surprises. C, the realism of showing the cop or detective as more a victim of violence than a cause of it is jettisoned. And this is because of D, the film's tragic decision to resort to fashionable 90's gratuitous bloodshed and sadism as its motivation for excitement, completely going against the classic film noir's practice of hinging it on character intereaction and plot developments. 2.) Attempts to portray the characters as multi-dimensional are emetic, especially in trying to arouse sympathy for Bud White and his ultra-violent behavior with a sob story of his unhappy childhood which is way out of step with the rest of the film. The classic film noirs never hazarded to sell such melodramatic excrescences. 3.) The refusal to break from tiresome 90's cliches such as: A, the typical big shoot-out finale. Not only does this again stray from the spirit of film noir, but the mindset of having to provide blood-spurting fireworks in an attempt to make sure that the audience leaves the theater satisfied is a pure cop out on the part of filmmakers everywhere (I mean, who couldn't have guessed it was coming?). Even "Chinatown," which appeared in an era in which climactic gory showdown were fast becoming popular, did not marr its integrity with such an obvious device. B, the stereotypical 90's portrayal of the "hero's" (Ed Exley) method of taking charge. Let's see, poor repressed fellow tries to adhere to proper procedure while investigating, can't get anywhere, so--casting off his repressive principles--he becomes nastier than criminals, who then tell him what he wants to know, leading to solved crime. What ever happened to the uncompromising Marlowe or Spade, who ferreted out the information with cunning and shrewdness? 4.) Dialogue is rife with four-letter words, most gratuitously inserted to establish its "adult" status. 5.) The script is too long, the 2 hr. and 15 min. running time seeming to have become the standard for films in this flabby cinematic age. 6.) The outright celebration of corruption and violence: Since not even the extortionist "hero" is sympathetic; and since most of the killings are shown in such a graphic and jazzed-up way, this film is an incitement and unadulterated endorsement of domestic terrorism. 7.) And most fatal, the fact that the entire outcome of the plot hinges on an alarmingly weak thread, featuring a redundant character: As it finally turns out, the only way that Ed Exley and Bud White can end their bitter rivalry and unite to solve the crime is completely dependant on a scene where Exley visits the hooker, Lynn Bracken--whose only purpose in this film is to serve as the object for whom the two lock horns over--who then proceeds to step WAY out of character, and suddenly rips her clothes off of and they have sex together. This critically lame thread seems concocted out of pure desperation by the filmmakers; for if Exley doesn't do this, the entire film crashes in flames. They don't create the meaty roles for women in the film noir thriller these days like they once did for Mary Astor, Ava Gardner, Gene Tierney, Lauren Bacall, Faye Dunaway, and others. 8.) Finally, while not a flaw, the acting has been generally overrated. Kim Basinger's portrayal of a character that proves to be totally unnecessary to the film--outside of her physical body, that is--is not exactly awful, but is far from good. Let's face it, she walked away with an Academy "compensation" prize for "L.A. Confidential"; which, alas, could not displace "Titanic" in the minds of the popularity-conscious voters for most every major category. Kevin Spacey's performance was intelligent, but nothing really beyond what any decently good actor that was interested could do. Any nit-wit could have been cast in the unpersuasive role that Russell Crowe filled. So, in conclusion, there was a great film in there somewhere, but, sadly, the makers of "L.A. Confidential" failed to rise to the task of creating a superior example of film noir--the sort that we have not seen since "Chinatown".
Rating: 
Summary: Great "film noir" with two minor glitches
Review: Solid script, nice scenery, and good acting helps propel L.A. CONFIDENTIAL past most other period pieces. The story of a diner massacre that has more to it then a simple robbery gets deeper and deeper as the body count gets higher and higher.However, there are some glitches to this otherwise superb movie. (1). A certain character manages to live after being shot three times. I like happy endings, too, but...it just didn't fit. (2). Another certain character getting blackmailed in a certain way just didn't fit that character at all. Still, it is a good movie to rent.
Rating: 
Summary: One of the great films of the decade.
Review: When L.A. Confedential came out, it was drowned out of popularity by Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet, and Billy Zane in the 3 hour and fifteen mintue over-rated piece of junk known as Titanic (orignally to be called Planet Ice, might I add). But now, after everone (including the screaming teenage girls trying to mob DiCaprio) has realized the movie is not good at all. Only now, can they realize the movies that represent America in the best way. Movies like: L.A. Confedential. L.A. Confedential Starts out with a bunch of Corrupt cops beating up some Mexicans, a scene ment to show that this is the racist 50's and cops hate everyone, and everybody except for whites. THE BEGINNING IS DISTURBINGLY GRAPHIC but it proves a point and is crucial to realizing what's going on, like many of the scenes. The story goes on to introduce the cops, what they hope to accomplish being a cop, and so on. Until (hehehe), a former cop and a cop are killed and they assume (a shocker :-) that it's some blacks. But they soon realize that there's something more than that going on and this is how one of the great films of our decade begins. The acting in this is supurb. Kevin Spacey, (otherwise known as Verbel Kent) plays a convincing Jack Vincense, Russel Crowe plays excellently as Bud White, but the best performance goes to Guy Pierce for his phenomonal job as Edmund Exely. The role was made for him. THE SUPPORTING CAST WAS GREAT, too. With stars such as Danny DeVito, Kim Basinger who won an Academy Award for her role, and James Cromwell. Overall, this is a great film, excellent plot, excellent, actors, excellent directing, just excellent! But there is one problem, this has way too much sex and violence and it is disturbing. Titanic? Heh, I flushed my Titanic model down the toilet. -The Critical Critic
Rating:
Summary: Several twists and an airtight plot!
Review: If you're looking for an action movie, skip this one. It's not intended to be a shoot 'em up, blow 'em up Hollywood production. If you enjoy interesting characters, complex plots, and amazing period detail, this movie may be for you. The best thing about this movie is the airtight plot. Many movies, at the end, leave us confused. There are either big holes in the plot or it doesn't make sense at the end. This movie ties up all the subplots into a satisfying ending. Also, there are some major surprising twists. When I saw this in the theater a scene involving K.Spacey had a shock so big I nearly jumped out of my seat. This movie deserved to win the Best Picture Oscar, but I believe that it lost because it wasn't as emotionally involving as Titanic. Also, if you have the chance, watch Chinatown, another film noir classic.
Rating:
Summary: Off the record, strictly on the QT and VERY hush-hush
Review: A fat juicy peach of a movie. I've seen it 3 times and it seems to grow with repeat viewings. It really is quite beautifully put together - the way the 3 principals are all working on different cases, which the audience can see as parts of a whole, but which they don't piece together until its almost too late is a fine storytelling device. Its superbly shot, snappily edited and the production design is utter perfection (did they use a time machine and film it in the 50s?). Bets of all though, are the performances - Spacey, De Vito and Cromwell are great, as you would expect, basinger is surprisingly good too, but Russell Crowe and Guy Pearce are quite awesomely good - revelations in fact. Most critics seem to rate Crowe as the star, but I edge towards Pearce - Ed Exley is a complex character - a man using his own integrity as a deliberate tool to get ahead in life, and for and Australian Soap star to pull off that performance is a joyful surprise. The last words of Hollywood Jack Vincemmes rate as (possibly) my favorite moment in the movies (up there with'No-one's perfect' from Some like it Hot, and 'Dick - You're fired!' from Robocop) See this movie Buy this movie Love this movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Two stars lost in 5 minutes
Review: I won't ruin the ending for those of you who've managed to miss seeing the movie so far, but the improbable last scene played out at the curb after the awards ceremony feels at best tacked on. If it had been left off, this masterful movie would have saved both its integrity and a full five star rating. Otherwise, three stars for the safe Hollywood ending.
Rating:
Summary: It was a suspencful mystery
Review: I can remember the day I bought L.A. Confidential at Blockbuster. I was really nervouse about buying it because I thought it might not be so good. But once I got back to my friends house we watched it and had great time with it. Loaded with mystery and suspence you could cut with a knife, made this an action packed mystery you can solve yourself.
Rating: 
Summary: If this were the last movie on earth I still wouldnt want it
Review: Judging from most of the other reviews I must be from another planet. I think that this movie has to be on of the WORST I have ever seen. I was bored to tears in the cinema. Kevin Spacey and some other actor playing some other character looked remarkably alike so I kept mixing them up and getting confused. This movie deserves no stars.
Rating:
Summary: Great! - but not my type of thing.
Review: This is the first time I've seen Kim Basinger in a movie. I must admit everybody in this film did outstandingly well and since there is a New Zealand actor in there, its not the only reason I gave it a 3. I didn't like the story much,but I thought pecticular scenes in the movie were quite thrilling and very entertaining. I must admit I did walk in and out of it a bit but I still thought it was alright.
Rating:
Summary: This should have gotten Best Pic
Review: While watching the credits, I was expecting a mangled mess of the great novel. I was blown away by this piece of filmmaking. I thought the three-man structure would be blown, but Hanson and Brian Helgeland crafted one of the best movies to come out of Hollywood in a long time. This movie is great from start to finish, whether it be the scenery, costumes, music of the era, or the acting of three talented stars ( the best is Spacey,of course). It is good, solid fun and is worth whatever price you pay.
|
