MovieChat Forums > We Own the Night (2007) Discussion > Not what I expected or wanted.

Not what I expected or wanted.

posted 16 years ago by NickNasty
22 replies | jump to latest

Granted I didn't know much about the movie before I saw it but thought it looked interesting when I ran across it on Netflix. I vaguely remembered seeing the trailer so I added it to my instant queue and loaded up the Roku.

What I wanted to see was Good brother cop and bad brother mobster. What I got was good brother cop and not so bad drunk brother, who just happens to inadvertently get mixed up with mobsters. In a word, boring.

What's worse is this movie had no heart and the actors seemed almost like they were going through the motions. As good as Phoenix is his role was not believable. Wahlberg was OK and Duvall was given a lousy role with no meat on it. Eva Mendez was smokin hot though, which was about it's only saving grace. Ok, I have to admit the car chase scene was fairly intense and that's about it.

It's a shame that actors of this caliber (yes, even Wahlberg) were completely wasted on a script that seemed lost and all over the place, like a drunk driving the wrong way on the freeway. The pacing of this movie was just horrible and I can only blame the director for that.

At one time this may have seemed like a good night but in the end it was so badly executed we will never know.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] irishaspaddyspig 16 years ago

Allan...I agree with you 100%. This was a strong film about filial duty and fate.

I really enjoyed it. Great music. Great acting. Great car chase.

The consensus among most reviewers is that Joaquin Phoenix's performance was the srongest of the year.

"a malcontent who knows how to spell"

[–] NickNasty 16 years ago

I could care less who produced the movie it doesn't make it better and would probably explain why it wasn't as good as it perhaps should have been.

You must be easily entertained.

I don't remember saying I wanted an action movie. Did I say that? If I wanted action I would go rent a John Woo movie, Hong Kong of course not the American crap he churned out. But you are right there wasn't much action in this.

What I complained about was the poor acting. My reasoning is these are good actors who turned in average performances. Phoenix was good, I'll give you that, but not great. I just didn't believe him. Maybe it's the same old performance he gives in every movie. It just didn't work with this one. Want to see a good Phoenix role? Go rent Gladiator. And yes, it does have action but also some truly great acting as well. Back to acting. Robert Duvall is one of the greatest actors around yet he was completely wasted in this role.

Another thing I complained about was the pacing. That's about the flow of the movie, how the movie moves along, in case you weren't sure. It was badly directed period. It felt forced, like they just tried to hard to make it something more than it was.

Intelligent film? For whom? 12 year olds? In order for a movie like this to work you need a powerful protagonist and antagonist. You have neither. Just a bunch of cliched situations. I wasn't expecting Scorsese but something that made me feel something, anything for the characters.

There was nothing new here. Tell me, what in this movie hasn't been done before? And the ending, yikes! That wasn't predictable or anything.

[–] bemorecynical2001 16 years ago

Nick, you're getting a bit nasty. Why the anger? So you didn't like it, okay, too bad.

You think the ending was predictable, congrats! It was supposed to be. This was a movie about fate, the idea that Bobby was predestined to make the choices he made, which is also what gave the film an air of sadness. He sacrificed the woman he loved, the life that he wanted (his goal was to distance himself from the life of his father and brother as much as possible) and at the end of the film he is resigned, not happy. It's okay that you could see the end coming--a lot of people don't want to accept that that was in part, the point. Gray's films always have an element of the operatic.

And yes, Phoenix was amazing in Gladiator, but he was here as well. I think he handles this part beautifully, he's the rare kind of actor whose emotions you can read in his face. For example, in the diner, the wash of flickering intensity that you see in his expression when he's feeling one thing and trying to suppress it and show another makes the struggle visible, without any dialogue. He's brilliant there.

But no one says you have to like it.

"Why would a banana grab another banana? Those are the kinds of questions I don't want to answer."

[–] irishaspaddyspig 16 years ago

Bemore...Once again, you articulated the intent of the film perfectly.

"a malcontent who knows how to spell"

[–] MeridianWest 16 years ago

that's the problem i have with this film.
Phoenix didn't want to be a cop, it wasn't him. he becomes a cop only for the sake of revenge. only to execute ppl who killed his father. they killed his dad but he becomes a murderer in the process of it as well. he killed that drug dealer just like that. no "stop or I'll shoot", no "put your hands up" ---what kinda cop is that? i have a problem with this film portraying de facto murder as a right thing to do. it's all beautifully and subtly concealed behind family values and loyalty, misdirected with beauty and pain, but it's there and it's made to look as something to aspire to. which is complete BS. that's why i can't like this film no matter how good it might or might not be in other aspects.

[–] bemorecynical2001 16 years ago

He didn't become a cop for the sake of revenge, he was temporarily sworn-in on the contingent that he would later attend the academy because he had special knowledge on the case--which has happened. He was involved with the undercover work before his father was killed, he steps up when an attempt is made on his brother's life and Vadim tells him that they are going to kill everyone, "we have their names on a list..." Bobby realizes that had he been willing to help when he was approached, his brother wouldn't be in the condition he's in. He is bound by a sense of loyalty and duty to the family that he had been trying to distance himself from. What then happens continues with the idea of fate that he was destined to follow his family regardless that it wasn't his own aspiration. It wasn't for revenge, it was a resignation to what was right. I'm not sure which drug dealer killing you're speaking of, the one he killed in the drug den was self-defense, Vadim's killing in the reeds was justified as he was armed, fleeing, and it was a case of kill him, before he kills us. The police decide to smoke him out and Bobby heads in because he doesn't want him to get away--was it partly out of revenge? Perhaps, but that plays into real-life as well, just as cops are probably harder on cop-killers than other suspects. But the people he killed were always armed and an immediate threat. Vadim had due warning and refused to surrender, if Bobby had hesitated, Vadim would have fired or been lost.

Besides, I think it's rather clear that Bobby is not a character meant to be emulated, he is a tragic figure.

"Why would a banana grab another banana? Those are the kinds of questions I don't want to answer."

[–] MeridianWest 16 years ago

he only did undercover work once, and that after his brother was shot. also it was obvious he was not cut out for the task at hand. and the first time he was asked to go undercover he blatantly refused. thus, this was not something he wanted. he associated himself with drugs and criminals out of free will. he liked the life. when that life got his brother shot and his father killed then -- true, out of family loyalty -- he went to assist with the police. how could he have gone on getting along with people who shot/killed his family? but it wasn't something he wanted to do because had his father not been killed he would not have become a cop. and there's no destiny but the one you make for yourself. Phoenix did not have a 'duty' to become a cop. everybody gets to choose their own life. his family only wanted him as a cop but he didn't want to be one. thus his becoming one on the impulse of having lost his father is also a betrayal to himself. it was revenge and self-betrayal, not some imaginary sense of loyalty or duty. so besides everything else the character is also a weakling.

yeah i meant the drug dealer in the reeds. and it was not justified. he went in there for one reason only -- to kill him. he didn't have to go in there, the area was surrounded and they would have smoked the guy out of there or he would have suffocated to death. it was a premeditated murder.

[–] bemorecynical2001 16 years ago

As I said, you don't think revenge plays into it when cops go after cop killers? Does that make all cops cold-blooded murderers? Perhaps by your definition, but there are shades of gray working here. Wrong isn't always wrong, but that steps into the murky areas of professional ethics and personal morals--and that will never be answered. (Shall I assume that you are posting similar comments on every cop film where the lead bends the rules to get the job done--because there are a lot)
You mention that going undercover was not something Bobby wanted, I hate to use the word 'duh' but that about sums it up. This entire journey that Bobby goes on is all about being pulled into a fold that he never wanted for himself.

everybody gets to choose their own life.

Actually, the main point of this film is exactly the opposite of that. Look at all of the "bad decisions" in Greek revenge tragedies--this story follows similar patterns. James Gray has spoken specifically about the idea that though this is a nation of opportunity, most people live and die in the same class that they are born into. Bobby never wanted what his family had, he was carving a new life for himself, but fate had other plans. That's what this movie is about.

"Why would a banana grab another banana? Those are the kinds of questions I don't want to answer."

[–] MeridianWest 16 years ago

yes, i do think revenge is part of motivation for cops going after cop-killers in real life too. and that does not mean it's right. and, yes, it does make murderers out of cops as well. they're just murderers with the law on their side. it's got nothing to do with morals or ethics, if it had then we could all go out and start killing people who've hurt us or people close to us.
the fact that you're justifying murder committed by cops only shows that this film has succeeded in portraying it in a positive light (which I was talking about in my first post on this thread).

you were the one who mentioned undercover work in the first place leaving the motive open to interpretation. i pointed out he didn't want to go undercover in case you didn't get that. so don't turn this around on me.

i'm not a f'cking maniac. the fact that you assume a stranger is obsessed with dislike towards cops from one post only would imply you have issues with obsession yourself for having so quickly jumped to such a conclusion. my board history is open for everybody to see. why're you asking me?

well people do get to choose their own life. their successes as well as their failures are all their own fault not a doing of some supreme being or their friends/family. the fact that Phoenix became a cop against his own aspirations is not to say people don't get to choose their own life but that Phoenix was weak. he betrayed himself. a different kind of person would have made a different choice and had a different life in the same circumstances.
'fate and destiny' BS only comes into equations with people with superstitious inclinations, which i assume you have.

[–] irishaspaddyspig 16 years ago

Inevitability is what James Gray puts into all his films. His characters are put on a trajectory over which they have little control.
They have an illusion of control.
Bobby's circumstances guided his choices.

"a malcontent who knows how to spell"

[–] MeridianWest 16 years ago

he always had a choice not to become a cop. if he wanted to avenge he could've easily done that by himself w/o becoming a cop in the process of it.

i didn't see the inevitability you mentioned anywhere in this film. instead i saw different choices. and i saw Phoenix taking the one he didn't really want. and thus my conclusion he was a weak personality.
inevitability is when someone plows into you on the freeway. inevitability is other people's actions, not your own. you can't build up a situation around a character and then have him choose his way and then say it's inevitability. it's not because you have the power to make your own choices, reverse your decisions, you can change your actions, you can take things back. you can go whichever way at any times and do things the way you want (unless you assume we don't have power over our own lives and relinquish the control to some invisible 'destiny' like the previous poster I was arguing with, in which case there's no point in discussing this with you rationally). the awareness of alternative opportunities/paths open at any particular set of circumstances takes away the inevitability and gives the control over to the individual who finds himself in that situation. thus the outcome is a conscious choice and the responsibility lies with that individual.

ergo Phoenix chose to give up his own life either because he didn't see the alternatives open to him (which makes a kind of an unintelligent character out of him) or he didn't have the courage to act w/o the police (a bit of a coward) or he just gave up on his life (a weakling). if you come up with a better motive for why he betrayed himself, I'm all interested in hearing that. but don't come throwing 'inevitability' and 'destiny' blah-blah into the equation. it's unintelligent and cowardly.

[–] irishaspaddyspig 16 years ago

Meridian...You seem to have no understanding of James Gray's films.
His characters make choices, but the choices lead to a tragic and predicted outcome. It's the idea that you will inevitably reach a predestined future no matter what you do.
It's his point of view in all 4 of his films.

"a malcontent who knows how to spell"

[–] bemorecynical2001 16 years ago

You have to be superstitious to see fate in a work of fiction? My, my, don't go near Shakespeare, Meridian.

And now, you are starting to sound like, what was it, a "maniac?" If you don't like the movie, don't watch it.

"Why would a banana grab another banana? Those are the kinds of questions I don't want to answer."

[–] MeridianWest 16 years ago

fate and destiny are superstitious notions. it's not as extreme as believing in UFO abductions or god, but essentially it's all the same thing.

[–] MeridianWest 16 years ago

i just have the kind of life experience that doesn't justify inevitability. thus i will never see this or any other film in such a light.

[–] irishaspaddyspig 16 years ago

It's the director's point of view that counts, not what you think of that point.
You can criticize the acting, directing, dialogue, etc, but the point of view is a personal vision that brings the film to life.
Your opinion on fate has no validity in criticizing the film.

"a malcontent who knows how to spell"

[–] MeridianWest 16 years ago

actually it's the other way around. the direction, acting, cinematography, and other technical aspects are the constants in film. it's the POV that is fluid, varying from person to person.

and since watching a film is always a subjective experience, my POV and opinion have all the validity in criticizing the film. if you can't take a counterpoint your confidence in your own opinion must be very weak.

[–] irishaspaddyspig 16 years ago

I agree, in principle. But the POV of the director is either accepted by the viewer or rejected. If rejected, the film has no meaning to that viewer. If the premise is rejected, how can one become absorbed in the story without the distraction of argument with the vision?

"a malcontent who knows how to spell"

[–] MeridianWest 16 years ago

yes. but it depends also on how clearly the director has succeeded in expressing his POV. and such notions as fate/destiny, inevitability being some of the more difficult to express with the language of film, the less clearly they are depicted the more there is a chance a viewer will perceive it differently than the director intended. which is what i have done with this film.

i saw it differently not because i wanted to see it differently or to force my own opinion of fate/destiny, but because these notions were not so clear-cut, leaving me (the viewer) with the freedom to interpret them on my own terms.

[–] irishaspaddyspig 16 years ago

James Gray has ambiguous endings. He leaves it for the viewer to decide if it's a happy or sad ending. So, I'd say, you got it.

"a malcontent who knows how to spell"

[–] Gus-69 15 years ago

A film is what the artists responsible for making it intended it to be, not what *you* expected or wanted.

______________
Mulholland CineLog: http://mulhollandcinelog.wordpress.com/