Bad Company

Thrown out of the CIA for be suspected of stealing gold that he denies stealing, Nelson Crowe finds himself a former spook looking for work in the private sector. This brings him to the attention of an organisation run by Vic Grimes, one that excels in blackmail and corruption for a fee. Recruited by Margaret Wells, Crowe soon finds himself in deep and almost immediately winning the trust of Wells. She repays this trust by offering him joint control of the Toolshed – in return for murdering Grimes. Meanwhile Crowe reports back to the CIA that the first stage of his infiltration has been successful but the CIA have other ideas of how his mission will end; meanwhile the word 'trust' loses any meaning it may have once had as the various sides jostle to come out on top.

The concept of a thriller involving CIA operatives and shady goings on combined with the question 'who can you trust?' will be nothing new to anybody and, for this reason, this film doesn't really do anything wrong but doesn't do anything special either. The plot is full of twists and turns but none of them are really surprisingly or even that interesting; meanwhile the 'thriller' aspect of the film never really gets up to speed and a big problem with it is the delivery. The story is a rather plodding drama at times and it could have done with being a lot slicker – dark but slick. Without many thrills the plot sags easily and the audience may feel almost bored at times; considering the stakes are murder, corruption and betrayal it is a surprising that it is so flat. The dialogue also suffers from being a bit flat; contrast it with the sparkling dialogue of David Mamet (in Spartan for example) and this just feels clunky and lacking in effort.

Of course having a great cast helps to counteract that but there is only so much that they can do at times but they still manage to have a good presence and add to the material. Barkin is sexy, manipulative, needy and cold all by turns – it is a role she can do very well and she rises above the material here. The rest of the leads rely on presence more than performance but they mostly succeed. Fishburne is always interesting and he excels at tough and cool, making a good lead. Langella is cool professionalism and suits his character well. Beach is good; Stiers is a well-known face and fits his minor role well while Spalding Gray is a rather sad reminder of his suicide but he is very good in his character. Of course it is Barkin and Fishburne that dominate the film and both are pretty strong, actually making up for wider delivery problems and making the material feel better than it is.

Overall this is nothing special but it does enough to be worth watching once. The cast provide strong performances with good screen presences all round but the delivery is roundly flat and never gets as tight or thrilling as other films in the genre effortlessly manage. The plot is old news and the dialogue feels flat and lacking in imagination and effort, rather taking the life out of the film and making it feel a lot more workmanlike than the names in the cast list would suggest it could be.

Underrated, gripping thriller was a big box-office failure but it deserves a second chance on home video. Tightly plotted (there's always something happening, but the complications never get too confusing) and smoothly directed, it's a movie that knows how to keep you absorbed, even though its nihilistic ending is slightly cliched. Give it a try. (***)

Decent thriller has a basic story of double-dealing partners with different agendas and bribery of a judge with a gambling problem. Ellen Barkin, Laurence Fishburne and Frank Langella are the principals involved in an organization that specializes in blackmail and bribery schemes, with double crosses thrown in for good measure. A key element in the picture is the offer of a bribe to a judge for his vote in a controversial court case, with the predictable drama and mystery following thereafter. The film also has wild sex scenes that are intended to add spice to a complicated mystery involving shadowy CIA and espionage figures. Gia Carides has a key supporting role as the judge's mistress who later acts out her part of a woman bent on payback. Remainder of the cast is okay and the tech credits are fine.

I saw the film when it was first released. Recently it showed up on cable and decided to take a second look. As it was my impression then, I still think this elegant thriller could have used a more logical plot because there are many questions that even a second glance doesn't answer.

The film owes a great deal to the stylish production it was given by director Damian Harris and his team. The Vancouver location doesn't take away from Seattle, where it's supposed to take place. The excellent cinematography of Jack N. Green adds dimension to the movie.

Laurence Fishburne, as the cool Nelson Crowe, is a major asset to the picture. So is Ellen Barkin, an actress that is always good to watch and is sadly missed from the screen, as she hasn't made a film in years. Frank Langella, Michael Beach, and above all, Gia Carides, made tremendous contribution to the film.

This movie is proof-positive that everything is not for everyone,and in this case,that is unfortunate.The criticisms leveled at this film usually mention its 'slow pace' or its 'simplistic writing',as if every film needs to be directed by John Woo or written by David Mamet.I enjoyed it tremendously because it spit in the face of the usual textbook narrative themes found in nearly every movie made before or since.It champions its amoral characters,treating them like golden gods and giving them plenty of room to play.When you've found a film where the most sympathetic character is someone's conniving mistress,it is cause for much celebration! These characters are not just amoral,they are deliciously amoral and quite nonchalant about it!

I love the degree of sophistication that each character possesses,treating each other as petty contrivances standing in the way of their decidedly selfish goals.They absolutely reek of elegance.Even their conflicts are handled in a gentlemanly manner,like being slapped with a silk glove instead of the customary right cross or knee to the groin.The bullets flying about even seem to adhere to some sort of proper etiquette!The characters even refuse to die wearing anything off the rack!

This film is more about gracious duels than cacophonous shoot-outs and car chases.It is,quite simply,a film for the sophisticate.The person who admires the cool detachment of Hannibal Lecter(minus his dietary proclivities),or the person who has an especially warm spot for humorous lines that only aspire to deliver a wicked grin instead of a hearty guffaw.This movie fully realizes that most of its characters are unapologetic elitists,and it applauds them.Nowhere is this more clear than in the character portrayed by Daniel Hugh Kelly.His elegantly evil performance is so deliciously smarmy that it was obviously created for the sole purpose of providing that wicked grin that I spoke of before.

If you consider yourself more trip-hop than hip-hop,more Oscar De La Renta than Old Navy,more Paris in the spring than Peoria in the summer,then this is the film for you!