Fast Charlie

I saw a Q&A of Fast Charlie, and i'm really buzzing. Learning that this film was shot in only five weeks is astonishing. It's a polished, high-quality production that you'd typically associate with a bigger budget. This revelation adds an incredible layer of respect for the cast and crew's achievement under such time constraints. It's remarkable how the pressure of a tight deadline seemed to fuel the creativity and efficiency of the team. The film's dynamic pace and compelling performances could very well be attributed to this urgency. "Fast Charlie" stands as a testament to the idea that sometimes, constraints and challenges can bring out the best in a creative team. It's a slick, well-executed thriller that showcases how time pressure can indeed be a catalyst for cinematic excellence.

It's a real puzzle why films like Fast Charlie aren't made much anymore, or if they are, they're incredibly hard to find. This film hits a sweet spot with its well-executed action sequences and a storyline that, while familiar, is still engaging. Pierce Brosnan's performance as an aging hitman is awesome, and so different to what i've seen him do in the past. Bringing depth to a role that could easily have been one-dimensional.

The trend in cinema seems to have shifted towards blockbuster franchises or ultra-indie films, leaving little room for these kinds of mid-budget, character-driven action movies. They're not flashy enough to catch mainstream attention and not obscure enough to become cult hits. It's like you need to be a detective to hunt them down in the sea of content available today.

There's definitely a gap in the market for a streaming service dedicated to these hidden gems. Imagine a platform, maybe called "Hidden Gems," where you could find these underrated movies easily. It would be a treasure trove for film enthusiasts who crave the kind of solid storytelling and performances that "Fast Charlie" delivers but often gets lost in the shuffle of more prominent releases. A service like this could bring these overlooked films into the spotlight they deserve.

What sets this film apart is its embrace of well-trodden genre tropes, turning them into an engaging Southern thriller set in the grittier parts of Biloxi, Mississippi and New Orleans, Louisiana. The movie's charm lies in its acknowledgment of familiar storylines while presenting them in a way that feels both comfortable and exciting. Brosnan's portrayal of Charlie is particularly noteworthy. He captures the essence of a man grappling with the decision to leave his dangerous life behind. His performance is filled with nuances that make Charlie more than just a typical hitman; he's a character with depth and relatable human conflicts. Every time this film got too emotional or to heavy, it was lightened with a well timed laugh and all of that was split up by really inventive action scenes. Some films are greater than the sum of their parts. This one certainly is.

I usually don't go for hitman movies, but Fast Charlie was a pleasant surprise. Pierce Brosnan as Charlie had this laid-back yet intense vibe that worked well for the character. The film's setting in the South gave it a unique flavor, different from the usual city-based crime thrillers. What I really appreciated was the subplot with Marcie, played by Morena Baccarin. Their relationship felt real, not forced like in some other movies in this genre. And James Caan still had that screen presence that made him a in his final role. The film had some typical action sequences, sure, but they were well-executed. It's not just about the action though; the story had depth, especially with Charlie contemplating and aspiring towards a a different life. Definitely worth a watch.

This has entertaining moments, but the clichés are endless and the dialog is as wooden as it gets. The people giving this a 10/10 are either plants or... special. There was no character development, the scene setting was terrible, the capricious flip flop in the balance of power is laughable, and the terrible pacing (especially at the end) is amateurish. Again, there are definitely scenes that hold attention, but that's not enough to give this movie a high rating. My guess is Pierce accepted this role because he owed someone a favor, or he's going broke and needed the money. Either way, this was definitely a debit from his brand, not a credit to it.

6/10.