Broken City

Broken City has many flaws, yet I was still surprisingly entertained the entire way through. Russell Crowe was the highlight of the movie, not a surprise, as he's one of the best actors of his generation. Mark Wahlberg was pretty good too, although he wasn't very likable. An election's happening, Crowe is the dirt bag of a mayor, and an election's coming up. Although it seems Crowe was supposed to be the bad guy, his opponent wasn't likable at all, and I was rooting for the corrupt mayor the entire time. The supporting cast in general wasn't spectacular, although Kyle Chandler plays his part well. The film was written averagely, the story wasn't that great, and the direction was simple, yet as I stated earlier, I had a good time.

I'm not sure why this was a bomb at the box office, because I thought it was pretty decent. It's a New York-set conspiracy thriller starring the underrated Mark Wahlberg as a private detective who soon becomes embroiled in a new case involving the city's Mayor (played with sleazy relish by Russell Crowe) and his cheating wife, Catherine Zeta-Jones.

BROKEN CITY avoids the usual clichés of the genre for the most part, and it's almost entirely action-free; there are no fight scenes here and only a couple of shots are fired throughout. It's far from boring, though; the political shenanigans are completely engaging, and the scriptwriter does a fine job of showing how events from the past can come back to haunt us.

I've really been enjoying Wahlberg's performances as of late (after this and CONTRABAND) and he does another good job here of playing a rather unpredictable and unlikeable character. Crowe is excellent, cast against type, and the underrated Jeffrey Wright bags a strong supporting role. BROKEN CITY is a story-focused thriller that remains tight and compelling throughout, which is why I give it a thumbs-up.

I give this a five for the cast, but a two for the obtuse and predictable script, which inexplicably appeared on the Black List of best unproduced scripts -- in which category it should have remained. In development hell for years, it should at the very least have undergone a major rewrite to simplify the story (which wanders all over the place and becomes dumber by the minute) and raised the tone up out of the gutter. Whichever studio execs placed this on the Black List need to stop sniggering over the dirty words and earn their money by figuring out just what constitutes a good script. Wahlberg is always a pleasure to spend time with but the phoniness of so many of the scenes and the clunkiest car chase ever defeat even his efforts to entertain. So much of this movie is predictable and so many scenes are actors simply going through their paces with inferior material. The gorgeous, gorgeous Catherine Zeta Jones is totally wasted in this piece of dreck. Somewhere in this movie there may originally have been a good idea about corruption in the city. Unfortunately nobody appears to have had the courage to grab it by the throat, beat it into shape and present it to the public with any wit, style or originality. Like it says in the header, this is painting by numbers.

Broken City is a mediocre thriller. Good acting and a reasonable script make for a couple of hours of escapism. Whatever you do - unless it's too late - don't read any synopses because they all give away twists in the plot, some of which happen over halfway through the film.

Broken City (2013)

A familiar zone that gets freshened up with a fast plot, some great acting, and a series of twists that never ends.

At first this seems to be a cop story, then a cop story involving the mayor as he runs for office. The mayor is played with such conviction and charm by Russell Crowe you end up rooting for him even as the plot clearly turns against him. But more important is the cop, vilified and with dubious ethics, played by Mark . He's tough, easily duped, and eventually principled—depending on what your principles are.

Beyond the plot (which I'll get to) and the clashing of big personalities (which works), what makes this movie tick is how well it's made. Those prosaic things like editing and photography really meld and take on a force that sucks you in without exaggeration or affectation. It's a straight ahead film in many ways, but invested with intensity and solidity enough to make it really commanding, despite some holes in the plot.

Why the unfavorable response by so many? This might be helpful before diving in. The key is some kind of believability. Wahlberg plays a troubled cop in a troubled relationship (which is a cliché of these kinds of movies), and then becomes a low level detective taking sneaky pictures of adulterous situations. And as a photography myself I have to say this part of the movie is rotten stupid—the way he hides is one thing (bad) but the way he uses his camera is just silly. And getting results (which we are told about later) that are impossible given what we were shown earlier.

Then there is the motivation behind it al, which I can't reveal (and which won't be clear until the end, if even quite then). Since the movie has no real tricks up its sleeve, it depends on a convincing series of events, which it doesn't quite have. The events taken one by one are bold and well done, sometimes very well done, but they don't quite accelerate into a coherent, gripping plot.

For those who watch movies for what happens (the action, the plot), this will be a struggle. But if you also get into the ambiance, the acting, and the visuals, you might give it a shot. I watched it straight through and was interested all along. Maybe I kept holding out hope that it would gel by the end (it does not), but if that's what it takes to watch it, give that a try!