Showing posts with label Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Show all posts

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

Looper (Rian Johnson, 2012)

Rian Johnson's Looper takes great pains to head off any in-depth discussion of the paradoxes and metaphysical nightmares associated with time travel narratives. This is true even when the protagonist, the hired killer Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) has a conversation with his 30-years-older self (Bruce Willis). "We'll be here all day, making diagrams with straws," Old Joe says to Young Joe by way of warning. After a while, Looper largely lets its genre trappings fall to the wayside, leaving behind its references to over-mined sci-fi classics and newer hits. "The movies you're copying are copying other movies," Young Joe's boss, Abe (Jeff Daniels), says of the young man's wardrobe, but it could also be seen as a chiding the director takes to heart for his film.

Take time travel out of the scenario, though, and even the denser, more classically sci-fi first act of the film could still run under the same circular title. Young Joe's life moves in endless repetitions. As a hired gun employed by future mobsters looking to dispose of their enemies in the past (where bodies are harder to track, especially if they technically do not exist), Joe's life follows a set pattern. Be at the right place on-time, blast the target when it suddenly appears, collect his money and go party. Joe saves most of his money for the early retirement people in his line of work receive, but as Johnson's montage of Joe's routine speeds up under the influence of the cleaner's drug use and dispassion, it becomes evident that retirement may prove more debilitating for him than his profession. Not that he will get to find out, however, when his final target, himself, manages to overpower his younger self and threatens to create a whole new timeline. Imagine how weird this would be if the director didn't try so hard to avoid time talk.

Monday, September 3, 2012

Premium Rush (David Koepp, 2012)

David Koepp's Premium Rush feels like the first posthumous tribute to the work of the late Tony Scott. Unintentional, of course, but beneficial for those of us already missing the British director and wondering if anyone could match, much less exceed, his approach to action filmmaking. Koepp certainly cannot top Scott, but for a time, but it appears he picked up a thing or two while doing uncredited rewrites for The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3. Stylistically, Premium Rush feels like a throwback to Enemy of the State-era Scott, with its constant zooms in and out of satellite views of New York City as a GPS plots courses for the bike messengers on whom the film focuses. Narratively, though, it calls to mind Scott's fondness for regularly making epic the banal occupations of working-class stiffs. In bike couriers, Koepp nearly manages to surpass Scott in choice of subject. Not only are these men and women paid wretchedly for grueling work, they may be the most hated group in New York City, foe to pedestrian and driver alike.

Premium Rush gets off to a great start, following reckless, brake-less rider Wilee (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) barreling nonstop through traffic-gnarled streets as he casually gets into phoned arguments with his girlfriend Vanessa (Dania Ramirez, also playing a bike messenger), pissing matches with ripped colleague Manny (Wolé Parks) and trying to get more work (and cash) from his flippant boss (Aasif Mandvi). Like Scott, Koepp casually employs a multiracial cast not for the sake of commentary but merely as a reflection of an increasingly diverse America. And like Scott, Koepp wastes no time introducing the central, driving conflict, embodied in this case by Bobby Monday (Michael Shannon), a crooked cop who attempts to intercept a letter entrusted to Wilee by a friend (Jamie Chung) in order to pay off some gambling debts he owes to Chinese mobsters.

Friday, July 27, 2012

The Dark Knight Rises (Christopher Nolan, 2012)

Christopher Nolan's Batman films have seriously, sometimes ponderously, probed the ramifications of superheroes in the "real" world. Batman Begins used its rusted, humid underworld as a petri dish for urban bacteria into which its hero was injected like a test cure. The Dark Knight followed up on the consequences of that hero's success, replacing the low-level scum with a bigger, badder force that wreaked such havoc as a direct result of Batman's presence that one was left to wonder whether his presence made life for the people better or worse. The Dark Knight Rises inverts that thematic dynamic to explore what happens in the hero's absence.

TDKR picks up eight years to the day after the conclusion of The Dark Knight. On the anniversary of Harvey Dent's death, the mayor (Nestor Carbonell) holds a commemoration that flaunts the aggressive clean-up campaign waged in the late district attorney's name, one that has, apparently, rid the city of organized crime. As the mayor, then Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) give their speeches, a shadow watches from above. Not the shadow of a bat, but a man, and a broken one at that, the silhouette of a cane and the bent shadow of the person holding it suggesting not Batman's imposing, fearful, symbolic strength but just a hobbled man. Such has become Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale), deteriorated physically from the strain of his days as Batman and mentally from the trauma of losing the friend in whom he believed and the woman he loved. But as another character tells Wayne not too long after, "There's a storm coming," one that will require the man to become a legend once more and handle a greater evil than ever before.

Friday, October 7, 2011

50/50 (Jonathan Levine, 2011)

As I walked out of 50/50, I was struck by the realization that it didn't get funny until the protagonist got cancer. If nothing else, that speaks to the unorthodox nature of the film. No matter, young Adam (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) gets cancer after only a few minutes of awkward establishment. 50/50 is your usual Apatow-style funny/sentimental movie but with cancer, to which some might reply, "Remember Funny People?" This is different. Where Funny People used the threat of an illness to prompt a reevaluation of life and career. But Adam Lerner is not George Simmons. He's too young to have a life to reevaluate. He's still building the career he can look back on later. As Adam says during a breakdown late in the film, he's never even told a girl he loved her.

That flecks 50/50 with an affecting quality I'm not sure is fair but cannot deny hit me hard, especially in its last 40 minutes. Based on screenwriter Will Reiser's own bout with cancer at 24, the film clearly displays the guidance of someone who actually lived this life rather than looking for some easy quirks. That is not to say that the film doesn't suffer from some questionable touches, but at least it takes its subject seriously, even when it's milking cancer for laughs.

Friday, July 16, 2010

Inception

In Christopher Nolan's previous non-Batman film, The Prestige, Robert Angier says at one point that man's "reach exceeds his imagination" in response to Nikola Tesla's bitter contention that our grasp exceeds our nerve. Tesla, a genius buried for decades in the history books by the inventors who stole from him and led lives of great fame, fell in the estimation of his peers due to his eccentric beliefs about scientific possibility. He proposed ideas that people could not bring themselves to contemplate, and soon he went from being one of the most notable engineers of his day to a footnote to be dug up by the faithful. To him, man's problem was not that science went too far but that it did not go far enough, and the primitive superstition and ignorance of the world hindered us as a species.

Angier's modified quote gets at something else, an idea that could stand for Nolan's ethos as a filmmaker. For the magician, Tesla's genius proves that the world is so complicated and full of potential that what sets us back is an inability to process the grand complexity of the universe. With six prior films, Nolan, the most ambitious mainstream filmmaker of his day, has pursued this idea through art. Where other A-list blockbuster filmmakers content themselves to churn out stale, formulated pictures that push just enough buttons to earn a big opening weekend (which is all that matter anymore), Nolan has ideas. To be fair, thus far his reach has indeed exceeded his grasp: The Prestige was a visual tour-de-force and an atmospheric delight, but I've yet to determine whether I find it a convincing examination of obsessive rivalry or simply a top-notch con job, a question I seek to answer for myself soon when I re-examine the film. Batman Begins, while an improvement over the previous franchise films, spent far too much time with its exposition and shot itself in the foot at the end by undermining Nolan's attempt to add semi-realistic verisimilitude to the franchise with a microwave gun and a shocking level of collateral damage. Even The Dark Knight, easily the finest and most ambitious Hollywood epic since the final Lord of the Rings film, lost itself in its politics, conjuring numerous allusions to the War on Terror but leaving a question in everyone's mind whether it was really condemning Bush's policies or supporting them (both sides must omit certain sections of the film to support their points of view.) Despite his drive and his desire to do something will all the money entrusted to him, Nolan has always typically retained his most incisive work for his more intimate films, not capturing the same verve with his blockbusters.

Until now.


Inception will not convert those opposed to Nolan's style, and, despite the raving of the Rotten Tomatoes users over the effrontery necessary to dislike one of the director's films, this does not make them Philistines nor trolls. I sympathize with the complaint registered that a director as literal and detail-obsessed as Nolan is not the ideal candidate for making a movie about dreams. Indeed, for all of the film's twists and turns that lead dream worlds to crumble and distort, Inception only fleetingly taps into an oneiric mood, and the film never takes on an ephemeral tone even in the sustained build-up of the last hour.

Instead, Nolan does essentially what he did with the Batman films: he takes a subject that is inherently fantastical and roots it in a straightforward, crisp aesthetic of semi-realism. While this stylistic choice does not reflect the true nature of dreams, it allows Nolan to take the heist film to a new realm. With Inception, Nolan steps out of the shadow of his biggest aesthetic influence, Michael Mann, to make a heist thriller without boundaries, one that extends to the realm of science fiction and, more surprisingly, the first convincing romantic story of Nolan's career.

Wasting no time attempting to ease the audience into the film, Nolan opens with Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio), an Extractor, attempting to steal information from a businessman's mind on behalf of a rival corporation. Just as the audience gets a handle on which scenario is a dream and which is reality, the director kicks the chair out from under us, revealing the initial dream to be a dream within a dream and the supposed reality merely the first layer of a dream. Yeah, it's gonna be that kind of movie. Once everyone wakes up for real, we know that the mission has been bungled though the nature and purpose of that mission remains just out of reach. Dom viciously berates one of the members of his team, the "architect" Nash, for slipping up in designing the target's dream world, thus giving the man the opportunity to deduce that he was dreaming and wake himself. The businessman, Saito (Ken Watanabe), reveals then that he was actually testing Dom and his crew and that, save for the architect whose failure will get all their names on the rival company's hit list, he admires their work.

Saito then gives them a new job, one that could clear everyone's name and allow the exiled Dom to return to the United States. Just as the other company hired the Extractors to steal information from Saito, so too does the man want the team to infiltrate another rival, the son of a dying energy tycoon, not to steal an idea but implant one. Dom's crew say that such an act, the titular inception, cannot be done, that the brain can always trace the root of an idea and it will know that it received a planted suggestion from an outside source. Cobb, however, believes he can pull it off, and he sets out to replace his lost architect and plan a heist that makes the complexities of the Ocean's movies look as difficult as stealing a piggy bank.

One of Nolan's key flaws as a director is that neither he nor his frequent editor, Lee Smith, have the instincts to know when to cut a scene or produce a neatly flowing document. The Dark Knight's editing left some scenes so unresolved that the film screeches to a halt in two or three places. Here, however, the scattershot editing works in the film's favor. As Dom tells Ariadne (Ellen Page), the gifted college grad student he hires as the new architect, dreams have no concrete beginning or end; we suddenly find ourselves in the middle of a situation, never thinking about how we got there. Thus, Nolan's habit of simply dropping into shots works to the film's benefit, helping the jumping narrative blend dream with reality even more convincingly.

Likewise, Nolan's clunky, expository dialogue, which makes up most of the script's lines, does not bog down the film but provide a much needed anchor as the director takes us into deeper and deeper layers of the subconscious. Dom's point man, Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), is always explaining, but that's his job: he does the research, calculates the times, and synchronizes the layers of the dream, so he must carefully go over the details. Ariadne needs vivid descriptions of places to recreate them in the minds of others. Even Eames (Tom Hardy), a forger whose talents of fake identity in the real world allow him to actually take the appearance and voice of others in dreams, needs to know the character of his impersonations. On a psychological level, the further these characters travel, the more even they cannot suss out what is imagined and what is real, and their thick dialogue becomes their only tether back to sanity.


Thankfully, the detailed speech does not extend to Nolan's literal-minded dream state. We learn the "rules" quickly: any pain experienced in dreams is genuinely felt because the brain processes the nerve responses, but those who die simply wake up. In order to pull off the inception, however, the target, Robert Fischer (Cillian Murphy), and the team must be sedated for hours, necessitating a sedative so strong that anyone who dies will not wake up but enter into a limbo state that, due to the temporal state of dreams (which slows exponentially the deeper one ventures), could last decades before dumping a psychologically destroyed person back into the real world where only a few hours have passed. Why any of this is is rightly not explained, because how could one ever provide a sufficient reason?

While the dialogue does gunk up the film in a few places, Nolan counterbalances any potential issue with a rich narrative. Without losing sight of the heist story, the director splits focus to show the dangers of burying into one's mind. Those who enter the dreams of another can manipulate the world, but the subconscious recognizes shifts and projections of people slowly gather around foreign bodies as if white blood cells targeting potential contagions. The more one subdivides the dream state, the more unstable and unpredictable the subconscious becomes.

This is most evident not in Fischer, who has trained himself to withstand Extractors and marshals an army to defend his thoughts, but Dom. Like Michael Mann, Nolan cares for the dichotomy between good guy and bad guy, from the rival magicians in The Prestige to, of course, the fine line that separates Batman from the Joker. But Inception features no villain, nor, to be honest, anyone of heroic action; even Saito bears no animosity for Fischer, and wants only to break up his father's energy empire to prevent a corporate superpower from forming. (In fact, the father issues Fischer confronts in his dreams make for surprisingly touching material.) But lingering feelings of regret and guilt cloud Dom's mind, made corporeal in the dream world in the form of a projection of his wife Mallorie (Marion Cotillard).

Like the vision of the protagonist's wife in Solaris only much, much darker, "Mal" filters in and out of the picture, tormenting Cobb and actively fighting against the team's goals as she becomes his demons. The idea that protagonist and antagonist are merely flip sides of the same person is therefore literalized, with Cobb forced to fight himself in the form of the person he loves more than anything. The fragments of happier times, or seemingly happier times, that Nolan intercuts into the film gradually morph from bewildering shock cuts into devastating snatches of a horrific situation. It's an evolution that relies on direction and acting to sell, and while Nolan cannot match Martin Scorsese, DiCaprio takes the similar unfolding of a doomed, half-imagined free-fall of a relationship that he captured in Shutter Island to another level. Never has DiCaprio given a performance this good; in this film, he plays a man who knows that he's slipping into madness and putting on a brave face anyway. When a Newsweek writer, the same one who wrote about how awkward he thought it was to watch gay actors play straight roles, typed up his latest grab-bag of embarrassing nonsense about how DiCaprio never smiles anymore in his movies (no, seriously), perhaps he was so focused on making an ass out himself yet again not to consider that Dom is doing good not to break down screaming, much less put on a happy face.

Of course, the biggest issue with Nolan's previous attempts to ape Mann on some level is that the Brit cannot effectively work in Mann's milieu. He gets lost when he gets himself in too deep, and "too deep" is where Mann starts. With Inception, Nolan turns to a different, equally precise director for guidance, Stanley Kubrick. Now, as great a director as Mann is, he, and everyone else, is no Kubrick, so if Nolan couldn't match his first hero, he certainly couldn't do so with Stan. Yet Kubrick's style hedges closer to the kind that Nolan has shaped for himself. Like Nolan (and unlike Mann), Kubrick is removed from the action, gazing from afar to collect all the details. Not nearly as detached as the American ex-pat, Nolan is also not as sweeping and holistic, and where Kubrick stood back to survey like a general, Nolan just wants to clear his head enough to get a handle on things. Amazingly, he finally does so with his most twisted, Byzantine film yet. By stepping out of the fracas, he paradoxically manages to travel deeper than ever before into the thick of his gnarled vision and not get lost.

Appropriate to Nolan's left-brained vision, the Kubrick influence can be most readily seen in literal form. Nolan takes from the director the setpiece that allowed his character to seemingly walk upside down and float in 2001: A Space Odyssey. Nolan uses the old school setup with a few digital touches for a thrilling fight in a hotel hallway as the movement of people in one state alters the gravity of the entire world of another. The long hallway itself could be a vague reference to The Shining, but the execution is all Nolan and the second-most exciting thing he's directed since he flipped a semi.


Nolan has never made a perfect film, and he doesn't start here. Even for a film about dreams, some plot-holes crop of when some aspects of certain dreams don't jive with the rules we've been given. Too, a few expository scenes are simply too weighty with lines, especially one where Page's character, only just introduced to the fold, starts asking extremely personal questions about Dom's life and demanding answers from him that heap on the plot and backstory. But there's something dull about perfection anyway, hermetic and removed. Pauline Kael once wrote, "Great films are rarely perfect films" and, with a few exceptions (Citizen Kane, nearly all the upper tier of Kubrick's filmography), I'd rather watch a film made a few missteps while reaching for something that pull back just to ensure immaculate design of a lesser movie. However much Nolan might fail to meet the goals he sets for himself in most of his movies, he still reaches, goddammit, and that means something these days.

But let us not worry about whether Inception is a masterpiece, for to do so would only fuel a hype machine already barreling out of control. Greatness only comes when a work of art sits in the mind long enough to take full root, and the constant search for modern masterpieces is less important than finding the movies that really grab you. For what it's worth, I would not likely consider Inception a masterpiece, as it has little to say about the human condition, or even the nature of dreams. But it's proof that even the maker of the third-highest grossing film of all time can still go on to make his breakthrough.

A hodgepodge of inspirations as much as the director's other films, Inception jumbles together a variety of genres, philosophies and artistic influences.The complexity of the film's sources may be lost on some, like Patrick Goldstein, who mocked a review, a positive one no less, for referencing both Jung (which is pretty standard in a film about dreams, no?) and the classic French heist film Rififi. Goldstein's rant devolved so quickly into hysterics and a desperate plea for critics to maybe know a little less about their subjects so that they might reflect the common man that I suspect he invited some members of the Rotten Tomatoes community to come to his office so he could pander to them real-time as he was writing. Perhaps if he was not simply trying to drum up page views, he might have put any effort into his piece at all and at least countered the statement with a reminder that Rififi unfolded in near-silence, while Inception uses Nolan's heavy exposition, but then that would be an actually relevant comment on the movie itself, which I suspect Goldstein didn't even see before his screed on the importance of maintaining a consensus and keeping the hype machine chugging.

That is my main concern for the film's future, that people will not examine it -- whether they ultimately like or dislike their findings -- and instead view Inception in the stifling vacuum created by marketing, in which movies suck the money out of our wallets and the synapses of our brains, numbing us to a simple "thumbs up/thumbs down" reaction; everyone blames Siskel & Ebert for this, but at least they backed up their reasoning. Analyzing the twists and turns of Inception may not reward in the same way that readings of the humanist works of an Ozu or a Kiarostami lead to greater understanding of not only the movie but life, but why not have a go at sorting out some of Nolan's dreamscape?

Some fault The Prestige for caring more about fooling the audience than letting the magic infuse the film, a contention I occasionally agree with (thus I am always switching my preference for magician-based films of 2006 between Nolan's more science-centric thriller and The Illusionist, which better captures the intoxication and beguiling charm of being hoodwinked into seeing something wonderful). But The Prestige was not about magic but illusions, standing previously as the director's finest outpouring of his love for legerdemain. Nolan loves to pull a fast one on us, not because he thinks himself superior but because he's got some cheek on him. Not all con jobs are mean-spirited, and the director appeals to our desire to work out that which stymies us. Some, as they do when shown a magic trick, will demand to know the secret but will give up when the magician playfully wags his finger. Others will study the move until they can perform it themselves, and it is those people to whom Nolan caters.

Inception is his greatest swindle yet, in the best possible sense: by leaving its imagery on the table, existing outside even the most expository dialogue the film has to offer, the director imparts his vision onto us and entrusts the audience with taking from it what they will. Inception's truncated final shot sent a groan of withheld resolution from the crowd, but the tease only implanted the idea of the film deeper into their minds, and the appreciation pouring out of the crowd as they left the theater reveals that Nolan's trickery is not cruel. It's a sign of respect in a field where no one seems to believe in the maturity of an audience anymore, and the taste of the stereotyped "masses" that Goldstein defends so pathetically might hedge closer to that of the critics' if the mainstream treated them with respect. "You musn't be afraid to dream a bit bigger, darling," Eames says to Arthur as he brandishes a ludicrous weapon during a shootout with hostile subconscious projections, and the line may be as much a challenge to everyone else currently using up hundreds of millions of dollars of studio money to no artistic end as it is a offhand bit of British cheek.


Saturday, July 25, 2009

(500) Days of Summer



The music of The Smiths informs the tone of (500) Days of Summer, which is an appropriate choice. Like that band, the film is steeped in self-pity and angst, but it's self-aware enough to routinely poke fun at itself. In what other film could a joyous, imagined song-and-dance number suddenly jump the timeline to show that same dancing man in a fit of depression? It opens not with the birth of a relationship but its breakdown; a narrator helpfully cautions us, "I should tell you upfront: this is not a love story."

Writers Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber have crafted with this non-linear, quirky movie an "anti-romantic comedy," one that follows in the footsteps of Annie Hall, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and The Graduate. The latter in particular is expressly mentioned and even shown in the film, with the explanation that protagonist Tom Hanson, like so many others, misread the ending of the film as a child. As with Annie Hall, the male lead, a traditional, button-down sort of fellow, falls for a quirky, progressive lady who has her own thoughts about what a relationship is and is in no hurry to enter into one.

Yes, she is unfortunately named Summer, which is the first glaring misstep of the film (and not the last), but the character is wonderfully written. Summer proves her oddball nature by expressing a love for Ringo Starr and let's face it, anyone who would cite "Octopus's Garden" as her favorite Beatles song marches to the beat of a different drum, or another instrument altogether. All throughout her life men have fawned over her and the mysterious "Summer effect," but she's kept few boyfriends. For her, relationships just lead to hurt feelings and break-ups, so why waste youth on the hassle?

Much of Summer is shrouded in mystery, and rightly so: Tom places her on a pedestal and thinks of her as his soulmate, but really she’s just there and different enough to attract him. The two slave away at a greeting card office they don’t like, which sets up some great gags and the film shifts between joy and woe. When things are going well for Tom, he runs about the place in a creative frenzy, only to fly into a crazed rant when his world crumbles around him. As he screams in a board meeting that this company and all the movies and pop songs are spreading lies about true love, it works as a great tongue-in-cheek stab at the film and its impeccable soundtrack even as it works as a sincere expression of this man's despair.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt, the finest actor of his generation, excels in the role. He has a way of slipping into his roles completely, and not over-the-top characters like Travis Bickle or Daniel Plainview either. His characters are usually offbeat, yes, but they are relatively normal. While his performance is no revelation, he flips between euphoric contentment and wallowing sadness as effortlessly as the film around him. He is completely relatable as the naïve, loverstruck fool who turns to callousness and sexism when it all goes south. Zooey Deschanel is the monarch of ironic detachment (Michael Cera, eat your heart out), but that undercurrent of sincerity and emotion in her performances makes her so endearing. You find yourself, like Tom, wanting to lose yourself into those blue doe eyes. Director Mark Webb certainly did, as he fills the screen with a large amount of light blue to complement them. This mix of deadpan and emotion made her stand out in another great anti-rom-com of recent years, David Gordon Green's All the Real Girls, but she's even better here.

“(500) Days of Summer” is steeped in irony and cliché, but they are used to convey complete sincerity. References to European art films and ‘80s and ‘90s pop abound, but they feel less like name-checks and more like the natural conversations and imaginations of these people. Clichés such as the pain of a break-up ending with “I hope we can still be friends” work because they are real. Also ringing of truth are the friends who encourage Tom to just get over it when one has been in a relationship since middle school and the other has never held down a steady girlfriend. The only truly grating, purely cinematic cliché is the young child who is wise beyond her years, and there aren’t enough sighs in the world to convey how tired that trope is.

There is also an event, near the end of the film, that is bewilderingly unexplained and seemingly there only to make Tom sadder. Then we hear the reasoning behind it, and it gives the film a simple truth that so many rom-coms, even anti-rom-coms, neglect to mention: true love can exist, but it might not be with the person you want. I’ve yet to decide if the final line is unbearably pat or charmingly hilarious, but I laughed, so that counts for something. It, like the rest of this wonderfully directed debut from Webb, treads the line between facile indie cuteness and something far deeper and more understanding, and the result in the smartest romantic comedy since Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, even if it never comes close to the heights of that masterpiece.

Saturday, June 20, 2009

Killshot



Every film the Weinstein brothers finance these days seems to reflect more on their downward spiral than it does the quality of the script in question. As tyrannical as they may be, you can't help but feel sorry for the producers: after all, they were as much responsible for the mid-'90s independent film explosion as Quentin Tarantino, and they had a knack for picking winning scripts and launching unknowns (Quentin, Kevin Smith, etc.). Yet their commercialization and absorption of the indie scene corrupted the very foundation of the movement, to the point that now movies financed by Hollwyood qualify for Spirit Awards so long as the film cost less than $5 million to make.

Perhaps that's why the Weinsteins' fortunes changed so drastically: by draining the indie pool of its top talent, all they could do was sit on their thrones as their empire collapsed around them. Recent projects have suffered from inexcusably bad promotion (Zack and Miri Make a Porno, Grindhouse) and push-backs (The Road, Fanboys), and the once-indefatigable siblings seem to be slipping ever closer to bankruptcy.

Killshot, thoroughly unmemorable as it is, will live on as the melting pot of all the Weinsteins' flaws, and proof of their sad decline. Originally slated for a March 2006 release, Killshot met with some terrible reaction at test screenings, so they delayed it. A planned straight-to-DVD release was likewise scrapped. Finally, after The Wrestler put Mickey Rourke back on the map, the brothers at last settled on a theatrical release in early January. Yet for all the press Rourke was getting, the Weinsteins did nothing to capitalize on the star's success, nor did they even give Killshot a wide release. So, at last, it hit a handful of screens in Arizona, and all those people clamoring to get an extra taste of Rourke had to wait until a few weeks ago for a bare-bones DVD to hit shelves with as little fanfare as it did the big screen.

Rourke plays Armand Degas, a hitman with some Native American lineage who calls himself "Blackbird." He's that familiar type of aged professional, the one who's had enough but needs to take on one last job to give him the cash to retire. Nothing ever goes wrong on his watch, but, of course, someone sees him on this final job and manages to escape to safety. The witness, Carmen Colson (Diane Lane), goes to the police and is promptly placed in the Witness Protection Program with her husband Wayne (Thomas Jane). Now, Degas must tie up the loose end if he wants to leave this life behind him.

The clichés keep a-comin' when Blackbird takes a young robber under his wing; Richie (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), is a loud-mouthed, incompetent braggart with borderline psychosis. He sells Degas on a plan to take a real estate agent for a big haul, only for the seasoned killer to discover that the agent in question is the husband of the woman he's hunting.

While it's all been done before, this film had promise: Elmore Leonard's work is acclaimed for its realism and dialogue, and several of his books later became fun, witty and involving films (from Get Shorty to Rum Punch, which Tarantino loosely adapted into Jackie Brown). But Killshot is in the hands of art house director John Madden (of Shakespeare in Love fame) and writer Hossein Amini, who promptly suck all of the life out of the source material. One of Leonard's writing tips is, "If it looks like writing, I rewrite it." Madden and Amini should have taken this maxim to heart, as every single moment is so coldly constructed that its thriller moments fail to excite, while its character moments simply meander.

There is one bright spot in all of this, and it is, naturally, Mickey Rourke. He adds that level of broken-down, hard-earned wisdom that informs most of his contemporary roles, and he still commands that magnetism he wielded back when he looked like the next James Dean. Sadly, neither he nor anyone else has any chemistry with the other actors: Levitt is so good at portraying an annoying prig that you just want to fast-forward when he's on-screen, and that kills his scenes with both Rourke and Richie's Elvis-obsessed girlfriend, played by Rosario Dawson. Lane holds her own, but Jane weighs down the scenes between the couple, and she fails to act the believable victim when Richie and Blackbird find her.

Supposedly the abysmal test screenings, which cited the film as too muddled and confusing, greatly cut down the length, eliminating an entire subplot about a character played by Johnny Knoxville. But even at its trimmed 84-minute length, Killshot is all over the place, and it never finds a note it can play realistically. Rourke fans are no doubt used to wading through some downright interminable dross to see the man in action, and this is far from the bottom of the barrel of his career. I advise those fans to give Killshot a go, but that is the only reason to watch this otherwise slow-paced, aimless thriller.