MovieChat Forums > The Way of the Gun (2000) Discussion > Please only serious responders

Please only serious responders

posted 13 years ago by jswans01-1
13 replies | jump to latest

I like this movie, but I don't think it's a great movie. I think it's probably a degree or two from being a great movie. But those are critical degrees. That it isn't considered a classic doesn't surprise me, but I'm not quite sure why it doesn't surprise me. There is something either missing or off and I don't know exactly what. Me being someone who watches it a lot, or rather, watches certain scenes of it a lot, am too close to figure out exactly what those things are. So, I'm asking anyone who really loves and thinks about film or stories in general and has the time to help me out.
Please, no 'This movie sucked' or 'You're a moron. This was the greatest movie ever' responses.
To give you something of a picture of where my head is at, I loved the aphorisms in the movie. "The longest distance between two points is a kidnapper and his money." "What am I gonna tell God when I see him? I'm gonna tell God I was framed." "There is always free cheese in a mousetrap." That is...thank you God, I go to movies to hear lines like that. Those I liked. I almost said that I liked the dialogue in the movie but I realized that it wasn't the dialogue, words between two people, so much as what a character said when there just happened to be someone there to hear it. Some of the dialogue was good too, but I found some of it painful. "If we die, we die alone." Strange thing to say to the person about to die with you-you could argue that he's saying that they're not really a team but that each one of them, though together is on their own, in it for themselves. Or, you could go the other way and say that he's saying they're so close that them dying together is the equivalent of dying alone...or that two lonely bastards dying together is really just one lonely bastard dying twice at the same time, but even still, it's in my opinion just bloody lame. I looved the stuff they said to the donor doctor too. Funny as hell. I liked the action as well. Especially the final shoot out. Whey Ryan Phillipe jumps into the well and gets a forearm fulla broken glass was super cool. Real life spliced into a genre flick in a naturalistic way is always a plus for me.
But still I don't think it was a great movie. Like Heat or Usual Suspects or other awesome nineties crime movies.
Some things I didn't like were the scenes with the rich people. I usually like depictions of wealth in film, but these were the soulless types that I just couldn't care about. They weren't truly evil, which would've been more interesting. It wasn't a world I wanted to inhabit, nor one I found interesting or even that realistic, and I think you either need one of the three or have something else that is equally or more engrossing. They're too lazy to have their own baby but willing to spend millions to a kidnapper when they could just get another surrogate? And if they're gonna kidnap, why kidnap the surrogate instead of one of the parents? These guys seemed like Navy Seals, they could surely pull off a couple of bank robberies or rob some drug dealers and get all the dough they wanted. Too convoluted, is what I'm getting at, I think. And, the fact that I was thinking "Why didn't they just..." instead of being so into it I accepted whatever the writer gave me is always a horrible sign. In the old Planet of the Apes, for instance, I never wondered why the fact that the apes spoke English didn't tip Taylor off that he was on Earth but on the remake, I did wonder that. In the old Terminator movies I never wondered why the machines didn't just release a virus or set off a neutron bomb which destroys life but leaves inanimate things alone, but on that Salvation one, they didn't capture my imagination enough to shut off critical thought.
Also, I'm usually the biggest man whore for suspense, but when the father was like "After what happened in Baltimore..." I wasn't wondering what happened in Baltimore. I could not care less.
The twists and turns at the end were good, but I really did not care what was happening in these peoples lives. I just wanted more cool lines, and more action. I love movies that are just cool lines and great action, but I thought this one was approaching genuine art but never reached it.
All right, I guess I've said enough. I have a lot more thoughts on this film but, this is about me getting an outside perspective. Let me know what you think if you can.

[–] Zombie55 13 years ago

Your critical analysis of this movie is interesting and welcome!

[–] jswans01-1 13 years ago

Thanks! Did you think the same thing as me, that the movie was pretty good, superior to a lotta crime movies, but could and should have been a lot better with just minor tweaking?

[–] Zombie55 13 years ago

Yeah, I kind of thought the same as you. It's not as great as "The Usual Suspects" and there are some parts and areas which if improved could've pushed "The Way of the Gun" into a masterpiece category, but it was still a pretty solid and enjoyable film that is a welcome addition to the post-Tarantino, post Coen-brothers and post "Usual Suspects" crime genre. I give it 7/10!

[–] aGuiltySoul 13 years ago

Since you're basically arguing that this is a very good film, I'd almost hate to engage in a debate with you. But let's start with the definition of "great" as in "a great film." I was just watching "Crimson Tide" tonight. That is without a doubt one of the most well made, well scripted, well acted films ever filmed. And no matter how often you watch it, it never gets old. Well, guess what? I have watched TWOTG over a dozen times and I have never come close to getting tired of it either. So is TWOTG great? Well, it is to me...but not to as many people as CT.

As to the dialogue in TWOTG, I agree with you that it's one of the most interesting and compelling aspects of this film. And it's still dialogue, by the way, even if there's no retort. As you say, the lines are unforgettable. And you haven't seemed to forgotten the lines be they ever so cryptic, at times. I like some of those lines that are difficult to fully understand the best. It's gets one to thinking and speculating, as you have above, exactly what it does mean.

I don't fault anything you've said about this film. I just want to add that those "rich people" who you talk about are gangsters. Or worse than gangsters, because they clean up for them. And as for why these people would protect the surrogate instead of getting another, as far as they knew, that baby was HIS baby. No way it was just a throw away kid...go get another. We don't know why they are resorting to a surrogate, we assume it's because the wife doesn't want to spoil her figure but it could be that she's been unable to conceive. The same reason almost any woman would resort to a surrogate.

And lastly, the point about Parker and Longbaugh having lots of options with their skill levels to make an easy buck. That's an interesting point. But so what? THIS is the situation they are in. For all of their skills, they're low level criminals. If it's because they don't have enough imagination, or ambition, or whatever. I don't care. I just sink into this story and let it take me on a ride. But I do want to add that I think one of the things McQuarrie who wrote and directed this (as well as having written The Usual Suspects) wanted us to see, is that most criminals are not masterminds like alot of films would lead you to believe. They're just opportunists, like Parker and Longbaugh.

"I'd never ask you to trust me. It's the cry of a guilty soul."

[–] SufyanV 13 years ago

I must admit I was unable to read your whole post because you did not use paragraphs. Walls of text are unreadable. I did get the gist of what you were saying however.

The "if we die, we die alone" line is probably not as complicated as you think. It is very likely a reference to Clint Eastwood's character "Blondie" in "The good, the bad and the ugly". "Blondie" utters the question "Were you going to die alone?" when he joins "Tuco" who sets out to battle "Angel Eye's" posse in the bombed out town. Longbaugh says it with a faint smirk, so it is probably just a cleverly disguised pop culture reference.

As for the Chidducks going through the effort to bring the girl back, there are several important points you have to ignore in order to come to the conclusion that "finding a new surrogate" would be the best solution.

First off, it's beyond psychotic to think that way, even for a ruthless criminal. All the characters in this film are criminals, but they are still human. Sacrificing a young woman's life at the hands of unknown kidnappers is not a light decision.

Secondly, it would be hard for the Chidducks, who no doubt have a reputation as criminals, to explain the mysterious disappearance of the surrogate mother they have taken such great care to protect. This would be especially bad if she is eventually found murdered in Mexico. The only way to cover their own asses is to get the girl back, which they can't do with their own money as in the case the kidnappers get caught with the money, the money would trace back to the Chidducks who make a living laundering money for the mafia and worse. Basically, it is risk assessment: They don't know who the kidnappers are and so they don't know what to expect of them, and if the girl dies that could lead to legal complications for the Chidducks and if the kidnappers get caught or killed carrying the ransom money that spells both legal and mafia problems for the Chidducks. Getting the girl back is the safest option

Third and last, it is subtly suggested that Robin the surrogate is actually the daughter of Joe Sarno, Hale Chidduck's enforcer. Chidduck and Sarno are shown to have a long a close friendship. Would you want to be responsible for your friend's daughter's death? They have to rescue her. Furthermore, Hale Chidduck is shown to have a very loving (and a little bit creepy) affection towards Robin, you can tell he cares about her and the baby she is carrying. He is shown to be very excited and glad when he finds out he is going to have a son.

As for your not caring about the characters in the film, have you seen the DVD commentary tracks? Writer/Director Christopher McQuarrie mentions critics saying they did not sympathise with any of the characters. McQuarrie then says something along the lines of "Of course you don't, they are all horrible people!". It seems the mission statement for this film was to make a film that has no heroes, only bad guys doing bad things. Anti-hollywood. This idea is perpetuated in Parker's monologues. Parker opens the film stating there is a natural order where the good guys always win and the ending is always happy. At the end of the film in the closing monologue, Parker says "we won't accept your natural order".

In a way, this whole film serves as an ode to classic westerns with it's visuals and subtle pop culture references while at the same time giving the finger to delusional Hollywood morals and glorification. It is a film about film making, more specifically the current state of the film industry, the "natural order" of things which the film refuses to conform to (spectacular car chases, slow motion shoot outs, gratuitous sex, good guys vs bad guys). I never introduce the film as an action film, I opt to call it a kidnapping drama. The gun play and violence is not the core of the film, it is just part of the drama because the drama revolves around bad men with guns. The violence blends so well with the world depicted in the film it becomes as natural and believable as any every day conversation.

The Way of the gun has been a top three favourite of mine for about eight years now and I'm guessing it will stay that way for another 10 years. I doubt it will ever drop off my Top 10 list within my life time. I've lost count how many times I've re-watched it, with and without DVD commentary. I notice something new every time I watch it or write about it.

[–] house_head1753 13 years ago

"If we die, we die alone". I've always taken that as "we're almost at the end of this thing. If you go down I'm not coming back for you, and I expect the same from you". It runs contrary to what happens after Parker is incapacitated, but when he says it you get the feeling like it's one last lesson from the mentor to the student (hence the smirk).

Good grab on the Blondie reference, I totally missed that.

As far as the kidnapping instead of robbing a bank, it really was just an opportunity that fell into their lap. If I had to guess why they never robbed a bank (or anything like that), I'd say it was probably due to exposure risks and the all around high profile nature of those crimes. While kidnapping can run the risk of being high profile, it has the potential to go completely under the radar. If a bank gets robbed everybody knows right away. If someone is kidnapped, the only way anybody knows about it is if the people go to the cops instead of paying the ransom. It's a calculated risk. If you don't ask for more than the people can afford (or are willing to pay), they're more likely to just pay you and avoid risking the life of the person kidnapped. After hearing the surrogate was getting paid a million dollars just for carrying the child, they aimed a little high on the ransom, but not pie in the sky outrageous. Also, there's no way they would be getting that kind of money robbing any place other than a casino. You just don't find that much cash in one place at one time without a serious security force guarding it. Like it's been said in this thread already, they're opportunists not criminal masterminds (this isn't a brains kind of outfit).

I liked the Baltimore thing. I liked how there are random pieces of the puzzle just strewn about the film (some of which fit, and some of which don't). I like how stuff isn't spoonfed to you, and you need to pay attention and draw some conclusions. I'm curious about what happened in Baltimore, and I want to know about Longbaugh's time as a bag man. I've filled in the details for my interpretation, but yours may be completely different. I think it's easier to do if you're really wrapped up in it, and are curious about the characters (I can't say care about them, because it is intentionally difficult to care about any of them).

I think it's a great movie. It pushes bounds, breaks conventions, has realism, and technical merit. I know it's not for everybody, but it really spoke to me and had quite an impact.

[–] jswans01-1 13 years ago

This movie is fascinating for how close it gets to being great without reaching it. If I was a film professor I would require my students who were interested in the crime genre to watch it and consider where the error lies. Or, if there is an error at all and if this is a great crime film, and not simply a vastly superior one.

I'd say to my students: This should have been great. Why wasn't it?

You don't get many films like that and it would be a fantastic learning experience.

[–] jswans01-1 11 years ago

pmub

[–] aGuiltySoul 11 years ago

Interesting idea. However, I would argue that this is a great film, just not a big box office success. And the whys of that are buried deep within the inner workings of h'wood.

I do know that if you look it up on Rotten Tomatoes it shows that the reviews were prominently negative. A while ago I posted a link to a reviewer who had gone back to see this film again several years later and wrote a new review expressing his regret that he had failed to appreciate this film for the gem that it clearly is at the time of its release.

Perhaps in that fictional classroom of yours you could distribute the reviews and critique them.

"I'd never ask you to trust me. It's the cry of a guilty soul."

[–] jswans01-1 11 years ago

This actually is the fictional classroom.

[–] the_la_baker 10 years ago

The film's weak spot is pacing. It can get a bit slow at times, but there is a lot going on if you pay attention and read between the lines.

As for why they didn't rob banks and drug dealers;
The average bank robbery nets less than $10,000. The mean is around $4,000. Not to mention the heat it would put on them.

The average drug dealer doesn't have more than that laying around. The really rich dealers are the ones moving weight, they aren't advertising and always protect their merchandise.

$15,000,000 in one score is a once in a lifetime opportunity they could have retired on.

[–] MuleDeer 9 years ago

The twists and turns at the end were good, but I really did not care what was happening in these peoples lives. I just wanted more cool lines, and more action. I love movies that are just cool lines and great action, but I thought this one was approaching genuine art but never reached it.

I don't really understand your point here. You didn't care about the characters' lives, you just wanted more cool lines and more action which = genuine art? That might make a great music video but not a great film with an actual story.

I thought the twists and turns are part of what makes genuinely good films - along with cool lines and action. As long as they're not twists and turns solely for twists and turns sake, and so cool lines and action are not solely for cool lines and action sake. That's what I thought this movie did well - blend those elements into the overall and not just to have "cool" elements for the sake of having cool elements. Once upon a time, a million times ago, someone thought it would be cool to have a character walking away in slow motion from a huge explosion.

I thought the story was clever, well-developed and -paced, as was the back story of the characters' lives prior to what we see. Too many movies lack that. For a long time, we don't know what happened in Baltimore, only that something did and it wasn't good. We find out each character is pretty much motivated by greed or personal betterment by way of a short cut.

Besides the story, pace, soundtrack, and realistic gunplay and maneuvers, I really liked the cast. I thought each character was perfectly cast. The two outlaws, the pregnant woman, Chiddick by the under-appreciated Scott Wilson, the two security guys (who Chiddick says define "emotionally detached"), Sarno, Geoffrey Lewis, etc. There was even a "blond agent" (nod to Repo Man?) security guy killed at the doc's office.

I enjoy this movie on every viewing.

[–] jswans01-1 8 years ago

I don't really understand your point here. You didn't care about the characters' lives,
-I meant the rich people's lives, Hale and Francesca and her affair with one of the bodyguards and blah blah blah. I cared very much about Parker and Longbaugh and Sarno. I cared about Robin too, and to a lesser extent the Russian Roulette guy. But when they go to the scenes with Hale and Francesca and Dr. Painter's relationship with Hale I really just couldn't care less.

you just wanted more cool lines and more action which = genuine art?
-No, I meant that if a movie is just cool lines and action, that's enough for me to like it and accept it for what it is and not want more out of it. I might not watch it again, but I'll enjoy it while I'm watching. This movie, while having the cool lines and great action also had something extra that it almost but didn't quite reach that would have made it genuine art. It's enough in the art category that it's definitely not a watch it one time movie for me; I watch it lots and always enjoy it, but it doesn't quite reach where it should for me.