Wow...

I have to agree on all accounts. I'm also a fan of Woody and Ellroy, and basically every single person involved in this picture.

I also did not see how he was such a horrible person as they kept trying to shove in our faces. His family was nothing but irritating and disrespectful toward him, and I found myself feeling sorry for his position (and for my own, having to watch this). The date rape nickname didn't even make sense within the context of his history, and I agree that even if it did - nobody would call him that; officers or teenage daughters.

The movie started out realistically enough with him being a seasoned field training officer walking through a female rookie on the rules of the street, and this could've been an interesting dynamic. Unfortunately it lasted 2 minutes tops and somehow he became a one man unit in a part of town, and in a city that always pairs up officers. But had they done this none of the movie could have been possible (him slouched over in squad car drinking from a liquor bottle and sharing it with Ben Foster in broad daylight in a public parking lot for the world to videotape, for instance). One unrealistic aspect built upon another in order to turn the audience against him. After he beats up the motorist somehow he still continues his (solo?) beat on the same division. There's no way an officer from any city (let alone LA with racial tensions) would be back on the streets until after it has completely been investigated, cleared, and passed over; even then he wouldn't be back on the division for awhile (if ever).

His comment about "9 out of 10 cops would've shot him" seems to play more to the anti-police audience than for the actual movie, and I've see enough people on these forums and in reviews rally behind that line on how true it is. I'm not sure what world these people live in, but officers don't murder civilians who run from a car accident 90% of the time. What he did in that situation wasn't even that bad. From what I could tell the guy was still actively resisting and trying to flee during the first 5 or so blows with the baton. I'm not sure how long he went after that, because the first I see of him hitting the guy who isn't fleeing is on video tape at police headquarters. Keep in mind, they didn't have tasers back then, and that guy wasn't exactly a skinny crackhead.

Still, he wouldn't be on the street after that. When he suddenly shows up a few scenes later in uniform I expect the whole audience was confused along with me. Though he had to be back on duty in order to do his next evil deed, so build yet another unrealistic aspect built upon another.

Somehow on duty he manages to be all out by himself with no squad car, no radio (as Ice Cube points out), and still no partner in a bad part of town late at night (what happened to him working day shift?) where the next event occurs. The game gets robbed by heavily armed suspects, and as others have pointed out - for some reason an unarmed poker player gives active chase to these heavily armed men for blocks. Why does he do this? So that our evil officer can shoot him by mistake (or intentionally, DUN DUN DUN). It's a plot device that makes no sense and is there solely to push the audience even further against him. I would say that his shoot, aside from killing the "innocent" idiot, was completely justifiable. Which is why they had to add the idiot. Taking a few thousand dollars from an illegal game run by gang bangers to support his ex wives and daughters just doesn't cut it for this script. So he plants a gun on the idiot and his good ol drinking buddy somehow sees the whole thing from the street 30 feet below and behind bushes. So when Woody gives his drinking buddy the attorney's card and finds out he has told on him, we have to wonder when the screen goes black whether he kills himself or not. Another unrealistic aspect would be the simple matter of a drug screen post-shooting. This is standard policy not only in the LAPD, but in every city, in every state in the Union. The drugs and alcohol would've been something of an issue you'd think. Drugs which he was getting from a pharmacist in exchange for clearing his sons arrest record... Was he making that up? Did his son really get arrested? Was he really going to make that go away? Did the guy even have a son? These questions are acceptably left unanswered, that is, until he keeps going back to the pharmacist. Either his son is out of jail by this point or he isn't. Come on.

I could just go on, but there's no point. I can handle plot holes and the screenwriter/director having no clue about police work, lingo, tactics, policy, etc... But to be boring on top of that, along with no discernible story? In the words of Lt Aldo, "Now that I can't abide."

Well, I didn't love the movie by any definition, but it did seem to me to be very,very Ellroy. Ellroy took Brown(Harrelson)and more or less added every bad habit and flaw attributed to police officers into one guy.
From reading about Ellroy's early life, I never got the impression he loves cops, or L.A. cops, for that matter. This is one step sideways from The Street Kings, where as I recall, the Department needed a hit man type.

Wambaugh was mentioned earlier in this thread. Has he ever written a book that doesn't have one tortured soul who ends up "eating his gun?".

From a 30+ year police veteran's perspective, I've seen a bit of all of Brown's flaws at least once in some fellow officer. Even the shooting of a suspect that may or may not have been guilty, although everything points to "Date Rape" being guilty. And as for the nick-name, I would prefer "Date Rape" to "Needle-Dick" and I knew one cop called that, even to his face. And he was no shrinking violet, that's just the way cops act. I'm on a medium size department, so LA by all accounts is in another zip code. I would even venture Brown liked the nick name. He shared it with the cop groupie he met (and slept with) in the bar. He just didn't like his daughter calling him that. She obviously used it as a term of derision.

With all that being said, it was a brutal movie to watch. I watched it on Netflix, so my only investment was time. Fair enough. I won't watch it again. No, Brown was not the monster that everybody suggested (worst cop ever) but he was a mix of quite a few of the worst.

LAPD is a culture unto itself. All the major characters were more concerned with the financial and public perception impacts than his actual actions. Was the motorist beat-down excessive? Very. Once on the ground Brown never tries to handcuff him (SOP) until he runs out of steam...which in real life after such an accident would have been much quicker. Not to say the motorist didn't deserve to get knocked on his a**; he did. He actively and truly assaulted Brown with his car door. It’s Ellroy LA cop culture B.S. to say (and receive support) to the notion that any cop, much less 9 out of 10 would shoot a motorist under such circumstances.

The actual Rampart investigation involved mainly Latino and Black officers, (as far as actual misconduct). And for the most part, the ones that got caught made up as much as they told the truth. Not to say they weren't involved in outrageous actions (they were, up to being suspects in the murder of the The Notorious B.I.G.) They lies were just as outrageous, with accused officers being awarded in the neighborhood of 20 million dollars in civil suits stemming from the false claims.

So what does this have to do with Brown and the movie? Nothing, except Training Day had already been made, and Ellroy's favorite whipping boys are white mature cops. Like most "Cop writers" all of Ellroy's transgressions share that thread of truth - Dinking on duty? Of course. Womanizer? Check. Unable to maintain intimate relationships? Yep. The Us-against-them mentality? (the family compound;) it's like a list that any grad student could find on-line of problems police officers have. Ellroy just uses them all.

The reason this film seems to be so hard to digest for most on here (it seems) is it's so unreal. Brutality did (does) happen. The culture and actions of the LAPD during that time period suggest that even the then Chief of Police, Bernard Parks, was involved in at least the suppression of evidence, if not outright actively involved in a cover-up. LAPD was mainly all about the "Blue"; not with sweeping the ranks of anyone who was out of line.
Ellroy writes it as if everyone knows how things were back then. Or maybe he's writing it as if that's the way they are now. In that world, well Brown just doesn't seem that bad a guy. Yes, they had to manufacture a few very clumsy plot devices - letting Brown back out on the street (wouldn't happen with that videotape), the goofy robbery set-up (which, you know, it was). The question is did Ned Beatty's character expect Brown to be robbing the game as the other robbers came in, causing a (probable) shoot-out, thus taking care of Brown?

Questions. I imagine the biggest question most who watch "Rampart" is asking themselves - "Why did I watch this?"

I say any Ellroy fan should not have been surprised; it's all his books and screenplays, with redemption not on the menu.