I really like this film for all the reasons most people dislike it for. While most people don't understand the pointless nature of the main character's mission, I love it for the simplicity of character. Other's feel confused about the casting of one of the most bankable, and likable, film stars in such an unpleasant role. I thought Mel Gibson was the perfect choice, and it was more than just inspired casting. So must have Mel, since he financed the picture.

The movie is based on a 1967 film I've never seen called "Point Blank". It was directed by a director whom I love dearly, John Boorman. The simple plot for the story is that Porter, played by Gibson, is a low level thief who mainly does payroll and bank jobs. He is set up by a crooked partner, and betrayed by his wife, who steal the entire $140,000 just earned from a successful robbery of Chinese gangsters. Porter is shot several times, and spends five months recuperating. Everyone thinks he is dead, so when he returns his first order of business is to build himself back up from nothing. Once he has some spending money, a weapon, and his first contact with his ex-wife, he sets off to find the man who set him up. Porter doesn't really want to necessarily kill the man. He just wants his $70,000 that he feels is owed to him for his 50% of the heist. The man who set him up just about paid the full amount of the money to get himself back inside 'the outfit', which is another name for the syndicate. Porter decides that if he cannot get the money from his ex-partner, than the syndicate owes him the money.

This is the part of the film that some people found to be a problem. Others felt that this showed that Porter was crazy. I just thought that this was a man who was so stubborn as to want to get back his money. It didn't matter who had it now, or what it was spent on. He just wanted it back. Many humorous moments are made when people keep thinking he wants back all the money that his ex-partner gave to the mob. He has to keep insisting that all he wants is $70,000. I'd have to assume that if he were given more money, he would only keep the $70,000. Most of the dangerous hoods in the film feel that he is crazy, and almost don't believe that he is willing to go through the trouble that he is, for what they consider to be a small amount of money.

The primary writer and director of the film was Brian Helgeland. He also was the screenwriter for "LA Confidential", which also had extremely exciting action scenes within a great movie. He earlier co-wrote (with The Matrix's Wachowski brothers) the very entertaining "Assassins", which also featured clever ways to entrap one's enemies. These films alone are of a high enough quality that I'll forgive him for the poor action in both "Knight's Tale", and "The Postman".

Helgeland makes it clear early on that Porter is a bad guy. He was even quoted in the press as saying "I wanted to see a bad guy as the hero, but I didn't want to make excuses for him." I'm not really sure if there are any good guys in the film, and I can't tell if the director even wanted us to like Gibson. I did, but many people did not. I found the movie exciting because it took one of the most bankable stars, and then has him play a truly unlikable character. And without any apologies. The film starts with Mel robbing a homeless guy for money, a waitress of her tip, and then pick-pocketing a man who looks a little like himself. With the credit cards he buys a suit, items to pawn, and eventually a gun. These scenes are shot fast, and with excitement.

Porter is definitely a violent man. As he works his way up from his wife, trying to find the man who set him up, we witness him assaulting a half-dozen people with extreme violence. We cringe as we see a bartender not giving him the answers he wants to hear. We know he is going to get hurt, even though he is in a crowded hotel bar. A lesser film would've had him working behind the bar of a sleazy dive with few witnesses to care about. This was just another example of Porter's unrelenting, or uncaring, nature of what happens.

Porter moves like a force of nature, and we can believe that he cannot be hurt. Why else would he just charge into the most dangerous of situations? After he kills his ex-partner, he decides to go meet the syndicate bosses and demand the money. He figures they wouldn't be expecting that. When he gets there, knowing that he will have his gun taken away, he simply leaves the gun outside (in another inspired scene), and when he gets inside, knocks out the boss' two bodyguards and takes one of their guns. Porter is not a subtle man.

Along with the movie's unusually high level of violence, most of the characters are extremely sadistic. A hooker is a true dominatrix who enjoys punching (back & forth) with her clients. A mob boss even says to another character that he is valuable to the organization because he is a sadist whose nature can really come in handy. The mob boss even seems to enjoy playing mental games as he watches a hood be told that the organization won't back him up. We see a nose ring ripped out, a man's hand crushed by a door, and you don't even want to know what happens to one man's toes by a sledgehammer!

This movie has a huge cast of characters, but really only Gibson and one or two others have much of a role. It almost reminded me of "Lock Stock & Two Smoking Barrels" in the way so many different groups of characters keep popping up and disappearing as another group comes long. And there are some very talented people here. James Coburn, Kris Kristofferson, Lucy Lui, and David Paymer are just some of the minor characters here.

The cinematography is very unusual here. The whole film had a blue-gray haze about it. I think it was trying to capture the look of film noir, but instead of black & white, they just emphasized the grays.

This is a very entertaining action film. It is not for the squeamish. Some of the violence borders on cartoon, but never too much to make it unbelievable.

On my website, I gave the film 4½ stars.



Recommended:
Yes

Viewing Format: VHS
Video Occasion: Fit for Friday Evening
Suitability For Children: Suitable for Children Age 13 and Older