L.A. Confidential Overrated

by Matthew Buckley

Every once in a while, a criticism of a movie seems to take a life of its own. From top to bottom, critics fall in line behind a movie, hurling superlatives as if they are a dime a dozen. This typically has two explanations. First, the movie may actually be an incredible piece of work; recent examples of this case include films like Hoop Dreams. A second explanation is that the movie may not be that good, but has some feature which tends to appeal to critics. Forrest Gump, for instance, was a feel­good flick with plot swings pulling heartstrings, pulling the film to Oscar-winning prominence.

This comes up since L.A. Confidential, a new film by Curtis Hanson, is apparently the film of the year. After reading a couple of wildly positive reviews, I looked at nearly twenty more Internet reviews of this flick, all of them praising this movie as a sure-fire Oscar contender. I couldn't find a negative review. The criticism of L.A. Confidential, then, has taken on a life of its own, which leads to the question, "Is it really that good?"

L.A. Confidential is not that good, which is disappointing, since it had potential. Based on James Ellroy's complex book of the same name, Confidential is a film noir tale of corruption, lust, and money in 1950s Los Angeles. While the plot is involved and the film is well over two hours long, the movie's thrust is clear. Jack Vincennes, Ed Exley, and Bud White (played by Kevin Spacey, Guy Pearce, and Russell Crowe) are a trio of L.A. detectives seeking the culprit of a murderous rampage at the Nite Owl coffee shop.

The three detectives are strikingly different, and approach the case with very different motivations. Whiote, a hulking physical cop with little regard for rules and procedures, rips through the investigation to avenge the murder of his ex-partner, who had been in the Nite Owl. Vincennes, saavy and media­hungry, hopes to catch the killer to springboard himself back into the homicide division after a police brutality scandal threatens his profitable "technical advisor" role for a TV police procedural. Exley, a budding L.A. politico, is milking the case for political gain.

The quest for the killers proves convoluted; a variety of subplots and seedy characters emerge as the three detectives air out L.A.'s dirty laundry. An initial search quickly leads the detectives to three suspects, yet later facts indicate that the events of the massacre were far more complex. A suitcase of missing heroin involves a whole host of gangster suspects. The identification of one Nite Owl victim as a pricey call-girl leads the trio to a ritzy prostitution service with custom­cut girls who look like Hollywood actresses. Towering in the background, the L.A. police force reeks of good old boy networks, corruption, and a general disregard for civil liberties.

L.A. Confidential has solid, though not amazing, acting. Spacey turns in a nice performance as the slick cop who tries to make good on previous mistakes, and Pearce is convincing as the annoyingly by­the­book detective whom everyone loves to hate. James Cromwell is also notable as a folksy police commander, yanking a couple scenes from the younger actors.

Not all the acting is up to Spacey and Cromwell's caliber. Danny DeVito goes about nine steps too far as a pulp magazine producer who bribes Vincennes for hot scoops. Russell Crowe plays a brooding, stiff character, but the attempts to make his character emotionally complex don't always ring true. Kim Basinger? I suppose this may be one of her best roles ever, but since Batman that says about zip. The role requires more than good looks. To her credit, she does get stuck with some of the movie's worst lines.

Like the acting, the direction is adequate. Hanson keeps the film moving, at some points almost too fast. Granted, the screen adaptation cuts the Ellroy novel up a lot, but too much still goes on in this film.

So why all the acclaim? First, the film is relatively solid, the complicated plot and rushed direction masking some acting deficiences. second, it has loads of southern California navel-gazing. More than a little of the sentiment regarding this film may come from people who enjoy the deflation of 1950's L.A.

Finally, some believe L.A. Confidential is an intellectual, well-designed movie, since it aims for the film noir feel of recent intelligent, successful films like The Usual Suspects and Pulp Fiction. However, it really doesn't follow the example of those better films, which took their time, moved slowly, and got far beyond their original beginnings. Instead, it rushes around for over two hours, making the pivotal mistake of confusing a busy movie with a smart movie.