Joe (Michael Caine) took a hard look at himself, his friends Willie (Morgan Freeman) and Albert (Alan Arkin) and concluded that they should rob a bank. Age
is going up, money is going down, and family that depend on them still around.
There’s a point in life when things are seen more as a countdown, but the point is it doesn’t have to be sad.
Joe considered the numbers: their age and needs, risk and reward, failure of the system; robbing a bank was just a line in the sand. They’re all going out anyway so why not take a chance to go out in style.
There’s a point in life when things are seen more as a countdown, but the point is it doesn’t have to be sad.
Joe considered the numbers: their age and needs, risk and reward, failure of the system; robbing a bank was just a line in the sand. They’re all going out anyway so why not take a chance to go out in style.
Typical of heist stories, Going in Style is bland if not totally annoying missing the typical tone of heist movies which is comedy or at least lighthearted. It failed because for a heist movie to work any and all aspects of the crime has to be believable.
You have to
believe in the chemistry of the protagonists who are out to steal. This means
that they not only have to look good together, which is a plus, but also that
the combination of their skills makes the robbery possible.
You also have to
believe that the protagonists have an equal opportunity in getting caught. In others words, the police or any and all authority figures have to be credible.
On both points
the movie failed. There’s bad chemistry and total lack of skills all
around. The authorities are a joke that the bank should have just handed over the
money to save time.
What movie is successful in selling – overselling – is that
growing old is a bitch especially if strapped of cash.
Casting and Chemistry
Based on past
roles Michael Caine reminds me of a butler and Morgan Freeman has been Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, President, and God.
I’m not saying that Freeman taking the lead is
better than Caine but when I see Willie he feels restrained instead of it being
a free flowing dynamic of friends, like he exists only to agree with Joe.
Yet despite having a leadership role Joe is not so different from Willie. Basically they cancel each other out. Both of them have granddaughters they’re so fond of. None of them have skills to rob a bank which is where Albert comes in.
Yet despite having a leadership role Joe is not so different from Willie. Basically they cancel each other out. Both of them have granddaughters they’re so fond of. None of them have skills to rob a bank which is where Albert comes in.
And I am being
generous with use of the word skills. Albert’s only advantage is that he is the
grumpy old man which is the aggressiveness that proves useful in robbing a bank.
He is the wild card in the mix in that he gets a girlfriend and not a
granddaughter.
It could have been cute but problem is Alan Arkin has no range at
all. He doesn’t sound or look happy having a girl; grumpy old man to the
end albeit no longer single.
Annie Santori
(Ann Margaret), the girlfriend, seduces like she’s 20 to which Al, lacking a
romantic aura in his body, begrudgingly agrees to the woman’s advances. Does
the scene have to cut to an after-sex moment though?
Finding love at
that age is certainly interesting but I would have liked something more playful
like Betty White or Miriam Margoyles since the general atmosphere being aimed
here is a comedy. Any one with bubbly personality to counter Arkin would have been welcome.
What’s missing
and could have made the drama more endearing are the granddaughters. Sure they have scenes; Joe and Willie always had theirs in mind going into the
job; but their overall effect is minuscule as if they are only there as an
accident; for it to be said that the old man did it for family.
I have seen
stories about experience trumping the arrogant youth and this is not that
movie.
It’s ‘taking care of the elderly’ vs ‘the misadventures of three old men robbing a bank’. The story never made up its mind which side to be in. Robbing a bank is a serious crime. Misadventures should always mean prison or death.
The three having decided on the crime are
presented as going against all odds. They were never made into hard core
experienced criminals to maintain the pity, to never lose sight that there
should be a system for the elderly and it failed.
Wechsler Steel,
the company which the three friends had given all their lives to, disregarded
all financial obligations to workers, past and present, under the legal guise
of a merger.
The three friends, partly motivated by revenge, only want to take
in the amounts of what is rightfully theirs; any excess will be given away. Joe, Willie, and Albert have experience but not the required experience. Remember, a heist story
requires belief in the crime and the ability to pull it off or the chance of
getting caught.
They went on a practice run which is obviously a joke because no rookie shoplifter
would ever make the mistake of walking out with food items bulging out of their
clothing.
The lady guard had Joe in her sights inside the store, canned
goods obviously hidden in his coat, and still Joe managed to get chased in the
street. How can she miss that?
Jesus (John Ortiz) is the authority on criminal behavior in the story, hired by the three
to act as consultant, teach them how to rob a bank.
His first lesson
was ‘do not shit in your own back yard’ or for the movie’s case ‘do not rob
your own bank’. It was the one lesson he never got to give because Joe insisted
on robbing his own bank and it is disappointing Jesus never corrected the old
man despite it being a wise advice – inside and outside of criminal behavior.
With the two highlighted
authority figures on each side, Jesus and the lady guard, unable to do what
their characters are supposed to do, it set the credibility to stopping and
doing the crime down the drain.
It was
further compounded by inexcusable failure to implement physical and time
requirements, countermeasures that needed to be set to throw off investigations. At the end of it all, neither the bank staff nor police managed to capitalize on any of those
mistakes.
Going in Style
ends with unexpected help to the three, all meant to elicit emotion that people out there are
always willing to look out for the elderly.
Typical of heist movies it also had
the ‘review’, scenes that show how the crime was pulled off successfully. Because the
authorities are a joke unable to capture persons so physically unable or even prevent it all from happening, these
ending scenes were ultimately hollow.
A heist movie doesn't work with just lucky enough to have pull off the perfect crime.
A heist movie doesn't work with just lucky enough to have pull off the perfect crime.
No comments:
Post a Comment