Life and Times of Canada's
National Bank Robber
"Citizen
Gangster" (2011) Review
Who is to
say what a celebrity should be? Should a celebrity be an actor, a singer, a politician,
or even a bank robber? "Citizen Gangster" (2011), director Nathan
Morlando's feature film debut questions what makes a national hero by engaging
the viewer in the life and times of Edwin Boyd, who startles the boundary
between cultural icon of the poor working class veteran and criminal as he
becomes one of the most successful bank robbers in Canadian history.
The story
picks up shortly after WWII with a quote at the beginning remaining the viewer
that everyone is devastated by war, which would have been a phenomenal aspect
of the film if it were to be properly examined. The film briefly references it
in a couple scenes where they refer to "combat fatigue" and show a
paraplegic soldier, yet this idea is largely forgotten as the film stumbles
forward. As the film progresses, the story of Edwin Boyd (Scott Speedman) the
bank robber emerges as he turns to bank heists to support wife Doreen (Kelly
Reilly) and their two children. From here the plot becomes a bit murkier as
major plot details about the development of the Boyd gang as Boyd meets Lenny
Jackson (Kevin Durand) in prison and the two form a friendship which, aided by
a few other escaped convicts comes to be one of the most sensational gangs in
Canadian history (don't laugh, they were a big deal!).The film also struggles
to delve into the internal rivalries in the gang or even the basic timeframe
within which the gang was at the height of its popularity. All these parts of
the story are omitted to cut the time down to a comfortable hour forty minute
picture making the film a very easy watch with minimal squirming, yet leaving
the story feeling a bit empty and leaving the resounding question, "why do
I care?" in the viewer's mind.
The most
notable, and visible, aspect of this film's direction is cinematography. With
an emphasis on creating very light and almost washed out shots, Morlando's
direction seems far too stylized for this picture bearing to mind the question,
why? One could make the argument that defining style is better than a
traditional film, yet the style seems forced, beautifully showing Boyd's makeup
and sometimes creating beautiful views of the snow and wind, yet ultimately
leaving the story out in the cold as the images created seem to take prescience
over substantive shots. This is almost identical to the Zach Snyder syndrome
where a director believes that a weak story can be trumped by amazing visuals
(e.g. “Sucker Punch” (2011)), yet the surprising part of the film is that the
story could have taken the driver’s seat leading to the question of writing.
With
somewhat strong though sometimes tawdry dialogue the film manages to engage the
viewer yet not completely draw them into the story or the craze. When watching
this film, the viewer should walk out of the theater with enthusiasm for Eddie
Boyd, which is not what happened.
Finally,
the film, like many a Tim Burton film before it, seemed to just end without any
indication that the actual story had ended. With no final summation of his
experiences, the film simply stopped, decided that Boyd had changed as a
character, and then went to credits. Was there any good point at which the film
should have ended? Who’s to say. This seemed symptomatic of a lot of aspects of
the film; quick details fired far too fast and without enough emphasis to make
them stick that, when the credits begin to role leave the viewer somewhat dazed
and confused, feeling as if they have walked through a half read novel and
scratching their heads at the end.
Overall,
the film was a very fine debut picture with a lot of promise yet sadly a bit
too little delivery and character development to make anyone care about the
film. This film will most likely not win any major awards, but that’s okay. The
film is enjoyable and entertaining, and in the end, how much can a viewer
really ask for?
Film not
rated by the MPAA
Stars:
7/10
No comments:
Post a Comment