Only Cromwell remains on top

Rating: 7/10 (27 July 2010)

Just watched this movie again last night. Thirteen yrs ago this picture received - across the board - the best set of reviews of ANY movie ever released in the history of Warner Brothers.
Today, it doesn't deserve that kind of hype. The list of reservations runs remarkably deep in hindsight. The script feels rushed and underdeveloped at key plot points (What does it represent, three novels boiled into one screenplay?) The romantic (triangle) subplot comprised of Russell Crowe, Kim Bassinger and Guy Pearce is grotesquely handled (compare it to the languorous sparring of Mel Gibson, Michelle Pfeiffer and Kurt Russell in the underrated "guilty pleasure," TEQUILA SUNRISE) Bassinger's performance is arguably the lamest one to ever be awarded a supporting Oscar. The love scenes between her and Crowe are written in the form of a fervent adolescent's sincerest wet dream. Psychological explanations are purest pulp. The mise-en-scene, which I thought was a tad overrated even at the time, now looks to be exclusively the work of the production research department. Visually, its actually pretty flat, playing like a solid cable series with some key episodes missing. Yet having said that much, L.A. CONFIDENTIAL benefits mightily from having a spectacular, cunningly sinister villain in James Cromwell. He is as good as one's memory of him. The climax of the picture, where his wickedness appears well-nigh omnipotent (Noah Cross with a badge)and, in classic melodramatic fashion, one fears for the lives of the two righteous detectives who are out to crack the case - yes, this last section still holds up and delivers the goods.
So in retrospect, I remain charitable and credit it a 7 out of 10 because so few melodramas have heart these days and this far-fetched conspiracy tale does reflect the convictions of its author, James Ellroy - even if what those convictions add up to is less than meets the eye.
Was this review useful to you?