"The Score"
Directed by Frank Oz.
Written by Kario Salem, Lem Dobbs and Scott Marshall Smith.
Starring Robert De Niro, Edward Norton, Angela Bassett and Marlon
Brando.
Release Year: 2001
Review Date: 7/15/01
Folks--
Has Robert De Niro been in too *many*
movies?
I went to check out "The Score" yesterday
since my dad was settling into a "dad nap" (the art of turning on
The Golf Channel and falling asleep in front of the television), so
I blew out of the house and took in De Niro's latest film. The
movie follows Nick (De Niro), a veteran burglar that decides to take
one last job from his middleman Max (Marlon Brando) that will net
him a $4 million score and earn him enough money to finally retire
from the game. Nick's partner in the deal is up-and-comer Jack
(Edward Norton), who has scoped out the big score and needs a
safecracker of Nick's expertise in order to steal a priceless
scepter.
The movie is by-the-numbers and--much like
the creatively-named (hehehe) Max, Nick and Jack--is very familiar
to anyone who has seen a heist film in the past. For 90 of its 124
minutes, the movie is slow as molasses--a real film critic might say
it was "plodding", but I am not a real film critic--and by the time
the actual heist takes place, many people in my audience had to wake
themselves up. I kept waiting for something exciting to
happen--maybe a car chase or a shootout; this IS a crime film--but,
the best thing we get is a sequence where Max and Nick are trying to
get access codes to the building's security system from a
disgruntled employee. It is well-acted and it seems like a real
safecracker would have a lot to enjoy here, but when Max and Nick
got technical, I got horizontal. Snore.
The last half-hour is pretty exciting, even
if its ending was a little predictable to me given how movies work
these days. You have to see it to know what I mean.
But, the problem I had with the movie--and,
its admittedly impressive pedigree of actors--was two-fold. First,
the beautiful and talented Angela Bassett (a former Oscar nominee
for her Tina Turner performance in "What's Love Got to Do with It")
is almost completed wasted in "The Score." Maybe she just wanted to
hook up with De Niro, but she has gotten so many better, smarter
roles that I was left wondering why she wanted to appear here.
The second problem is De Niro. And, this is
probably just me, but hear me out. Has De Niro played this role 600
times before? As the smart, cagey veteran, he has played similar
roles in many of his recent films:
"15 Minutes", "Ronin", "Heat",
his brief scenes in "Cop Land." And, in "The Score", De Niro almost
looks bored playing this role. His scenes with Bassett and Brando
seem to be laden with looks of "Marlon, hurry up and read the lines
so that I can go set up my next Scorsese film." Part of that is his
character...but, part of that seems to be the real De Niro. And,
many scenes in "The Score" are set against his character's
absolutely emotionless persona. (Even his scene with Norton at the
jazz club--where he tries to tell Norton's character how to succeed
in "the game"--seems lifted right out of "Heat.") Since the film's
plot is already pretty boring, I was hoping for more interaction
between Norton (brilliant in this movie, playing the cocky guy and a
retarded building janitor, his alter ego in the film) and De Niro...but,
their scenes together are usually not confrontational, save for a
couple of scenes during the heist.
I like De Niro in movies where he is either
crazy or angry constantly--"Raging Bull", "Taxi Driver", "The
Untouchables", his hilarious role in "Jackie Brown", and his
performance in "Cape Fear." He has played against his stereotype
well in "Meet the Parents" and "Analyze This" lately. But, when he
plays quiet or unassuming characters, he is just boring, and that
works okay when he plays the straight man to someone like Joe Pesci
in "Casino." In "The Score", it just brings down the
already-snooze-heavy plot early on.
Rating: Matinee
Comments? Drop me a line at
justin@bellviewmovies.com.
Bellview Rating System:
"Opening Weekend": This is
the highest rating a movie can receive. Reserved for movies that
exhibit the highest level of acting, plot, character development,
setting...or Salma Hayek. Not necessarily in that order.
"$X.XX Show": This price
changes each year due to the inflation of movie prices; currently,
it is the $9.50 Show. While not technically perfect, this is a
movie that will still entertain you at a very high level.
"Undercover Brother" falls into this category; it's no "Casablanca",
but you'll have a great time watching. The $9.50 Show won't win any
Oscars, but you'll be quoting lines from the thing for ages (see
"Office Space").
"Matinee": An average movie
that merits no more than a $6.50 viewing at your local theater.
Seeing it for less than $9.50 will make you feel a lot better about
yourself. A movie like "Blue Crush" fits this category; you leave
the theater saying "That wasn't too bad...man, did you see that
Lakers game last night?"
"Rental": This rating
indicates a movie that you see in the previews and say to your
friend, "I'll be sure to miss that one." Mostly forgettable, you
couldn't lose too much by going to Hollywood Video and paying $3 to
watch it with your sig other, but you would only do that if the
video store was out of copies of "Ronin." If you can, see this
movie for free. This is what your TV Guide would give "one and a
half stars."
"Hard Vice": This rating is
the bottom of the barrel. A movie that only six other human beings
have witnessed, this is the worst movie I have ever seen. A Shannon
Tweed "thriller," it is so bad as to be funny during almost every
one of its 84 minutes, and includes the worst ending ever put into a
movie. Marginally worse than "Cabin Boy", "The Avengers" or
"Leonard, Part 6", this rating means that you should avoid this
movie at all costs, or no costs, EVEN IF YOU CAN SEE IT FOR FREE!
(Warning: strong profanity will be used in all reviews of "Hard
Vice"-rated movies.)