Street Kings (review)

Get new reviews in your email in-box or in an app by becoming a paid Substack subscriber or Patreon patron.

A Punch in the Gut

I’ve been seesawing with myself on Street Kings since… well, since I was sitting in the screening room watching it. It’s not an easy movie to recommend — I can’t honestly be totally gung-ho on it — but it’s not an easy movie to dismiss, either. It’s relentlessly grim, relentlessly brutal, relentlessly cynical in its depiction of corrupt cops as the only kind of cops there are, which the idealistic side of me doesn’t want to think could be possible and the realistic side of me can’t deny is within the realm of possibility. (Which I must qualify by saying that a good friend of mine is a cop whom I would be shocked to discover is any kind of dirty; but the tone of any given police force can be different than any of its individual members. And that’s what I mean here: that it’s easy to see that cop culture can be corrupt. Certainly there are only degrees of corruptness here in this movie — no one is wearing a halo, not even a tarnished one.) It’s got kind of a 1950s hardboiled B-movie vibe to it, but it’s not exactly fun to watch: it’s unabashedly pulpy at the same time that it asks you, and justifiably so, not to write it off as mere pulp.
This is when it’s toughest for me as a film critic. I’m often accused of overintellecutalizing my reactions to movies, but the truth is that my primary response to a movie is from the gut, one that’s visceral and emotional, and then later the intellectualizing comes in trying to figure out why my gut had that reaction. But my gut can’t make up its mind on Street Kings, and so now I have to intellectualize and second-guess myself to figure out just what the heck it is I think about this film.

But I’m coming down on the see-it side of the line, which is a bit of going out on a limb for me because I think even those of you who’ve figured out that our tastes in movies are pretty well aligned may find that Street Kings leaves you cold. It’ll be interesting, in fact, to see who wants to yell at me because of this. And it’s actually kind of invigorating to find a movie that I’m not really sure what I think of it.

Part of why I’m going with a see-it is because of something that is a gut reaction, though one that is larger than this one movie. It’s something that I have been ridiculed because of before, and expect to be ridiculed because of again. Not that I care, because I’m being honest here. It’s this:

Keanu Reeves is not a bad actor.

I know I’m in a tiny minority of one here — it’s considered good sport to invoke Reeves as the quintessential Hollywood nontalent. But I just don’t see it. He’s minimalist, as an actor — I’ll give you that — but I simply don’t see a lack of, well, anything. I do see a kind of earthy groundedness, a close-to-the-vest practicality that feels very much of the moment. I’m not saying he’s the greatest actor in the world or anything, but when I look at Reeves onscreen I see our suspicious, mistrustful, and hence self-reliant generation looking back — if he’s pulled in, well, it’s because we all are. Maybe it’s too bad that this is the way we are, but this is the way we are.

Street Kings works if you buy Reeves (A Scanner Darkly, Constantine) in that capacity, as an unvarnished mirror of exhausted but still thrashing 40ish Generation Xers. (Ted “Theodore” Logan is now 43 years old — how did that happen?) It doesn’t make the experience pleasanter, but he serves as the wrapper for the package that makes it something more than just a pulpy actiony cop thriller. It makes the movie one gigantic sigh of frustration in the face of institutional, ingrained, woven-in-the-weft corruption and misanthropy and every-man-for-himself amorality — the sense that this is the case crosses all our institutions but here it’s the Los Angeles Police Department, where Reeves’ Tom Ludlow is a decorated detective of many years’ service. And the extent of the rot in the LAPD as depicted here is almost impossible to describe, except, perhaps, like this: Ludlow is surrounded, of course, by a squad of officers, long his colleagues and buddies, and of course you know that the setup and takedown Ludlow appears to be the object of has got to be an inside job. But the usual game you play with yourself with this kind of movie — trying to finger the bad guy before the movie lets you in on the secret — doesn’t work here. The film — directed by David Ayer, writer of Training Day and writer and director of Harsh Times, working from a screenplay by James Ellroy (The Black Dahlia, L.A. Confidential), Kurt Wimmer (Ultraviolet, The Recruit), and Jamie Moss — simply isn’t working on that small a scale.

So neither is it the case that Ludlow is the lone noble officer who’s going to stand up for What’s Right amidst a sea of his fellow dirty cops. He’s not, and he isn’t. Just as a fish doesn’t see the water, Ludlow doesn’t see that there’s much particularly wrong about the way he and his brothers in blue do their jobs. Our introduction to Ludlow, in the jarring opening sequence, shows us a cop who is expedient particularly where matters of Constitutionally guaranteed civil rights of the accused are concerned, and a man who is a chronic alcoholic and reflexively violent and bigoted. In these first few minutes, Ludlow delivers a virulent racist tirade at two Asian lowlifes that could, theoretically, be argued away as merely that of an undercover cop maintaining his disguise as a lowlife himself, except that the cool smoothness with which Reeves delivers the bit leaves little doubt as to Ludlow’s own feelings on the matter.

Where things fall out from there involves an accusation by Ludlow’s former partner, who appears to be snitching to Internal Affairs about Bad Things Ludlow has done in the line of duty, and the further Bad Things that are the blowback of the IA investigation. (Hugh Laurie [Flight of the Phoenix, Valiant] as the IA captain is a particular standout among the rest of the terrific cast, which includes Forest Whitaker [Vantage Point, The Great Debaters], Jay Mohr [Seeing Other People, Simone], and Chris Evans [Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, Cellular].) The plot is complicated, Ludlow even more so — and Reeves’ performance is fascinating. Ludlow is a hothead, but Reeves doesn’t play him like one… doesn’t play him like a man who believes he’s a hothead, or like an actor who sees a chance to chew up some scenery with a role — The Hothead Cop — that is, by definition, over the top. When someone ends up dead just as, it appeared, Ludlow was on his way to kill that person himself, Ludlow defends himself against the accusation that he is the killer with: “I was just gonna break his jaw,” offered calmly and rationally, as if this were a perfectly reasonable thing to have been planning to do. And to Ludlow, it is. Reeves imbues Ludlow with a creepy menace that is totally appropriate and at the same time wonderfully surprising. It’s as if Ludlow is gritting his teeth all the time, not literally but inside, in his soul, or whatever blackened husk is left of it.

And just so you know, there’s nothing uplifting to come in the end, no answers to the impossibly large problems on display and only a twisted compromised nod to anything that even resembles justice. In the last few moments of the film’s climactic scene, I saw where Ludlow had to go in order to maintain a dramatically satisfying story and in order for the film not to sell itself out by giving in to convention… and thankfully, the film allows Ludlow to go there.

Well, I say “thankfully,” but all that means is that we’re left in bleak despair… which gets, if you can believe it, even bleaker a moment later, when it is suggested that all the rankness and vileness we’ve just been witness to is but one slender layer of a whole stinkin’ onion that has barely yet been hinted at. I guess my gut didn’t want to accept that, but couldn’t reject it, either.

share and enjoy
If you’re tempted to post a comment that resembles anything on the film review comment bingo card, please reconsider.
If you haven’t commented here before, your first comment will be held for MaryAnn’s approval. This is an anti-spam, anti-troll, anti-abuse measure. If your comment is not spam, trollish, or abusive, it will be approved, and all your future comments will post immediately. (Further comments may still be deleted if spammy, trollish, or abusive, and continued such behavior will get your account deleted and banned.)
notify of
newest most voted
Inline Feedbacks
view all comments
Sun, Apr 13, 2008 10:17pm

I know what you mean, MJ.
There is a better movie hidden deep within this.

You can glimpse it in the international trailer.
You can see that at least 3 scenes were cut from the final product.
Hopefully, they’ll be a director’s cut that makes it feel less fractured.

But unfortunatly, the clumsy screenplay made sure my attempts to like it were quickly rebuffed.
The appealing flawed hero embarking on a journey to redemption much to the chagrin of his friends turned enemies is ruined by the laughable lines of dialogue, unoriginal and predictable plotpoints and most of all, a very obvious villain.

I’d give it a 5/10.

Bob Aman
Sun, Apr 13, 2008 11:11pm

There were bunches of lines in the movie that were really quite decent. The buckshot line was memorable, for instance. And they liked to use the word “exigent”. But there were bunches that were instantly forgettable, and jumped out at me just long enough to be annoyed by them before forgetting them.

In spots it almost felt like half the dialogue was written by a particularly creative individual, and the other half kinda seemed like it was written by an idiot.

That said, it was easily the best thing playing this week in the theatres around here, so I forgive the movie for not being awesome.

Mon, Apr 14, 2008 10:17pm

I don’t necessarily agree that Keanu is a good actor, but he’s certainly very good in his movie; I think this counts as the first time in a while where I thought his performance was not just passable but actually very good.

But as a movie, I’m not quite as sold. This film seems to be both condemning and condoning the corruption he lives in, I’m not sure they understood what exactly they wanted to say. It’s not quite an endorsement of Keanu’s rulebreaking a la Dirty Harry and it’s not quite against it either.

But, Keanu did pitch a folding chair into a fleeing suspect’s knees, sending him tumbling into a barbed wire railing. Being honest, I like the film more as a straight action flick than any kind of treatise on moral ambiguity.

Mark Lambert
Mark Lambert
Mon, Apr 14, 2008 10:38pm

I think the brilliance of Ayer and Ellroy working together is that they’re not going to let you off easy by taking a clear position. They are arch cynics and they weave a dark spell. It is up to the viewer to determine what the message is here. I think its refreshing to not be preached to by self-righteous Hollywood. Their approach is “here is the gritty underbelly of life – here are horribly flawed characters doing brutal things to survive – here is morality stretched to a very fine line – now absorb it”

That said, I think the movie has some clear technical flaws that hurt it. I too think Keanu is horribly underrated and I do like him, but I thought this role was possibly too weighty for his range. I also think some of the dialogue doesn’t work despite the talent of the players. I’m not sure what it is, but even the excellent Forest Whitaker just wasn’t quite working here.

This is one of those films where I love its concept, the power of its imagery and its challenge, but I’m reluctant to recommend it as an actual film.

In that case, I usually err on the side of recommnding and I agree with Mary Ann.

Mon, Apr 14, 2008 11:48pm

Ridiculed by whom? Pussy boys too afraid to say they have wet dreams about Keanu? Who the fuck cares?

Tue, Apr 15, 2008 8:13am

I would never ridicule anyone for respecting a certain actor, but I confess that anytime I see Keanu in a movie, I imagine him saying the word dude at the end of every sentence and it cracks me up.

I know, I know, I’m weak, insecure, and immature, but I can’t help it. It makes most of the movies he’s in bearable. If only I could figure out a similar trick for Ben Affleck.

To be fair, I’m probably just a little jealous of the fact that most of the women I talk to find Keanu very attractive. I’ll definitely watch this movie after reading this review and see if his performance is believable enough to escape my “curse of the unspoken dude.”

Tue, Apr 15, 2008 12:55pm

Ridiculed by whom? Pussy boys too afraid to say they have wet dreams about Keanu? Who the fuck cares?

Like I said, *I* don’t care…

I confess that anytime I see Keanu in a movie, I imagine him saying the word dude at the end of every sentence and it cracks me up.

We really should look at that reaction as a compliment to how thoroughly Reeves inhabited that first character that he played to such widespread recognition. We assumed he actually was that airheaded dude, perhaps, when the reality is that he played that character so convincingly that it was impossible to think otherwise. Reeves certainly does not come across as anything other than smart and thoughful when I’ve seen him speaking as himself.

Tue, Apr 15, 2008 2:40pm

He’s clearly a bright guy in real life, but there’s just something about his voice when he’s acting that whispers “dude” in my ear. It goes beyond the Bill and Ted movies, which I’ve only seen once as a child. I’m gonna chalk it up mainly to jealous insecurity and my dislike of the Matrix movies.

You do have to admit he gets an awful lot of mistrustful, paranoid, confused, not-really-sure-what’s-happening roles and he’s always been a lot more convincing (to me at least) when his character is desperately struggling to figure something out… I’d better stop there before I stumble into ridicule territory. I’ll watch the movie first.