*** WARNING THIS MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS! ***
Ever since Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction" became a major commercial hit, we have seen countless of slightly similarly-influenced "genre" films based on situations and dialogues pop up both in theaters, but also in home video, and now streaming platforms.
This has allowed lesser-known writers and directors the chance to get their "film d'auteur" produced and released. Sometimes it works well, other times it just falls flat, like a big pile of forgetful "whatever".
"The Bag Man" is obviously not for everyone, even though with main stars John Cusack and Robert DeNiro, it almost seems like a garanteed success, like a film which should be quite obviously more "publicly appreciated" due to star appeal. I mean how many times have star vehicles been over-hyped when in fact, if said stars were replaced by, say, indie or D-listers, the film in question wouldn't be on anyone's radar.
But enough about that. The premise of the film is that presumed "gangster criminal" DeNiro hires Cusack to fetch and bring him a duffel bag, specifically instructed never to look in said bag. The bulk of the film is the overnight stay of Cusack's character in a shady motel awaiting the arrival of DeNiro to get paid. The ending feels a bit anti-climactic but resolves the main issues of the story while also dotting the "i" 's and crossing the "T" 's.
What works best for this film is the strange and unusual rhythm and pacing. Quite unlike most of what we have grown accustomed to by Hollowood standards, the film's tone is a mix between tension, action, subdued isolationism, and a bit of semi-subliminal surrealism.
Also of note are the performances. Granted you can get DeNiro to talk at a blank chalkboard and you would still pay attention, and Cusack's own presence is something which inspires a certain trust, or at least a sense of reliability (could this be what really happened to the character Martin Blank after the events of the film "Grosse Point Blank"?).
Rebecca Da Costa is also quite noteworthy, especially considering what she has to work with, her wardrobe (which strangely keeps changing throughout the movie and yet there is never any mention of extra clothes of hers whatsoever) constrictions, and the highly sexualized nature of what her character inspires from, and to, others. In fact she holds her own quite well that by the 1/2 or 2/3 mark, I found myself more invested in her character than anyone else's.
Crispin Glover is of course a talented actor as is, and when they hire him to portray odd and unconventional characters always adds depth to said characters. There are times you forget the actor and focus on the character portrayed on the screen, and while Mr Glover is impossible to mix up with anyone else, his presence and delivery is simply unique. It's interesting that when you Watch him play this charcater, "Ned", you can't help but keep wondering what,s his darn back story?
Often overlooked Dominic Purcell is also quite a surprise as he delivers what I consider one of his better performances, again given the role he has to play and working with what he's got. All too often he becomes a blur behind main stars (or "A" listers, if you will) or just keeps a film Rolling along when he is given the lead (no offense whatsoever to his acting talents, by the why), but as sheriff "Larson", he truly gives a great screen presence.
Also Worth mentioning is Martin Klebba who is truly gives off a menacing vibe in this film. From the moment he appears, one simply has a distrusting feel/vibe about him.
What also works for the film is the fact that you, the viewer, don't really know where the plot is going... for the most part. As the story slowly unfolds with a series of "events" and "sequences", with the players slowly revealing (or dying only to be later revealed that...) their motivations, the viewer is being eclipsed to the clues scattered throughout about the outcome.
... However this also prooved to be part of it's own outdoing in the process. One could almost see the final act coming a mile away even though the film is designed to keep our eyes and ears away from the usual clues and such. And yes, one could also claim that the characters are rather stereotypical in their portrayal on screen. But let us not forget that these characters barely have 90 minutes to be fleshed out, and that their main goal is essentially to allow the story to unfold.
Anyway, all of my rambling here just to say that's it's a decent effort, not necessarly for everyone and maybe not a film worthy of multiple viewings, but in the end, it is the subjectivity of the viewer who decides the value of the film.
Ever since Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction" became a major commercial hit, we have seen countless of slightly similarly-influenced "genre" films based on situations and dialogues pop up both in theaters, but also in home video, and now streaming platforms.
This has allowed lesser-known writers and directors the chance to get their "film d'auteur" produced and released. Sometimes it works well, other times it just falls flat, like a big pile of forgetful "whatever".
"The Bag Man" is obviously not for everyone, even though with main stars John Cusack and Robert DeNiro, it almost seems like a garanteed success, like a film which should be quite obviously more "publicly appreciated" due to star appeal. I mean how many times have star vehicles been over-hyped when in fact, if said stars were replaced by, say, indie or D-listers, the film in question wouldn't be on anyone's radar.
But enough about that. The premise of the film is that presumed "gangster criminal" DeNiro hires Cusack to fetch and bring him a duffel bag, specifically instructed never to look in said bag. The bulk of the film is the overnight stay of Cusack's character in a shady motel awaiting the arrival of DeNiro to get paid. The ending feels a bit anti-climactic but resolves the main issues of the story while also dotting the "i" 's and crossing the "T" 's.
What works best for this film is the strange and unusual rhythm and pacing. Quite unlike most of what we have grown accustomed to by Hollowood standards, the film's tone is a mix between tension, action, subdued isolationism, and a bit of semi-subliminal surrealism.
Also of note are the performances. Granted you can get DeNiro to talk at a blank chalkboard and you would still pay attention, and Cusack's own presence is something which inspires a certain trust, or at least a sense of reliability (could this be what really happened to the character Martin Blank after the events of the film "Grosse Point Blank"?).
Rebecca Da Costa is also quite noteworthy, especially considering what she has to work with, her wardrobe (which strangely keeps changing throughout the movie and yet there is never any mention of extra clothes of hers whatsoever) constrictions, and the highly sexualized nature of what her character inspires from, and to, others. In fact she holds her own quite well that by the 1/2 or 2/3 mark, I found myself more invested in her character than anyone else's.
Crispin Glover is of course a talented actor as is, and when they hire him to portray odd and unconventional characters always adds depth to said characters. There are times you forget the actor and focus on the character portrayed on the screen, and while Mr Glover is impossible to mix up with anyone else, his presence and delivery is simply unique. It's interesting that when you Watch him play this charcater, "Ned", you can't help but keep wondering what,s his darn back story?
Often overlooked Dominic Purcell is also quite a surprise as he delivers what I consider one of his better performances, again given the role he has to play and working with what he's got. All too often he becomes a blur behind main stars (or "A" listers, if you will) or just keeps a film Rolling along when he is given the lead (no offense whatsoever to his acting talents, by the why), but as sheriff "Larson", he truly gives a great screen presence.
Also Worth mentioning is Martin Klebba who is truly gives off a menacing vibe in this film. From the moment he appears, one simply has a distrusting feel/vibe about him.
What also works for the film is the fact that you, the viewer, don't really know where the plot is going... for the most part. As the story slowly unfolds with a series of "events" and "sequences", with the players slowly revealing (or dying only to be later revealed that...) their motivations, the viewer is being eclipsed to the clues scattered throughout about the outcome.
... However this also prooved to be part of it's own outdoing in the process. One could almost see the final act coming a mile away even though the film is designed to keep our eyes and ears away from the usual clues and such. And yes, one could also claim that the characters are rather stereotypical in their portrayal on screen. But let us not forget that these characters barely have 90 minutes to be fleshed out, and that their main goal is essentially to allow the story to unfold.
Anyway, all of my rambling here just to say that's it's a decent effort, not necessarly for everyone and maybe not a film worthy of multiple viewings, but in the end, it is the subjectivity of the viewer who decides the value of the film.