*This thread will include some SPOLIERS, so read on at yer own damn risk
…
…
…
…
…
…
…**
you still reading? ok then…
I just saw it, and I loved it. Pretty powerful movie. The images of his daughter whoring around after freebasing – wow. Very powerful stuff. I don’t delude myself that this movie will do anything to change John Q. American’s view of the war on drugs, but it is refreshing to see a somewhat objective take on the whole thing coming out of Hollywood with some big name actors.
Also, I noticed the hypocrisy within the first 10 minutes, with Sheen’s character spouting off anti-drug rhetoric, in every scene having a glass of scotch in his hand. They pointed it out, quite obviously, to the somewhat slow movie viewers midway trough the movie (FTR I hate when they do that) when his wife calls him on it.
Anyway, like I said, I really liked it. Anyone else seen this? Whadja think?
We saw it just the other night and we rather enjoyed it ourselves.
It was Michael Douglas who portrayed the new Drug Czar, not Sheen.
That having been said, the film was not at all that I expected it to be. I thought it was going to be more of an action flic. Not that I’m complaining. It was a very intense and artful think piece. I loved the cinematography. You could tell which city in which the scenes were taking place by the hue of the film - DC-Crystal Clear - San Diego-Blue hues - Tijuana-Sepia tones. And the hand held camera work gave it a “you feel as if you are really there” quality.
Some criticisms - actually the only two things I can think of that didn’t go over well for me …
1 - the speeches that the attendees of the 12 step meetings gave were a little too polished for me. I didn’t here any lingering desperation, which if you have ever attended a 12 step meeting of any sort, is almost always present.
2 - I would have like to see the girl get dope-sick. There she was all fucked up on drugs, whoring around, hitting bottom, and then {poof} she’s okay and getting help. It doesn’t usually go even that smoothly.
But all in all I really liked it. It put me in a very conteplative mood. It’s the kind of film that sticks with you for a while.
Sorry about the Sheen/Douglas thing. Sometimes I’m brain dead at 10 am. Hell, sometimes I’m brain dead all day long.
Anywho, I agree on the dopesick part.
One gripe I had was when she was freebasing coke, you don’t (at least I never did, or no one I ever saw freebase coke did) get all sleepy and dreamy. You get blasted and hyper. But if she was freebasing speedballs (I’ve never did this) the result might have been more accurate to real life. They didn’t make it exactly clear what she was doing.
I agree that it was not at all what I was expecting going into the theatre.
Also, as a side note, I had a lot of trouble taking the character (dont remember his screen name, it was the kid who she went to the motel and freebased with, the same kid that took Douglas to the dealers apartment) seriously, because every time I looked at him or heard his voice, All I could hear/see was “Eric” from That 70’s Show.
And, not that anyone asked, but I want to make it clear that all the shitty things I’ve done (drug wise) are all in the past, and there to stay.
I personally did not think the movie was all that great. I felt that I was watching a high budget after school special. It was a little too squeeky clean for me. Last month I saw requiem for a dream. It dealt with some similiar issues but really hit home. I left that movie feeling almost physically ill. It’s not that I am prude on drugs (I have done WAY more than my fair share) but I thought Traffic was a movie produced by people who only know about drugs what they read in the paper and hear on the news whereas requim was a truly realistic movie.
Here is an interesting quetsion though (Or so my fiancee and I think). Was catherine Zeta-Jones involved from the get-go? She certainly jumped into the drug game and seemed pretty experienced pretty quickly. I think that she did it out of desperation but my fiancee thinks that she was just playing dumb at the beginning to protect herself. Im confused on that one. What do you guys think?
I can see pezpunk’s point. There were just enough “drug” scenes to show that they did their research, but for the most part they weren’t all that “raw”. I haven’t seen Requiem … yet - it sounds good.
What I liked about the story was how the Feds and the Mexican cops and paramilitary dealt with things. Benico Del Toro did an excellent job as a cop on the edge. He had the potential to be really sleazy, but in the end was a pretty straight arrow, backing up his partner and following through when he got snuffed.
I thought the movie was great. However, I felt that the daughter’s drug addiction was the weak link in the plot. Basically, she felt “thrown in” in order to put the director’s message across: that the issue of drugs and addiction are complex social problems that cannot be dealt with simply by threatening users and distributors with jail time, nor by complete legalization. If there had been no resident drug addict, the movie would have come across with a more one-sided view of the drug war; claiming that the only victims of drug use in this country are those who run into legal trouble.
So you have the daughter with her friends at a party. A few are smoking pot, etc. She’s offered “freebase”, which I presumed was a cocaine and water mixture that’s smoked. Fast forward a few days (weeks? months?) and she’s sleeping with a sleazy, crackhouse-based dealer and shooting heroin. I can understand her trying cocaine at a party, but why the near-instantaneous crash into rock-bottom addiction? Her and her friends were privileged youth; why would she be pawning her parents jewelry and sleeping with her dealer to score coke? As well, isn’t it a tiny bit convenient that on the eve of her father being appointed the nation’s “drug czar” that she would first try hard drugs?
I know, I’m nitpicking. I just felt the film could have found another example to use to make its point about drug addiction other than the daughter. Anybody agree? Disagree?
Actually, San Diego was Crystal Clear and Ohio and DC had the blues hues.
From my understanding, she had been doing drugs for quite awhile. However, the first time the audience is introduced to her is also the first time she tried free-basing. The time we saw her at the party with her friends, she was deep into drugs but just getting started with free-base. By the time we see her shooting up heroin, she has been doing free-base for quite awhile.
I think she was pretty innocent and clueless in the beginning. If she knew about the drug trade, why would their ‘friend’ Arnie (Dennis Quaid) try to get rid of her husband? Remember, he had to explain everything to her. He wanted Carl’s life, wife, everything. One way to do that was take advantage of CZJ’s character when she’s at her weakest. She’s clueless, alone, and afraid. Also, the Drug cartel called in a 3 million debt and threatened her son. She said once that she refuses to raise her children in poverty, like she had been raised. She probably was desperate and didn’t know what else to do. Plus, Carl had to tell her where the info was (behind the painting).
His name is Topher Grace, and I agree.
And I thought Benicio Del Torro was the highlight of the film. His performance was definitely Oscar worthy.
I liked Traffic quite a bit too, though I can’t think of that many reasons why. All I know is that it’s one of VERY few 2 1/2 hour movies these days that hadn’t worn out its welcome at the 100 minute mark. Other long movies like Cast Away and Gladiator seem to use agonizingly long scenes to things seem “heavier;” Traffic’s scenes made their point and gave way to the next one. The performances were good, and law enforcement and its problems are inherently interesting subjects for me.
Another element that stood out for me was the soundtrack. I don’t watch that many American movies, and when I do, the scores usually sound really bombastic and overbearing. Traffic’s score is ambient and often almost tuneless, and was used sparingly to good effect.
I don’t think the ads should’ve given away CZJ’s turn to “the dark side” as that’s a pretty major turning point. Good thing I forgot.
i’ll second that. the soundtrack was amazing. it totally set the tone of the movie for me. i knew it was michael brook (he also had music in “heat” and “albino alligator”), and immediately got excited. flea and herbie hancock were involved as well- that was interesting to find out. i think i might even buy the soundtrack. has a nice brian eno track, too.
the music plus the cinematography just enthralled me, i had no idea it was so long when i left the theater. and topher grace was funny, but only in contrast to eric on that 70’s show… his speech to the dad in the car at the end was hilarious.
the characters’ behaviors were just all over the map though. it’s like they had real lives that they suspended at certain points in order to fall into the plot line and hew to the heavy drug message- this daughter girl has a ton of rich friends, parties in their mansions, and she’s sleeping with her dealer for drugs? um, not likely. she could just sleep with her rich boyfriend, which she was doing anyway.
and catherine zeta-jones and her lawyer are being all paranoid about DEA wiretaps and bugs, yet she’s driving along shouting “just kill him!” into her cell phone?
but i don’t really feel like ripping into it for that stuff, i barely noticed, and i like the idea of a ham-fisted hollywood message movie taking a semi-weird stance for once.
It was a good film. I liked Topher Grace. He showed the right mix of arrogance and stupidity. I thought Salma Hayek and Benjamin Bratt were criminally underused. As hazel-rah said, the daughter would have turned to her rich friends at her first sign of trouble. Her progression to prostitution was needlessly hurried.
I don’t think the hired assasin would have walked up to a mark surrounded by no less than 6 armed cops. How’d the bomb detonate with the ignition? It looked like a remote control device. They didn’t show him try to hook it into the ignition, just slap it onto the undercarriage. And I think the school would have been a little upset about a man physically dragging a student out of a class. And the ‘conflicted character can’t get through prepared speech’ cliche at the end.
Though, probably not if the man dragging out the student is the brand new Drug Czar. It wasn’t like a stranger marching in and grabbing some random kid.
I didn’t know that, I’ll probably try to pick it up.
I’m not saying that I thought Toper Grace (thanks, PLG) did a bad job. I just couldn’t get past “Eric”. And dear god, I can make the argument that Salma Hayek is criminally underused in every movie ever made since 1991, every commercial on TV right now, and in my private life as well. But that’s just me :D. My GF had to wipe away my drool when she was smoking that cigarette in the car. Christ, I’d give my leg to…
Oh, we’re talking about a movie here, aren’t we? Sorry
When my wife and I were leaving the theatre, walking back to the car, she brought to my attention this very criticism. And now I’ve shamelessly taken credit for it myself. She was reading this very thread over my shoulder last night and I thought she was going to rip my head off when she read my post.
She keeps threatening/promising to register here at some point, and I have no idea if she lurks, but just in case …
I hereby, publically apologize to my wife, the most honest, caring, beautiful creature to ever grace the surface of God’s green earth for taking credit for her insight, and I forthwith promise in the name of all that is good and sacred to never ever do it again, so help me Buhdda. I love ya, honey bunch.
