SCORE
-2 out of 5-
CREDITS
- Abel Turner: Samuel L. Jackson
- Chris Mattson: Patrick Wilson
- Lisa Mattson: Kerry Washington
- Directed by Neil Labute
STORY
Lakeview Terrace is the story of neighbors who become enemies. Abel Turner is a local cop who is well established in his home, raising his two children alone having lost his wife three years before. Chris and Lisa are a newlywed interracial couple who move in next door.
For the first third of the film or so, Abel and his neighbors are followed separately and seem to be in two different movies. Abel is a good, fairly strict father and a tough but strong cop. Chris and Lisa are a happy newlywed couple getting moved into their great new house.
These two stories intersect as Abel's possibly excessive security system bothers the newlyweds, and Chris and Lisa's newlywed exploits are too public for Abel to keep from his young and impressionable children.
A stark line is drawn between the kinds of people represented by Abel and his neighbors. Abel is presented as conservative, explicitly identifying himself as a Republican. Chris is presented in the opposite way, driving a Prius and talking about environmentalism. This is one of the many ways in which Abel and Chris clash.
I think this film's problem is that it (or possibly Samuel L. Jackson's performance) has created a character in Abel Turner that it doesn't understand. In the first half of the film Abel is very sympathetic, and often heroic. He may be a bit harsh or abrasive, but we're given a brief glimpse of what he deals with at work every day and it's hard to blame him.
Furthermore, whatever the film may think of him, Abel is right a lot of the time. "Climate change" is not settled science, as he points out; Chris ridicules his implication that not keeping a gun in the house is borderline negligent for his family's security, but Turner has the better end of the argument here too.
The extreme lengths Abel goes to later in the film seem forced. Up to a certain point Abel works within the law to make life unpleasant for his neighbors, but when he strays into outright criminality things become much less believable. I could imagine a cop character who is on a power trip and feels like he should get his way in his private life because of what he does for a living, and might be willing to break the law to pursue that end. Turner never gives off quite that impression, though, at least not that last part. Abel respects the law too much to perform blatantly criminal acts against his neighbors just because he doesn't like them. If he were to do something like that he would need a much better reason than he's given.
I identify with Abel Turner, if only because he may be the only self-identified Republican I've seen in a movie in a very long time who was in the least sympathetic (until later in the movie). Chris, on the other hand, ostensibly the "good guy," is unlikeable in the extreme. He's a whiny, complaining yuppie liberal, almost completely controlled by his wife who has very little respect for him or his decisions. While she comes off as a pleasant character most of the time, when you consider her actions she really cares only for her own desires. Chris is completely hung up on people giving him a hard time for marrying a black woman (which may have been interesting in a film about that, but just made him complain more in this one). On top of that he and his wife seem to be living off her Dad's money, completing the picture of a pair of spoiled, self-involved liberals.
I believe everything Chris does in the film, but as I said above I don't think this movie understands Abel Turner. He's a good man who may go a little too far but who is just trying to protect his family and mold them into good and morally upright citizens. He also hates rap, and I must say that earns a lot of points with me. Abel had to be the villain because he's a conservative and a Republican, and people like that can't be good or heroic in movies. I felt like the script forced Abel to do increasingly outlandish things that I never believed he would do just so he could manage, by the end of the film, to be even less likable than Chris.
PROS: I'm not sure what to put here. I loved Samuel L. Jackson's performance for the first half or so of the film; he really sells this character (though this just adds to the feeling of betrayal later). Samuel L. Jackson has incredible screen presence and he's always very enjoyable to watch. The early scenes with Chris and Lisa are alright, like something out of a lightweight drama or romantic comedy. I thought the first half or so really does a good job of showing the difference in perception between the oblivious newlyweds and the way they come across to the cautious and wary father trying to protect his kids.
I thought the exploration of the issues inherent in an interracial marriage was interesting, but out of place in this movie. Very large and complex issues are brought up but not really dealt with, since the last half was always going to be about escalating conflict between the neighbors.
I appreciate that the movie doesn't go the lowbrow route with lots of swearing or nudity. There are some scantily clad women onscreen, but it's reasonable in context and there's no nudity. There was some swearing but it wasn't pervasive.
CONS: I felt ripped off by the later section of the movie. The first half built up well, and if Turner weren't arbitrarily turned into a criminal I would've been very interested to see where things might go. Taking sides was unnecessary and makes the film much less worthwhile. If both sides were given their due, leading to a more ambiguous ending, perhaps the viewer would have something to think about after the credits. As it stands the film elects to tell you what you should think about the events depicted, just in case you might come to the wrong conclusion on your own.
This is especially unfortunate since the movie has set up both sides as representative of a political party or faction. Thus taking sides between the characters is a pretty explicit suggestion that one party is better than the other. Rarely would I say that Hollywood movies need more ambiguity, but this is one case where it would've been far better to make the events less cartoonish and let the audience decide who was right.
Final Thought: In some ways this was like watching a monster movie and eventually rooting for the monster, because the victims act stupidly and at least the monster is clever -- except in this movie I liked Turner from the start. The film wanted me to think of him as the bad guy by the end, but I question why it spent so much time making him sympathetic before trying to convince me that he was a bad person.
I don't think the writer had any idea what to do with a conservative or Republican character other than to make him deranged. I don't think he could stand the idea that the audience might think the Republican character was right. If there were movies in which Republicans actually were the heroes I wouldn't mind this, but since there aren't it's especially jarring, and it's a missed opportunity.
In the end this movie has no point, unless it was trying to make the case that spoiled yuppies who marry into money are better than hard-working men who protect and serve.
Bottom Line: 2/5
Lakeview Terrace is the story of neighbors who become enemies. Abel Turner is a local cop who is well established in his home, raising his two children alone having lost his wife three years before. Chris and Lisa are a newlywed interracial couple who move in next door.
For the first third of the film or so, Abel and his neighbors are followed separately and seem to be in two different movies. Abel is a good, fairly strict father and a tough but strong cop. Chris and Lisa are a happy newlywed couple getting moved into their great new house.
These two stories intersect as Abel's possibly excessive security system bothers the newlyweds, and Chris and Lisa's newlywed exploits are too public for Abel to keep from his young and impressionable children.
A stark line is drawn between the kinds of people represented by Abel and his neighbors. Abel is presented as conservative, explicitly identifying himself as a Republican. Chris is presented in the opposite way, driving a Prius and talking about environmentalism. This is one of the many ways in which Abel and Chris clash.
I think this film's problem is that it (or possibly Samuel L. Jackson's performance) has created a character in Abel Turner that it doesn't understand. In the first half of the film Abel is very sympathetic, and often heroic. He may be a bit harsh or abrasive, but we're given a brief glimpse of what he deals with at work every day and it's hard to blame him.
Furthermore, whatever the film may think of him, Abel is right a lot of the time. "Climate change" is not settled science, as he points out; Chris ridicules his implication that not keeping a gun in the house is borderline negligent for his family's security, but Turner has the better end of the argument here too.
The extreme lengths Abel goes to later in the film seem forced. Up to a certain point Abel works within the law to make life unpleasant for his neighbors, but when he strays into outright criminality things become much less believable. I could imagine a cop character who is on a power trip and feels like he should get his way in his private life because of what he does for a living, and might be willing to break the law to pursue that end. Turner never gives off quite that impression, though, at least not that last part. Abel respects the law too much to perform blatantly criminal acts against his neighbors just because he doesn't like them. If he were to do something like that he would need a much better reason than he's given.
I identify with Abel Turner, if only because he may be the only self-identified Republican I've seen in a movie in a very long time who was in the least sympathetic (until later in the movie). Chris, on the other hand, ostensibly the "good guy," is unlikeable in the extreme. He's a whiny, complaining yuppie liberal, almost completely controlled by his wife who has very little respect for him or his decisions. While she comes off as a pleasant character most of the time, when you consider her actions she really cares only for her own desires. Chris is completely hung up on people giving him a hard time for marrying a black woman (which may have been interesting in a film about that, but just made him complain more in this one). On top of that he and his wife seem to be living off her Dad's money, completing the picture of a pair of spoiled, self-involved liberals.
I believe everything Chris does in the film, but as I said above I don't think this movie understands Abel Turner. He's a good man who may go a little too far but who is just trying to protect his family and mold them into good and morally upright citizens. He also hates rap, and I must say that earns a lot of points with me. Abel had to be the villain because he's a conservative and a Republican, and people like that can't be good or heroic in movies. I felt like the script forced Abel to do increasingly outlandish things that I never believed he would do just so he could manage, by the end of the film, to be even less likable than Chris.
PROS: I'm not sure what to put here. I loved Samuel L. Jackson's performance for the first half or so of the film; he really sells this character (though this just adds to the feeling of betrayal later). Samuel L. Jackson has incredible screen presence and he's always very enjoyable to watch. The early scenes with Chris and Lisa are alright, like something out of a lightweight drama or romantic comedy. I thought the first half or so really does a good job of showing the difference in perception between the oblivious newlyweds and the way they come across to the cautious and wary father trying to protect his kids.
I thought the exploration of the issues inherent in an interracial marriage was interesting, but out of place in this movie. Very large and complex issues are brought up but not really dealt with, since the last half was always going to be about escalating conflict between the neighbors.
I appreciate that the movie doesn't go the lowbrow route with lots of swearing or nudity. There are some scantily clad women onscreen, but it's reasonable in context and there's no nudity. There was some swearing but it wasn't pervasive.
CONS: I felt ripped off by the later section of the movie. The first half built up well, and if Turner weren't arbitrarily turned into a criminal I would've been very interested to see where things might go. Taking sides was unnecessary and makes the film much less worthwhile. If both sides were given their due, leading to a more ambiguous ending, perhaps the viewer would have something to think about after the credits. As it stands the film elects to tell you what you should think about the events depicted, just in case you might come to the wrong conclusion on your own.
This is especially unfortunate since the movie has set up both sides as representative of a political party or faction. Thus taking sides between the characters is a pretty explicit suggestion that one party is better than the other. Rarely would I say that Hollywood movies need more ambiguity, but this is one case where it would've been far better to make the events less cartoonish and let the audience decide who was right.
Final Thought: In some ways this was like watching a monster movie and eventually rooting for the monster, because the victims act stupidly and at least the monster is clever -- except in this movie I liked Turner from the start. The film wanted me to think of him as the bad guy by the end, but I question why it spent so much time making him sympathetic before trying to convince me that he was a bad person.
I don't think the writer had any idea what to do with a conservative or Republican character other than to make him deranged. I don't think he could stand the idea that the audience might think the Republican character was right. If there were movies in which Republicans actually were the heroes I wouldn't mind this, but since there aren't it's especially jarring, and it's a missed opportunity.
In the end this movie has no point, unless it was trying to make the case that spoiled yuppies who marry into money are better than hard-working men who protect and serve.
Bottom Line: 2/5
Wow, I am really hesitant to see this movie now. I am so tired of Hollywood hating on conservatives/republicans. Like being a right-winger makes you evil, sigh. It's bad enough that the news media is biased, but I don't want to be offended politically every time I watch a movie. It reminds me of the gay chefs from "Fools Gold" in that the filmmakers have political agendas that they are pushing. I am sick of it.
ReplyDeleteThis film was...different. It didn't exactly push its politics in your face like many other movies do, so much as pull a bait-and-switch.
ReplyDeleteThe film baits you by making Samuel L. Jackson's character really likable and respectable throughout the early parts of the film, and by making the only other plausible protagonist unlikable.
It then proceeds to have the Samuel L. Jackson character commit acts far out of proportion and far beyond what any reasonable or sensible person could condone, eventually straying into being actually evil.
If the Samuel L. Jackson character's arc explained this outlandish behavior in some believable way I could go along with it, but it feels like he starts doing crazy things which make no sense for him to do just because the script tells him to.
It then feels like the movie is criticizing me for siding with this character earlier in the movie, even though the movie itself made him sympathetic intentionally and gave no hint that he could be capable of such sociopathic behavior.
Oddly, instead of feeling upset at the film's desire to tell me what to think I instead felt betrayed on behalf of the Samuel L. Jackson character. I felt that an interesting character was betrayed by the script and forced via deus ex machina and arbitrary decisions to become the villain when he was inherently good. I'm not sure I've ever felt so at odds with the way a film portrays itself.