Cool News
ToeJam gives up the jelly about Soderbergh's TRAFFIC
Hey folks, Harry here and man... suddenly Monday morning at 10am is a long long ways a way. Moriarty will be seeing TRAFFIC later on tonight, so at least by January you'll be getting his review... maybe when we get the rest of his 90's list. Yeah... riiiiiiiiight. hehehehe.... Anyway, having seen 13 DAYS today, I can formally say it is not real competition for TRAFFIC... and at this point, I believe if USA FILMS pushes this film aggresively this could be our winner for BEST PICTURE... with the strongest competition coming from REQUIEM FOR A DREAM and CROUCHING TIGER HIDDEN DRAGON and possibly CASTAWAY, though the word is still out on CASTAWAY, Zemeckis just finished a last minute final touch to the film... let's see if he pulls it off. Here's ToeJam with a sometime spoilerish review..... Here ya go....
Just got back from a 10 a.m. exhibitors’ screening of "Traffic" and I must say: it is everything I had hoped for and more. Seeing as how there is very little in the way of competition for the rest of the year, I can’t see any reason why "Traffic" won’t win the Oscar for Best Film. Unfortunately, there are so many great performances packed into the film that none of them will be nominated for Best Actor or Actress. However, any one of the stars could easily garner a nomination for best supporting player, and I imagine both the male and female categories will have at least one performance from "Traffic" nominated each.
The movie begins with Javier Rodriguez (Benicio Del Toro) and his partner Manolo (no idea who the actor was…sorry) busting some drug smugglers in the deserts of Tijuana. Steven Soderbergh has given all the scenes taking place south of the border a scorched, washed-out look similar to the one in "Three Kings" and the early parts of "Pitch Black." I really liked this approach, as it reminded me very much of what I remember the Mexican border towns looking like during the few times that I have been there.
Del Toro is definitely the coolest guy in the movie. He is a maverick cop who seems to be the only guy not under the employ of the local drug cartel, and the only good guy not willing to mercilessly torture suspected associates of the cartel heads.
Later on we meet Montel Gordon (Don Cheadle) and Ray Castro (Luis Guzman), two DEA agents. This partnering is just what you would expect it to be: hilarious and kick-ass at the same time. The two constantly share endearing barbs with one another, but they also get to take part in a pretty cool undercover drug deal early on in the film. Later on, they have to protect a key witness in a trial, but something heartbreaking happens, but you’ll have to see the film to find out what.
We are also introduced (in what order I can’t remember) to Ohio State Supreme Court Judge Robert Wakefield (Michael Douglas), who has just been offered the job of the U.S. anti-drug czar. Wakefield’s own daughter (Erika Christensen – who looks a lot like the love child of Julia Stiles and Jocinda from the Real World London) starts freebasing crack with her boyfriend (Topher Grace). In between bouts with his daughter’s escalating drug addiction, Wakefield goes on trips to various locales that are part of the Mexican-U.S. drug route. For example, he goes to a place called the El Paso Investigation Center (think that’s what it was called), where a whole bunch of government organizations collectively try to halt the drug trade. It is during these trips that Wakefield gets to meet an array of drug trade experts and investigators, who explain to Wakefield (and thus the audience) the various reasons why the drug trade is nearly unstoppable.
Helena Ayala (Catherine Zeta-Jones) is married to one of the biggest drug traffickers in California, although she doesn’t even realize this until after Agents Gordon and Castro cart him off to jail. With all of her monetary assets frozen by the government, Helena goes to great lengths to keep the money flowing in, including (but not limited to) some toys made of cocaine that Benjamin Bratt, in a cameo, describes as "fucking good cocaine." Made me wonder if that could actually be done.
Once we are introduced to these major players, there are three basic plotlines that emerge: Helena’s husband’s trial, Wakefield’s struggle to get his daughter off crack, and Rodriguez’s participation in the quest to take down the Tijuana cartel. All three plots intertwine, but the characters only come into contact with one another occasionally. Any one of the plotlines could easily make a fuckin’ good movie, which is a testament to how great "Traffic" is.
I really could not find anything wrong with this movie. In fact, my only complaint is that I am going to have to wait at least a month to see the film again. The characters are all great and well drawn. Personally, I thought Catherine Zeta-Jones’ performance was the standout. Not because she was any better than the rest of the cast, but because I just wasn’t expecting her to be on par with guys like Cheadle, Guzman, Del Toro, and her own husband Douglas, who we are all used to seeing in great performances. Even newcomers Erika Christensen and Topher Grace both do a superb job. They perfectly capture that familiar rich kid/casual drug user attitude, where they are so idealistic and elitist, but yet are so stupid that they get addicted to crack.
Steven Soderbergh does a great job with a film that could easily have become over-bloated and preachy. The editing is great, as there doesn’t seem to be one frame that isn’t just as important as the rest (for the record, the cut I saw clocks in right at 2 _ hours). I should probably also mention that Soderbergh gives the scenes with Douglas a fluorescent-tinged look like the one Michael Mann uses in films like "The Insider."
In fact, "Traffic" reminded me a lot of "The Insider," in that it’s a fucking great film about a very pertinent subject. I mean, this shit could very well be happening at this very moment, as you are reading this review. Also, guns are omnipresent, but yet they are rarely fired (save for a standoff early in the movie), much like in real life. And when they are fired, you will definitely feel the ramifications—there isn’t a lot of meaningless gunplay.
"Traffic" definitely takes the stance that the key to solving America’s drug problem is to eliminate the demand; in other words, prevent addiction, rather than pursue drug dealers as the cost of people’s lives. However, the film doesn’t criticize the government for its admirable campaign to stop drugs, only the inherent bureaucracy of it. I have a feeling that "Traffic" will top a lot of fanboy lists this year, as it seems to be the perfect blend of drama, crime and just plain coolness. It should also top a lot of critics’ lists, but I guess that doesn’t matter, because when you get down to it, "Traffic" is just a fucking great film.
TOEJAM
-
+ Expand All
-
Dec 06, 2000 6:03:34 AM CST
What I most look forward to is Soderberg taking the opportunity
by llghtst0rmer
OK. Dumb joke. But I liked it. Lightstormer out.
-
I think I'll make my way to see this one, certainly sounds a bit better than Dungeons and Dragons!
-
I can't believe how easily impressed some viewers are by this self-consciously hip and ultimately vacuous exercize in style. Besides Ellen Burstyn's excellent performance, there's nothing that about Requiem that's even within shouting distance of Best Picture. Just because a movie makes its characters suffer doesn't make it art. Requiem has all the calculated "shock" value of a Marilyn Manson album and seems just as cannily pre-packaged. I do have high hopes for Traffic, though. It's just too bad that most of us will have to wait until next year to see this year's best movie.
-
I just have one question:
If "Traffic" has too many great preformances and is to "rough" for academy tastes, then will it be the type of film to beat itself at its own game? And if so...which movies are going to be nominated? We've had quite a shitty year... -
Dec 06, 2000 8:41:50 AM CST
there is no way Requiem will get nominated for Best Picture
by t. mifune
And so it shouldn't. It just plays like an update of Reefer Madness.
-
How is drug trafficking a "pertinent subject"? Good lord, this isn't 1980. Although I'm interested in seeing any of Sodebergh's work, I can't say the subject is all that interesting because...well, it's a tired subject that's been done to death. Oh well, it's got great actors, the Douglas family excepted, and a wonderful director. We'll see.
-
I happen to live in El Paso and the reviewer (as well as the film) is probably referring to the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC). The father of a friend of mine back in high school (about 10 years ago) used to work there and I once got a private tour of the place. Very cool stuff then and I'm sure it's just as cool now. I don't know if they filmed at the actual EPIC building but they DID indeed film here (and nearby Las Cruces, NM) for about five days. Also, the poster who said that drug traficking isn't a pertinent issue in this country has obviously never spent any time in a border city.
-
chekov once said "never write a love story, for they have all since been done." well, being the great writer he was... he was still wrong. how many "caper" films have we seen? how many "gangster films?" "war films?" jesus, how many "COURTROOM DRAMAS?" my point is most feel they've all been done to death, simply because the bulk are either knock-offs of the better ones or just plain bad. how many great or even decent films can you recall about drug trafficking ("miami vice notwithstanding)? most, i can barely remember, were late night, cable "b-movies" and direct to video. remember after "silence of the lambs" and a slew of subsequent "serial killer" films, many said "okay, enough of the serial killer films already." but who knew "seven" was on the horizon? so far soderbergh has done some pretty damn okay stuff, and if you liked his previous work, why not give him a chance? if it sucks? then there you go. you were right. if it's good?... wouldn't that be relevant? i mean that's all we need to qualify a film as such... that it's good, right? if we always dismiss films with all too familiar themes, there'd be no films on hitmen, heroin abuse, or fight setups (i.e. PULP FICTION). let's hope TRAFFIC is good. better good than bad, right?
-
Dec 06, 2000 11:15:25 AM CST
To beat Gladiator all you need is a story and characters
by the_pissboy1
Um, sure Gladiator will be nominated. Lord knows how impressive it is to make a movie devoid of drama, tension, interesting plot or characters. Of course once you toss in bland dialogue and Scott's Michael Bay influenced editing, then you've certainly got a gem that's at least worth mentioning in the same breath as any Bruckheimer "epic". Yes I see nominations in Gladiator's future, all on fanboy top ten lists, the same people who found Face/Off to be an intellectual action flick and prattle on and on about the wading pool depth of Matrix as if blatant biblical references are impressive. Could they be any less creative with names like Trinity, Zion and Neo? If there is any justice in this world (which Sandler's existence proves there isn't), then we'd get well made movies nominated, such as Wonder Boys.
-
Actually, I'm going to drive up to LA after work on December 27, just to see Traffic. That's right, I'm gonna make a 200 mile round trip just to see a movie. I am looking forward to seeing it. I have enjoyed the last three movies Soderbergh put out, so for my fickle tastes, this guy is on an unbelieveable roll. My comment about the drug thing was more a jab at the insipid reviewer who made the inane comment that Traffic is about a pertinent topic. I'd say drugs are about as pertinent as Iran-Contra. I'm confident Soder will bring a fresh spin to things, but I bristle when I read or hear someone build up a film as "important" or "pertinent" or "historical". It's a movie. If it's a solid movie with great acting (so far we've read this to be so), a good story (ditto) and good direction (again we've heard this about Traffic) then it may very well be a good movie. but it is afterall, just a movie. That's all. I wasn't bagging on the movie, more the reviewer's take on the subject matter. Take it easy.
-
why don't you back off of veidt? he was dead on in his assesment of requiem, which, other than ellen burstyn, is not even a blip on the radar screen of the academy. and you think it made money? check a box office chart, rocket--2 mil over 8 weeks barely covers the cost of the prints, even for a film in that small a release. requiem is an unmitigated financial failure. traffic has got a ton of potential, i'm looking forward to it.
-
good for you.
l8r -
I'm releaved to hear that Soderberg stayed away from making the film "artsy" (which usually means crap, crap and crap) but instead mixed elements as he have done so successfully before. Really looking forward to this now.
-
Someone told me yesterday that Catherine Zeta-Jones is going to be Wonder Woman in the big screen version...is this true. That would be awesome. She is so beautiful andsuch a good actress
-
Drugs, pertinent? Are those things even *around* anymore? The government did that War On Drugs thing a while ago...so they should be gone by now, right? No one still takes them or traffics them. This is like, SO 80s, ok? They did the drug war thing, fought for a couple years, and eradicated them. The Drug War is over. This is a Utopia. God Bless America. PS...Drugs are EVIL!
-
How is the war on drugs NOT a pertinent topic? Our taxes are paying for this inane so-called "war" to this very day. Perhaps you don't find that very relevant...maybe you don't pay taxes or something. But I would say a shitload of people out there find the U.S.'s war against drugs very pertinent, as hundreds of millions of dollars are being pumped into the effort, and many lives, including a few U.S. military servicemen, are being lost. Even more, the Mexican government (one that the U.S. deals with routinely on both a political and business level) was a highly corrupt system until the election victory of Fox, who was sworn in less than a week ago. So...please tell me...how is the impending overhaul in the government of one of the U.S.'s friendliest nations NOT relevant? It all ties into the drug trade...therefore, the drug trade is highly relevant and concern-worthy. And correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there still thousands of U.S. citizens out there dying from various drug-related reasons? I suppose that has nothing to do with the drug trade either...right?
-
For some reason it got omitted form the review Harry posted, but "Traffic" is 2 1/2 hours long, not just 2. And by the way, just because the drug war may not have been a major focus for the government in the last eight years doesn't mean the campaign isn't still on the backburner, eating up hundreds of millions of dollars.
-
Touched a nerve. I had no idea people were still so caught up in this issue. *******First, cost wise government expenditures on "the drug war" are extremely low when compared to how much is spent in just abour every other gov't program (welfare, education, social security, medicare, and other bottomless pits).***Second, when one compares illegal prescription use to the popular drugs of the media (crack, coke, MJ, heroin), one sees that illegal prescription drug abuse far outstrips all the media popular drugs. It's not sexy or interesting for the media to sell the fact that the middle aged mother of 4 next door is hooked on Valium and Vicodin. no the media prefers to play up the narcotics dealing and the crack whores. Why mention how the big pharmacuetical companies make far more off illegal prescriptions than any Columbian has made in 10 years? It's not interesting to think that the guy working for Merck is satisfying stockholders with his company's drug peddling. No we all want to think of the big bad wolf on the street "preying" on the poor kids and forcing them to suck the glass dick. Sure you can all suck up 60 minutes vignettes on meth factories in Orgeon barns, but ignore the Sav-On next door that pumps out, unwittingly most of the time, thousands of fraudlent prescriptions. Guess I'm just not real phased anymore by the concept of a small percentage of the population dabbling in narcotics when its impact is far overblown by a media anxious to jump on stories that feature the typical bad guys. ******************* BTW, I'm still seeing the movie. I just find the topic trite. Sorry, I'm not running around repeating Nancy Reagan's empty-headed mantras. Should I ever repeat anything that ET-ish freak or her McCarthy stooge husband say, please hand me a loaded gun to end it all.
-
Pissboy & Toejam, you've both made some great points about the topic. The film is pertinent not because of renewed scrutiny of the money being dumped into the war on drugs, but because of the public's increased relaxed attitude toward soft drugs. I know the film deals with the smuggling of cocaine and crack, but showing how horrifying these drugs are will make people see how marijuana is harmless in comparison. With the recent referendums this election to decriminalize marijuana use/possession combined with all the marijuana humor you see on many television shows and films, it is clear America may be ready to intelligently rethink its position on a substance that is no more harmful than alcohol or cigarettes (actually less). The important thing is that Traffic is talking about drugs in an objective way. Criticizing the US War on Drugs without calling it a complete waste of time and money (which is debatable, but right-wingers wouldn't listen otherwise) can help us all see who the real victims are, and hopefully people will have a little more compassion for addicts, who are not criminals to be jailed, but rather seriously ill people who need healing. As Bill Hicks put it, we would be far better off in this country if the Drug Czar was a former addict and not a cop or judge.
-
How in the name of God can you say that Requim is "self-consciously hip?" The fact that Aronofsky uses almost every cool effect possible and puts them in one film is an example of superb direction, because of how perfectly they're used. The split-screens are used to exemplify both love and conflict. The fast forward and slow motion shots lets the viewer feel the effects of speed as close as could be done without doing the drug yourself. And the super close ups combined with the quick shots that become more frequent as the movie progresses paints a perfect picture of addiction. Ellen Burstyn's performance was great, I'll give you that, but give credit where it's due. All of the actor's performances were exceptional. Hell, even Wayans was good! I'll also agree with you that people's suffering does not make art. However, that's not what not made this movie art, it's acting, direction, and REALISM did. Sorry that there wasn't a happy ending, or that the characters didn't simply die at the end due to their poor choices in life. But life doesn't always end this way. This movie showed the horror that speed and heroin can cause in a persons existence. This type of shit happens in the real world. If an example of reality is "shock[ing]" to you, then maybe you're better off seeing a Marlyn Manson concert. At least then you can sleep better at night knowing that it was manufactured.
-
Hell yea...what he said!
-
Laz, I'd hate to think any movie would have people re-thinking their position on any topic. It's just a movie. *****As for addicts and criminals. Hey, I'm not a fan of drug laws and I'm certainly not in favor of putting people in prison for using. But by the same token, I can't really blame dealers for filling a market. It's the users who drive the demand in my eyes.
-
Enough of this arguing over the drug issue. I'm hoping all you people out there who, like Pissboy, don't think much of the drug trade topic, will still go see "Traffic." It's a damn fine film, and you'll regret not seeing it later on. I hope you don't dislike it because of one little hang-up. Also, I'm very defensive of my position because this is the first time I've had a review posted on the site...natch! Now, if I could only get a chance to see both "Requiem for a Dream" and "Shadow of the Vampire," I would be a very happy foot ailment. I'm thinking this year's Oscar race could be a very interesting one, with "Requiem for a Dream," "Traffic," "High Fidelity," "The Contender," "Chicken Run," "Shadow of the Vampire," "Wonderboys," and "Erin Brockovich" being a few of the top contenders. I know it was a pretty lame year for films, especially compared to last year, but you look at the top five or so films, and you've got some pretty fucking cool and offbeat stuff in there.
-
My thoughts on the Oscar issue. Or maybe OBWAT. Won't happen of course...
-
Not to belabor this point, but the problem with Requiem was that its shock value was entirely superficial - hence the Marilyn Manson reference. A truly shocking film would be something along the lines of In a Glass Cage (Spain, 1986) or Cannibal Holocaust (Italy, 1979) or Nekromantik (Germany, 1988) or if you want another drug movie that's actually disturbing, try Dead Ringers (1989). Requiem is apparently only disturbing and edgy to people who normally don't watch disturbing and edgy movies. Unhappy endings don't bother me - in fact, I like 'em. It just takes more than that to impress me. And as for Requiem's realism, it would've been a better movie had Aronofsky cooled the stylistic hat tricks long enough to give the movie the more naturalistic feel that would've made it much more harrowing. All the time lapse photography, split screen and repetative montages of snorting/shooting up only serve to spoon feed the audience - over and over. Yes, I get that this is what drug are "like". For me, despite the grim subject matter, Requiem is too slick, too glossy to truly do it justice. It's the Gap ad of addiction movies. Great score, though. And Ellen Burstyn IS great.
-
Has anyone seen the BBC version? Kicks Ass!!! This film should be awesome and better be nominated to restore any faith I HAD for the Academy. Enough of the drug discussion. You people should make a guest appearance on Crossfire. Jeez!!!
-
OOOOh man, will it ever end? Soderbergh and his fellow Sundance alum Darren Aronofsky have poured their talents into one of the hoariest subjects outside of gangsters and teen love:drug abuse. And yet with all the flash and sizzle and "Oscar" level performances, neither finds anything new to say. Drugs are bad. they corrupt and destroy. And nobody is all bad, yada yada yada. Reefer maddness, Man with the Golden Arm, Panic in needle Park, French Connection part 2,Goodfellas, Trainspotting, Boogie Nights, Whatever. All of these movies have redeeming qualities. Okay maybe not french connection 2. But they seem to all have the same things to say about the ravages of addiction. And frankly, when I found out these 2 fine directors were attempting movies on the subject, I was excited. But they fall into the same traps. Its the same story told again. If soderbergh had done confederacy of dunces or Aronofsky Batman, I think something new would hit the screen. I think people are so dazzled by the aesthetics of the films they don't realize the storys fray around the clinches. For example: both movies feature young girls selling their bodies for drug money. Is that a new revelation? Has it never been done before? Sorry, I wasn't blown away. And frankly, monster kitchen appliances fail to scare me into the addicts mind. Was that snarky? Okay it was. I just hope Crouching Tiger lives up to the hype, soderbergh returns to form on Ocean's (and Solaris!), and Aronofsky finally puts a GOOD Batman script on screen. Oh yeah, and we stop saying how "complex" the drug issue is, if we keep talking about in such simple terms.
-
Dec 08, 2000 12:56:03 AM CST
Hopefully Traffic will do well and Soderbergh will be able to re
by cruel shoes
Nose Army, T.A.S
-
Seen both Requiem and Traffic. Funny thing is I loved Pi and, expecting great things from Aronofsky, I got college filmmaking pranks instead. Soderbergh's film, though I saw a rough cut three months ago, haunts me and I find myself still thinking about certain scenes, something I rarely do with films (in one eye, out the other?). This film is powerful and pertinent if only because it attacks the issue of drugs with a fresh eye. It's doesn't feel quite like anything I'd seen before and you get the sense the scenes are really happening somewhere at that moment (for a good story of real life drug intrigue, see the excellent Wall Street Journal article this week on the drug war). While this film gets better with age, unfortunately Requiem hangs on like a big meal of overcooked spaghetti, lots of filler and no substance. This movie will hit the larger population big and I hope it gets best picture. BTW, the El Paso shots were indeed filmed at the El Paso Intelligence Center and the director and script writer have fashioned an uncanny portrayal of Mexican border town life.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- A hot redhead (not Harry) is set to play lead in Fede Alvarez's remake of EVIL DEAD! -- 170 total posts 170 posts
- The Friday Docback Spelunks 'The Caves Of Androzani'!! DOCTOR WHO Story #136, And More!! -- 103 total posts 86 posts
- Here Comes THE GODMOTHER! -- 74 total posts 74 posts
- Rest In Peace Ben Gazzara -- 68 total posts 68 posts
- UPDATED: Talkbacker Bob Orci tweets STAR TREK old set pics! -- 244 total posts 51 posts
- ABC Has Cast The Lead In Its Future Nuclear Nation Pilot!! And They’ve Chosen Wisely!! -- 44 total posts 44 posts
- RIDDICK Sequel Details Via A New Press Release!! -- 88 total posts 40 posts
- AWAKE, This Season’s Best Broadcast Pilot, Gets NBC’s Old ER Slot March 1!! THE FIRM To Burn Off On Saturdays!! -- 38 total posts 38 posts
- INSIDIOUS-ER? -- 120 total posts 31 posts
- The Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day is going on an overnight drunk and in 10 days it’s going to set out to find the shark that ate its friend and destroy it. -- 31 total posts 31 posts