I've seen 'Ronin' several times and each time, afterwards, I've tried to remember why. I've long held (even here on LB) that it is best of Frankenheimer's 90s films and while I think that is still true, it's got issues. Kind of a lot of them, I'm thinking upon re-re-re-(or whatever) watch.
You probably seen it too, so rather than hash out the plot details, I've always seen it as a film with two major set-pieces, one stunning and one substantially less so, with some other nifty stuff, along with some character work, in between. Starting with the classic heist, 'getting-the-specialists-together' trope (along with the obligatory dick-swinging), there's some drifting (in the car sense) around deserted streets in Paris which is fine -- technically challenging and all, I'm sure, but clearly undercranked in parts -- and the 'hatching-the-plan' stuff. From the walk-through to the actual heist, there is no denying that this is both the best sequence of the film (and probably of Frankenheimer's entire 'ouvre') and alone is the reason to watch it. There's some more character stuff and then the second set-piece where the action has moved to Arles and specifically a mezzanine of the Arles Amphitheatre. Personally, and you are welcome to disagree, I find these scenes a huge let down, indifferently filmed, and the fact that I suspect it to be, in large part, a constructed set, extremely distracting.
At this point in my rewatch, I was struggling to remember how much of the film was left, only to realize that it was barely half over. What follows is a few more minor chases, additional double-crossing between the untrustworthy characters, and a lot of padding.
And this is where things really fall apart for me. The story is messy, and the pseudonymously-credited David Mamet didn't seem to hammer it fully into shape (rather adding, I'm guessing, some monologues and fleshing out the De Niro/Reno interactions). The performances are mostly weirdly stilted (which may be a result of Mamet?) and several are just flat-out weak. You know the old adage that, in a horror movie, you shouldn't fully show the monster until the climax 'cause it is much scarier for the audience to guess what it is until they are more invested in the story? Here, the marquee set-piece just happens way too early and less the last 2/3s of the film flailing about, trying to rebuilt some sort of tension. I know
there are ways to play with this formula (and both Frankenheimer and Mamet have done so), but it does not serve them well here.
That all said, that one heist in Nice is pretty friggin great.
I've seen 'Ronin' several times and each time, afterwards, I've tried to remember why. I've long held (even here on LB) that it is best of Frankenheimer's 90s films and while I think that is still true, it's got issues. Kind of a lot of them, I'm thinking upon re-re-re-(or whatever) watch.
You probably seen it too, so rather than hash out the plot details, I've always seen it as a film with two major set-pieces, one stunning and one substantially less so, with some other nifty stuff, along with some character work, in between. Starting with the classic heist, 'getting-the-specialists-together' trope (along with the obligatory dick-swinging), there's some drifting (in the car sense) around deserted streets in Paris which is fine -- technically challenging and all, I'm sure, but clearly undercranked in parts -- and the 'hatching-the-plan' stuff. From the walk-through to the actual heist, there is no denying that this is both the best sequence of the film (and probably of Frankenheimer's entire 'ouvre') and alone is the reason to watch it. There's some more character stuff and then the second set-piece where the action has moved to Arles and specifically a mezzanine of the Arles Amphitheatre. Personally, and you are welcome to disagree, I find these scenes a huge let down, indifferently filmed, and the fact that I suspect it to be, in large part, a constructed set, extremely distracting.
At this point in my rewatch, I was struggling to remember how much of the film was left, only to realize that it was barely half over. What follows is a few more minor chases, additional double-crossing between the untrustworthy characters, and a lot of padding.
And this is where things really fall apart for me. The story is messy, and the pseudonymously-credited David Mamet didn't seem to hammer it fully into shape (rather adding, I'm guessing, some monologues and fleshing out the De Niro/Reno interactions). The performances are mostly weirdly stilted (which may be a result of Mamet?) and several are just flat-out weak. You know the old adage that, in a horror movie, you shouldn't fully show the monster until the climax 'cause it is much scarier for the audience to guess what it is until they are more invested in the story? Here, the marquee set-piece just happens way too early and less the last 2/3s of the film flailing about, trying to rebuilt some sort of tension. I know
there are ways to play with this formula (and both Frankenheimer and Mamet have done so), but it does not serve them well here.
That all said, that one heist in Nice is pretty friggin great.
