Review: Showtime

Do they think we're so stupid that we are going to take media/celebrity ethics lectures from a movie made and owned by AOL/Time-Warner? (Of course they do.) Add Showtime to that long list of movies that could have so easily been better. This film is confused: On the one hand, it wants to be a movie about media obsession with celebrity and violence, and also a spoof of vigilante and cop movies and a dis on reality shows. It also wants to rag on its two stars, Robert DeNiro and Eddie Murphy. And then, inexplicably, it wants to be a cop movie, crammed with chases, fistfights, machine-gun blasts, car crack-ups, spent shells, fires and explosions. You can't have it every which way, guys. The end result is a mish-mash film that is sometimes funny -- especially when Murphy and DeNiro are going at one another -- but is mostly boring and lame. It always comes down to the writing, doesn't it?

The best way to describe this movie is good-natured. Murpy, DeNiro, Rene Russo, William Shatner and Mos Def all know what they're doing, but the script doesn't really give them much worth doing. The rather tired premise is the pairing of a tough-guy detective (DeNiro, obviously) with the wise-ass, media savvy urban black cop (Murphy), both enthusiastically manipulated by the stop-at-nothing, no-holds barred and exploitive producer (Russo). The LAPD, seeking better publicity than it's been getting the last couple of years, orders the two to participate in a cop-reality-show called Showtime. Murphy's character, who is dying to be in the movies, is thrilled, hamming it up for the cameras. He essentially plays his character in Beverly Hills Cop, which is funny enough, but a bit tired. DeNiro, a hard-ass from the old school, is ethical, horrified and reluctant to participate. While Murphy's character sees him as a dinosaur, DeNiro's sees his young partner as an incompetent hotdog.

In fact, DeNiro seems to have made a career (Analyze This, and most recently Meet the Parents), out of laughing at his own tough-guy persona, which is really a shame. He hasn't had a serious role in a few years, and this spoofing of spoofs of spoofs is getting old. In the movie, the two don't like one another, at least at first, but -- shock of shocks -- learn to deal with it, as the bad guys (a drug dealer and his gang) get their hands on shockingly lethal hand-tooled shotguns with uranium-tipped shells that can level whole buildings in just a few seconds. The movie is meant to be a satire -- Johnnie Cochran's appearance is a hoot, and so are the Jackie-Chan style outtakes at the end -- but for a satire to work, the story has to be funny and/or biting. This movie, on the whole, is neither. The plot is too stupid to carry any freight, even these talented actors. And the film says nothing about our media or celebrity culture that hasn't been said a zillion times, usually better.

The movie does have its entertaining moments, most of them clustered at the beginning and end, around all of the car chases and explosions, but you may leave Showtime thinking it's time for Eddie Murphy to find a role where he can be funnier, and for DeNiro to stop laughing at himself and start being himself again. And enough media/celebrity narcissism. We get it.

Comments

DeNiro not serious?

[Pope]

Heat + Casino, 1995
Ronin, 1998
Men Of Honor, 2000
15 Minutes + The Score, 2001

I think he's trying to not be sterotyped by doing more comic roles. They may not always succeed, but at least he's not stuck playing "Mob Boss #2" for the rest of his life.

Re:For the writer's-eye-view

[Jboy_24]

Its funny how you say that Hollywood's direction towards safe, predictable formula films is a result of the flight of films from Hollywood to areas such as Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal.

First, the prime reason Canada is atractive is that you can pay someone in Vancouver $40,000/yr Canadian, and they'll have a killer apartment downtown and live large on the town. Most likley a salary like that means you are into the realm of owning a condo.
Thus, you are getting cheap, highly skilled labour at a fraction (63%) of the cost of the same american labour.

But then what about the stars and higher paid folk? Well, up to last year, in British Columbia the top tax bracket (55%) started at $75,000/yr Canadian. (Thats around $40k us). Plus the numerous other taxes, 13% sales tax for example, in order to get the american talent to work up in canada, the government gives producers tax breaks and low interest loans.

All in all it works out. At first all of the production came from US companys, but quite a few Canadian production company's are starting to produce content that is doing well in the US market. You have to ask yourself, why in this global economy does all prodcution of film/video have to be centered in one small area (LA)? Why is it 'bad' that other areas in the world are starting to produce?

And as this pertains to the quality of entertainment. Alot of producers have used the lower cost to produce in Canada as an oppurtunity to try riskier more independant films. The more that something costs, the less likely people are going to take a risk.

As far as Canadians getting sick of the gazigabucks tax subsidy. Given the outcry over XFiles leaving Vancouver, the fact that the Liberal party won all but 3 seats (over the labour party NDP) on a promise to lower taxes and bring in more business, I don't know for whom you are speaking.