Obnoxiously titled with a
typographical symbol instead of proper language, writer-director Richard
Brooks’ $ is among the least
memorable heist movies ever made, despite the presence of two highly
charismatic stars, Warren Beatty and Goldie Hawn.
Brooks’ story is a paper-thin
lark about a security expert who uses his inside knowledge to steal money that
criminals have deposited in a German bank—ostensibly the “perfect crime”
because the victims cannot seek redress through proper authorities. Hawn
figures into the storyline as a prostitute who employs her wiles to pump
criminals for information, and of course her characters is in love with Beatty’s.
Theoretically, this should be a formula for frothy fun, but two major factors
put a damper on the proceedings. First and most damagingly, Brooks lacks the
lightness of touch that someone like, say, Blake Edwards brings to the heist
genre. Brooks gets so preoccupied with the machinations of plot that watching $ is a bit like doing tedious math
homework—things get zippier once the movie shifts into an extended chase scene
that chews up the entire third act, but up to that point, tracking the picture’s
interchangeable supporting characters is tiresome. (That said, it’s a hoot that
Brooks cast Goldfinger himself, Gert Fröbe, as a bank manager tasked wit
protecting, among other things, a giant bar of gold.)
The movie’s second big
impediment is its leading man. Beatty gives an indifferent performance,
presumably because he was at a strange juncture in his career. After piddling
away the early ’60s in a string of overwrought melodramas, he reinvented
himself not only as an actor of substance but also as a formidable producer
with Bonnie and Clyde (1967). Then he
disappeared from the screen for three years, resurfaced in yet another
overwrought melodrama (1970’s The Only
Game in Town), and subsequently issued mixed messages: The same year Beatty
starred in $, the epitome of vapid
nonsense, he starred in Robert Altman’s McCabe
& Mrs. Miller, the epitome of challenging New Hollywood cinema.
Therefore, $ raised a troubling
question: Will the real Warren Beatty please stand up? Anyway, Hawn, as always,
does her best to enliven the proceedings with her comeliness and ebullience,
but $ fits with the paradigm of other
early Hawn films—she’s simultaneously offered to the audience as a childlike flibbertigibbet and as a dimwitted sex object. Creepy.
Nonetheless, it’s impossible to call $
a complete wash, because the film’s production values are top-notch, the jazzy
score by Quincy Jones has a good bounce to it, and one presumes that dedicated
fans of the stars will find much to enjoy. For those who crave more than empty
spectacle and marquee-name eye candy, however, $ is far from compelling.
$
a/k/a Dollars: FUNKY
I thought the chase sequence that takes up about the entire second half of the film was impressive and fun. Especially the part done on a frozen lake that has Beatty going through the ice. He did his own stunt work.
ReplyDeleteI actually liked this film----it has interesting characters, and yeah, the film didn't seem to have Hawn's character pinned down---it's like they didn't know what to do with her, even though she's one-half of the mastermind behind this heist. Caught this on TV one night, having never heard of it, and found it really entertaining---especially when both the main characters make their escape. Very good underrated heist film, with a different take on the genre. Plus it was filmed in Germany, which made it even more interesting.
ReplyDelete