Am I the only one who thinks TRAINING DAY was one bone-stupid fucking flick?

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Giftzwerg

unread,
Mar 25, 2002, 8:05:41 AM3/25/02
to

My wife and I watched TRAINING DAY on Friday night - and we laaauuuughed
and laaauuughed; I've seen porno flicks that made more sense, and most
porno flicks have more intelligent dialog.

Is there a single person on this planet who imagines that the face of
police corruption and brutality resembles - in any way - Detective
Alonzo Harris? I mean, do the people who whelped this hilariously silly
little flick even live on the same planet the rest of us do? Generally
speaking, it's wrong to expect too much realism out of Hollyweird with
respect to films that deal with police - but does *anyone* (except the
retard who wrote this script) believe that two cops (in the post-Rodney
King LAPD climate) can search a house using a Chinese menu as a warrant
- and then get into a *gun battle* up and down a public street - without
attracting a little official heat for their troubles? Nobody drops a
dime on these assholes? In what bizarro reality?

This was one jaw-droppingly brain-damaged film - and the rank stupidity
just rooooolled on and on, scene after dumbass scene. Given the level
of realism present throughout, it would not have been *wholly*
unexpected to see a green woman appear, wearing a pointed black hat and
screeching, "Fly, FLY!!" as her army of winged chimpanzees begin to
darken the LA skyline.

Here's an example of just how fucking dumb this film is. At one point,
Detective Psycho and his rookie partner team up with his "unit" to rip
off a dope dealer (who only a few scenes earlier had been Detective
Psycho's buddy ... but I digress ...). Their plan is to purchase a
search warrant from a corrupt judge, bust the guy's house, murder him,
and pocket a quarter of the huge sack of money he has hidden under his
kitchen table. So they do this, and the "twist" is that they coerce the
rookie to kill the dope dealer because ...

I give up. This is too fucking stupid for words.

Let's be reasonable, here; if you're a bunch of cops so thoroughly
corrupt that you're willing to commit murder and armed robbery masked as
execution of a search warrant - why not just burglarize the dealer's
house, slit his throat quietly, and pocket *ALL OF THE MONEY*?!?!?!

Why this ridiculously Byzantine scheme involving phoney warrants,
wounding one of your own guys to make it "look good," and inviting
participation from some wild-card rookie? Shit, forget burglary, why
not just go to the door of his house - *like you did four scenes
earlier* - get cheerfully invited in, and quietly kill him and rob him,
keeping *all* of those millions of dollars for yourself?

Well, fuck, homies, this was one of the zillion things that this dumb
little flick didn't think of.

Lemme guess; they didn't think of it because the screenwriter and the
director were too busy writing, "dog," "nigger," and "motherfucker" into
the script every third word or so[1] to come up with a believable - or
even less insane - plot.

This dogshit is Hollyweird at its worst.


[1] Which apparently passes for extreme gritty reality in some circles.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"What possible exit strategy can you have against an
enemy whose ordinary soldier signs up with the following
oath (found among the documents captured from al Qaeda
in Afghanistan): "I state in the presence of God that I
will slaughter infidels for my entire life"? There is only
one exit strategy in fighting such a man. He dies or you
die. No other exit."
- Charles Krauthammer

JohnG

unread,
Mar 25, 2002, 8:21:52 AM3/25/02
to
"Giftzwerg" <gift...@NOSPAMZ.dwp.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1708eaa7d...@news-east.giganews.com...

>
> My wife and I watched TRAINING DAY on Friday night - and we laaauuuughed
> and laaauuughed; I've seen porno flicks that made more sense, and most
> porno flicks have more intelligent dialog.
>

I agree completely with this post, as I think the Training Day script was
completely flawed. But I also think Denzel did put in a damn good
performance.

The last 30 minutes of that movie were so completely inane and what's most
disappointing about the movie was the first hour was so good that it made
the horrendous second hour so a letdown.

I've no problem with Denzel winning, though, he carried the film.(Russell
Crowe deserved to win, but his antics recently most likely caused his loss)

John


Michael Fitzpatrick

unread,
Mar 25, 2002, 8:46:25 AM3/25/02
to
Listen to the director's commentary for the film. I think the film was
brilliantly done and Denzel deserved the Oscar more than anyone else.

Giftzwerg

unread,
Mar 25, 2002, 9:33:13 AM3/25/02
to
In article <a7n8af$7fv$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>, johnmd20
@ix.netcom.com says...

> > My wife and I watched TRAINING DAY on Friday night - and we laaauuuughed
> > and laaauuughed; I've seen porno flicks that made more sense, and most
> > porno flicks have more intelligent dialog.
> >
>
> I agree completely with this post, as I think the Training Day script was
> completely flawed. But I also think Denzel did put in a damn good
> performance.

That's what originally sucked me in at the video shop; I thought, "Wow.
Denzel Washington. Crooked cop. I'll bite."

> I've no problem with Denzel winning, though, he carried the film.(Russell
> Crowe deserved to win, but his antics recently most likely caused his loss)

The Oscar situation sorta reminds me of the Paul Newman situation some
years ago. The academy fucked up and didn't give him his Oscar for THE
VERDICT, so it had to wait a year or so and hand him his statuette for
<some other forgettable crap, I forget what>. Washington should have
been awarded for <insert any number of decent flicks he was in>, but not
this rancid bag of shit.

Giftzwerg

unread,
Mar 25, 2002, 9:34:34 AM3/25/02
to
In article <a7n9m0$jmp$1...@coranto.ucs.mun.ca>,
r64...@morgan.ucs.mun.caDELETE says...

> Listen to the director's commentary for the film.

Yeah, that's always makes or breaks a film, in my estimation; what the
director has to say about it in his comments.

Mason Barge

unread,
Mar 25, 2002, 11:39:27 AM3/25/02
to
Nah, I really thought it was pretty good and Washington was pretty good in it.
But really, just a forgettable crime flick. It wasn't as good as Ocean's 11
and Washington wasn't as good as Clooney. Or Brad Pitt. Or Morgan Freeman in
Along Came a Spider, for that matter.


"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea. If this is tea, please bring me
some coffee."
- Abraham Lincoln

WLL

unread,
Mar 25, 2002, 12:57:01 PM3/25/02
to
Great performonce. Dum Dum film. The idiot taking the shots in the flack
jacketfrom Alonzo reminded me of Scream, this time with guns.


Peace!


-----------------------------

visit http://www.wyndelllong.com/
-film, art, free mp3's & stuff -

fatboy

unread,
Mar 25, 2002, 3:02:50 PM3/25/02
to
Not that you deserve it, but here's what happened.

Denzel lost a bunch of money in Vegas, and whacked some Ruskie when pissed.
The Ruskies put a price on his head, so he needed money quick.

He had to get the permission of the three wise men (the corrupt ones in the
restaurant) and a warrant so they could take out the dealer who had been
giving them kickbacks for years without looking suspicious, and pissing of
anyone else. Write it off as a botched raid, and there's less questions.

Bring the rookie along because despite there being less questions, no
questions is better. So frame the rookie, make him take drugs and the like,
then kill him before any investigation. Denzel gets the money to buy off the
Russians, the rookie gets a heroes funeral with no questions asked, and the
corrupt cops get to keep on being corrupt.

Until the Rookie gets the attention of his killer by saving his niece, it
was all going well.

So there, makes more sense than you give it credit, although I could have
done without it myself. Had enough to say without the slam bang action
finale.

Paul


Giftzwerg

unread,
Mar 25, 2002, 3:39:58 PM3/25/02
to
In article <KnLn8.252698$uv5.22...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>,
paul...@btinternet.com says...

> Not that you deserve it, but here's what happened.

Oh, tell me anyhow. Pretty please.



> Denzel lost a bunch of money in Vegas, and whacked some Ruskie when pissed.
> The Ruskies put a price on his head, so he needed money quick.

Yup. That's fine.

> He had to get the permission of the three wise men (the corrupt ones in the
> restaurant) and a warrant so they could take out the dealer who had been
> giving them kickbacks for years without looking suspicious, and pissing of
> anyone else. Write it off as a botched raid, and there's less questions.

Oh, this makes sense. Not.

How are these "wise men" going to know fuck-all about it if he just offs
Roger and takes his whole poke? I mean, unless Miss Cleo or Dionne
Warwick and her Psychic Friends joins them at their Round Table O'Evil
every Friday, it's gonna be kinda hard for them to, like, *guess* who
wasted him.

> Bring the rookie along because despite there being less questions, no
> questions is better.

Yeah, it's always brilliant in the extreme to bring along someone you
just met this morning when you're executing a caper.

> So frame the rookie, make him take drugs and the like,
> then kill him before any investigation.

Look, dummy, here's a tip about crime in the real world; the probability
of being caught is equal to the cube of the number of people in on the
crime, times the number of crimes you commit, times the interest the
crime generates.

With that in mind, there you are: You're a crooked cop who owes "the
Russians" a couple of million bucks. And you just happen to know a
sleazy drug dealer who keeps a couple of million bucks under his kitchen
table. Do you:

(A) Quietly stop by the dealer's house for a drink like you often do,
quietly cut his throat and quietly take all his money.

(B) Sign up to mentor a new rookie. Take the rookie on a magical
mystery tour where you act like a fucking psycho from the get-go. Give
the rookie drugs, commit crimes, ignore other crimes, get into gun
battles, and do about a thousand other things that *should* lead to the
rookie making a phone call and starting the investigation that gets you
sent up to the Big House for life. Next, stop by a restaurant and
introduce the rookie to a secret cabal of crooked cops who run the
streets - again hoping he doesn't say, "I gotta make a call." Get a
crooked warrant from a crooked judge and then introduce the rookie to
your unit of crooked narcs. Pray the rookie doesn't blow you in. Stage
a crooked drug raid on the dealer with the trunks of money, bringing the
rookie along. Murder the drug dealer in cold blood. Shoot one of your
partners accidentally while trying to plug him in the bulletproof vest
to make things look realistic. Tell the rookie that the story is *he's*
the one who shot the drug dealer and he needs to go along with the
caper. Then drop the rookie off at a crack house full of whacked-out
gangstas so they can kill him. Hope he doesn't get away and (1) come
after you, or (2) finally make the telephone call to The LA Times that
gets you a 45-life stretch in San Quentin.

Of course, if you're a mongoloid screenwriter, you pick "B".


--
Giftzwerg
***
"I don't know about the rest of America, but I am proud
that thugs like Khaddafi, murderers like Saddam Hussein,
inquisitionists like the mullahs in Iran, criminals in
Syria, medieval sheiks in the Gulf, and millions of
others who do not vote, do not speak freely, oppress
women, and are not tolerant of religious, gender, or
ethnic diversity don't like me for being an American.
I would find it repugnant if they did."
- Victor Davis Hanson

zach

unread,
Mar 25, 2002, 3:54:21 PM3/25/02
to
> Is there a single person on this planet who imagines that the face of
> police corruption and brutality resembles - in any way - Detective
> Alonzo Harris? I mean, do the people who whelped this hilariously silly
> little flick even live on the same planet the rest of us do? Generally
> speaking, it's wrong to expect too much realism out of Hollyweird with
> respect to films that deal with police - but does *anyone* (except the
> retard who wrote this script) believe that two cops (in the post-Rodney
> King LAPD climate) can search a house using a Chinese menu as a warrant
> - and then get into a *gun battle* up and down a public street - without
> attracting a little official heat for their troubles? Nobody drops a
> dime on these assholes? In what bizarro reality?

A group of crooked cops here in Oakland, CA got away with just these
same antics for quite a while before they were busted (last year?). I
don't recall if they were connected with suspicious deaths, but there
were numerous beatings, false arrests, extortion, profit from the drug
trade and who knows what else. I think one of the ex-cops is still on
the lam, probably south of the border.

As for the inplausibility of TD, remember the older corrupt cops in
the restaurant? The whole system was corrupt all the way to the top,
as these guys were behind the scenes pulling the strings. I don't
think it's that implausible. It doesn't mean that every cop in the
city, or even a majority of them, is corrupt-- just enough well placed
people to allow the crooks to get away with what they were doing.

Bean Fried Pork

unread,
Mar 25, 2002, 4:05:37 PM3/25/02
to

You are so fucking stupid. You've never heard of the Four Horsemen of
Philadelphia? They were four corrupt white cops who put hundreds of black
men behind jail illegally. Do you have any idea how much power a cop has?
And do you think they are all highly ethical people who got there because
of their intelligence and because they were dedicated, hard working and
professional? What is it like living such a sheltered fucking life?

-Beans

---------------------------------------------------------------
#11 on Lvubun's list of top 973 RSPW Posters!
---------------------------------------------------------------
DEA - Department of Anti-Psychotics
---------------------------------------------------------------
Due to Extenuating Circumstances, Dean Rockensies is a Lutefisk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Willow is so _cute_ when she's utterly terrified
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tajiri Will Make You Bleed!!!
---------------------------------------------------------------
Who are YOU to talk to Psicosis that way?!!
---------------------------------------------------------------


leo86

unread,
Mar 25, 2002, 4:33:33 PM3/25/02
to
"fatboy" <paul...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:<KnLn8.252698$uv5.22...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com>...

You explained it better than the movie did, but it's still a stupid movie.

leo86

unread,
Mar 25, 2002, 4:43:43 PM3/25/02
to
I agree with you but I want to add that, given the history of police
brutality in L.A., and given the overwhelming number of incidents of
white cops brutalizing blacks, that to make a film about L.A. police
corruption and brutality and make the black cop the villain and an
innocent young white guy the hero is an act of astounding racism. And
for the NAACP to have given Denzel an Image Award for this travesty is
to hammer the final nail into the coffin of the NAACP.

Now, the filmmakers have indicated that the film was inspired by the
Ramparts scandal, in which minority cops, led by a Latino cop,
routinely shook down drug dealers in the Ramparts district of L.A.,
but the finished film bore no resemblance to any of the events that
occurred in real life. It was just a total fiction from beginning to
end.

And the bit at the end of the film where the blacks in the 'hood
suddenly decide to stand up to the corrupt black cop and follow the
example of the good little white cop is a slap in the face to all the
activists--black, white, Latino, Asian--over the years who have
confronted the issue of police brutality in L.A. and faced
overwhelming resistance to their efforts from white cops, politicians
and bureaucrats.


And, finally, just on a basic cinematic Hollywood movie level, it was
still "one bone-stupid fucking flick"! Sure Denzel gave a skilled
performance, but it certainly wasn't Oscar caliber. And certainly did
not deserve to win over Russell Crowe's stupendous performance in A
BEAUTIFUL MIND.

hnow

unread,
Mar 25, 2002, 5:09:46 PM3/25/02
to
> My wife and I watched TRAINING DAY on Friday night - and we laaauuuughed
> and laaauuughed; I've seen porno flicks that made more sense, and most
> porno flicks have more intelligent dialog.

It's safe to say that this one won't be showing up on American Movie
Classics someday to showcase the acting talents of Denzel Washington.

--

Fan

unread,
Mar 25, 2002, 6:01:49 PM3/25/02
to

Probably not, when you had Washington himself on Good Morning America
saying as much.

TetsuwanATOM

unread,
Mar 25, 2002, 6:43:57 PM3/25/02
to

"Giftzwerg" <gift...@NOSPAMZ.dwp.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1708ff7e3...@news-east.giganews.com...

> In article <a7n9m0$jmp$1...@coranto.ucs.mun.ca>,
> r64...@morgan.ucs.mun.caDELETE says...
>
> > Listen to the director's commentary for the film.
>
> Yeah, that's always makes or breaks a film, in my estimation; what the
> director has to say about it in his comments.

I don't know what the previous poster meant, but Mr Fuqua seems a little
defensive. But here I was thinking not only did he kill Mira Sorvino's
career and Chow Yuen Fatt's Hollywood career, but now he was going to try
and do the same to Denzel Washington . . . then the man goes and wins an
award for the damn performance. If there is a bad side to Denzel winning it
is that Fuqua will not be limited to directing episodes of "The Parkers."


Giftzwerg

unread,
Mar 25, 2002, 7:25:44 PM3/25/02
to
In article <ba221860.02032...@posting.google.com>, leo86@my-
deja.com says...

> I agree with you but I want to add that, given the history of police
> brutality in L.A., and given the overwhelming number of incidents of
> white cops brutalizing blacks, that to make a film about L.A. police
> corruption and brutality and make the black cop the villain and an
> innocent young white guy the hero is an act of astounding racism. And
> for the NAACP to have given Denzel an Image Award for this travesty is
> to hammer the final nail into the coffin of the NAACP.

Yup. There's that too.

Don't think this escaped my notice, but I thought it appropriate to
downplay the racial angle and focus on the race-neutral idiocy that
pervaded the entire film; as a wise man once said, "Never ascribe malice
[or racism] to that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

> And, finally, just on a basic cinematic Hollywood movie level, it was
> still "one bone-stupid fucking flick"! Sure Denzel gave a skilled
> performance, but it certainly wasn't Oscar caliber. And certainly did
> not deserve to win over Russell Crowe's stupendous performance in A
> BEAUTIFUL MIND.

Yup.

And Washington himself has had any number of decent roles (PHILADELPHIA
pops to mind...) which make his selection for this woodenheaded film
entirely silly.

Giftzwerg

unread,
Mar 25, 2002, 7:40:25 PM3/25/02
to
In article <Pine.SGI.4.21.0203251601090.5274248-100000
@mail1.ats.rochester.edu>, dk0...@mail.rochester.edu says...

> You are so fucking stupid.

Well, there's a brilliantly well-reasoned argument; I'm sure someone of
your obvious intellectual acumen has had plenty of satisfactory dealings
with authority.

> You've never heard of the Four Horsemen of
> Philadelphia?

Of course I have. And any number of other crooked cops.

> They were four corrupt white cops who put hundreds of black
> men behind jail illegally.

So they were.

Does their example have any bearing on TRAINING DAY, which depicts a
psychotic black cop undertaking a course of behavior so entirely
ridiculous that it beggared reality before the credits were over?

Did you like the part where the black folks in the 'hood side with the
honest white cop against the corrupt black cop? Did that jive with your
personal version of reality?

> Do you have any idea how much power a cop has?

Not so much that they don't go to prison - and fairly regularly - for
actions that are not 1/1000th so flagrantly criminal than those depicted
in this tacky little bit of fluff.

> And do you think they are all highly ethical people who got there because
> of their intelligence and because they were dedicated, hard working and
> professional?

I'm pretty sure that the brighter folks out there understood that the
point I am making is not, "No cops are this corrupt," but, "Police
corruption doesn't walk around firing matched automatics in the air
squealing, 'Here I am! Indict me! Indict me!'"

> What is it like living such a sheltered fucking life?

What is it like being a complete fuckwit? Share with us.

T Berk

unread,
Mar 25, 2002, 8:08:51 PM3/25/02
to

There is a reason why it wasn't nominated for Best Picture or
Screenplay.


TBerk

Ian Galbraith

unread,
Mar 25, 2002, 9:57:24 PM3/25/02
to
On Mon, 25 Mar 2002 10:16:25 -0330, Michael Fitzpatrick wrote:

:Listen to the director's commentary for the film. I think the film was


:brilliantly done and Denzel deserved the Oscar more than anyone else.

What does the director have to say?

--
Ian Galbraith
Email: igalb...@ozonline.com.au ICQ#: 7849631

"I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination
is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination
encircles the world." - Albert Einstein

Charles L Isbell

unread,
Mar 26, 2002, 9:44:07 AM3/26/02
to
"fatboy" <paul...@btinternet.com> writes:
> Not that you deserve it, but here's what happened.
[...]

> Until the Rookie gets the attention of his killer by saving his niece, it
> was all going well.

The movie or the plan?

Hm. Never mind. The answer is: both.

--
Peace.
"It's always disquieting to find out that your tastes
are shared by the masses. It's like when a guy with
an ugly tie asks you where you bought your shirt."
-Kyle Baker
-\--/-
Don't just adopt opinions | \/ | Some of you are homeboys
develop them. | /\ | but only I am The Homeboy From hell
-/--\-

Kevin FilmNutBoy

unread,
Mar 28, 2002, 11:38:32 AM3/28/02
to
Giftzwerg gift...@NOSPAMZ.dwp.net wrote:

>Is there a single person on this planet who imagines that the face of
>police corruption and brutality resembles - in any way - Detective
>Alonzo Harris? I mean, do the people who whelped this hilariously silly
>little flick even live on the same planet the rest of us do? Generally
>speaking, it's wrong to expect too much realism out of Hollyweird with
>respect to films that deal with police - but does *anyone* (except the
>retard who wrote this script) believe that two cops (in the post-Rodney
>King LAPD climate) can search a house using a Chinese menu as a warrant
>- and then get into a *gun battle* up and down a public street - without
>attracting a little official heat for their troubles? Nobody drops a
>dime on these assholes? In what bizarro reality?

>This was one jaw-droppingly brain-damaged film - and the rank stupidity
>just rooooolled on and on, scene after dumbass scene. Given the level
>of realism present throughout, it would not have been *wholly*
>unexpected to see a green woman appear, wearing a pointed black hat and
>screeching, "Fly, FLY!!" as her army of winged chimpanzees begin to
>darken the LA skyline.

(snip)

Yeah, it's a pretty dumb flick.

But so is evaluating a film based on how "realistic" it is, as if realism is
what a good film should aspire to.

--Kevin

***
"This is between me and the vegetable."

Giftzwerg

unread,
Mar 28, 2002, 12:52:23 PM3/28/02
to
In article <20020328113832...@mb-mr.aol.com>,
filmn...@aol.commode says...

> (snip)
>
> Yeah, it's a pretty dumb flick.
>
> But so is evaluating a film based on how "realistic" it is, as if realism is
> what a good film should aspire to.

Agreed.

But, that said, there's a line out there somewhere (unless the film in
question happens to be fantasy) where the viewer's willing suspension of
disbelief is rubbed raw and cannot sustain another dollop of the
unbelievable. Where that line actually is varies from film to film, but
TRAINING DAY crossed it early and ridiculously and never looked back.

[PS: What should our tolerance for the ludicrous be set to when the
subject is something grimly real like police corruption and brutality?]

--
Giftzwerg
***
"The other day, the Saudi government daily Al-Riyadh ran
a column headlined 'The Jewish Holiday Of Purim': 'For
this holiday the Jewish people must obtain human blood so
that their clerics can prepare the holiday pastries,' wrote
Dr. Umayma Ahmad Al-Jalahma of King Faysal University. 'The
victim must be a mature adolescent who is, of course, a non-Jew.'
Wow. That's some recipe, I thought."
- Mark Steyn

TetsuwanATOM

unread,
Mar 29, 2002, 1:57:46 AM3/29/02
to

"Giftzwerg" <gift...@NOSPAMZ.dwp.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.17098a07b...@news-east.giganews.com...

> In article <ba221860.02032...@posting.google.com>, leo86@my-
> deja.com says...
>

>


> And Washington himself has had any number of decent roles (PHILADELPHIA
> pops to mind...) which make his selection for this woodenheaded film
> entirely silly.

Well think about all the aged actors who vote in this catagory, thinking
about their younger days watching Cagney screaming, "Top o the world, ma!"
on the late show (or worse yet seeing it in the theatre). The role was the
kind of thing people who spell actor with a capital "A" would love to do; to
be totally out of type, curse, spit, be charismatic, duplicitous, and have a
big death scene. I watched the alternate ending on the DVD, and it was an
ending that would have signaled Hawke was the lead actor (not simply
supporting), and it seems as if it were cut out as not to step on Denzel's
final gurgle at the end. Also, it was a pretty trite "Take your corruption
and shove it" scene, but as you've noted the film was pretty trite already.

Charles L Isbell

unread,
Mar 29, 2002, 8:16:56 AM3/29/02
to
"TetsuwanATOM" <notb...@likely.com> writes:
> Well think about all the aged actors who vote in this catagory, thinking
> about their younger days watching Cagney screaming, "Top o the world, ma!"
> on the late show (or worse yet seeing it in the theatre). The role was the
> kind of thing people who spell actor with a capital "A" would love to do; to
> be totally out of type, curse, spit, be charismatic, duplicitous, and have a
> big death scene. I watched the alternate ending on the DVD, and it was an
> ending that would have signaled Hawke was the lead actor (not simply
> supporting), and it seems as if it were cut out as not to step on Denzel's
> final gurgle at the end. Also, it was a pretty trite "Take your corruption
> and shove it" scene, but as you've noted the film was pretty trite already.

The movie should have ended after Ethan is "brought in."

Denzel has given him a big speech in the car, they drive off, a
helicopter takes off and everything fades to black. End the movie
there and it was great, and a bold message, too. It didn't get dumb
really until after that point.

--
Peace.
"If all the economists were laid end to end,
they wouldn't reach a conclusion."

Kevin FilmNutBoy

unread,
Mar 29, 2002, 2:18:40 PM3/29/02
to
Giftzwerg gift...@NOSPAMZ.dwp.net wrote:

>In article <20020328113832...@mb-mr.aol.com>,
>filmn...@aol.commode says...
>
>> (snip)
>>
>> Yeah, it's a pretty dumb flick.
>>
>> But so is evaluating a film based on how "realistic" it is, as if realism
>is
>> what a good film should aspire to.
>
>Agreed.
>
>But, that said, there's a line out there somewhere (unless the film in
>question happens to be fantasy) where the viewer's willing suspension of
>disbelief is rubbed raw and cannot sustain another dollop of the
>unbelievable. Where that line actually is varies from film to film, but
>TRAINING DAY crossed it early and ridiculously and never looked back.
>
>[PS: What should our tolerance for the ludicrous be set to when the
>subject is something grimly real like police corruption and brutality?]

Now you're talking.

Training Day's problem is believability, not lack of realism. It's not realism
at all -- it's clearly set in the tradition of crime melodramas like Dirty
Harry, White Heat, The Big Heat, and, um, Heat, where tough guy ganster/cop
fantasies are played out in a psuedo-real settings. Training Day touches upon
some serious contemporary issues (as do those other films), but I think it's
quite clear from the get-go that this is make-believe, genre entertainment.

And so the challenge for the film is not adherence to real world believability,
which it doesn't aspire to, but, as you say, willing suspension of disbelief.
I don't think the film runs into major believability problems until late in the
film, when Denzel leaves Ethan to be "taken care of" by the Latino gang. Sure,
the plot is a little silly if you look closely, but such is the nature of these
kind of entertainments. It's a fun ride until the film runs out of imagination
and introduces dumb contrivances and ludicrous behavior to fabricate its
finale.

Geoff

unread,
Mar 29, 2002, 7:00:56 PM3/29/02
to
On 29 Mar 2002 19:18:40 GMT, filmn...@aol.commode (Kevin
FilmNutBoy) deposited this nugget in this here newsgroup

>>Training Day's problem is believability, not lack of realism. It's not realism
>>at all -- it's clearly set in the tradition of crime melodramas like Dirty
>>Harry, White Heat, The Big Heat, and, um, Heat, where tough guy ganster/cop
>>fantasies are played out in a psuedo-real settings. Training Day touches upon
>>some serious contemporary issues (as do those other films), but I think it's
>>quite clear from the get-go that this is make-believe, genre entertainment.
>>
>>And so the challenge for the film is not adherence to real world believability,
>>which it doesn't aspire to, but, as you say, willing suspension of disbelief.
>>I don't think the film runs into major believability problems until late in the
>>film, when Denzel leaves Ethan to be "taken care of" by the Latino gang. Sure,
>>the plot is a little silly if you look closely, but such is the nature of these
>>kind of entertainments. It's a fun ride until the film runs out of imagination
>>and introduces dumb contrivances and ludicrous behavior to fabricate its
>>finale.
>>
>>--Kevin

Couldn't agree more. Well, I guess I could, but then what
would be the point of posting? I just watched the film for
the first time last night. I was entertained. I will watch
it at least one more time (for the commentary track) and
will probably keep it, since it's a Denzel film, and I like
Denzel as an actor.

The thing that bothered me the most about the ending was the
highly unlikely coincidence of Hawke's character being
spared by virtue of having saved the gang leader's niece
earlier that day. Wild coincidence aside, why didn't
Denzel's character recognize her? And if he did, why would
he dispatch Hawke's character via an obviously unreliable
agent? Just dint make no sense.

Still, I found it to be a fine, fun stupid movie. The score
was well-done and appropriate, the cinematography was very
good, the acting was good (I loved seeing Tom Berenger in
his bit part), and it was fun seeing Denzel get
"Libertyized" by the Rooskies. I had a good time.

Sometimes, that's all you can ask out of a film.

Regards,
Geoff "Well, of course, there's being in one..."

"Words, words. They're all we have to go on."
--Guildenstern, in Tom Stoppard's "Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead"

Giftzwerg

unread,
Mar 30, 2002, 8:08:42 AM3/30/02
to
In article <20020329141840...@mb-mw.aol.com>,
filmn...@aol.commode says...

> And so the challenge for the film is not adherence to real world believability,
> which it doesn't aspire to, but, as you say, willing suspension of disbelief.
> I don't think the film runs into major believability problems until late in the
> film, when Denzel leaves Ethan to be "taken care of" by the Latino gang. Sure,
> the plot is a little silly if you look closely, but such is the nature of these
> kind of entertainments. It's a fun ride until the film runs out of imagination
> and introduces dumb contrivances and ludicrous behavior to fabricate its
> finale.

Well, perhaps this is the notion that lies at the heart of my problems
with training day; I'm not 100% certain that I want a "fun ride" type
film about police corruption and brutality in Los Angeles.

I mean, you could have made SCHINDLER'S LIST such that Oskar Schindler
fought the Nazis as a sort larger-than-life hero caricature, with a
blazing Walther P-38 in each fist, and get a sort of entertaining "fun
ride" out of the flick ... but is this really what's wanted?

--
Giftzwerg
***
"Berry said her triumph was a victory 'for every
nameless, faceless woman of color who now has a
chance because this door tonight has been opened.'
Yes, at long last, the 'glass ceiling' had been
broken. Large-breasted, slightly cocoa women with
idealized Caucasian features finally have a chance
in Hollywood!"
- Ann Coulter

Kevin FilmNutBoy

unread,
Mar 30, 2002, 8:41:44 AM3/30/02
to
Giftzwerg gift...@NOSPAMZ.dwp.net wrote:

>filmn...@aol.commode says...
>
>> And so the challenge for the film is not adherence to real world
>believability,
>> which it doesn't aspire to, but, as you say, willing suspension of
>disbelief.
>> I don't think the film runs into major believability problems until late in
>the
>> film, when Denzel leaves Ethan to be "taken care of" by the Latino gang.
>Sure,
>> the plot is a little silly if you look closely, but such is the nature of
>these
>> kind of entertainments. It's a fun ride until the film runs out of
>imagination
>> and introduces dumb contrivances and ludicrous behavior to fabricate its
>> finale.
>
>Well, perhaps this is the notion that lies at the heart of my problems
>with training day; I'm not 100% certain that I want a "fun ride" type
>film about police corruption and brutality in Los Angeles.
>
>I mean, you could have made SCHINDLER'S LIST such that Oskar Schindler
>fought the Nazis as a sort larger-than-life hero caricature, with a
>blazing Walther P-38 in each fist, and get a sort of entertaining "fun
>ride" out of the flick ... but is this really what's wanted?

Only if Harrison Ford is the star.

Kevin FilmNutBoy

unread,
Mar 30, 2002, 8:48:21 AM3/30/02
to
> gbur...@erinet.com (Geoff)

>The thing that bothered me the most about the ending was the
>highly unlikely coincidence of Hawke's character being
>spared by virtue of having saved the gang leader's niece
>earlier that day. Wild coincidence aside, why didn't
>Denzel's character recognize her?

I wouldn't expect Denzel to recognize the young cousin of a guy he knows, but
yeah it's a dumb contrivance.

>And if he did, why would
>he dispatch Hawke's character via an obviously unreliable
>agent? Just dint make no sense.

Here the screenwriters use one of the oldest bad plot points in the book: the
bad guy has the hero completely in his power to be killed, but doesn't wait
around to see the job done, which of course conveniently allows the hero to
escape and foil the bad guy at the climax. Hell, Austin Powers was spoofing
this sort of inane plot device a couple years ago, and yet Training Day trots
it out with a straight face. Stoopid.

Geoff

unread,
Mar 30, 2002, 1:30:07 PM3/30/02
to
On 30 Mar 2002 13:48:21 GMT, filmn...@aol.commode (Kevin

FilmNutBoy) deposited this nugget in this here newsgroup
>>> gbur...@erinet.com (Geoff)
>>
>>>The thing that bothered me the most about the ending was the
>>>highly unlikely coincidence of Hawke's character being
>>>spared by virtue of having saved the gang leader's niece
>>>earlier that day. Wild coincidence aside, why didn't
>>>Denzel's character recognize her?
>>
>>I wouldn't expect Denzel to recognize the young cousin of a guy he knows, but
>>yeah it's a dumb contrivance.

I figured if he was in tight enough with this guy to have
him murder someone for him, that he might be familiar with
the guy's family.

>>>And if he did, why would
>>>he dispatch Hawke's character via an obviously unreliable
>>>agent? Just dint make no sense.
>>
>>Here the screenwriters use one of the oldest bad plot points in the book: the
>>bad guy has the hero completely in his power to be killed, but doesn't wait
>>around to see the job done, which of course conveniently allows the hero to
>>escape and foil the bad guy at the climax. Hell, Austin Powers was spoofing
>>this sort of inane plot device a couple years ago, and yet Training Day trots
>>it out with a straight face. Stoopid.
>>
>>--Kevin

Yep.

Regards,
Geoff "Where do they train these writers?"

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages