Rampart (2011)

hyped garbage

Expected more

This is a coming of age storyline that you've seen in one form or another for decades. It takes a truly unique voice to make yet another one worth watching.

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

I'm usually the guy bitching about how the writing was absent and it never matters much about anything else if the story is lacking yet this film makes a convincing counter-argument. From the depths of an incomprehensible script and an overload of baggage in the form of auxiliary characters Woody Harrelson single-handedly rescues this film from me screaming at the ticket booth for a refund.The story makes almost no sense. Why does he murder the guy from the card game? Why does he even show up at the Crystal Palace? A robbery? Why would dudes have an illegal card game in full view of the freaking sidewalk? And then there just happens to be a robbery while he is watching? It was supposed to be an unarmed card game yet it looks like he had a gun as he was chasing the thieves (and why would he chase armed thieves without a gun?). Too much and too stupid. He's under a heated investigation as it is then he murders someone for no reason? Or did I miss the reason? OK, I can handle a little bit of family tension but two families? Too much, once again. I almost rated this movie ten stars simply to offset the one star ratings which seem completely stupid to me. If you are looking for explosions, car chases, snappy catch-phrases, and buddy cop repartee then look elsewhere. With that said I realize this movie was completely lacking in plot, pacing, and structure.

You have to be kidding me this movie was poorly executed, direction-less and at best confusing. The plot wandered aimlessly with pointless character development and constant disappointment where the viewer is led down one path then left without resolution. I felt cheated by this movie at every turn especially the conclusion where Brown just drives off, no court case no explanation just blah. Save yourself 108 Min's of your life and do something else like your taxes or poke yourself in the eye, it will be more satisfying than this garbage.

I decided to take a chance on this movie after I found a brand new DVD of it for sale at my local dollar store. Did I like the movie? For the most part, yes. There are some very good things to be found here. The acting by everybody is top notch; these actors really sell their characters. Also, the direction is very interesting, because most scenes are directed in a way that the audience feels like they are a fly on the wall, hearing secrets and other bad things that the participants don't want anyone else to hear.The movie is not perfect, however. Some viewers might object to the very slow pace. I'm not asking for a rapid pace - that would be wrong for this kind of character and dialogue-driven film - but things could have been sped up slightly. Also, I'm pretty sure that many viewers will object to the ending - that is, if it can be called an ending, because it leaves the fate of the main character (and other characters) uncertain.Still, there is some really good stuff here. If you are in a patient mood, and can accept that you won't get a cut and dried ending, you'll probably find enough to interest you.

If you are going to produce a film about the Rampart scandal (and dedicate the film to the "victims of Rampart") then you better make a film that accurately reflects the day to day existence of the cops you are targeting.Rampart's main character, Woody Harrelson, is a mess, like this movie. The standard-bearer for unrealistic LAPD movies is clearly "Training Day", but Rampart is not far behind. I'd even take the movie "SWAT" over those two, as it doesn't pretend to be that realistic.The problems are immediate: "Date rape" is a completely impractical movie nickname for a cop in LAPD, especially if it's because Harrelson allegedly killed such a suspect. Wouldn't the suspect get that nickname???? C'mon! The whole "date rape murder" back story is weak.Then there's the Ned Beatty back story of a retired cop advising "Date Rape" on his situation and providing a tip for an off-duty gambling take down scheme where "Date Rape" kills a man while in uniform. This case is so poorly investigated it is unbelievable. "Date Rape" then feels the retired cop and friend of his father set him up which results in a weird gun confrontation in broad daylight, apparently unwitnessed by anyone at the beach near LAX.Harrelson is a 24-year patrol cop with LAPD, with FTO (Field Training Officer) status who appears to work by himself some days, then afternoons with a female trainee, and other times late-nights, again by himself. At one point he shows up in uniform on his day off to participate in a gambling hall take-down, by himself.Even after a "big-time use of force" which is captured on video, he is allowed to continue driving around in uniform on patrol! Folks, things like this did not happen in the LAPD, as bad as things may have been in the 90's at Rampart. Nor do officers meet with the DA alone to discuss their pending investigations, nor meet with DA investigators off-duty, nor meet with command staff/City Legal team without representation. Harrelson carries on like a like a teenager, popping off in clichés and exaggerated legalese in several instances with prosecutors and investigators,which is ridiculous for the public to see. It's waay over the top. The script is full of LA Police clichés: "I told you never go east of La Brea", "I'm not a racist, I hate everyone", Harrelson bringing a box of donuts to his captains office, Harrelson drinking a pint of booze repeatedly in uniform in his police car during a time when he knows he is under observation by Internal Affairs for use of force violations . . . The bottom line? Cops like "Date Rape", behaving recklessly as he does in this movie, do not last 24 years in LAPD patrol! There were other more serious problems with Rampart in the 90's that this movie could have addressed and the producers missed the chance.Vietnam comes up again and again . . . Harrelson's character supposedly served a good period in this war, yet he has 24 years on the department in 1999 meaning he served in Vietnam in 1975? How much of an influence could that have had? He's only in his late 40's in the film!Then there is the bizarre personal story of Harrelson marrying sisters and fathering a daughter by each of them, getting divorced by one, yet continuing to live in the same house and move back and forth between the two sisters who have homes adjacent to one another!!!This movie could have been written much better with some sort of department advisers------- like real cops from that era. Like "Training Day", the writers chose to present an image that they thought the public would enjoy, rather than an accurate portrayal of a bad cop.If you want to see a bad cop, then the "Bad Lieutenant" is the movie, not "Rampart" which can't decide what it wants to portray----- a bad cliché of a burnout cop, or the policies and procedures of an entire department which led to wholesale criminal justice corruption.