Across the Line: The Exodus of Charlie Wright (2010)

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Funny, strange, confrontational and subversive, this is one of the most interesting experiences you'll have at the cinema this year.

The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

Radio Times said this was a 'busy little crime drama with a Michael Mann feel and an impressive cast.' and awarded a credible 3 stars, so I thought it worth checking out on Sky Movies. It follows, based on a true story, a stockbroking tycoon who's made billions ripping people off and now the Feds and some unhappy and disgruntled people are after him.So, as this second feature from writer/director from R Ellis Frazer went straight to DVD, what's wrong with it - and is it worth watching?The cast is certainly good; a grey-bearded Andy Garcia, Aidan Quinn as the unscrupulous billionaire in the title, Mario van Peebles as an FBI agent and Gina Gershon. Oh, and Luke Goss, of course, who actually is OK and now looks much more distinguished than he did with his baby youth looks in band Bros.; tanned, stubbled and with a close- cropped haircut - a more youthful, smoother Jason Statham, if you like.First things first, this is not an action movie, certainly not at first. It meanders and ponders, with impressive but slow camera-work and music that is sparse and suggestive. It picks up after half an hour as more characters get in on the act of hunting down Mr Wright. The story itself is quite difficult to follow, not helped by its un-rushed feel. It made me lose interest in what was going on at times and it often changed scenes and characters at the drop of a hat.The landscapes of Mexico looked evocative enough which helped it roll along but overall, it was all a bit too ponderous and needed tightening up. The lack of any urgency made it more Sunday afternoon than Friday night viewing and whilst I would say it was 'OK', I wouldn't buy the DVD, or recommend it too highly, either. The performances are generally good, but forgettable, as are the people they play.

Everything that's wrong with this movie is right there in the title. It should have been called either "Across the Line" or "The Exodus of Charlie Wright". No film should ever have a colon in its title unless it's a sequel and even that is pushing it. Yeah, I know it seems like a nit picky thing, but just read it again. If you're the sort of person who would be intrigued by something called "The Exodus of Charlie Wright", do you really need the stuff before the colon to sell you? If you're the sort of person who responds to something punchier like "Across the Line", are you going to impressed by the pretentious stuff after that? This title reads like someone crossed a Chuck Norris/Steven Seagal action flick with an art house rumination on personal discovery. It indicates that either the people who made this motion picture didn't think hard enough about what kind of story they were telling or that there was a struggle over it which was never resolved.Charlie Wright (Aidan Quinn) is a financial con man who steals billions of dollars through a Ponzi scheme. When FBI agent Hobbs (Mario Van Peebles) moves in to arrest him, Charlie disappears like Houdini from a milk can and resurfaces in Tijuana. He's searching for a woman and her child, but plenty of people are looking for Charlie besides the FBI. There's Mexican crime boss Jorge Garza (Andy Garcia), who needs Charlie's ill gotten gains to pay off a debt to the Mexico City cartel, and Jorge's younger brother Gabriel (Danny Pino), who's determined to save his family until he simply gives up. There's also Damon (Luke Goss), a hit-man from the Russian mob who teams with a trio of mercenaries to get to Charlie before the Garza's do because Charlie scammed a hundred million dollars off a pair of Russian mobsters. As Charlie turns to an insecure, needy, middle aged love muffin (Claudia Gerri) for information, Agent Hobbs' gay subordinate (Jordan Belfi) walks out of a Tijuana gay bar and sees the fugitive fraudster on the street, bringing Hobbs down to Mexico to complete the starting line up in the Charlie Wright Derby.This movie is so typical of early 21st century cinema in so many ways. Not just because a decent amount of money got flushed down the rathole to produce yet another direct-to-DVD release that will soon vanish beneath the waves of new releases every week. It's that Across the Line: The Exodus of Charlie Wright shines on the surface but it rotten underneath. This thing looks good. It's shot well and is nicely paced. The dialog is above average and the cast is more than capable. The concept of the story is also solid. Underneath it all, though, is a plot that is a huge minefield of one poorly thought out and illogical storytelling mistake after another.Let's start with the basics. Why should anyone care what happens to Charlie Wright? He's a thief and the awful nature of his theft is repeatedly emphasized, although the only specific victims every presented are the Russian mobsters. If you're trying to tell the story of a bad man's redemption, you have to give people some reason to want to see that bad man redeemed. But you can't diminish his "badness" by presenting his only visible victims as even worse people because it not only undermines the whole redemption them, it cripples any interest in whether the FBI catches him or not. It's the same thing with Jorge Garza. He's presented as a crime lord who's in trouble entirely because of his own actions, so why should I care what happens to him? Why should I care if Damon and his crew grab Charlie or wind up dead? There are either no answers to these questions or the answers are feebly self-negating.And then there are two essential points in the story that are so unsupported and unsupportable that it's like the Almighty Plot Hammer has been replaced with the Almighty Plot Jackhammer. At the start, Agent Hobbs' boss (Corbin Bernsen) is enraged at Charlie's escape and is 100%, absolutely, totally and utterly committed to tracking Charlie down and bringing him to justice. T hen when Hobbs brings him the tip about Charlie being in Tijuana, his boss not only completely disregards it but actually calls off the whole search for Charlie. And at the end, when there's a literal Mexican standoff between the FBI, the Garza crew and Damon's team over Charlie, the cold blooded mercenaries and the Mexican gang simply quit and walk away. Now, maybe you can explain the mercenaries walking away because the risk is not worth what they've been paid, although writer/director R. Ellis Frazier clearly thinks Damon making that decision is a big deal even though Frazier's done nothing in this film to justify such importance. But Gabriel Garza is facing the murder of his older brother and the destruction of his family…and he merely says "Screw it" and gives up? What?I've noticed that each new generation of filmmakers is better and smarter at how movies look and sound and are edited and all of those technical questions. Simultaneously, they're getting worse and dumber about the most basic elements of storytelling. The result is movies like Across the Line: The Exodus of Charlie Wright that are great on first glance but fall to pieces if you think about them for 5 seconds. This is not worth your time.

Aidan Quinn has run off with a couple of billion dollars of ill-gotten money and is living in some shabby dump in Tijuana, of all places. Three agencies are out to get him and/or recover the loot.One is a gang of bald-headed thugs, the leader with Lee Van Cleef eyes, all of whom are professional mercenaries. They simply want to get some of their client's money back, preferably with Quinn left underground. The second is a lone agent of the FBI. The third is a Mexican gangster who owes to some illegal organization as much money as Quinn stole, plus some. Everyone seems desperate to get their hands on Quinn and his pelf.Quinn, on the other hand, is in search of a woman he loved years ago in Tijuana. She's now dead but she left their daughter behind. The daughter has emigrated to the states and is now in college.This kind of story has a good deal of potential. For one thing, there's the cast. Aidan Quinn, whose character is fifty-one years old, looks the right age. He's gotten thicker and more frightened with the years -- and he does "fright" very well. Andy Garcia as the Godfather figure who needs to pay off a debt is older as well, no longer the handsome slick youth. He's bearded and his voice has descended into a resigned growl. Luke Goss leads the gang of thugs from the states. He's got those Lee Van Cleef eyes and he acts as if he knows precisely what he's doing. The older man who hires him is excellent too, a little reminiscent of William Hickey.And in fact the writer/director has given the viewer a couple of refreshing surprises. Yes, there's a car chase, but it doesn't amount to much. And there's a wild shoot out between Goss's goons and the gang hired by Garcia, but there's little blood.But here's a treat. Near the end, all three agencies after Quinn and the loot find themselves in the mercado in a Mexican stand off, so to speak. Everybody has guns pointed at everybody else, except for the quivering Quinn. The guns are cocked and ready to go. Moments of jaw-clenching tension pass. Then everybody says to hell with it, holster their guns, and let the FBI agent walk away with Quinn. How could the writer/director have let this opportunity pass? There should have been fountains of blood and brains all over the market place. Quentin Tarentino certainly couldn't have let it go by, but Frazier has, and good on him.There are also moment of low-key but extremely human pathos. A Tijuana whore who befriends Quinn and puts him up, begs him to spend the night with her because she's horrified that she's now middle aged. Customers have grown few. She sobs at the "wrinkles." It's not the kind of thing you expect to find in a cheap thriller.But the story is almost undone by its own excess. It's a tale about making up for all the harm you've done to yourself and to others -- about guilt and absolution, which can be found even in death. It's all spelled out in the end, especially noticeably in the dying Quinn's flowery philosophy as he sits in a beach chair. The viewer who has made it this far -- without changing channels and looking for more gore -- already knows this.And the photography of Tijuana and environs is sublime, except that the camera wobbles all over the place far too often. Even a static high shot of the bullfighting ring -- vast and empty except for a tiny car in the center and a few fluttering birds -- wobbles. Note to Frazier: At least one viewer, chiefly me, is getting mighty tired of bald thugs and wobbling cameras. And unless Quinn has an MFA from Yale, he ought to be conducting an inner narrative in the demotic, the parlance of the common man. Ordinary language CAN be moving if it's handled properly. Look at Terry Malloy in "On The Waterfront."

With no other reviews of this film at present, I guess I'm working without a net but I'll give it a try. I'll let the pre-provided summary above handle the plot description and move directly into the film itself, which I could best describe as a somewhat "artsy" crime drama, (and I mean that in a good way.)Filmed mostly in Tijuana, it takes wonderful advantage of the various atmospheres and the smaller sets were also extremely well chosen for realism and visual interest. There are some action sequences but the film is not particularly violent nor "action" oriented, there are numerous personality conflicts and those are what mainly propels the story through the urban Mexican landscape, providing tensions which are occasionally punctuated by violent confrontations. The players put forth a fine effort in delivering a multi-layered plot which is interesting enough to hold our attention but only barely, it's that type of movie that if you wander away from it for a few minutes, you may not care if you return to finish it. The story-line is littered with implausibilities which in themselves are not deal-breakers, for instance: the quandary of how to arm a foreign hit-squad traveling over the border is beautifully handled by the artifice of having the weapons cached in a pit in a field for them before they arrive but when recovering them, the squad parks about eighty feet away and unnecessarily carries the weapons back to their van in plain view of the surrounding buildings instead of parking right next to the pit and blocking the view of the transfer with the van.But if it's not going to be uber-realistic like Traffic or testosterone driven like Die Hard or mentally intense like The Usual Suspects or absolutely drip atmosphere like The Godfather or Once Upon a Time in New York or be over-the-top like Kill Bill, it does need something to hook us into it and really hold us there. For me, ultimately that turned out to be the scenery but I don't think that they were actually trying to make a travelogue.As a kiosk/netflix rental there is enough to recommend here, some great scenery and vignettes, very solid acting, some very good twists and a great score and while the whole may not quite be the sum of the parts it is still a decent enough crime flick. Looking over reviews of the writer/director's few earlier works it appears he is quickly maturing and there is a lot of potential here, to be certain. His eye is excellent but the story is just a little too clichéd, I'd really like to see his considerable talents utilized in a better story. I would like to see what he, the cast and crew could do with a story that has more impetus, like Man on Fire. I may seem a little harsh because there are no other reviews and I'm trying to cover everything alone; so do your duty - go out and rent it and write an accompanying review.