|
 he
Gunman" is an independent film that follows
Detective Ben (Sean Patrick Flanery), a father and
husband who works for the Austin Police
Department's Missing Children's division. Ben's
life comes crashing down when his wife falls prey
to a child predator, and his daughter Cassie (Emma
Nicolas) is left traumatized. Life doesn't get any
better: Ben is subsequently partnered up with the
inexperienced Daphne (Joey Lauren Adams), who
seems to have gotten her Detective's badge based
on the legendary qualifications of her
often-talked about cop father. The duo's first
case together is to catch a masked vigilante
running around
Austin
offing pedophiles. Actually, no one seems
especially interested in catching the serial
killer except Daphne. In fact, the cops are so
disinterested that they have even
"forgotten" to take fingerprints at a
couple of the crime scenes.
Doesn't sound like half a bad
movie, right? Unfortunately for second-time
director Millican, the execution is not there. For
a movie about a serial killer, "The
Gunman" is completely devoid of the grit and
dirt one expects from a movie with such a premise
and subject matter. The film's tone is all wrong,
and Millican's film looks and feels more like a
Lifetime Original Movie (and in fact, the film's
original title "A Promise Kept" would
seem to indicate it was always headed for such an
arena) instead of an edge-of-your-seat thriller.
Every serial killer movie doesn't have to take
after David Fincher's "Seven", of
course, but the fact that "The Gunman"
is so tonally "off" does present a
jarring obstacle.
Which brings me to my biggest
problem with the film: I
was looking forward to it. Although that might
not mean a whole lot to you, let me assure you
that I don't say it flippantly. I have been
hunting for "The Gunman" for years. As a
big fan of Sean Patrick Flannery (the guy's turn
as young Indiana Jones all those years ago on ABC
simply made me a lifelong fan, what can I say), I
was predisposed to like the film (see my review of
"Demon
Hunter" for proof). So it would have
taken a great deal of effort or quite a bit of
carelessness on the filmmakers' part to make me
dislike "The Gunman". Alas, it was not
meant to be.
"The Gunman" is a
confused and unsatisfying mess, hindered terribly
by amateurish scriptwriting mistakes. There is a
major plot twist at the end that should have been
a major revelation (which has nothing to do with
the identity of the vigilante), but Millican, in
his infinite wisdom, sells out on the twist less
than 10 minutes into the film. Why? I can't
possibly fathom or even hazard a guess. As well, I
easily guessed the identity of the vigilante the
first time he showed up onscreen to match karate
chops with a pedophile. You can hide the killer in
a mask and bodysuit, but there are certain
characteristics in a walk, a punch, and a kick
that you simply cannot hide. Once you have
distinguished an important trait of the vigilante,
you will be left with only two possible candidates
-- and one is easily crossed out. I will say no
more.
I do not mean to be harsh on
Millican and company, as they clearly seem to be
attempting something substantive with their film.
The premise is intriguing, the casting is solid
(with the exception of Joey Lauren Adams, whose
squeaky voice is hard to take seriously as coming
out of a police Detective's mouth), but "The
Gunman" is, in the end, torpedoed by
questionable choices. The fault lays with
writer/director Daniel Millican, the man
responsible for making those choices. "The
Gunman's" lack of a budget notwithstanding
(as there are plenty of good low-budget films out
there, and Millican, while lacking resources, at
least had a tremendous lead in Flanery), this is
an embarrassing misfire. I am doubly disappointed
that a film I was so looking forward to would fall
so flat.
|
