Broken City (2013)

This movie is a ridiculous mess . The script was awful , made no sense , left plot lines hanging. Horrible waste of actors I like. That being said, only Crowe made an effort in this stupid movie and it wasn't very much of an effort . Walhberg is an alcoholic who stopped drinking 7 years ago , he breaks with his wife--with absolutely no groundwork laid for this breakup , they seemed very much in love until the breakup, and he just starts drinking. No one says anything about it , he handles the alcohol fine , and we never see the wife again and she doesn't seem to entire Walhberg's mind. It's so stupid that I can't even go into all the things that don't make any sense. Just save your money and see something else , this will just make you mad.

Fmovies: This is a movie that is much less than the sum of its parts. Good cast, good director, both completely undermined by a Godawful script. I sat through the whole thing hoping it would get better, even though it revealed its awfulness within the first ten or fifteen minutes, but no such luck ... it just descended into further levels of horrible until it finally fizzled out with a whimper.

The plot is a mishmash of elements from other, superior movies -- cop with a vigilante bent, corrupt mayor, blackmail, plucky Girl Friday, double-crosses, incriminating documents being shredded, blah blah blah - - with extra subplots (girlfriend seduced by showbiz, father-son conflict, gay marriage) thrown in for good measure, except they don't advance the story or humanize the characters one bit. The script is full of expository dialog (most irritating rookie-screenwriter habit ever), improbable twists, clunky edits and plot holes you could park a semi truck in.

This one might be worth seeing on DVD, especially if you can make up a good drinking game to go along with it -- take a shot for every plot hole, perhaps? Or every slip of Russell Crowe's questionably-Queensy accent?

First of all whats with the title of the movie? its catchy but hardly bears any relevance to the story. The plot and the screenplay are just good for a detective show on the television. Even when it tries to pack some thrill, the plot is so obvious that you can almost make out what has really happened. performances from Wahlberg and Crowe are decent although we have seen better from them. Catherine zeta Jones is absolutely wasted. when you watch the movie, you get a feel that you have seen this before as there's hardly anything new to offer. overall watchable once you start watching it but why should you in the first place? give it a miss. you wont miss nothing.

Broken City fmovies. Broken City has many flaws, yet I was still surprisingly entertained the entire way through. Russell Crowe was the highlight of the movie, not a surprise, as he's one of the best actors of his generation. Mark Wahlberg was pretty good too, although he wasn't very likable. An election's happening, Crowe is the dirt bag of a mayor, and an election's coming up. Although it seems Crowe was supposed to be the bad guy, his opponent wasn't likable at all, and I was rooting for the corrupt mayor the entire time. The supporting cast in general wasn't spectacular, although Kyle Chandler plays his part well. The film was written averagely, the story wasn't that great, and the direction was simple, yet as I stated earlier, I had a good time.

Broken City (2013)

A familiar zone that gets freshened up with a fast plot, some great acting, and a series of twists that never ends.

At first this seems to be a cop story, then a cop story involving the mayor as he runs for office. The mayor is played with such conviction and charm by Russell Crowe you end up rooting for him even as the plot clearly turns against him. But more important is the cop, vilified and with dubious ethics, played by Mark . He's tough, easily duped, and eventually principled—depending on what your principles are.

Beyond the plot (which I'll get to) and the clashing of big personalities (which works), what makes this movie tick is how well it's made. Those prosaic things like editing and photography really meld and take on a force that sucks you in without exaggeration or affectation. It's a straight ahead film in many ways, but invested with intensity and solidity enough to make it really commanding, despite some holes in the plot.

Why the unfavorable response by so many? This might be helpful before diving in. The key is some kind of believability. Wahlberg plays a troubled cop in a troubled relationship (which is a cliché of these kinds of movies), and then becomes a low level detective taking sneaky pictures of adulterous situations. And as a photography myself I have to say this part of the movie is rotten stupid—the way he hides is one thing (bad) but the way he uses his camera is just silly. And getting results (which we are told about later) that are impossible given what we were shown earlier.

Then there is the motivation behind it al, which I can't reveal (and which won't be clear until the end, if even quite then). Since the movie has no real tricks up its sleeve, it depends on a convincing series of events, which it doesn't quite have. The events taken one by one are bold and well done, sometimes very well done, but they don't quite accelerate into a coherent, gripping plot.

For those who watch movies for what happens (the action, the plot), this will be a struggle. But if you also get into the ambiance, the acting, and the visuals, you might give it a shot. I watched it straight through and was interested all along. Maybe I kept holding out hope that it would gel by the end (it does not), but if that's what it takes to watch it, give that a try!

Greetings again from the darkness. The best Political crime dramas are complex films with multiple intersecting sub-plots, filled with stylish mis-direction and intense wordplay and back-stabbing between good guys and bad. What doesn't work is obvious. Especially obvious to the point where the audience is way ahead of the earnest, but clumsy protagonist. Luckily for director Allen Hughes (working solo without his brother Albert for the first time), he has stacked the film with a wonderful cast which makes it somewhat entertaining despite its major flaws.

Mark Wahlberg plays (what else?) a streetwise guy/cop/detective who tries to do the right thing but always seems to end up with the short straw. Russell Crowe is in fine form as the megalomaniac NYC mayor who plays dirty, but knows how to sell his stuff to the people ... even as he schemes to do great wrong. Their paths cross twice and neither time turns out so great for Wahlberg.

As for the rest of the cast, Barry Pepper is miscast as Crowe's mayoral opponent; Jeffrey Wright is intriguing as the Police Commissioner seemingly playing both sides against the middle; Catherine Zeta-Jones is Crowe's most unhappy and disloyal wife; Kyle Chandler plays Pepper's campaign manager (and evidently more); and Griffin Dunne is a rich Crowe supporter and knee deep in the evil scheme. Also interesting is Alona Tai as Wahlberg's wise-cracking assistant.

While no details will be spilled here, there is a fun exchange during the debate between Crowe and Pepper, and well, the movie is just at its best when Crowe is on screen. Wahlberg's character is pretty much the same he has played a dozen times prior, but it seems the real issue is with first time screenwriter Brian Tucker. He is just overrun with ideas and because of that, most go undeveloped. A script clean-up from a screen veteran could have turned this one around. Still, if you have seen all the Oscar nominated films and are looking for a watchable January release, you could do worse. Just try not to think too much!