Mining Value from Bad Films

Not So Bad, It’s Tolerable: Cops and Robbers (2017)

It's funny how a bad movie can somehow find itself oddly satisfying in its mediocrity. There's this strange space, when watched with total openness, that becomes a space of fascination. It can play out like a film school dud, but by being accepting of all its faults, an otherwise unpleasant experience can be endured to a point of amusement. The film may not be good whatsoever, but in order to reach this space, the ways in which it's bad have to be inoffensive, at least to personal tastes. I may be able to detect a glimmer of cleverness, charm, but it becomes clear that the task was given to a team who weren't capable of reaching any higher.

Making a film is an absolute leap of faith. It's extremely difficult. Like astrology, the stars have to align. No amount of having the right pieces, within the right budget, with the right star power can correct for the absurdity of what isn't in control, especially for less than capable filmmakers.

The film that caused me to revisit this line of thinking is Cops and Robbers. I've always embraced “so bad it's good” films, but there's typically a previous fanfare behind the film that's already "read in" on how it's so. If lucky, I can distance myself quickly from that crowd to enjoy the film on my terms as much as possible. For most, this is unavoidable. The best case example of this is The Room. Do yourself a favor and watch that movie by yourself with as little prior context about it. The joy in discovering a “so bad it's good” film is being able to discover its absurdity in real time. The more someone has seen it, the more they disservice the experience for the newcomer by blabbing about it.

With this in mind, I won't go into a YouTube style rant about how "bad" the film Cops and Robbers is. It’s a film that’s “not so bad, it’s tolerable”. A middle ground between both extremes. Discovering films like this used to be the norm, when all that was available to determine quality was word of mouth. This may sound like a grumpy old man view, but finding films to watch in such an environment deepened a relationship to movie-going that is horribly lacking post Rotten Tomatoes and Streaming. Just saying “fuck it” and giving this film a chance brought all of those memories right back. Sometimes you just picked up a so-so film and just rolled with it.

Rolling with it

Spoilers below.

The story is somewhat clever. Two brothers are separated when corrupt cops kill their dad and frame the oldest. The younger bother eventually becomes a cop. After years of supposed separation, the older brother gets out and decides to rob a bank. The two brothers are then forced into opposition to each other, as the younger brother tries to stop the robbery. What follows is multiple acts of vengeance against the cops that ruined them, that ultimately ends with the brothers’ reconciliation. It turns out that the two were in cahoots with each other the entire time. Instead of robbing the bank, their mission was to raid the retirement fund of the dirty money inside of it (appropriately convoluted). Younger brother wanted an out because he hated being a cop, older brother just wanted peace of mind. They get away. Happy ending.

Michael Jai White always “shows up” as a performer. I appreciate that. He doesn't turn in his performance when he damn well could have. Actors like this are always in low supply, and the man still doesn't get enough credit. Taking roles like this? Well, it sure better pay. The cast here has some "that guy" actors, most notably, Tom Berenger (Platoon). Similar to White, his performance is way better than what’s required. As it’s revealed he’s the villain, one of the corrupt cops who framed the older brother, it gets fun watching him treat this role with the same respect he’d show in an Academy Award title, and the film is more entertaining as a result.

There's a passivity in the kind of direction this film presents. It's often the kind of thing you see in film school. Someone has a vision and gets an opportunity. They're usually someone who's easy enough to get along with, so people in general don't have a problem following. There's always the low-key disapproval of their decisions, plenty of people who think they could do better in that position, but the credit is still being given and in this case, checks are actually getting paid. All the set-ups in every shot are "first choices" and "good enough". Sets and back lots are completely obvious. Characters behave in ways that make it clear the writer did absolutely no research on the professions involved. A lack of cultural context from a writer who's probably never exercised awareness of it (Why are two Black kids running around in broad daylight with their dad's guns?). Every woman, including the extras, are cast with the mindset: "She's hot. She'll do."

All critics who go down the logic rabbit hole are picking low-hanging fruit. The intrigue is ultimately in how illogical it is and whether it can dig itself out of the traps it set. Films like this should be embraced as a some kind of ritual in developing a stronger relationship to the film itself. Every film fan and filmmaker should always make a point of watching films like this. It teaches you why the films you love are great. It also teaches the necessary patience that every film student has to exercise when watching films by their peers (and sometimes horrifyingly your own). This shouldn't end when film school is over, and it’s more important now that it isn’t the norm.

Watching it, I’m actually surprised that it had a decent twist. The characters are likeable enough. I dare say that if this was done by a decent team, it may have even been rewatchable. Not much else needs to be said about, but it’s another reminder that even the most mediocre films have some ambition worth emulating.