Double Bill review: Curtis Hanson

Bad Influence (1990)

Curtis Hanson seemed to be one of the most up-and-coming directors in the nineties, directing a string of well received thrillers that drew favourable comparisons with the master of that genre, Alfred Hitchcock. Hanson is a very measured, quite old fashioned director. He's far less hip and flashy as Tarantino or Rodriguez who hogged a lot of the limelight of that decade which perhaps explains why he's a little overlooked.

Bad Influence was a big break for not only Hanson but also for David Koepp who would go on to write a string of blockbusters from Jurassic Park to Mission: Impossible to Spider-man. The early nineties saw a series of horror thrillers that were set in ordinary cities and suburbs. Some were comic like The 'Burbs, while others were serious like Pacific Heights and Single White Female. Bad Influence falls very much in the latter camp. Whereas the preceding decade had dealt with supernatural killers such as Jason Voorhees and Freddy Krueger, the nineties would be characterised by ordinary people turning out to be killers (see Scream series).

James Spader plays Michael, an everyman office drone whose crushingly dull and stressful existence is giving him stomach ulcers. He's been passed over for a promotion at work and his girlfriend is forcing him into a marriage he isn't interested in. His life seems to take a turn for the better however when he's saved from a bar room brawl by Alex (Rob Lowe), a mysterious drifter. The two become friends and Alex starts to teach Michael to take more control and become more assertive. However what starts as small bits of motivational banter quickly turn into something way more serious when Alex gets Michael high and takes him on a convenience store robbery. Perhaps Alex's “bad influence” is more dangerous than Michael thinks.

The film trades heavily on the bad boy image Rob Lowe that he got stuck with following the sex tape scandal of 1988. To be fair he gives the role his all, his square jaw and pretty boy smile make him a perfect choice for the role. James Spader, too, is brilliantly cast as Michael. Spader excels in playing these outwards simple but inwardly complex characters. There's just something very off about him.

This film's been somewhat forgotten but it actually bears a lot of similarities with David Fincher's Fight Club that came out several years later. Again, a powerless office worker happens to meet an assertive friend who helps him become more confident only for everything to get out of hand. Where as Fight Club played with the idea of the two men being separate parts of one person's mind, Bad Influence plays it far straighter. In fact the major downside to Bad Influence is that it's third act is a bit of damp squib. Whereas Fight Club I felt successfully kept ramping up the tension right until it's superb climax.

Like Fight Club, Bad Influence is mostly enjoyable just to watch the two men stick two fingers up to society's precious rules and conventions. In Freudian terms James Spader is the Ego while Rob Lowe is the Id. In someways Bad Influence is also a little bit of a commentary on the eighties too with Alex playing the classic amoral yuppie and Michael playing the more responsible nineties man.

This is a nice little unpretentious thriller that maybe plays it a little too safe but is worth checking out. Particularly anyone who enjoyed Fight Club and wants to see a similar flick or just anyone who enjoy watching James Spader.

The Hand That Rocks The Cradle (1992)

The Hand That Rocks The Cradle was Hanson's immediate follow-up to Bad Influence and it has a very similar theme. An outsider moves into someone's life and starts to systemically destroy it without the person noticing until it's almost too late. However there are two major differences, the first is that the protagonist and antagonist are female this time around, and the second is that the outsider infiltrates a family rather than just a single man's life, upping the stakes considerably.

Annabella Sciorra plays Claire, an expectant mother who accuses her gynaecologist of inappropriate touching. Rather than face the courts, the doctor hangs himself and the family move on with their life. Claire gives birth to a baby boy while the doctor's wife (Rebecca De Mornay), who was also pregnant, has a still birth. Months later Claire is trying to find a nanny for a baby boy and her five year old girl Emma and offers the job to Peyton, a homely young woman. However what she doesn't know is that “Peyton” is really the doctor's wife, bent on wrecking Claire's life as revenge.

Cradle is, for all intents and purpose, a horror film for women. Whereas most horror/thriller films deal with male issues and male protagonists, Cradle is purely about female fears; the fear of sexual assault, the fear of harm coming to your children, the fear of your husband straying; the fear of not being able to trust your nanny. It's a wonder no one thought of making this film earlier. Well actually William Friedkin did make The Guardian in 1990 which had a similar story but it's supernatural undertones proved unpopular with audiences.

The whole film is very slick and calculated in both the script and the directing. The test of a good thriller is where no scenes seem dispensable and none feel like that in this film. Every scene and character sets up something down the line. Hanson keeps the film moving at a nice brisk pace. The large house set is good but Hanson flies a little too close to the winds of cliché with their white picket fence.

Again, this film has some excellent casting. Most surprising has to be Matt McCoy (aka Nick Lassard from Police Academy 5 & 6) who is something of a revelation as Claire's husband. The top acting honours have to go to Rebecca De Mornay who creates a truly duplicitous and menacing villain. The only player to let the team down is Ernie Hudson who plays a mental handicapped gardener. It's always hard pulling disabled characters off in films, I'm not saying Hudson was terrible, just a bit off.

Cradle and Bad Influence are both about how delicate our existence is and how something very small can completely shatter it. Of the two films Cradle is the far superior film, though Bad Influence didn't explain the backstory of Rob Lowe's character (and maybe didn't need to), Cradle is all the more satisfying for giving the background to “Peyton”.

Hanson would go on to make one so-so thriller The River Wild (Cliffhanger on a raft with Meryl Streep instead of Stallone) before creating LA Confidential which is probably his best film. Since then, he seems to have gone cold on making thrillers, which is a shame as all four films show he was a master.

Underrated Eighties... To Live and Die in LA

William Petersen is an actor who has had something of an odd career. Despite playing the lead role in two thrillers by highly respected directors in the 1980s it wasn't until he was the ripe age of 47 that he finally got recognition for his work, on the TV show CSI. While a lot of people have critically reappraised one of those 80s thrillers – Michael Mann's Manhunter – the other one – William Friedkin's To Live and Die in LA – seems to still be somewhat overlooked. I'm not entirely sure why. Both films have very similar atmospheres. It perhaps helps a lot that Brett Ratner's sub-par Red Dragon, which adapted the same story as Manhunter, came along and vicariously made the earlier film seem infinitely superior. Who knows?

Anyway, To Live and Die in LA sees Petersen play Richard Chance, a US Secret Service agent on the trail of money counterfeiter Rick Masters (Willem Dafoe). When Chance's “three days from retirement” partner gets killed by Masters while on a solo stakeout in the desert, it pushes the already very intense Chance over the edge. He gets assigned a new young fresh-faced partner John Vukovich (John Pankow) and the two set out to catch Masters by impersonating a couple of shady characters that are interested in buying some of his phony money. The question is, how far will they both go to catch him?

What I love about To Live and Die in LA is that though everything is played on a huge canvas but it's really only about a handful of characters. Similar to The French Connection, it's about two people on opposite sides of the law who are the best at what they do. On the one hand you have Chance, a completely incorruptible, determined secret service agent, while on the other hand you have Masters, a completely dedicated, psychotic counterfeiter. It doesn't feel like a chase so much as battle of the wits between these two. At a certain point late in the film, both characters drop their guard which ends up being their downfall.

Another thing that's great about To Live and Die in LA is that it shows law enforcement officers as realistic people making good and bad decisions. So many other 80s action films had these invincible super-cops who go outside the law to catch a criminal but never get in any trouble for it. I'm not saying I don't enjoy those flicks, I do, but I appreciate the occasional attempt at realism. In a lot of ways, it reminded me of the TV show The Shield, which I just got finished watching recently, where the central character did both good and horrible things, sometimes in the same episode, making it uncertain whether to cheer him or condemn him.

The acting in the film is all top notch all across the board. Petersen is one of those actors who is just perfect at playing law enforcement officers. His acting style has a real intensity which perfectly suits the character. So much of the film is based around the visuals rather the dialogue so he acts a lot with his face and body. In fact, if you watch this film there is one scene where you get to see a LOT of Petersen's body but it's not gratuitous. Chance is a desperate character pretending to have everything under control and Petersen really sells it. Dafoe also completely owns his role as Masters. His offbeat-looking face and heavily-mannered voice make him just perfect at playing villains.

Pankow is pretty good as John Vukovich. His slightly naïve viewpoint really just acts as a surrogate for the audience to identify with. I like that the film didn't feel the need to make Chance and Vukovich best friends or have some tedious section where they learn to work with each other and have “banter”. They work together well from the off, they're professionals, that's it.

One of the major points of the film is the ending. It's a real kick in the face, but given the way the story works towards it, it's the only possible outcome*. In a lot of ways it makes the ending quite moralistic and conservative but I'm okay with that, because it's still quite a leftfield decision and keeps the audience on their toes. The entire soundtrack and score is composed by New Wave British band Wang Chung - whose biggest hit was 'Dance Hall Days'. It's a bold decision and the synthesizer-heavy songs do date the film a lot but I can't really imagine the film without them.

Friedkin's directing style in this got a lot of comparisons with the TV show Miami Vice. Having watched a lot of Vice I can see the similarities. It's very colourful and stylishly edited, at times playing out more like music video than a film. There's some great sequences: a fantastically colourful montage sequence of Masters making the phoney money and a very ambitious crane shot where we see Masters leave his hideout while Chance's old partner breaks in.

Much like The French Connection played out in New York at ground level away from the tourist spots, so too this plays out in the rough back streets of LA. Like a lot of 80s films, there's a very slick feel to everything. There's some great shots of the sun rising over LA casting a hellish orange glow in the sky. Friedkin wants you to know that Chance isn't just up against one man. He's up against a whole hellish city that runs on money. Also being this is very much a spiritual companion to Friedkin's earlier cop film there's another extended virtuoso car chase sequence that ups the ante with Chance being chased along the motorway while driving in the wrong lane.

If I had to pick out any bad points, it's the opening scene with Petersen taking down a terrorist bomber. I'm not sure if it's the sloppy editing or just the fact it feels like it's from a completely different film that makes me feel it should have been cut completely. Considering it's the start of the film, it's a little bit of stumble but it quickly recovers.

Anyway, To Live and Die in LA is a fantastic slice of 80s thriller action that comes highly recommended. Anyone who enjoyed watching CSI, where Petersen was on 50% power should see him in this at 100%.

* Okay, so it's not the only possible outcome. If you can get your hands on the Special Edition DVD check out the alternate ending that the studio almost insisted on using. I can see where it was going but really it would have made a far weaker film.