The first feature of James Gray already relies on his favorite theme, which is the breaking of a family and the choices that result from it.The interesting points of the script, and more generally the movie, are the complicated relations between the members of this family. The plot, serve badly by a slow rhythm and a static staging, is very weak and doesn't manage to captivate, except for the rather good ending. This is the biggest flaw of this director, never imposing an undeniable force or power to its movies.All the characters are very cold and don't convey much emotion, therefore it is difficult to feel any sympathy, empathy or disgust towards them, and that's a shame for a drama.It is to be noted that Gray, in his following movies, will show great improvement regarding his direction, which is here quite hesitant and ultimately blend, especially with the use of cheap zooms.

This is a review of "Little Odessa", "The Yards" and "We Own the Night", three crime dramas by director James Gray.Released in 1994, "Little Odessa" stars Tim Roth as Joshua Shapira, a volatile criminal who has been exiled by his family. A "prodigal son returns" narrative, the film watches as Roth returns to his family home. Though his relatives still distrust him, Joshua is idolised by his younger brother, little Reuben Shapira (Edward Furlong). The film ends, as most "prodigal son" tales do, with Reuben dying, paying for his brother's sins."Little Odessa" was Gray's debut. It's a very good drama, well acted by the always electric Tim Roth, but the film's ethnic details are unconvincing and Gray falters in his final act with an obvious, overblown sequence in which little Reuben is accidentally gunned down.Gray followed "Odessa" up with "The Yards" (2000), a crime drama set in the commuter rail yards of New York City. The film's structure is similar to "Odessa", and sees Mark Wahlberg playing an ex-convict who returns home after a short stint in prison. Wahlberg attempts to stay clean, to keep his nose out of crime, but is drawn back into the criminal underworld by a friend played by Joaquin Phoenix. The film retains the "brotherhood dynamics" of "Odessa", Wahlberg playing the "good son" who eventually turns on his suffocating sibling. Once again the film ends with a ridiculously over-the-top death sequence.While "The Yards" has a certain, smothering pretentiousness about it, convinced about its own importance (it's lit like Rembrandt, street fights are filmed like Visconti's "Rocco and His Brothers" and it's reaching for the tone of Coppola's "The Godfather"), Gray nevertheless cooks up some wonderful strokes, like a beautifully sensitive welcome-home party, a wordless assassination attempt and a fine, aching performance by Wahlberg. It's a great mixed bag.Gray then directed "We Own The Night", arguably his best crime flick. The "good brother/bad brother" motif returns, this time with Mark Wahlberg and Joaquin Phoenix playing a pair of brothers on either side of the law. Phoenix's a perpetually high playboy who owns a nightclub frequented by drug-runners and mafia types, and Wahlberg's a straight-arrow cop trying to keep the streets clean. When the mafia unleashes an assassination campaign on local cops, Phoenix switches allegiances, goes undercover and attempts to take down the mob. There are touches of "Donnie Brasco", "Rush", "Point Break", "Serpico", "State of Grace", "Infernal Affairs" and every other "undercover cop" movie you can think of, but the film is beautifully lit, is atypically straight-faced and features a superb, rain-soaked car chase.Some have suggested that Gray's trilogy should be celebrated for working in a "classical", almost conventionally Greek mould. That his conventionality suggests that all his characters are at the mercy of already in place contours, their fates forgone. Mostly, though, Gray's trilogy highlights the ways in which contemporary artists have struggled to conceive of a response to postmodernism. The crime movies of, say, Tarantino and Scorsese, are unashamedly postmodern, toying with and regurgitating clichés from 1930s Warner machine gun operas and MGM crime flicks. They aren't about "crime", so much as they're pastiche jobs, jazzed up films about crime films. As a response to this aesthetic, artists who deem themselves "serious", who rightfully ask "what exactly comes next?", tend to look backwards at what came before, as though post-war modernism, by virtue of being modernism, is intrinsically "the solution". This leads to classically shot and written but wholly regressive fare like Gray's trilogy, which essentially unscrambles the world's Scorseses and Tarantinos and puts you right back in the 1940s, minus the irony and flippancy.But you can't go backwards in this way; your audience will always be ten steps ahead and there will always be a huge chasm between your solemnity and the tired insights your film delivers. This is why true progressive works in the genre, for example fare like "The Wire", which actively attempts a cognitive mapping of both global capitalism and crime, are neither modernist or postmodern, whilst possessing the vital traits of both. Philosophers have alternatively coined this new movement "neoprimitivism", "pseudomodernism", "participatism", "post-post modernism", but the one that seems to be sticking is "new modernism".Whatever you call it, this hypothetical movement rejects postmodern nihilism (nothing matters, there is no "truth", it's just a film), actively tries to convey the complexities of our world, and covertly believes that it is possible and necessary for individuals to make value judgements, take stands, approach objectivity, and back facts up. It is modernist in its desires to "understand", "teach", "decipher" and "make better" the world, and in its emphasis on culture, society, technology and politics. The movement doesn't reject postmodernism, but co-opts its tropes and bends them to suit its aim, questioning agency, subjectivity and attempting to piece together the fragments and multiple perspectives that typify complex systems. In short, truly relevant crime films simultaneously simulate our contemporary environment of junk, noise, commerce and static, before proceeding to decode, organise and target roots. As William Gibson said way back in the 1980s, future great artist will function like search engines, mapping and making sense of the detritus. Gray goes backwards to when there was less noise.7.9/10 - Worth one viewing.

When I saw this film I was a bit bored - after all, the chief protagonist is supposed to be a hit-man, a dramatic role if ever there was one. At the same time I found myself pinned to the screen, watching an extraordinary roll-call of performance from three generations of first-class screen actors. It is a great shame that the plot is so makeshift, so flaky.Roth plays a prodigal hit-man, Joshua, who returns to the town of the title for a contract against his instinct. None of the characters, largely all suffering old, unresolved antagonisms, can help themselves but be drawn to one another on his return, combustibly, tearfully but inevitably. Edward Furlong, a truly exceptional actor in every film in which I've seen him is heartbreaking here. Roth is an empty, jittery presence and the stymied reconciliation with his mother is desperate; Vanessa Redgrave is too much actually, but perhaps it's appropriate given that she is dying. It's too miserable in the end. 5/10

I saw this last night, and on the box somewhere it made reference to being a "Goodfellas" 'ish type of movie...or something along those lines. I cant lie, that was the hook for me being as I love Scorsese gangster movies. This is an EXCELLENT film, amazing in some parts just by the acting alone. Tim Roth...does more with a stare then most can do with words. He was perfect. And after seeing this I really wish I knew of more movies if he's done them were he plays a role similar to this (other then the obvious 'Reservoir Dogs'). Edward Furlong whom I usually don't much care for even pulls off a very believable character. I wont go into detail, or outline some sort of plot. Just go rent this movie if your a fan of the gangster type movies...sorry, GOOD gangster type movies. It is an impressive display of movies not needing excessive violence, but instead great acting to build suspense, or thrills. 9/10