U-Turn Review
by "Shane R. Burridge" (s687070 AT student DOT gu DOT edu DOT au)March 12th, 1998
U Turn (1997) 125 min.
All I need to make me see something at the movies is a reason. If, for example, somebody told me that a new film of the Arthurian legends had just opened, I wouldn't be interested in going to see it. If however I learned that it was directed by, say, David Lynch, or Kathryn Bigelow, or Roman Polanski, I would have no hesitation. And I guess this is almost the only reason for me to patronise anything new now. Because new movies aren't new. There was a time when movies reflected life. Now all they reflect is other movies: a long chain of reference points that goes back to the first time a plot device was used, a camera angle tried out, a technical breakthrough discovered.
There's nothing all that new about U TURN either, another of those crime thrillers set in a quirky jerkwater town populated with eccentrics. It's the closest to a genre picture that director Oliver Stone has come to in a long while, and it is obvious that he is enjoying the change of pace (no significant 'An Oliver Stone Film' in the credits of this pic; rather he makes sure we realise it is 'An Oliver Stone Movie'). Homage, throwback, send-up, revision, call it what you will, but now even the subversion of these genres has become old hat. So what is the reason to see it? Oliver Stone. It's interesting to see how he works in the domain of film noir: for starters, he uses high-contrast photography to turn it into film blanche, otherwise the usual ingredients - the murder plot, the bag full of money, the femme fatale, the double-crossing, and the low-rent locations - are all there for us to enjoy.
>From these elements you could make up your own plot which would be fair stab at approximating U TURN's actual synopsis: Sean Penn breaks down in a small Arizona town, gets involved with all the wrong people, and ends up being a patsy in a murder. Penn has no easy role to play, but his performance strikes the right chord - even though we are uncertain about how he can deal with the tailspin that traps him, his refusal to cave in gives us some confidence that he will prevail (hey, the guy was once married to Madonna, right?). In fact, all the performances from Stone's motley cast are a delight - Penn's encounters with mechanic Billy Bob Thornton and town punk Joaquin Phoenix are hilarious, and the leading players are obviously enjoying the seediness Stone wants from them. This includes the town itself - a wonderland of peeling paint and rusting cars, it knows better than anyone what is going on around its sultry streets. Everywhere there are murals, posters, signs, slogans, books, photographs, billboards; all of which contribute to the backdrop a kind of subliminal sentience. Neither is it any safer outside the town: Stone throws in several intercuts of animals that revisit the spirit bonding and desert epiphanies he seems so fond of in his films (THE DOORS, NATURAL BORN KILLERS). All of nature seems to be on the game- or is it the joke? If the town don't kill you, the desert will. Ayuh.
U TURN marks another excursion into violence for Stone, but just as he used it satirically in KILLERS so again he justifies it this time around by dint of the prerequisite perversities of classic noir. I certainly don't find it as smug as Tarantino's own brand of violence - talented as he may be he has yet to reach the level of assurance with which Stone handles the medium so masterfully (personally I found the wilful damage to the paintwork on a Ford Mustang more distressing than any of the trauma inflicted upon human characters in the movie). Once again he collaborates with cinematographer Robert Richardson (this may be the longest partnering of director and cinematographer I can remember), and the flashy editing and switching between different grades of film stock have become trademarks of theirs this last decade. It's fun seeing it all again this time around, but I must admit to some concern about how much longer the fun will last. I wanted to see U TURN precisely for Stone's individual stamp on the work, and wasn't disappointed. But still, I wonder if some time soon it wouldn't be a bad idea for Stone to give me a different reason for seeing his films. I seem to have run out of reasons for seeing Tarantino's.
Originally posted in the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup. Copyright belongs to original author unless otherwise stated. We take no responsibilities nor do we endorse the contents of this review.
