Ca$h
(2010)
Director: Stephen Milburn Anderson
Cast: Sean Bean, Chris Hemsworth, Victoria Profeta
It's probably
safe to say that all of us have fantasies of ourselves in positions
that we think are more desirable than the positions we actually are in
in real life. I think the fantasy that most of us dream about with the
most frequency is to have some sort of wish-giver like a genie in our
lives, so that every wish that crosses our minds can simply be spoken
and instantly come true. But if you have read my review of the family
movie Aladdin,
you will have seen that I have pointed out that there are some great
risks with this. What if the genie has a sick sense of humor and gives
you your wish in a manner you didn't think of, like making you fall
down when you wish for a trip to an exotic location? Another fantasy
many people have is to have the ability to live forever. But as I
pointed out in my review of The Final Patient,
there are a number of potential pitfalls for someone with this
so-called gift. What if you subsequently got stuck in a situation you
couldn't get out of, like being buried by an avalanche? Yet another
fantasy people have is the ability to have super powers, like the
ability to fly or have super strength. But as I also pointed out in my
review of The
Final Patient,
you would probably have to work very hard in order to keep your super
powers a secret. What if your government found out they had a superman
or superwoman in their population? Speaking of government, a lot of
people have the fantasy of being ruler of their country, or even the
world. This too might sound like something that would be pleasant. But
if after some thought you still think that this would be great, I
suggest you do a Google search on "The Sword Of Damocles", which should
give you a taste of the problems that can come up for any ruler.
I'm pretty sure that those positions of power that I
discussed in the previous paragraph are among the top fantasies people
have. But there's one other position of power that I want to discuss
that I'm pretty sure belongs in that same list of top fantasies. It's
certainly one that I have personally imagined myself having numerous
times in my life. And that is to suddenly have a great deal of money
dropped in your lap. Who wouldn't want to suddenly be wealthy and be
able to afford everything you wanted? It's a pleasant fantasy at first,
but if you think about it for a while, there are potential problems.
Unless maybe if you defy the great odds and win the lottery, it seems
that every other avenue of suddenly getting big bucks has pitfalls. For
example, I have heard several cases when banks have made mistakes and
accidentally deposited a large amount of funds into someone's bank
account. It makes me shake my head when I subsequently read about the
people idiotically going on large spending sprees, and when the bank
finds out about the mistake and calls the cops, the people don't
understand why they are facing time in prison. But I would like to talk
about one suddenly wealthy scenario I have seen a number of times in
movies, like with Night Of The Running Man.
And that is when ordinary people get their hands on money that belongs
to some sort of criminal element. I am amazed by how the "fortunate"
people always seem to act stupidly with their new wealth. They always
seem to lead a trail behind that the criminals are able to pick up and
follow to the person or people that have the criminals' money.
I can tell you that if I were suddenly to get in my
possession a whole bunch of money that clearly belonged to someone
else, I would immediately turn it over to the police. My parents raised
me to be honest, and movies have taught me that there is not only no
such thing as a free lunch, there's no such
thing as free money; I
don't want my fingers broken. But I have to admit that when I get the
opportunity to watch a movie about ordinary Joes getting their hands on
money from a criminal element, I immediately take it. I do like to see
stupidity punished, and see the ordinary Joes suffer from their
decision to keep the money. But maybe it's also because I deep down
want to train myself as to what to do should the situation happen to me
in real life, to make smart decisions so that I stay rich and unharmed. That's why I was
attracted to the movie Ca$h
when I came across it, and it indeed had some useful advice. But was it
entertaining? First, a plot synopsis: In Chicago, a criminal by the
name of Reese Kubic (Bean, The Lord Of The Rings)
finds himself fleeing the police in a high speed car chase after
robbing a dog track. Seeing that
the end of his freedom may be near, he throws a suitcase out of his car
while it's on an overpass. The suitcase lands below at the feet of
fellow motorist Sam Phelan (Hemsworth, Thor).
When Sam opens the suitcase, he finds it stuffed with over half a
million dollars of cash, which delights Sam because he and his wife
Leslie (Profeta, Mr.
Woodcock)
are about to have their home foreclosed due to a lack of funds. After
Leslie is convinced they should use the cash to their advantage, they
pay off their debts and spend more of the money on luxury items.
Meanwhile, the now-in-prison Reese is visited by his "troubleshooter"
criminal twin brother Pyke (played also by Bean). When Pyke learns of
his brother's missing money, he decides to go looking for it. Using
some clever detective work, he tracks down Sam and Leslie, and makes it
clear that he wants all the
money back - or else. Of course, Sam and Leslie don't have all of the
money now, so Pyke decides to force the couple to do what it takes to
pay every cent back.
Based on what I have just described above, I have a
sneaking suspicion what many of you readers are thinking in your heads
right now - that the premise of this movie isn't totally original. How
many times have we come across stories (cinematic or otherwise) about
innocent people finding cash belonging to criminals and deciding to
keep it, soon afterwards getting into a lot of trouble from those
criminal elements? It's happened before in movies (like with Night Of The Running Man), and it's
happened since Ca$h
was made and released, such as the 2014 Kate Hudson / James Franco
movie Good People.
Also, these movies are often long cat and mouse games between the
good and bad guys, leading to a climactic hostage situation. However,
with Ca$h,
it quickly becomes clear that writer/director Stephen Milburn Anderson (South Central)
is trying to shake things up significantly. For starters, the setting
up of the plot and characters does not unfold in a conventional manner.
When the movie starts, the character of Reese is already in prison, and
when his brother Pyke visits him, we subsequently get flashbacks
explaining how he got there and how his money got lost. Subsequently
after seeing how the characters of Sam and Leslie got hold of the money
and what they do with it, the movie also doesn't give Pyke an easy time
tracking down who has his brother's money. While I did say earlier that
Pyke does some clever detective work, there is emphasis on the work
part of the process; Pyke has to patiently visit one suspect after
another to track down who has the money. When Pyke does find out Sam
and Leslie have the money, about a third of the movie has passed at
this point. And while a typical telling of this formula would at this
point demand some kind of violent and/or tense confrontation to quickly
bring in a climax and resolution, that's not what happens. As I said
earlier, Pyke wants all of
the money back, and he puts Sam and Leslie in multiple situations over
the next few days in order to get every cent back.
I hadn't seen a "stolen criminal money" story unfold
like this one, so my interest was definitely piqued throughout Ca$h.
I couldn't help but wonder what Sam and Leslie would have to go through
to return every cent, and every subsequent repayment vignette of theirs
- orchestrated by the dangerous Pyke - certainly wasn't dull. Not
only is this raising of funds varied, it also happens to often have a
slightly and darkly humorous streak to it. (More about the movie's
sense of humor later.) However, I have to admit that eventually what
Pyke puts them through became somewhat absurd. I won't reveal what Pyke
eventually has the young couple do to get money, but I couldn't believe
that a professional criminal like Pyke would do this - especially since
he freely puts himself at risk with this particular avenue of money
raising. Despite this serious flaw, I did find the character of Pyke
for the most part to be a very effective villain. The script gives the
character a number of interesting (and entertaining) quirks. He
practices yoga, he will pause during an interrogation in order to take
a sip of water from a kitchen tap, puts on reading glasses when looking
at writing, and when he belts a motel clerk in the face when he's
denied a refund, he seems momentarily shocked at the sight of blood.
That last scene may explain why Pyke is a man who is not immediately
brutal and threatening - we see him for the most part trying a softer
approach at first. But on the other hand, we do get to see that when
he's insulted or not getting what he wants, he will become violent
and/or threatening - and scary. Sean Bean gives a very good performance
as the determined Pyke, giving the audience a feeling that this is a
dangerous and determined man even when he's casually doing something
like eating dinner and giving Leslie compliments on her cooking. If
there is a flaw with Bean's performance, I would say that some viewers
may find Bean's thick British accent a little hard to make out at
times, though having grown up hearing British accents, it didn't bother
me at all.
Bean's performance and the writing of his character do
make up for the inadequacies found with the other main players in the
movie. The characters of Sam and Leslie are pretty weak characters. We
learn practically nothing about them before they find the money, and
little more about them afterwards. What we do learn of them doesn't
exactly endear them to us; when Pyke enters their lives and starts
forcing them to do things, the two come across more like they are
bewildered and annoyed rather than frightened and desperate. On the
other hand, there is evidence to suggest that writer/director Anderson
intended this. After all, most other renditions of this formula do get
the protagonists in a major tizzy eventually, and I already listed
evidence that Anderson was trying to make Ca$h
different from other renditions. I mentioned earlier that there is
humor in the movie; it's humor that extends past the scenes when the
two protagonists are trying to gather money, like when Pyke demands the
motel clerk he punches in the nose to tell him, "Have a nice day"
before he walks out. While I wouldn't call this or any other part of
the movie's humor laugh-out-loud funny, it does often put a smile on
your face and get you curious as to what the next comic touch will be.
Writer/director Anderson also shows skill in the technical parts of Ca$h.
With his limited budget, Anderson eschews a more polished look for one
that is rougher; the locations are seedier, there is a more cramped
feeling in interiors, and the lighting is more subdued, among other
touches. This actually works for the movie's benefit, because I think
most viewers, who are working class people like the movie's
protagonists, are more accustomed to similar environments in their day
to day lives. I certainly am. Ca$h is
certainly not a perfect movie, but Anderson gives it enough strengths
to make it a fresh take on an old formula.
(Posted July 19, 2019)
Check for availability on Amazon (DVD)
-
-
Check for availability on Amazon (Download)
See also: Night Of The
Running Man, Route 9, Special Delivery
|