I was expecting something of a disaster since this is basically his least spoken of flick (at least since he got big). I can see why it didn't achieve notoriety in the wake of the movies that preceded it, which include Nixon, Natural Born Killers, JFK, and the rest of his big shit. The fact that it's not a "big" movie doesn't mean a whole lot; Stone himself says that in making U Turn, he was trying to make the sort of movie that he would enjoy as a teenager. He wasn't swinging for the fences on this one.
But even taking that into account, it's by no means a great movie. As a matter of fact, from someone that's worked on so many different things, from suspense to drama to visceral flicks, I'm kind of surprised by how unrefined it is. And although Stone was not trying to make the next JFK here, it was clear he was at least trying to create a typical suspense flick inspired by the sensibilities of contemporary cinema. For example, the movie's focus on the odd, including silly/bizarre characters appears to be a direct pull from the work of David Lynch. Much like Twin Peaks or Blue Velvet, U-Turn sticks you in a remote area where people have gone their own quirky sort of insane. Unsurprisingly, the noir-y premise sounds like the sort of thing that Tarantino would have dreamed up. I'm not sure if that's an intentional rip, but Stone's preference to use frequent jump cuts reinforces the link I am feeling. The movie also feels like a cousin of Red Rock West.
I want to say "But why criticize it for being derivative and rough?" except I am not done criticizing it. The movie is uncharacteristically ugly for a Stone movie. Taking place mostly in a desert, Stone's photography is not fit for the task--this problem also popped up in NBK, but it wasn't as dominant. Without getting too photo geeky, he has a tendency to keep a wide depth of field, which makes the movie look very muddled since there are very few colors in the desert. Stone also teases early on that he's going to NBK up the movie by using both film and videotape, but he never follows through, which is a disappointment, because I like that effect. Stone's editing is, as usual, excellent when he wants it to be.
Also, a significant portion of the acting isn't so hot. I don't think Stone is good with people when they have to play weird. Surprisingly, Jennifer Lopez is pretty decent in this, as in if I saw her in this without knowing her history or what came after, I'd say she might have a promising career as an actress. Billy Bob Thorton also reminded me that he can be a fuck awesome actor when he wants to be.
The story is a fairly typical noir-inspired suspense yarn. In fact, it's so typical that giving you the premise would give away the conclusions. Why do I like it, then? It's got a nice setting, and it feels--I will be taken to task for this--authentic, as though it is the direct product of childhood noir-viewing.
Too long, didn't read? The movie's ambition was apparently to be something of a 90s-filtered Double Indemnity. And it kind of is like Double Indemnity. Except Barbara Stanwyck is wearing several terrible wigs instead of just the one.
My rating: 112 out of Forrest Gump. A nice curiosity, and fun to play spot-the-influence with. Also it made me DL some Patsy Cline and Charles Mingus.
Oh, it also has a Morricone soundtrack, although since Stone likes using appropriate pop songs, it's not as prominent as most soundtracks. Still, it is very, well, Ennio. Although I like basically all his soundtracks, the majority of them start to kinda sound the same after a while.
