Adam and Mark Kassen’s Puncture takes two inherently dramatic concepts and can’t find the drama in either. The story takes the standard underdog-lawyer-vs-evil-corporation yarn and puts a drug addict character in the lead. But these elements are rendered inert without sharp writing, smart direction, tight pacing, and captivating performances. The Kassens never find a way to find what’s cinematic and compelling about their promising narrative.
Based on a true story set in 1998, Puncture follows Mike Weiss (Chris Evans), a high-functioning closet drug addict who takes on a case to get safety needles into hospitals after he meets a former nurse (Vinessa Shaw) who contracted HIV from an accidental needle stick. The “Safety Point” needle was invented by her friend Jeffrey Dancort (Marshall Bell) but hospitals won’t take the needle, which prevents the dangerous sticks and can’t be reused, because the hospitals are in a payola scheme with the major medical manufactures. Weiss believes he and his partner Paul Danziger (Mark Kassen) have found their big case that will take them away from crappy personal injury law, but Paul has serious doubts as the firm’s money begins to dry up and Mike’s drug addiction deepens.
Imagine a 3rd-rate adaptation of The Rainmaker and make Matt Damon’s character a drug addict and you have the outline of Puncture. It’s fitting that the story takes place in 1998 since the plot feels like a rip-off of a John Grisham novel, and John Grisham novels aren’t great literature to begin with. However, they are entertaining and feature fast-paced plotlines that will tide you over on your cross-country flight.
Puncture, on the other hand, never gets going because Mike has no personality aside from doing lots of drugs and being pretty good at law. He’s not running from anything, he’s not hiding from anything, and most surprising, the drugs don’t seem to be ruining his life too much. Mike is doing coke by day, heroin by night, and aside from the occasional nosebleed and tardiness, he’s doing just fine. If the real Mike Weiss hadn’t died from a drug overdose, you could remove that entire aspect from the character and the story would still work. The Kassens don’t know how to draw us into Mike’s addiction, they don’t show us its ramifications, and it’s the character’s defining attribute but it provides no insight into the character. The role has no emotional arc to offer Evans so his performance is contained to growing a beard, getting covered in tattoos, and sweating a lot.
Unfortunately, the drug addict angle is the only thing that differentiates Puncture from The Rainmaker, A Civil Action, the TV series The Practice, or any other legal drama where we see the smart, good-hearted lawyer square off against the major corporation that is clearly doing wrong and has the money and legal team to keep doing wrong. It’s a fair subject and it speaks to our anger and frustration with a legal system that says we’re all equal in its eyes but clearly favors the wealthy and shuts out the poor. However, it’s all been done and the Kassens needed a fresh angle to make their story work. They don’t have one.
There’s no heartbeat to Puncture. The direction is limp and drains the life from almost every scene when there was never much life to begin with. The script is as lazy as the direction with characters spouting platitudes like “Sometimes the brightest light comes from the darkest places.” I suppose that’s a more poetic way of saying “Even drug addicts can care about other people.” There’s also laughably terrible convenient moments like when Paul is about to shut down the case before the receptionist comes in and says “Mike! The senator is on the line!” or when a shadowy figure played by Michael Biehn comes in at the last minute to reveal information he had no reason to sit on in the first place.
At its best, Puncture could have been a solid if not groundbreaking legal drama with a strong lead performance at its core. But the final film feels like Mark and Adam Kassen seized on the elements of the story without first figuring out how to craft them into a compelling drama. I would like to give Puncture credit for not falling to mawkish clichés, but I can’t give it credit for much of anything.
Rating: D
Creator Ryan Murphy Reveals Details on AMERICAN HORROR STORY Season 3; Jessica Lange, Sarah Paulson, and Evan Peters to Return
First Trailer and Poster for RED 2 Starring Bruce Willis, Helen Mirren and John Malkovich
16 New Images from A GOOD DAY TO DIE HARD Featuring Bruce Willis, Jai Courtney and Yuliya Snigir
Watch: How THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY Should Have Ended
First Trailer for SPRING BREAKERS Starring Vanessa Hudgens, Selena Gomez, and James Franco
So tell us, Matt. I read your last 2 reviews of new release movies you were luckier than the rest of us to get to see, first (Killer Elite and Puncture), and was not impressed by your scathing commentary and grading. I took Roger Ebert to account for refusing to accept mobile phone video/movies as a platform for legitimate viewing – even though I disregard film critiques from a man whose only experience actually MAKING the movies he judges was a horrible sequel to a critically acclaimed movie – because of his vehement refusal in a public forum to even try to watch anything on his phone. Jean-Luc Goddard and the French New Wave realized that they couldn’t possibly continue to critique movies until they knew how to make movies, made a few, and subsequently never looked back.
It’s your turn. Aside from a writing position on an awesome blog and ability to coherently convey your thoughts via fingertips to tell readers what you think sucks about movies you’ve seen, on what experience do you base your reviews? Have you written/produced/directed/edited anything? And if so, what and where can we see it? I’m not talking about any HUGE studio blockbusters (I myself am in the process of working toward that end, and so, allow myself no ground to demand that you have, either) but on what grounds do you rip apart other people’s work (aside from occupying a soapbox named Collider)? Film Theory classes in college don’t count because – if memory serves (anyone else out there who remembers, chime in) – most books assigned as reading in film theory classes tend to be assigned by the same layabout intellectual-types whose only real experience is watching movies and coining “post-modernist” gobbledegook theories about what they think the filmmaker was “actually trying to say” that wrote said books. Savvy?
Since you used what I assume is your real name (unless it’s a clever play on Jack and Diane, in which case, bravo), I’ll respond:
First off, it’s not luck. All critics get to see movies before the general public. That’s why our reviews come out on the day of release.
Secondly, I have never held myself higher than anyone who actually makes films. I deeply respect every filmmaker’s effort because I know how difficult it is to direct no matter the quality of the final product. I know how hard it is to direct because I’ve taken film production classes. I’ve been on film sets. I know the process and I know my job is a thousand times easier than what filmmakers do. But you undermine your own argument when you criticize Ebert by saying he made a bad movie. Movies are difficult to make, no matter the final product and you either respect that or you don’t. That’s why I will sit through every movie I see no matter how excruciating the experience.
So why do I go so hard on some major motion pictures? Because they’re major. I would never grade or even seriously review a truly indie feature because they don’t have the budget, the backing, or the promotional apparatus to even compete with a major movie. I want to encourage those films and those filmmakers and point out their strengths because there’s so much working against them. But a film like Puncture, which has a movie star like Chris Evans in the lead role, is in the big leagues.
I “rip” other people’s work because I am a student of film (you neglected to mention all the movies I’ve praised). I have worked hard and continue to work hard to better understand and discuss the format. I learned from “film theory classes” and while those certainly helped (and your anti-intellectual sentiment does you no favors), I also learned from talking to other critics, reading their reviews and editorials, and most importantly, by watching as many movies I can as often as I can.
Your argument seems to stem from a misunderstanding of criticism and what it’s meant to accomplish. From your standpoint, only those who have worked in the film industry and made good movies are qualified to voice their opinions on movies. If that’s the case, then why bother talking about movies at all? Someone who truly loves movies as I do talks about them not because we want to but because we have to. We love the art form too much to do otherwise.
I understand that it’s unfair to judge the work of others and put nothing out there ourselves, but I don’t write my reviews in a vacuum. I don’t shut down the comments section or delete the comments of people with whom I disagree. If I had the time, I would sit in the comments all day and discuss movies with people who have the integrity to put their name to their opinions. Art should be critiqued and an artist who truly believes in their work is unafraid to have it discussed by anyone and everyone. Your argument not only denigrates the craftsmanship of intelligent critique, it denigrates the artist who makes their work for all, not just their peers.
“Captain America is Calling”…Will Obama Answer?: http://bit.ly/oiqdfe
The Key,
What happens when just “One” nurse refuses to work for a hospital that does not provide a safety needle that would prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, and other infectious diseases?