Review of Mulholland Falls (1996) by Greg L — 15 Jun 2008

I'd been meaning to buy 'Mulholland Falls' for years before I actually did. I remember thinking to myself when I first saw the DVD case that it shares half of it's title with David Lynch's 'Mulholland Drive' - so by association it must be a pretty good watch! Of course, that kind of logic is immensely fallible and could have easily led to me wasting 5 pounds.

I'm glad to report that my 5 pounds wasn't wasted, nor would yours be if you decided to buy the film.

In truth, 'Mulholland Falls' should sell itself. Or at least the all-star cast should; Nick Nolte, Chazz Palminteri, Michael Madsen, Chris Penn, Jennifer Connelly, John Malkovich and Melanie Griffith all lend their talents to this sharp tale about a group of vigilante cops in 1950s Los Angeles.

Yeah that's right, vigilante cops. Renegades who play by their own rules. Awesome. It's been done to death by now, but this film was made in 1996 (before 'L.A. Confidential') and can therefore stake a claim for at least some originality. But in all honesty it doesn't really do anything new. Think a 1950s version of Harvey Keitel's 'The Lieutenant' (minus the sleaze) multiplied by four and you get the "Hat Squad" - a team of no-nonsense, tough talking and tougher walking cops who have no love nor time for politics and jurisdiction. Throw in a touch of the camaraderie on display in 'The Untouchables' and you're getting closer still.

The film is essentially a mish-mash of multiple narrative strands that are commonly employed by the police procedural sub-genre. There's the case that needs to be solved (the murder of Jennifer Connelly's moll-esque character), the complex implications of her love affair with Max, leader of the squad, and the intrusions by both the military and the FBI, who have both taken a special interest in the case.

The violence is strong - not in the sense that there's blood everywhere - but when a fight breaks out, as it frequently does, you'll know about it. The standard punchy editing that accompanies such scenes gives a good account of the ferocious nature with which the squad goes about its business. One brilliant revenge inspired attack by Nolte sees him snarling at an FBI agent who gets in his way; "This is L.A. This is my town. Out here you're a trespasser. Out here I can pick you up, burn your home, fuck your wife and kill your dog." You'll believe him.

'Mulholland Falls' may just be one of those films that you can't talk about without talking about other films that are like it, or other films that it's like. Maybe that isn't a glowing testament to its originality, but the nature of genre breeds such comparisons. Think stylish but not as stylish as 'L.A. Confidential' (is this a bad thing, I ask?) Think noir but not as noir (nor anywhere near as good) as 'Chinatown'.

Most of the comparisons are down to the iconography on display; the hats, cars, perpetual smoke lingering in the air. But if you set a film in the 1950s, it's got to look like its set in the 1950s. The fact that Nolte's Max dresses the same as Russell Crowe's Bud doesn't really stand firm as an accusation of unoriginality.

If you're looking for a more contemporary link then maybe if you enjoyed 'Training Day' and 'Street Kings' you'd appreciate what 'Mulholland Falls' has to offer. I don't know personally, I think you would have to have at least some interest in films about the good ol' days to really get the most out of it.

As always, give it a spin if you think it might be for you. If not, don't worry about it. I bought it based on the title and the front cover, and thankfully for me it's one of those films that does exactly what it says on the tin.