2 Guns, the new action-packed Denzel Washington and Mark Wahlberg joint, is now playing in theaters across the country. Two of our writers, being the dedicated cinephiles they are, attended a screening and decided that an informal discussion might lead to more interesting places than a traditional review. What follows is a transcript of the conversation between Sam Fragoso and Andrew Johnson. Do you agree with their take on the film? Contribute to the discussion in the comments section below!
Andrew Johnson: Sam, I’m looking forward to seeing what you thought of 2 Guns. Before we begin, however, we should clarify that this is not a sequel to a movie called Guns. It’s just a movie with an awful title.
Sam Fragoso: I appreciate the clarification, though my biggest concern is what they intend on naming the inevitable sequel.
Johnson: 2 Guns 2 Bullets? 2 Guns 2? 2 G2ns?
Fragoso: I went with my dad. He suggested 2 More Guns.
Johnson: That would be fine, because it would make as little sense as this one. There are far more than two guns to be found in this movie. It’s like Universal wants you to think that buying a ticket gets you dozens of extra guns for the price of two! What a bargain!
Seriously, though, is it weird that we’re seeing a summer movie in which the heroes use good ol’ fashioned marksmanship to save the day? There are no superpowers, giant robots, or mutant abilities to be found here. Just Mark Wahlberg, Denzel Washington, and their trusty sidearms. Is it just me, or does this movie actually feel somewhat fresh despite the fact it’s basically two hours of every crime movie cliché ever?
Fragoso: Within the context of what this batch of summer movies has had to offer, you could make the (very slight) case that 2 Guns is fresh. But you hit the nail on the head with that last remark: 2 Guns truly is “two hours of every crime movie cliché ever,” except unlike the films it’s taking from, the routine gets old fast.
Johnson: If you’re referring to the plot, you’re absolutely right. This movie finds undercover DEA agent Bobby Trench (Washington) and undercover Navy intelligence officer Marcus Stigman (Wahlberg) forced to team up after they stage a heist to bring down a cartel leader that goes horribly wrong. They inadvertently end up stealing from a third party, and it all goes to hell from there. Do you think the two of them will be able to overcome their differences and become a good crime-fighting team? Will there be double-crossing and a quirky Big Bad with a penchant for violence? Or could our heroes perhaps find themselves in a race against time?! If you don’t know the answer to those questions, you probably don’t watch many movies about “good guys” chasing “bad guys.”
Formulaic story beats aside, however, I actually enjoyed 2 Guns more than I expected. Washington and Wahlberg have good chemistry, and the script provides them with some decent banter to throw around between scenes of robbery, gunplay and back-stabbing. I also think Blake Masters’ screenplay is far more interesting than its execution. There’s a melancholic and very cynical story about relationships and the inherent corruption of institutions underneath all the clichés. But like most big-budget mainstream films, that gets pushed to the side to make way for more violence and explosions. Because who needs character development when you’ve got fireballs and Paula Patton’s boobs, right?
Fragoso: We’re on the same wavelength here. Washington and Wahlberg remind us why they’re the stars they are today: Charismatic, cool, and collected, the two harmoniously play off each other. As for Masters’ screenplay, it definitely has potential (though most of it is untapped). Whether these concepts failed to be explored due to the talented and beautiful Paula Patton is up in the air. Her clandestine relationship with Washington is marginally interesting, but again suffers from a script that insists on telling us how to feel, instead of showing us why we should.
Johnson: All we know about Deb (Patton) is that she and Bobby have a history, most likely a failed marriage. Masters gives her a fantastic character quirk where she keeps removing and putting on a ring, as if she wants to believe they’re meant to be together but is constantly challenged by the reality that they’re not. There’s also a repeated bit of dialogue about their inability to love each other as much as they meant to, which may be the most tragic line of any mainstream film this summer. 2 Guns seems to want to really dive in and take the assumption of most movies like this–that individuals are inherently good and can prevail over inherently evil structures — to its logical conclusion. Every time these characters want to trust something other than “the guy next to you,” it ends up biting them in the ass. Politics, organized crime, law enforcement, even marriage — they’ll never live up to what they’re meant to be!
Fragoso: How optimistic!
Johnson: I’m going to go cry in a corner now.
Fragoso: I will say, as I walked out of the theater I began to draw comparisons to other movies. The films of Walter Hill, any buddy-cop picture, and most of the leads’ respective filmographies all came to mind. However, the one movie that kept popping into my head was Tony Gilroy’s Duplicity.
Johnson: Can you elaborate on how this movie made you think of Duplicity? I’m not sure I see the connection. Though this movie does have a lot of duplicity in it! And they decide to Roberts a bank and end up Owen the cartel money!
Fragoso: I didn’t know I was talking to Will Goss.
Both films deal very much with the conceit of trust — or rather, a lack of trust. The main characters in both movies constantly appear to either be getting played, or playing someone else. Unfortunately, I think in the case of 2 Guns the only one being played is the audience. It’s essentially Duplicity with more guns, less intrigue, and zero originality.
Johnson: I think Duplicity really goes further with that theme than most movies. It asks whether individuals can be trusted or if everyone is ultimately just a pawn of larger corporate interests, which is arguably even more cynical than this film. 2 Guns takes the usual quasi-Marxist approach, acknowledging that while institutions may be corrupt, the individuals they exploit can ultimately band together and take them down, usually through violence.
Fragoso: Could you see this film really taking any other approach? Hollywood knows that playing it safe, relying on bloody and thrilling action set pieces and witty one-liners will please most people who step into this movie. Hell, it pleased me from time to time. The key difference with 2 Guns when compared to other Hollywood fare is that I think Masters’ script has aspirations that surpass what Hollywood is usually willing to produce and distribute. This may be the wrong venue for the type of institutional cynicism 2 Guns is projecting.
Johnson: Oh, definitely. It’s a very pessimistic movie, but pessimism typically doesn’t sell tickets, so the final act goes down exactly as you’d expect, with bullets somehow managing to cosmically right all wrongs. We can discuss spoilers in greater detail later on, perhaps, but for now, let’s move on to some of the film’s more surface-level pleasures.
Honestly, I’d be willing to recommend this movie on the strength of the performances alone. Edward James Olmos plays a stock villain, but he chews the scenery so well I didn’t care he’s a cardboard cutout. He also has far more screen time than I expected. I appreciated that Masters didn’t take the easy route and write him out of the film when the opportunity presents itself, instead developing his character into a threat equal with that of the DEA and the Navy. I also think Bill Paxton deserves recognition for his efforts. He’s playing the type of villain that’s become all too familiar — the ice cold killer who doesn’t hesitate to use horrific violence to get the information he needs — but he’s doing his best to hold our attention. Sure, this movie doesn’t fully succeed, but the performers involved are all trying really hard.
Fragoso: So the film receives an A for effort and a C for quality?
Johnson: That sounds about right. Did any of the comedy work for you? I’ll admit, I was ultimately won over by some of the dark humor. There’s a scene in which Marcus engages in some gunplay that would make PETA squirm but that comes from a place of compassion that convinced me Masters is clearly a writer to keep watching. It’s a scene that not only communicates an important character trait (Marcus is a fantastic marksman), it also foreshadows a major death and hints at some of the thematic territory the film will be delving into. Intentions versus results, that sort of thing.
Fragoso: Just about all the comedy worked for me. It should be noted that this film would be absolutely unbearable if it weren’t for the presence of Wahlberg and Washington. They at least make every picture they’re in entertaining. And for the record, the scene you described is dynamite.
Johnson: Unfortunately, there was no mid-credits stinger to suggest there will be a sequel starring Jason Statham. 3 Guns!
Fragoso: Statham is probably booked, what with Fast & Furious 45 and more manic action films that all feel like the same rote and recycled movie.
Johnson: Also, though I think overall Baltasar Kormakur’s direction fails a more ambitious script, the man does have a pretty decent grasp of how to shoot action. I’m thinking specifically of the chase sequence that culminates in a game of chicken. It’s frenetic nearly to a fault — almost incomprehensible — but I clearly grasped the geography of everything and there are some well-timed comedic beats. There’s nothing spectacular on display here, but it’s also better than a lot of what we find in multiplexes these days.
Fragoso: Everything you’ve mentioned is spot on, but I think constantly comparing 2 Guns to what this lackluster summer has had to offer is ultimately an exercise in futility. Kormakur’s film is passable at best. The reality is you could make a film about two old men in a retirement home salivating as they watch paint dry and that would probably be better than a lot of what’s in multiplexes today.
Johnson: 2 Guns 5: Hospice Havoc!
I still think Masters’ script has enough strengths to be noteworthy beyond whatever else is in theaters this summer. Let me put it this way: While I hate our cultural obsession with sequels, I’ll admit, if our jokes were to manifest into reality and we get 2 Guns 2 Furious in a few years, I don’t think I’d mind too much. There’s enough strong stuff here (or at least, on the edges trying to get through) that I’d be curious to see what Masters could accomplish with a second chance.
Fragoso: I think that just about covers everything. Anything else you’d like to touch on?
Johnson: Do you want to talk about the ending?
Fragoso: Let’s go for it.
NOW ENTERING SPOILER TERRITORY
Andrew Johnson: I think the ending to this movie is a perfect summation of the cognitive dissonance between what the film seems like it wants to be versus what we ultimately get. It’s a great set up: representatives from three corrupt institutions, fighting over a bunch of money in Mexico. The whole movie up to this point has been about how the systems we trust to protect us from socio-political evils end up perpetuating the injustices they’re designed to fight, mostly because of good old fashioned greed. Thematically speaking, it seems like that would be the perfect place to leave things. Let Bobby and Marcus walk off into the sunset, free men, while everyone else is left fighting over the millions they leave behind. Individual brotherhood triumphs over flawed institutions.
But that’s not a very explosive finale, so we’re left with Bobby and Marcus becoming like the people they’re fighting, using violence to get their way. And sure, they destroy the money, but not all of it. They’re not that selfless! The ending transforms them not into victorious individuals, but just another faction fighting over cash. At the end of the day, I guess we all want to bemoan the evils of “the man” but still reap their rewards.
Sam Fragoso: So basically you’re saying 2 Guns likes to have its cake and eat it too, and then the next day steal someone else’s cake and eat that one too?
Johnson: Yes! Because friendship and family are great, but only if you can have a few million slices of cake!
Fragoso: It all makes sense now.
Johnson: I’d much rather have seen an alternate ending in which Edward James Olmos unleashes his bulls and Bill Paxton takes out a deck of cards and does what he does best, and they all die slow, agonizing deaths in the name of some green pieces of paper. Give the audience the violence it wants, but stay true to the “message” we’ve been getting until that point.
Fragoso: The fact that the film didn’t create such an ending makes me think that Masters and Kormakur aren’t exactly sure what that message is.
Johnson: Whether this is the ending Masters intended or the one the suits demanded, we’ll probably never know. But one thing’s for certain: it’s messy.
The final scene also implies that Bobby and Marcus may be preparing to rob another one of the banks used for secret CIA dealings. Has this become a philosophical battle for them? Are they going to continue pissing off the people with the power just because it’s the right thing to do? To what extent is the money just the icing on top of the cake we mentioned earlier? The fact Bobby didn’t blow up all of the $43 million makes me unsure of whether to see them as populist heroes or common criminals.
Fragoso: Again, I think the philosophical battle you’re describing is just that: your description. It’s certainly there, but 2 Guns isn’t contemplating whether its protagonists are “populist heroes” or “common criminals.” The only thing on the mind of 2 Guns is the future, and how they can elongate this storyline into a lucrative franchise. For the record though… they’re common criminals.
Johnson: Well, maybe not common. Marcus does take down a helicopter with one shot. Are we sure he’s not related to Hawkeye? Oh wait, I think I just figured out how they’ll make this a long-running franchise…
Coming in 2018: AVENGERS PHASE 3: 2 GUNS 2: PAPI’S REVENGE!