Two Narcotics Detectives find themselves in an intense investigation lead by a determined Internal Affairs Detective after a child is wrongfully shot dead in a violent drug bust.
Similar titles
Reviews
Excellent, Without a doubt!!
Absolutely Brilliant!
The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.
It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.
Summary: This film is fantastic. Deserves a much better rating than it currently has on IMDb (4.7). Don't see why this movie's average rating is not at least a 7.Comments:The rare movie with an empowered, non-hypersexualized female lead character, whose humanity is the most important thing about her, not merely that she is a female. She is not fetishized nor relegated to caring only about relationships with men, nor does she need to be rescued by a "big strong man" to do all the dirty work for her. Rather, she is capable of doing anything any human person can do, but what in cinema is often reserved for males alone, such as wielding worldly power, being emotionally tough, and perhaps most importantly, simply being independent. It is not enough to merely put a gun in a female character's hand and let her shoot someone, and then celebrate the movie as non-sexist. Not if said female character is still portrayed as utterly relationally dependent on men, as usually happens in such movies. Not here.In line with this, the movie takes a far more realistic, compassionate approach to how it portrays human relationship, character, and choice, rather than the macho, male-dominant, "shoot/beat up everyone and make it better" tropes in so many other movies with similar subject matter. It actually takes the time to show the plot from the point of view of all the characters, female or male, adult or child, powerful or powerless, "glamorous" or ordinary. One example being a gunshot victim's sister. Just an ordinary kid, no reason the movie has to include her at all, but it does, because this movie cares about the human element. In this regard Badge of Honor is very reminiscent of Clint Eastwood's best directorial work, such as "Gran Torino" and "Unforgiven".
As a low-budget DTV production, "Badge of Honor" is a credible effort. It's not in the same league as "We Own the Night," "Street Kings" or "Serpico;" however, it maintains the audience's attention and interest. Its greatest strength lies in credible performances by the entire cast. It's greatest weakness is undoubtedly the incessant camera movement. I can't remember a single shot that looked as if the camera were locked down. The amount of camera motion, particularly in inappropriate shots, was frequently distracting. It also seemed a little thin on forensics and police procedures. For that matter, a large drug deal in an early scene didn't seem very realistic. The POV was also a little muddled, as at least two characters had memory flashes. Compared to top-notch police procedural films, it ranks somewhere in the middle of the herd, well back from the must-see films. However, compared to DTV productions shot in Eastern Europe starring faded action stars from the 1970s and 1980s, it's a much more rewarding cinematic experience.
... but only if you are a casting director looking to find a formerly A-list actor who has the chops but has not been getting the roles needed to show off her skills.The rest of the film is basically a clinic in how to make a sub-B indie product: 1. Pull together some actors who are slightly past their BEST BY date and will work cheap.2. Lay down the heaviest sound track you can, because everyone knows that deficiencies in the production (direction, lighting, acting, scripting) can be "hidden" if the viewer is distracted by a heavy sound track.3. Shoot the entire film in as much natural light as you can. If anyone complains, call it "authentic". Others of course might just call it "dark." This saves a lot of money.4. Speed up all the action scenes just a little, maybe by dropping a few frames here and there. This makes the action look faster and cooler than it actually is.5. (Optional) If you are the director and writer, give yourself a one-word name -- like Madonna -- so that viewers will remember your work and avoid it in the future Finally, for the record, Martin Sheen is one of my all time faves but PA-LEEZE to imagine he can still play a professional, active-duty, cop at 75 years of age almost qualifies this film as Science Fiction.
I am British, so rarely watch US TV crime series. Maybe for that reason there were some angles in this "dirty cop" drama which were new to me, and kept me watching to the end.But they were not developed as they could have been, and the screenplay was to blame. The direction, too, is mediocre with the same tired style of flashbacks to patch holes in the exposition that we see in so many direct-to-DVD movies. I think the intended ironic statement about "truth" and "honor" is indeed there, but gets muffled in the obligatory Hollywood ending.The heroine and the "redeemed" cop were too lightweight, while Martin Sheen popping up in a supporting role, and still-beautiful Natasha Hensbridge in a dispensable one, only served to undermine the intended grittiness and remind us we are watching a Hollywood movie.I am posting because I think this movie deserves better than the current 4.7 score. I give it 6, and most of that is for the storyline rather than the way it is realised on screen.