Street Kings" is an over-the-top, unrealistic portrayal of corruption within the police force. Setting it in LA is the only way to make a film with such ambition of distorting reality even possible. LA is heavily diverse with all kinds of people which is a good backdrop for racism and more importantly racist cops. LAPD is also a place where the police have been scrutinized and publicly shamed for involvement in corruption that resorts anywhere from murder to police brutality to not paying for coffee. And in the one track mind of David Ayer who hit it big with "Training Day"- which was a much better film, but also terribly flawed as well- just can't seem to get away from showing cops in a extremely negative light. Here he basically rips off his own film
again- see "Harsh Times". The good thing about "Training Day" was Ethan Hawke's character. He was a good cop under the wing of a corrupt cop. There was a good and evil battle there. Keanu Reeves is supposed to be that good guy, but he's a veteran of 18 years and he has quite a history of corruption. Right from the first scene of the film he's puking because, naturally, he's an alcoholic due to the death of his wife. A lot of cops are alcoholics so it's only natural for the main character, once again, to be an alcoholic in a David Ayers film. Then he goes and buys little airplane bottles of Vodka- three of them- chugs them down, then proceeds to make a routine sell to a couple of Asians who are looking to buy a Machine gun. These Chinese (Or whatever they are) are the guys he's looking for in a kidnapping of two missing persons. Ludlow (Reeves) goes on a racist tirade about their looks and then they follow that up by beating the crap out of him. Only then does he tack them down and kill them all. That's what he does: He kills people. No warning, no police procedure of any kind, he's merely a vigilantly with a badge; a cowboy in the mold of Jon Wayne.
The writing in this film is terrible. It's not even close to realistic and it paints a picture of corrupt cops who own the streets through fear and intimidation- they act the same way as the criminals do. Oh, you've seen that done before? Naturally you come across guys who cover up, set up, spree kill, kill other cops, get involved in drugs, and pretty much any kind of corruption you can think of in about a span of five days. This is made routine in an Ayers film which was okay the first time around. Now it's getting out of hand and it makes his previous films look even worse because we now see where Ayers wants to take this subject: No where. Ayers packs years and years of police corruption into weekend retreats as if it's an everyday routine: A casual drug deal here, an everyday spree killing there, and the usual torture-thing over here. This stereotypical technique of painting all cops evil is not unlike "Training Day" or "Harsh Times" where reality is not needed. You don't notice how bad of a writer someone is until they prove to you that they can't create a character that's three-dimensional or, more importantly, different. Ayers can't provide drama. He has to put his characters in the most extreme circumstance every five minutes because, when he doesn't, his films get boring with tedious everyday interactions that just don't work because they're not in any way, shape, or form realistic. If these cops aren't corrupt they're aspiring to be corrupt. The forgettable cast and the forgettable plot will probably leave smarter audience members with the same feeling I had. If I could tell Ayers something I would tell him this: "Stop beating your stupid message that corruption exists within the police force to ad nausea levels that only a Paul Haggis could rival!! Stop it!! You don't like cops! Great, got the picture." Ayers showed promise as a writer. Now he shows that he can't come up with a single original idea as his films stand on clichés, coincidence, and exaggeration. He adds nothing new that hasn't already been done- even by him. "Street Kings" depends on coincidence to drive the plot, such as a chase scene where a suspect runs through the neighborhood as Ludlow drives around the streets to find him (I think I've seen that before and if Ayers makes another movie I bet I see it again). Naturally, Ludlow is waiting for him and he throws something at his legs- looked like a chair, I wasn't paying much attention since I already knew what was going to happen- which takes the suspect off his feet as he falls into a barbed wire fence. This will also give Ludlow the opportunity to torture him by pulling him against the wire so it cuts into his skin. The man pleads for help as he thrives in pain, then gives in. Ludlow get's his answers. Not a single original idea is created. It's a work of dreadful perfection. The acting is bad, the direction is bad, and the writing is so bad it should have never been written let alone pitched, read, and then made. How did Forest Whitaker get himself involved in this? It's hard to even imagine his performance from "The Shield" compared to this hammed up, pay check cashing snooze fest. Of course he wasn't out done by Keanu Reeves and that one guy who pops in mediocre roles for some odd reason in big budget films. That dude's best acting performance came in "Not Another Teen Movie." Maybe you remember him? No? Me neither. They both were upstaged by Whitaker which shows that Forest can be a better actor than Reeves and the other guy without even trying- or at least he doesn't look to be trying.
The writing in this film is terrible. It's not even close to realistic and it paints a picture of corrupt cops who own the streets through fear and intimidation- they act the same way as the criminals do. Oh, you've seen that done before? Naturally you come across guys who cover up, set up, spree kill, kill other cops, get involved in drugs, and pretty much any kind of corruption you can think of in about a span of five days. This is made routine in an Ayers film which was okay the first time around. Now it's getting out of hand and it makes his previous films look even worse because we now see where Ayers wants to take this subject: No where. Ayers packs years and years of police corruption into weekend retreats as if it's an everyday routine: A casual drug deal here, an everyday spree killing there, and the usual torture-thing over here. This stereotypical technique of painting all cops evil is not unlike "Training Day" or "Harsh Times" where reality is not needed. You don't notice how bad of a writer someone is until they prove to you that they can't create a character that's three-dimensional or, more importantly, different. Ayers can't provide drama. He has to put his characters in the most extreme circumstance every five minutes because, when he doesn't, his films get boring with tedious everyday interactions that just don't work because they're not in any way, shape, or form realistic. If these cops aren't corrupt they're aspiring to be corrupt. The forgettable cast and the forgettable plot will probably leave smarter audience members with the same feeling I had. If I could tell Ayers something I would tell him this: "Stop beating your stupid message that corruption exists within the police force to ad nausea levels that only a Paul Haggis could rival!! Stop it!! You don't like cops! Great, got the picture." Ayers showed promise as a writer. Now he shows that he can't come up with a single original idea as his films stand on clichés, coincidence, and exaggeration. He adds nothing new that hasn't already been done- even by him. "Street Kings" depends on coincidence to drive the plot, such as a chase scene where a suspect runs through the neighborhood as Ludlow drives around the streets to find him (I think I've seen that before and if Ayers makes another movie I bet I see it again). Naturally, Ludlow is waiting for him and he throws something at his legs- looked like a chair, I wasn't paying much attention since I already knew what was going to happen- which takes the suspect off his feet as he falls into a barbed wire fence. This will also give Ludlow the opportunity to torture him by pulling him against the wire so it cuts into his skin. The man pleads for help as he thrives in pain, then gives in. Ludlow get's his answers. Not a single original idea is created. It's a work of dreadful perfection. The acting is bad, the direction is bad, and the writing is so bad it should have never been written let alone pitched, read, and then made. How did Forest Whitaker get himself involved in this? It's hard to even imagine his performance from "The Shield" compared to this hammed up, pay check cashing snooze fest. Of course he wasn't out done by Keanu Reeves and that one guy who pops in mediocre roles for some odd reason in big budget films. That dude's best acting performance came in "Not Another Teen Movie." Maybe you remember him? No? Me neither. They both were upstaged by Whitaker which shows that Forest can be a better actor than Reeves and the other guy without even trying- or at least he doesn't look to be trying.