At Close Range

Because this film is violent and cruel and very sad, why would you want to see it? For a couple of reasons, perhaps. One might be to watch two great actors, Penn and Walken, at the top of their forms in roles that give them a lot to work with. Another might be to witness some of the dynamics of a criminal society, some of the forces that push criminals further than they intend to go.

At times veering toward the portentous, the film nonetheless has the relentless rhythm of a juggernaut. The acting is first-rate American realism -- gutsy, funny and scary as the occasion demands. [09 June 1986, p.79]

Relentlessly grim, At Close Range offers a frightening glimpse at the dark side of American life and poses disturbing questions about family ties. Unfortunately, although director James Foley handles the performances with skill, he also indulges in too many flashy directorial pyrotechnics, muting the emotional impact.

At Close Range is impeccably photographed, and its other technical credits are fine, too. But this excellence serves a dubious, confused cause, and on that basis the film cannot be recommended.

If ever a movie needed a modest, straight-ahead style to its telling, it's this one. And while James Foley's direction (and strong, iconoclastic casting) has resulted in a handful of indelible performances, he can't get out of his own way when it comes to how he tells his story.

At Close Range is never boring. There's something bold about the film's wealth of imagery, but it also so overstates the material of the screenplay that it eventually annihilates both it and the story, which might possibly have been moving and terrifying. This just looks like fancy movie making.

Foley has opted for a mixture of documentary realism and set pieces which have clearly escaped from over-lit pop promos. Mingle this with Penn and Walken going heavily over the top in usual Method fashion, and the brew is less than intoxicating.

This little film burns like a fuse from start to finish, thanks to intense performances from Christopher Walken and Sean Penn. Viewers who are not aware of the nature of small-town criminals — a completely different culture from big-city gangstas — might think the characters are overplayed, but they’re not. I know because I grew up in a small town and was a casual friend of several of these characters. I went to school with them and then, before I moved to the big city, knew them as young adults. Three of the guys I knew died violently. I wasn’t involved in their escapades, but they knew I wouldn’t squeal, so we lived and let live. Like their big-city cousins, these criminals live life on the edge, for the moment. The profits from their criminal activities run second to these guys' craving for the juice — the danger, the excitement of a crime in progress. For guys with a criminal mentality, this high is as strong as any drug. And in the small-town version of criminal life, everybody knows who the local bad guys are. But what can law abiding folks do? They are thrown in together with sociopaths and have to figure out how to get along. When you factor all those elements in, and honestly present them as a drama like this one, the tension comes from several directions at once and builds to a devastating climax. What impressed me most about this film was how it rang true — in how the characters conducted themselves, how they interacted, the crazy thing they did. As in small-town real life, the element that makes this movie's fuse burn the brightest is . . . family. When you mix family with criminality, and throw in some hurt feelings to add spice, you’ve got the ingredients for an exciting, original crime movie.

Movie is intense, gripping, With, you are there, realism, With a scary, menacing performance by Walken, Lots of famous faces in supporting roles.