# Bait (2000)

### reviewed by
John Beachem

    BAIT

    Review by John Beachem

    * * *

Directed by: Antoine Fuqua Written by: Andrew Scheinman, Adam Scheinman, Tony Gilroy

Alvin Sanders (Jamie Foxx) is a small time crook who was just caught for trying to steal a bag full of shrimp (sorry, prawns). Two crooks, John Jaster (Robert Pastorelli) and Bristol (Doug Hutchison), just stole 42 million dollars in gold at the exact time Alvin was stealing his crustaceans. Jaster double-crosses Bristol when he finds out what a psychopath Bristol is, and then winds up in the slammer with Sanders. Jaster has a weak heart though, and just before dying of a massive coronary, he tells Sanders something about the gold being at The Bronx Zoo and there's no place like home. The US treasury department, led by Agent Edgar Clenteen (David Morse), is trying to track down Bristol and they decide to use Sanders as bait. They implant a tracking device in his jaw, and make it known on the streets that he knows where the gold is. Now they just have to wait for Bristol to try and contact Sanders. The only thing they didn't count on was Sanders trying to go straight so he can be with his old girlfriend, Lisa (Kimberly Elise) and his newly discovered son. Now Bristol is chasing Alvin, the government is chasing Alvin, and the only person who doesn't know what's going on is Alvin.

Like "Bless the Child", from earlier this year, "Bait" is the sort of movie that will start to leave your mind about an hour after seeing it. In three or four hours you'll most likely have forgotten the movie entirely. This isn't because "Bait" is a bad movie (though it certainly isn't a good one either), it's just a mishmash of harmless fluff that we've all seen before. Okay, fine, so we've seen it all before, but what you really want to know is if it's entertaining, right? Well, it has its moments, few and far between as they may be. Jamie Foxx ("Any Given Sunday") carries the movie with his no inconsiderable comic talent, but the film's biggest problems lie with its writers. Andrew ("North") and Adam Scheinman ("Mickey Blue Eyes") don't seem to know what kind of a movie they're trying to create. "Bait" goes from goofy, slap-stick humor when Jamie Foxx is on screen, to almost disturbing seriousness when Doug Hutchison ("The Green Mile") is on screen. Is "Bait" an action film? Not exactly. Is it a comedy? Not really. Is it a brilliant mix of the two like James Cameron's "True Lies"? Not by a long shot.

I remember seeing Jamie Foxx back on the Wayans brothers series, "In Living Color". At the time I couldn't understand why he didn't get more attention as a comic actor. Now that he has it, the only thing I can't figure out is why he doesn't get better roles. Do you remember "Held Up", from earlier this year? Of course you don't, it was in and out of theaters in about two weeks. It's likely "Bait" will share the same fate. Foxx's performance in "Bait" does have its funny moments, but I'm sure some of his better comic scenes were marred by the fact that I couldn't understand what he was saying. The man seems to have a mouth full of marbles in this movie. David Morse ("The Green Mile"), who I've always liked, turns in one of his lesser performances as the treasury agent, Edgar. It's not entirely his fault, he does get some pretty lousy dialogue, but he also shamelessly overacts for the entire first half of the film. I'm not sure why he suddenly throws it into neutral for the last half, but it was a welcome change. Last and least we have Doug Hutchison. I didn't like Hutchison as the the little weasel, Percy in "The Green Mile", and I liked him even less as the slimy Bristol in "Bait". There's just something aggravating about his acting style. As long as he keeps it tightly reigned in he's tolerable, even a little creepy. Yet the moment he starts to act angry he becomes laughably bad.

I suppose if you're one of those people who can't get enough of tacked on car chases and explosions you'll find "Bait" to be entertaining enough. If (like me) you're someone who wants a little more from your movies, you'll be disappointed time and again. This is quite a shame because the movie does have a few points in its favor other than the star. Director Antoine Fuqua ("The Replacement Killers") does an excellent job with the film's dreary script. He keeps the story moving along nicely, and uses some really interesting techniques. There's a scene where a man is tied to a chair, surrounded by a massive bomb. If anyone opens the door it will explode, and the police are about to smash the door in. Sounds more than a little cliched, right? Normally it would be, but Fuqua films it in such an interesting way that you'll probably forget you've seen the situation a hundred times before. He effectively uses slow motion in this and several other scenes, and he utilizes some wonderful cinematography by Tobias Schliessler ("Candyman II"). Schliessler uses broad, panning shots of New York City combined with some excellent over-head shots of the city at night. Fuqua only drops the ball once or twice when he succumbs to Oliver Stone syndrome and breaks away from monologues to lighting flashing through the sky for no apparent reason.

It's a shame a good star, a good director, and a promising cinematographer are wasted on this script. A part of me really wanted to like "Bait", but the fact that I'd seen it all before combined with a few bad performances, yet another rap soundtrack (I'm so tired of those I can't see straight), and a climax which destroys all the film's credibility kept me from really enjoying it. Speaking of the soundtrack, that was one of the biggest disappointments. I'm not entirely sure why Fuqua decided to set it up like this, but half the film contains rap music, and the other half (like in that scene I mentioned earlier) contains some really nice instrumental music by Mark Mancina ("Con Air"). Why did Fuqua keep switching back in forth? All I can figure is he was trying to cater to both groups (those who like Rap and those who like purely instrumental), but I think all he really succeeded in doing was irritating both sides by not being able to decide on one tone. The last point going against "Bait" is the running time. You're average film of this genre is going to run about an hour and a half, maybe 100 minutes. "Bait", for some bizarre reason, runs 119 minutes. I don't know what the film's editor, Alan Edward Bell (what a surprise, he also edited the horrible "The Story of Us") was thinking, but I could have cut at least a half hour out of this film. I'd recommend "Bait" to fans of typical, cliched Hollywood fare (there are a lot of these people out there) and give it three out of five stars.

Comments? Send to: johnbeachem@dependentfilms.net

Past reviews can be found at: http://www.epinions.com/user-elerad or http://us.imdb.com/ReviewsBy?John+Beachem

* * * * * - One of the best movies of the year. * * * * - Great flick, try and catch this one. * * * - Okay movie, hits and misses. * * - Pretty bad, see it at your own risk. * - See this one only if you enjoy pain.

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.

The review above was posted to the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due to ASCII to HTML conversion.

Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews