Bush­wick

The pan­dem­ic of extend­ed, sin­gle-take track­ing shots con­tin­ues to exert its stran­gle­hold over mediocre action cin­e­ma. No longer the pre­serve of inno­va­tors like Alfred Hitch­cock, Orson Welles, or Mar­tin Scors­ese, the tech­nique has become a rote flour­ish – a form of direc­to­r­i­al mas­tur­ba­tion that is less impres­sive with each exam­ple (and, more often than not, bad­ly stitched togeth­er dur­ing post production).

Bush­wick, the sec­ond fea­ture from direct­ing duo Jonathan Milott and Cary Murnion, rep­re­sents anoth­er effort to board the sin­gle-take band­wag­on. The entire film is struc­tured around a series of elab­o­rate action sequences, all of which are com­posed with­in a few lengthy Steadicam shots. It’s a gim­mick which might help to dis­guise bud­getary lim­i­ta­tions but does lit­tle to bol­ster an oth­er­wise turgid experience.

The premise sees the Brook­lyn sub­urb of Bush­wick invad­ed by a ful­ly-armed troop of domes­tic ter­ror­ists. It’s a polit­i­cal­ly ripe con­cept which sounds like the basis for a whole lot of B‑movie fun, but the exe­cu­tion is lam­en­ta­bly po-faced. The script strikes a cyn­i­cal and humour­less note which makes for a mis­er­able view­ing expe­ri­ence, while every char­ac­ter is so devoid of all warmth that it’s hard to want to invest in their sur­vival. Most trag­i­cal­ly, the dour tone proves to be a waste of burly star, Dave Bautist­sa, whose self-effac­ing wit was put to ster­ling use in the Guardians of the Galaxy films.

The root of the prob­lem might come down to delu­sions of grandeur, as the film’s ambi­tions stretch beyond its charm­ing­ly schlocky reach. Thus, the plot takes some heavy-hand­ed swings at the con­tem­po­rary polit­i­cal cli­mate in the Unit­ed States, while the final act crams in some ham-fist­ed char­ac­ter devel­op­ment. The moments of dra­ma are invari­ably hol­low and serve as uncon­vinc­ing stop-gaps with­in an oth­er­wise con­stant bar­rage of death and destruction.

Bush­wick is a film which feels fun­da­men­tal­ly con­fused about what it wants to be: is it a com­men­tary on extreme polit­i­cal polar­i­sa­tion in the US; an inti­mate char­ac­ter study; or a brain­less action chore­og­ra­phy work-out? It grav­i­tates towards all of these ideas, but nev­er ful­ly com­mits, leav­ing the entire project feel­ing mud­dled and aim­less. Admit­ted­ly, the ongo­ing trend for sin­gle-take sequences and silky-smooth cam­era work comes as a wel­come relief after a gen­er­a­tion of incom­pre­hen­si­ble shaky-cam, but visu­al trick­ery can­not com­pen­sate for a chron­ic lack of substance.