Nostalgia is a powerful thing. Only sober, can we return to the films of our youth, and see what was what. "To Live and Die in LA" is clearly awful, but at the time, we somehow missed how clunky, and terribly written it was. So many good actors are in it, and Billy Friedkin had a rep, but now this film looks more dated than a bad silent film. The faux style, and hyper-thin cast, speaks of that decade where sex, drugs, and rock and roll died. It is no wonder that Michael Mann sued, as the film has that "Manhunter" / "Miami Vice" high-art sweaty sheen to it, when we were too slick (or too high) to know we were lame. The dialog is laughable, but so too are the actors leaping, shooting, and doing stunts that seem as everyone might have been addled. Trust me, this is a terrible film, and the one great scene should be fast forwarded to, as you will wince at how ham-handed EVERY part of this work is. As I read the positive reviews here, I am reminded why the Internet is popular. Without taste or an aesthetic criteria, everybody has their say. I would argue that if you are not shocked by how horrible this film is, that you should not be trusted to review anything beyond fast-food. As a testament to the worst decade in art within my 50 years, "To Live and Die in LA" is wonderfly AWFUL. It will remind you of a great Louden Wainwright lyric "The good old days are dead and gone ... it's why their good / It's cuz their gone!"
Review of To Live and Die in L.A.
