Release Date: October 1, 1996
Production Company: New Line Cinema/Village Roadshow Pictures/Clipsal Films
When looking at Tupac’s filmography, I know people would often think of “Juice,” “Poetic Justice,” “Above the Rim,” and then you have two that came out after his death, “Gridlock’d” and “Gang Related.” However, there is one that not a lot of people know about and that is “Bullet.”
There is kind of an odd history regarding this film. I remember hearing about it sometime in the late-1990s or early-2000s. I had looked it up but I wasn’t sure if I got it mixed up with the 1996 action-comedy, “Bulletproof,” which starred Damon Wayans and Adam Sandler. I do, however, remember that it was listed on local TV listings for it to be shown on local channels in the after-hours like around 2 a.m. when no one is likely awake, or when shown on Saturday or Sunday afternoons. Some information had said that this was given a limited theatrical run. I could have sworn I may have seen a trailer or TV spot at some point. I will say that this was released not long after Tupac’s death, but this wasn’t like “Gridlock’d” and “Gang Related,” which were released in 1997, months after the fact.
Now I had seen this one before but it was quite a long time ago. I can’t pinpoint the precise timeframe, but I think it was around the end of the 2000s to maybe the turn of the decade into the early-2010s. I remember kind of enjoying it, but now that I had seen it again, while I maintain those feelings, I can appreciate the film for its rawness and grit, and believe me, it definitely has a realistic feel of New York’s criminal underworld that I almost felt like I was watching an episode of the 1990s police drama, “New York Undercover.”
The film’s plot involves the titular character, Butch “Bullet” Stein (Mickey Rourke) getting out of an eight-year stretch in prison and suddenly he and his friend rob a couple of rich guys for drugs. Right from the jump, he also assaults another criminal to send a message to local crime boss Tank (Tupac Shakur). Of course, Bullet comes home and sees his family again, whether it’s his parents who want their newly-released son to do something with his life, a shell-shocked Vietnam veteran older brother, and a younger brother who is an artist with ambitions but chooses to paint on walls and stuff rather than canvas.
Now the film really doesn’t hold back on the grittiness. I am not from New York, so I don’t know how true to life this film is, but it feels real with some racial tensions. This movie does not hold back on the use of racial slurs and homophobic slurs but it isn’t like racism and homophobia are key elements to the plot. Plus, it was still the 1990s when homophobia was still a little more socially acceptable, but if you really think about it, it was also to show realistic sides of the criminal underworld. Besides, it’s not like the major characters (save for one who had a crucial role) were good people. Having watched a featurette on the DVD, it was said that Bruce Rubenstein, one of the writers of the film, based some of the script on some of his life experiences. I later found out that Rourke also co-wrote the script but used an alias for his credit.
To add to the overall gritty feel, there was very little lighting in many scenes. Even in some scenes where it took place in a bar or nightclub, there was some lighting but not a lot. There was also a fight scene that felt more painful to watch than be as epic as seeing a fight scene in a martial arts movie or even an epic final battle in action movies nowadays. Here is what I mean:
But then you also have this scene where it kind of goes Hollywood with its slow motion effects and wide angle shots with the gunfire. I am amazed that this scene didn’t feature civilian casualties, yet a scene earlier in the film took place in a drug den where some addicts were shot.
However, this scene in the climax actually stood out because it showed a kind of realistic end to the titular character, as well as a different side that didn’t want to see his brother get killed. I mean when I first saw it, I wasn’t sure if Bullet would make it, but it was unexpected.
When I watched the featurette, the director said something about how the movie itself about that there is some good in some people. Really, Bullet was not a good person. You weren’t supposed to root for him at all. It was like Caine in “Menace II Society” who was a criminal who was raised on the streets and had little interest in changing his ways but there was also a character who was worse than he was that he seemed like a saint compared to him. Here, it seemed that Bullet didn’t want to see his brother get hurt.
Another thing that I should talk about is Tupac’s performance. It felt like Tank was a cross between Bishop and Birdie. Tank was as crazy and intimidating as Bishop but was also as powerful and established as Birdie. Not to say Birdie was not intimidating but he was a little more subdued than Bishop. Here, it was like a cross between the two characters. It also amazes me how given that this movie was filmed in 1994, which meant that Pac was only 23 at the time of filming, it’s heavily suggested that he was playing someone older than his actual age. Then again, it’s implied about Ted Levine’s character being a Vietnam vet when he was about 36 or 37 when this film was shot. He was probably supposed to be older. Of course, he did well in his role as someone who is shell-shocked and suffers from PTSD, as well as how the character talks.
Overall, I can see that this is a movie that is long forgotten. Yes, I know we are about three decades removed from this film’s release but even at that time or after that, like in the 2000s, I doubt people around me knew of its existence. While I do think it’s good for what it is, I don’t think it’s for everybody. It’s gritty, it’s raw, it’s realistic for the most part and that may turn off some viewers. If you can handle that, then I would recommend it.
3.75/5
e-squared's hip-hop blog 