In Security, 2013
Directed by Adam and Evan Beamer.
Starring Ethan Embry, Michael Gladis, Clea DuVall, Cary Elwes, Vinnie Jones, Ed Begley Jr., Adam Arkin and Ving Rhames.
Owners of a failing home security business resort to robbing their way through the neighbourhood in hopes of attracting clients. Their scheme backfires as they accidentally rob the house of a powerful druglord.
In Security is an odd film, one of two very different halves, due to a drastic shift in tone. What at first feels like a ridiculous goofball comedy, slowly turns into a crime film concerned with drugs and guns. You could call it a ‘dark comedy’, but it doesn’t play out that way, it seems somehow unaware of its own themes. The first half of the film is initially centred around buddy comedy, playing off best friends Kevin (Ethan Embry) and Bruce (Michael Gladis). Initially, we’re meant to have sympathy for the two as they fail to keep their home security business afloat, before they decide to rob houses in order to prove to their clients, that they need protection.
Sadly, most of the comedy falls flat. There’s the occasional grin, or chuckle, but In Security is never hilarious. In Security should be a film that is funny as a result of its own circumstances, but instead, most of the jokes are forced, written-in or a bit overdone. The concept is certainly fresh enough to warrant some laughs if done in the right fashion. However, while In Security isn’t a great comedy, it still proved entertaining in its latter half as a heist/crime film. There’s a noticeable shift in momentum as Kevin and Bruce find themselves in quite serious trouble, one that’s oddly compelling mainly due to its villain. Cary Elwes as the pleasingly psychotic Joshua really holds the film together in its final moments. He’s the perfect mix of insane, amusing and disturbing.
One thing that’s hard to understand about the film is its use of star cameos. The film features bit-roles from such credible actors as Vinnie Jones, Adam Arkin and Ving Rahmes, but only for one scene each or roughly 30 seconds of screentime. It’s only logical to assume these actors were in it for a pay check, as they seemed to have no purpose other than to give some kind of credibility to the film. It’s never wise to essentially lie to your audience or to leave them feeling cheated. This is also the case with the film’s ending, in which, we’re given a dramatic, serious climax, only to see it retconned 2 minutes after.
The film had some good ideas and a fresh concept, but ultimately it doesn’t work. The humour simply wasn’t funny, while the serious elements of the film came far too late. The unnecessary cameos left the film feeling tacky, as if it were some kind of cheap or easy endorsement, not an acting role. All in all, I wouldn’t recommend In Security. That being said, If you can make it past 40 minutes of boredom, it’s second half may vaguely entertain you.
Flickering Myth Rating - Film: ★ ★ / Movie: ★ ★