I can sum up the positive aspect of this film with two words: Jennifer Garner. In what I am pretty sure is her first major action role since 2007's The Kingdom, Garner shows she is still a convincing action heroine. Within the rather narrow limits of the script, she gives a very solid performance. Anyone who is a fan of hers will not be disappointed with her work here.
The film as a whole, however, is very disappointing, primarily because of the lack of intelligence or plausibility to the script. To take one of many, many examples, consider the courtroom scene which supplies the supposed necessity for Riley North (Garner) to become a vigilante in order to get vengeance for the murders of her husband and daughter. We are shown only a fragment of the scene, where the attorney for the killers ambushes Riley, during cross-examination, with the fact that she allegedly is taking medication that could interfere with her memory. Without allowing Riley to give a genuine response, the judge then immediately rules her identification of the murders inadmissible, and dismisses the charges against them. Meanwhile, the prosecutor sits silently.
Supposedly, this scene shows that "everyone was in on it," forcing Riley to take matters into her own hands. The problem is that the script doesn't even make the tiniest effort to show that this is the case. How does Riley know that the judge or the prosecutor were in on it? We are never shown.
For that matter, how would even a drug dealer with a fair amount of cash sitting around arrange that any case involving his underlings would be dealt with this way? Did Garcia (Juan Pablo Raba) bribe every judge and prosecutor who might conceivably handle cases involving his people. The LA County DA's office alone has about 1000 attorneys. Then there are all of the city attorneys, not to mention prosecuutors in adjacent counties. That's a lot of bribes to spread around. Did they somehow arrange to have every case involving Garcia's organization handled by "their" prosecutors and judges? How?
A further implausibility is the end of the courtroom scene, where after Riley's outburst, the judge immediately orders her confined to a mental hospital. To put it simply, the judge at a preliminary hearing does not have the authority to confine a witness, even an angry one, to a mental institution against her will. Even the most ridiculously bent judge would surely have the common sense not to blatantly exceed his authority like this, if for no other reason than that doing so would call unnecessary attention to him.
This is all just in a single scene, about 2-3 minutes out of the movie's over 100 minute running time. I could go on and on, identifying implausibilities that riddle the script from beginning to end.
The fact that this is a crime thriller does not require it to lack intelligence or plausibility. Plenty of filmmakers make intelligent crime thrillers; Michael Mann, David Ayers and Taylor Sheridan come to mind instantly. You can even have intelligent, believable vigilante thrillers, like The Brave One with Jodie Foster. But Pierre Morel and the rest of the filmmakers behind Peppermint apparently just didn't care.
The film as a whole, however, is very disappointing, primarily because of the lack of intelligence or plausibility to the script. To take one of many, many examples, consider the courtroom scene which supplies the supposed necessity for Riley North (Garner) to become a vigilante in order to get vengeance for the murders of her husband and daughter. We are shown only a fragment of the scene, where the attorney for the killers ambushes Riley, during cross-examination, with the fact that she allegedly is taking medication that could interfere with her memory. Without allowing Riley to give a genuine response, the judge then immediately rules her identification of the murders inadmissible, and dismisses the charges against them. Meanwhile, the prosecutor sits silently.
Supposedly, this scene shows that "everyone was in on it," forcing Riley to take matters into her own hands. The problem is that the script doesn't even make the tiniest effort to show that this is the case. How does Riley know that the judge or the prosecutor were in on it? We are never shown.
For that matter, how would even a drug dealer with a fair amount of cash sitting around arrange that any case involving his underlings would be dealt with this way? Did Garcia (Juan Pablo Raba) bribe every judge and prosecutor who might conceivably handle cases involving his people. The LA County DA's office alone has about 1000 attorneys. Then there are all of the city attorneys, not to mention prosecuutors in adjacent counties. That's a lot of bribes to spread around. Did they somehow arrange to have every case involving Garcia's organization handled by "their" prosecutors and judges? How?
A further implausibility is the end of the courtroom scene, where after Riley's outburst, the judge immediately orders her confined to a mental hospital. To put it simply, the judge at a preliminary hearing does not have the authority to confine a witness, even an angry one, to a mental institution against her will. Even the most ridiculously bent judge would surely have the common sense not to blatantly exceed his authority like this, if for no other reason than that doing so would call unnecessary attention to him.
This is all just in a single scene, about 2-3 minutes out of the movie's over 100 minute running time. I could go on and on, identifying implausibilities that riddle the script from beginning to end.
The fact that this is a crime thriller does not require it to lack intelligence or plausibility. Plenty of filmmakers make intelligent crime thrillers; Michael Mann, David Ayers and Taylor Sheridan come to mind instantly. You can even have intelligent, believable vigilante thrillers, like The Brave One with Jodie Foster. But Pierre Morel and the rest of the filmmakers behind Peppermint apparently just didn't care.