Skip to main content

Cleaner (2007)

Cleaner. Feature film. (2007, 88 mins) IMDB

...who you going to call?...

I

love the setup to this film.

Samuel L. Jackson plays Tom, a retired cop ,who runs a cleaning company, but not a typical cleaning company. His firm cleans up when someone dies whether it's murder, accident, suicide. Not the sort of job I would even contemplate, but someone has to do it.

Tom gets a new assignment. There has been a murder in a mansion. When he arrives, no one is there, but there are signs the police have finished their investigation and after all he received the new job from the police. When he enters the house, the corpse is gone, but signs of a bloody murder cover the living room and he gets to work cleaning it up.

A day later, he learns someone set him up. Framed him. There was a murder, the blood was real, but the police hadn't started their investigation because they didn't know there was a murder. He cleaned up a murder scene before they could investigate. To make matters worse, evidence suggests he has motive and opportunity to kill the victim. He's up shits creek.

The filmmakers want us to believe the motivation for this frame-up is police corruption. The murder victim was a bag man for police payoffs and was going to testify in court. Kill him and the corruption charges go away. Frame our hero and the murderer is free.

It makes sense, but we meet Tom's former police partner, Eddie Lorenz. Their relationship is stormy. Tom left the force because he was involved in police corruption--taking money, working outside the law on criminals. At first Tom doesn't want to tell Eddie what happened on the mansion, but gives in when Eddie confronts him with forensic evidence industrial cleaners were at work. The two work on solving this riddle and keep Tom from going to jail for a murder he didn't commit.

But to get to Act III, the landscape has to change. The possibilities include Tom losing his get-out-of-jail free card (evidence of his innocence), he's arrested, daughter kidnapped. (That reminds me, why didn't he go to the DA who isn't involved in corruption, or did I miss something? Oh, well.)

Then there's the other possibility. His friend, ex-partner, was behind it all. You don't need to see it unfold to know it. The clues are in place before we get to the reveal.

First, if some corrupt cop wanted Tom in jail, framed as it were, they'd be following his every move until they could make the arrest. No one was tailing him. Why? Because Lorenz was with Tom and knew Tom's every move and every bit of evidence Tom had.

Second, Lorenz isn't the cop assigned to the murder case, yet he is intimate with all the details of the case. If the investigating cops were dirty, they wouldn't be telling him what he learnt. They wouldn't share that information.

Finally, we never see the detectives except when dealing with Tom. The movie keeps its focus on Tom the whole time. The POV doesn't shift away from him.

Finally, finally, Vargas is so one-sided--mean and vicious, that it's over-the-top. If you really wanted to keep us guessing, tone it down. Add subtly.

Given the premise the filmmakers were working with, they could have gone in so many other directions. Personally, I wanted to learn more about cleaning up the bodies.

There's a pat-the-dog scene early in the film. Tom, as boss in his office, meets with one employee who came to him troubled because he can't handle the work. It's too distressing and he wants to quit. Our hero shows compassion, won't let him quit and gives him other assignments. Pat the dog.

To show our hero is fastidious, he arrives home after work and promptly hangs his set of keys on a hook near the door. There are three hooks. He uses the one with his name under it. When he puts his shoes in the closet, there is a rack where Tom lines them up like soldiers on parade. Everything has it place. It's neat and tidy. Fastidious. I guess that's why he's a cleaner.

Posted 2009/03/25 at 20h30ET in Movie Commentary.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

If Only We Could Agree

Monday, June 11, 2012 ... have you been accused of misspelling a word you know is correct ... S usanne O’Leary wrote an interesting article on her experience with the variations of the English language in different countries. You know the obvious ones like colour with or without a “u” but less obvious ones like travelled versus traveled. Growing up in Sweden she learnt English in school—the UK variation. In publishing her books, she read reviews where she was criticized for improper spelling. False accusations as it turns out. While I write tire and cozy, it’s not incorrect to write tyre or cosy. Same language. Both accepted. Just different. You can read her write-up here along with the numerous comments posted by readers. I found it interesting, but that’s me. As a Canadian I deal with this issue everyday. I feel her pain when she’s criticized for something based on ignorance. No fun. I was told by a boss that “data are” isn’t correct. It should be “data is.” Read...

Day 109: Writing a Novel—The Deep Blue Hold

Sunday, March 6, 2017 Note: Unedited writings from my notebook for this novel. Square bracket items represent added comments. At 18:47 Office ... I barely remembered anything about this story ... H as it really been three months? I guess it has. I put it out of my mind [so much so] that I barely remembered anything about this story. Not even the title. [Unreal!!!!!!] I had the general premise and an ending—enough I thought for a novel. What I lacked was a determination and desire to want to write it. Why bother… I wasn’t enjoying the process and I had no reason to believe the result wouldn’t be anything more than what’s gone before—nothing. James Piper Kitchener, Ontario Post comments on facebook page. Follow me on twitter. Posted 2017/04/14 at 14h02ET in The Deep Blue Cage | Writing A Novel

CRA & E-Filing

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 ... Online Tax Services Suspended by CRA ... I received an email press release from the Canada Revenue Agency late on Tuesday stating they were shutting down the computer that processed e-filed personal tax returns. For many tax preparers the announcement means they will have to file paper returns or wait for the system to come back on, but it could be a long wait. Until we can announce a business recovery date, the Agency will provide daily updates to the media on the steps we are taking. On the surface, e-filing a return makes sense because it is more efficient, but at present it only makes sense for simple returns. If you file a return beyond a T4 and an RRSP deduction, you can expect follow-up letters requesting original receipts. For accountants, this hassle means additional time—time that usually can't be recovered. As result, many accountants file paper returns for their benefit. What is required is a system that allows the recei...