Written by Andreas Babiolakis

Warning: The following review is of a film that is part of TIFF 2023 and may contain spoilers for Finestkind. Reader discretion is advised.

Despite the somewhat rocky filmography, I hold some works of Brian Helgeland deep in my heart. I still consider L.A. Confidential one of the greatest screenplays of all time and I will never waver from this opinion. I also consider his screenplay for Mystic River to be part of the reason why it is such an important film in Clint Eastwood’s directorial career. I’m also a millennial, so A Knight’s Tale is one of the only films — and I sincerely mean this — that I will gladly watch with rose-coloured glasses; I love this film, and I don’t care what you think. Nonetheless, with all of that apologetic due diligence out of the way, I didn’t want to come out of Helgeland’s latest feature, Finestkind, with a chip on my shoulder but I don’t feel like I had much of a choice. As much as this blue-collared thriller succeeds, it fumbles about double the amount Throughout the entire film I saw glimpses of a stronger feature mainly because — and I think my affectations confirm this — I feel like Helgeland is a stronger writer than he is a director. Even though parts of the screenplay felt wonky as well (more on that shortly), I could not stop wondering what this film under another director’s purview would look like. In the same way I feel like Aaron Sorkin can get in his own way as a director, Helgeland may be in similar company: a great writer who stymies himself when he is behind the camera.

We follow Charlie: a Bostonian lawyer-to-be who is killing time during the summer before he attends university. He is heavily influenced by his father who is a professional in the legal field. He is the brother of Tom and they share a mother but have separate dads; Charlie’s father basically disregards Tom’s existence, and the feeling is mutual. On the other hand, Charlie begins Finestkind on the dock waiting for his fisherman brother because he wants to try out life at sea on the Finestkind boat (“finestkind” is also a word, which you will quickly learn, can encompass many definitions, and the film makes sure to use it a couple of too many times). His first mission goes awry as he, Tom, and the rest of the Finestkind crew nearly die during a storm. This concerns Charlie and Tom’s mother, and Charlie’s father swears against Charlie’s newest decisions and writes it off as a phase of sorts.

As the film progresses and takes around thirty minutes to develop what it is trying to be, we find Charlie falling in love with Nicky: a local girl whose mother is heavily tied to the drug trade, and who is trying to make a life for herself to get away from this curse. Tom’s birth father, played by Tommy Lee Jones, is around but has a secret of his own which he conceals as he asks his son and the Finestknd crew (he owns the boat) to go on one last trip for him. The film spends a lot of time building up to what will actually be the crux of this narrative, which finally pops up around an hour into the feature. While it feels necessary in a literary sense, it feels like cinematic dillydallying. Moby Dick by Herman Melville is brought up by Nicky at one point, and she specifically brings up how she gave up on the book two hundred pages in (likely because these are the preliminary pages devoted to world-building before the novel really gets going). While Moby Dick pays off, Finestkind doesn’t get anywhere close to where it would need to be to justify the prolonged exposition. It’s hard not to feel a little bit sour when the film points at a classic of literature while committing the same story-building choices of a work that a main character shrugs off.

I don’t want to criticize the writing too much because quite a few moments have Helgeland feeling like he is in top form, particularly the clues that lead up to how all the numerous roots build towards a converged climax, but — and I’m not used to this — some of the dialogue felt forced which just feels atypical for a writer I hold in quite a high regard. The notion of life being what we make of it is important in the film and it is delivered in the idea (and I’m paraphrasing the quote that is often repeated in the film) that we live in between the moment that we are born and when we die. This is a nice sentiment until the final utterance which is capped off with the follow-up revelation: “This is the in-between part”. It’s delivered during a pivotal moment, and the screening I attended actually had some confused laughs during a completely serious sequence. I also couldn’t help but take note of the line “You can’t trust a junkie, right? I can’t trust the junkie in me”, which no one laughed at but I personally found even more outrageous.

These lines stand out because I honestly found the third act of Finestkind to be the strongest part. Once it delves into its actual purpose (to be a film about bad choices piling on top of each other and the struggle to right these wrongs with potentially morbid results), it actually gets quite exciting. Even with some narratively clunky moments, Helgeland can make my jaw drop when he so desires and the twists that pop up towards the end — be they expected — had me feeling excited for a film that I was finding a bit dull for the most part. While the climax cannot save the picture (the conclusion feels a bit tonally confused as well), it at least makes Finestkind a worthy watch to some degree.

Otherwise, I again must return to the idea that this film may have been better in the hands of another director. With the obvious music cues, cheesier sequences, and dialled-back creativity, Finestkind feels like a missed opportunity. Maybe some of those awkward lines could have hit harder under the direction of someone else. With Finestkind in particular, I cannot help but feel like Brian Helgeland didn’t direct this film as much as it directed him. It wouldn’t be so bad if the film felt plain and typical, but it actually feels substandard to the point that even his screenplay (which isn’t brilliant by his standards but is at least good enough) doesn’t shine as much as it could. Finestkind may resonate with those who love blue-collared dramas with thrills and a certain type of humour (tons, and I mean tons of friendly ball-busting goes on to the point that we know it’ll happen again minutes later), but those who are expecting an exciting, two-hour mission may not get what they want.

Finestkind.

Not sure if I have picked up on how to use the word yet, but I also guess this film wasn’t meant for me.

Andreas Babiolakis has a Masters degree in Film and Photography Preservation and Collections Management from Toronto Metropolitan University, as well as a Bachelors degree in Cinema Studies from York University. His favourite times of year are the Criterion Collection flash sales and the annual Toronto International Film Festival.