Hi, folks...
CRIMINAL LAW has just posted, and with that we begin this week's Soccer/Football Week theme. Half of them are documentaries, with features mixed in for variety. Please expect them to start posting tomorrow. There's been a couple of changes to the line-up, but for the better.
As a reminder, please see the list of Soccer/Football Flicks below, to include the new ones...
# 288 - MEAN MACHINE (COMEDY)
# 289 - WORLD CUP 2006 MOVIE (DOCUMENTARY)
# 290 - KICKING IT (DOCUMENTARY)
# 291 - GOAL II (DRAMA)
# 292 - ONCE IN A LIFETIME (DOCUMENTARY)
# 293 - OFFSIDE (DRAMA)
# 294 - THE GREAT MATCH (DRAMA)
# 287 - CRIMINAL LAW (1988)
CRIMINAL LAW (1988 - THRILLER / COURTROOM FLICK) *** out of *****
(This “Double Jeopardy“ thing is a real bitch, ain‘t it? )
CAST: Gary Oldman, Kevin Bacon, Tess Harper, Karen Young, Joe Don Baker, Elizabeth Shepherd.
DIRECTOR: Martin Campbell
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and one defense attorney with a big problem straight ahead…
You know how often in thrillers the hero will discover a mutilated dead body - and do nothing more extreme than gasp loudly? Like he finds shit like this every night? Well, I used to tell myself that for once I’d like to see a thriller hero react to a mangled corpse the same way a real person would: scream like a little girl and run in ever-growing circles until he slams, face-first, into someone’s porch. Where he basically curls up into a fetal position and continues screaming in a way that would shame hyenas and toddlers around the globe.
I’m happy to report that our next review, CRIMINAL LAW, features this very exact scene - and it’s fucking hilarious. Except, well, this flick is a gritty thriller and I’m sure the sequence wasn’t supposed to send me out of my chair with laughter. Nevertheless, that’s the effect it had on me. There’s nothing like seeing a grown man scrambling through the forest like someone just slipped him a Firepoker Enema - all the while screaming like Little Orphan Annie with a bee in her curls.
Our, ahem, “hero” is hot-shot attorney Ben Chase (Gary Oldman) - and the scene in question sees him finding the latest victim of a serial killer who’s been terrorizing Boston in the past months. Ben discovers the corpse in a park in the middle of a rainy night and, like I mentioned before, he pretty much proves what a man he is by screaming like a little biyatch and forgetting how to put one foot in front of the other in a way that resembles organized movement.
But before we get to that scene, we need to backtrack a bit. As discussed, Ben is an on-his-way-up defense attorney who has recently cleared rich dickhead, Martin Thiel (Kevin Bacon), from murder charges. Ben basically tears apart an eyewitness’ testimony that would have placed Martin at the scene of the latest in a string of vicious serial murders of women. The result? You got it: Martin gets off, and I don’t mean in that way that makes you want to smoke a cigarette afterwards. Although he could do that too if he wanted.
A free man, Martin basically hop-skips-jumps his way out of the courtroom. He just stops short of giving the finger to the prosecution’s table - but you know he thought about it. Now he’s free to go back to his rich playboy ways. Ben, on the other hand, is basking in the glory of his case victory, which has attracted the attention of a top law firm in Boston. Seems like this case might just be a win-win for our boys Ben and Martin.
And then that “screaming like a little bitch” scene arrives - and everything goes south. You see, not long after Martin gets off (ha-ha, love it), he calls Ben and tells him that he just might be retaining our hot-shot attorney’s services after all. Martin tells Ben to meet him at a city park one rainy night. Ben falls for it and heads on over just like any dedicated, if also a little crazy, defense attorney would do. Unfortunately, instead of finding Martin, he finds another mutilated corpse. Commence the aforementioned hyena-like screaming.
When questioned by Boston PD detectives Mesel and Stilwell (Joe Don Baker, Tess Harper), Ben inexplicably tells them that he was “out jogging” and not “meeting up with my obviously-guilty client.” Which would’ve solved the fucking case right there. Martin, for his part, takes Ben’s failure to disclose the real reason he was at the park as a sign that Ben is on his side. Which leads to more freaky shit happening. Like Ben refusing to get a haircut. What the fuck is up with that pompadour? Damn.
Further complicating matters is the latest victim’s best friend, Ellen Faulkner (Karen Young). Ellen is, shall we say, just a little pissed off when she finds out the murder suspect is none other than Martin, a man that Ben recently got off (love it, love it). This doesn’t exactly bode well for their chances at a romance together. But, apparently, in Movieland, the more mismatched a couple is, the better. How else do you explain Meg Ryan and Antonio Banderas in MY MOTHER‘S BOYFRIEND? I’m still trying to figure that one out.
Whatever. So… some important questions: how will this game of cat-and-mouse between Martin and Ben end? If Martin can’t be tried again for the earlier murders, can he be tried for the new ones? How long can Ben stay silent while Martin continues to kill? Is Ben’s decision to continue to represent Martin to be able to trap him, a smart one? Or has Martin been three steps ahead of him all this time? What happens when Ellen pitches in and helps Ben uncover proof? Will she be endangered? Will Martin just, ahem, get off again?
Time will tell. And so will the sheets. Ha ha. Sorry. Couldn’t resist.
BUT, SERIOUSLY: In our recent review for the Cher / Dennis Quaid / Liam Neeson thriller SUSPECT (review # 283), we saw a harried and underpaid Public Defender urgently try to win a seemingly insurmountable case. In our latest review, the sleek 1988 thriller CRIMINAL LAW, we find ourselves seeing the same exact thing from the standpoint of a slick defense attorney. Another key difference between SUSPECT and CRIMINAL LAW is that the former had an innocent defendant, while the latter most definitely has one that is guilty as sin.
Director Martin Campbell, who would go on to direct the James Bond flicks GOLDENEYE and CASINO ROYALE, displays a fine command of the thriller craft here. He knows how to build a suspense set-piece and milk it for all the atmosphere it’s worth. A couple of winners: (1) Ben’s discovery of Martin’s latest victim in the rainy park; and (2) Martin chasing Ellen through an empty clinic after-hours after she uncovers proof of his involvement in the killings. Both these scenes are nail-biters, and Campbell’s mark is all over them: kinetic, eerie, suspenseful.
The cast is uniformly strong. Gary Oldman turns Ben into one of those guys who’s got the world in the palm of his hands - until things start to go wrong. Then we discover the moral fiber that is at the heart of him. He won’t rest until he rights the mistake he made. Oldman’s intensity is a perfect match for that of Kevin Bacon, who brings a truly scary edge to Martin Thiel. Ultimately, some of Martin’s actions (expecting Ben to cover for him; blatantly going after Ellen) are a little too much to swallow. However, Bacon is so effectively unnerving that you don’t question it too much in the moment.
As for the female characters, both Karen Young and Tess Harper knock their roles out of the park. Both are playing women who are tough, capable, resourceful, but still feminine. Young, in particular, is great as Ellen and while self-reliant and independent heroines are the norm these days, seeing one in a 1988 film is a real pleasure. It’s not too farfetched to posit that the character of Ellen Faulkner may have helped paved the way for the commonplace “tough” thriller heroines of today.
The only reason CRIMINAL LAW fails to ultimately reach a rating of good, and merely remains above-average, is due to the fact that the climax of the script makes no sense. I don’t know how to describe it without spoiling it, but it almost seems like the writers weren’t sure how to end the story, and after a strong first three-quarters, decided to go for the most nonsensical denouement ever. All I’ll say is this: for such a clever psychopath as Martin Thiel to make the moronic choices he does at the end of the film is just unbelievable. The result is an ending that, while suspenseful and gripping in the moment, ultimately feels rushed and a cheat.
In the end, CRIMINAL LAW is a mostly-strong thriller that thrives on the intensity and talent of its cast and director. Had a script rewrite been done on that climactic showdown, the film would have rated higher. As it is, it’s merely an above-average thriller with greater potential…
(This “Double Jeopardy“ thing is a real bitch, ain‘t it? )
CAST: Gary Oldman, Kevin Bacon, Tess Harper, Karen Young, Joe Don Baker, Elizabeth Shepherd.
DIRECTOR: Martin Campbell
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and one defense attorney with a big problem straight ahead…
You know how often in thrillers the hero will discover a mutilated dead body - and do nothing more extreme than gasp loudly? Like he finds shit like this every night? Well, I used to tell myself that for once I’d like to see a thriller hero react to a mangled corpse the same way a real person would: scream like a little girl and run in ever-growing circles until he slams, face-first, into someone’s porch. Where he basically curls up into a fetal position and continues screaming in a way that would shame hyenas and toddlers around the globe.
I’m happy to report that our next review, CRIMINAL LAW, features this very exact scene - and it’s fucking hilarious. Except, well, this flick is a gritty thriller and I’m sure the sequence wasn’t supposed to send me out of my chair with laughter. Nevertheless, that’s the effect it had on me. There’s nothing like seeing a grown man scrambling through the forest like someone just slipped him a Firepoker Enema - all the while screaming like Little Orphan Annie with a bee in her curls.
Our, ahem, “hero” is hot-shot attorney Ben Chase (Gary Oldman) - and the scene in question sees him finding the latest victim of a serial killer who’s been terrorizing Boston in the past months. Ben discovers the corpse in a park in the middle of a rainy night and, like I mentioned before, he pretty much proves what a man he is by screaming like a little biyatch and forgetting how to put one foot in front of the other in a way that resembles organized movement.
But before we get to that scene, we need to backtrack a bit. As discussed, Ben is an on-his-way-up defense attorney who has recently cleared rich dickhead, Martin Thiel (Kevin Bacon), from murder charges. Ben basically tears apart an eyewitness’ testimony that would have placed Martin at the scene of the latest in a string of vicious serial murders of women. The result? You got it: Martin gets off, and I don’t mean in that way that makes you want to smoke a cigarette afterwards. Although he could do that too if he wanted.
A free man, Martin basically hop-skips-jumps his way out of the courtroom. He just stops short of giving the finger to the prosecution’s table - but you know he thought about it. Now he’s free to go back to his rich playboy ways. Ben, on the other hand, is basking in the glory of his case victory, which has attracted the attention of a top law firm in Boston. Seems like this case might just be a win-win for our boys Ben and Martin.
And then that “screaming like a little bitch” scene arrives - and everything goes south. You see, not long after Martin gets off (ha-ha, love it), he calls Ben and tells him that he just might be retaining our hot-shot attorney’s services after all. Martin tells Ben to meet him at a city park one rainy night. Ben falls for it and heads on over just like any dedicated, if also a little crazy, defense attorney would do. Unfortunately, instead of finding Martin, he finds another mutilated corpse. Commence the aforementioned hyena-like screaming.
When questioned by Boston PD detectives Mesel and Stilwell (Joe Don Baker, Tess Harper), Ben inexplicably tells them that he was “out jogging” and not “meeting up with my obviously-guilty client.” Which would’ve solved the fucking case right there. Martin, for his part, takes Ben’s failure to disclose the real reason he was at the park as a sign that Ben is on his side. Which leads to more freaky shit happening. Like Ben refusing to get a haircut. What the fuck is up with that pompadour? Damn.
Further complicating matters is the latest victim’s best friend, Ellen Faulkner (Karen Young). Ellen is, shall we say, just a little pissed off when she finds out the murder suspect is none other than Martin, a man that Ben recently got off (love it, love it). This doesn’t exactly bode well for their chances at a romance together. But, apparently, in Movieland, the more mismatched a couple is, the better. How else do you explain Meg Ryan and Antonio Banderas in MY MOTHER‘S BOYFRIEND? I’m still trying to figure that one out.
Whatever. So… some important questions: how will this game of cat-and-mouse between Martin and Ben end? If Martin can’t be tried again for the earlier murders, can he be tried for the new ones? How long can Ben stay silent while Martin continues to kill? Is Ben’s decision to continue to represent Martin to be able to trap him, a smart one? Or has Martin been three steps ahead of him all this time? What happens when Ellen pitches in and helps Ben uncover proof? Will she be endangered? Will Martin just, ahem, get off again?
Time will tell. And so will the sheets. Ha ha. Sorry. Couldn’t resist.
BUT, SERIOUSLY: In our recent review for the Cher / Dennis Quaid / Liam Neeson thriller SUSPECT (review # 283), we saw a harried and underpaid Public Defender urgently try to win a seemingly insurmountable case. In our latest review, the sleek 1988 thriller CRIMINAL LAW, we find ourselves seeing the same exact thing from the standpoint of a slick defense attorney. Another key difference between SUSPECT and CRIMINAL LAW is that the former had an innocent defendant, while the latter most definitely has one that is guilty as sin.
Director Martin Campbell, who would go on to direct the James Bond flicks GOLDENEYE and CASINO ROYALE, displays a fine command of the thriller craft here. He knows how to build a suspense set-piece and milk it for all the atmosphere it’s worth. A couple of winners: (1) Ben’s discovery of Martin’s latest victim in the rainy park; and (2) Martin chasing Ellen through an empty clinic after-hours after she uncovers proof of his involvement in the killings. Both these scenes are nail-biters, and Campbell’s mark is all over them: kinetic, eerie, suspenseful.
The cast is uniformly strong. Gary Oldman turns Ben into one of those guys who’s got the world in the palm of his hands - until things start to go wrong. Then we discover the moral fiber that is at the heart of him. He won’t rest until he rights the mistake he made. Oldman’s intensity is a perfect match for that of Kevin Bacon, who brings a truly scary edge to Martin Thiel. Ultimately, some of Martin’s actions (expecting Ben to cover for him; blatantly going after Ellen) are a little too much to swallow. However, Bacon is so effectively unnerving that you don’t question it too much in the moment.
As for the female characters, both Karen Young and Tess Harper knock their roles out of the park. Both are playing women who are tough, capable, resourceful, but still feminine. Young, in particular, is great as Ellen and while self-reliant and independent heroines are the norm these days, seeing one in a 1988 film is a real pleasure. It’s not too farfetched to posit that the character of Ellen Faulkner may have helped paved the way for the commonplace “tough” thriller heroines of today.
The only reason CRIMINAL LAW fails to ultimately reach a rating of good, and merely remains above-average, is due to the fact that the climax of the script makes no sense. I don’t know how to describe it without spoiling it, but it almost seems like the writers weren’t sure how to end the story, and after a strong first three-quarters, decided to go for the most nonsensical denouement ever. All I’ll say is this: for such a clever psychopath as Martin Thiel to make the moronic choices he does at the end of the film is just unbelievable. The result is an ending that, while suspenseful and gripping in the moment, ultimately feels rushed and a cheat.
In the end, CRIMINAL LAW is a mostly-strong thriller that thrives on the intensity and talent of its cast and director. Had a script rewrite been done on that climactic showdown, the film would have rated higher. As it is, it’s merely an above-average thriller with greater potential…
REVIEW UPDATE: CRIMINAL LAW vs. LEGALLY BLONDE...
Hi, folks...
Hope everyone is doin' fine on Hump Day Eve. Just a quick update. As much as I wanted to make LEGALLY BLONDE our last Courtroom Flick, I'm going to have to postpone it for another Girl Power Week next month - and put CRIMINAL LAW back on the roster. The reasons are threefold:
1. Only a small part of LEGALLY BLONDE actually takes place in court. Most of it is in Law School. So it's not actually a Courtroom Flick.
2. LEGALLY BLONDE is such a great showcase for Reese Witherspoon and the strong role she plays in it, that the movie deserves to be reviewed along with other Girl Power Flicks.
3. The biggest reason: CRIMINAL LAW was recommended by a loyal viewer, and if I don't review it now during Courtroom Flick Week, I don't know when I'll be able to.
Hope you folks understand. I love LEGALLY BLONDE and blondes everywhere, for that matter, but I gotz to honor my promise to my viewer and review CRIMINAL LAW instead. Don't worry: LEGALLY BLONDE will make an appearance on our review roster soon as a Girl Power Flick. It's one of my faves, and it paints Blondes everywhere in a very good light. I've always hated that "Dumb Blond" Stereotype. All the blondes I know are pretty damn smart, thank you very much. Whoever invented that Stereotype needs to be tarred and feathered.
Please expect the review for CRIMINAL LAW to post tomorrow night. I wanted to post it tonight, so we could get started with our Soccer/Football Flicks, but I am beat from excessive biking and, well, other physical activities. Ahem.
Anyway, once CRIMINAL LAW posts, we can get started with our Soccer Flicks. Cannot wait. We've got some great stuff, folks...
Hope everyone is doin' fine on Hump Day Eve. Just a quick update. As much as I wanted to make LEGALLY BLONDE our last Courtroom Flick, I'm going to have to postpone it for another Girl Power Week next month - and put CRIMINAL LAW back on the roster. The reasons are threefold:
1. Only a small part of LEGALLY BLONDE actually takes place in court. Most of it is in Law School. So it's not actually a Courtroom Flick.
2. LEGALLY BLONDE is such a great showcase for Reese Witherspoon and the strong role she plays in it, that the movie deserves to be reviewed along with other Girl Power Flicks.
3. The biggest reason: CRIMINAL LAW was recommended by a loyal viewer, and if I don't review it now during Courtroom Flick Week, I don't know when I'll be able to.
Hope you folks understand. I love LEGALLY BLONDE and blondes everywhere, for that matter, but I gotz to honor my promise to my viewer and review CRIMINAL LAW instead. Don't worry: LEGALLY BLONDE will make an appearance on our review roster soon as a Girl Power Flick. It's one of my faves, and it paints Blondes everywhere in a very good light. I've always hated that "Dumb Blond" Stereotype. All the blondes I know are pretty damn smart, thank you very much. Whoever invented that Stereotype needs to be tarred and feathered.
Please expect the review for CRIMINAL LAW to post tomorrow night. I wanted to post it tonight, so we could get started with our Soccer/Football Flicks, but I am beat from excessive biking and, well, other physical activities. Ahem.
Anyway, once CRIMINAL LAW posts, we can get started with our Soccer Flicks. Cannot wait. We've got some great stuff, folks...
REVIEW UPDATE: LEGALLY BLONDE to post tomorrow...
Hello, folks...
Just a quick note to say "howdy" to everyone on this fine Tuesday night. Sorry for the slight delay in getting the last Courtroon Flick posted. You know how it goes...
At any rate, please expect LEGALLY BLONDE to post tomorrow night sometime. Then we're on to our Football/Soccer Week # 2. What distinguishes this week from our first Football/Soccer Week from last December is this: a lot of our films are soccer documentaries - and they're awesome folks. The only thing better than a great soccer flick is a great soccer documentary.
You'll see...
Just a quick note to say "howdy" to everyone on this fine Tuesday night. Sorry for the slight delay in getting the last Courtroon Flick posted. You know how it goes...
At any rate, please expect LEGALLY BLONDE to post tomorrow night sometime. Then we're on to our Football/Soccer Week # 2. What distinguishes this week from our first Football/Soccer Week from last December is this: a lot of our films are soccer documentaries - and they're awesome folks. The only thing better than a great soccer flick is a great soccer documentary.
You'll see...
# 286 - MY COUSIN VINNY (1992)
MY COUSIN VINNY (1992 - COMEDY / COURTROOM FLICK) **** out of *****
(Imagine if The Situation was thirty years older - with a law degree… Now pray to God you wake up soon. )
CAST: Joe Pesci, Ralph Macchio, Marisa Tomei, Mitchell Whitfield, Fred Gwynne, Austin Pendleton, Bruce McGill.
DIRECTOR: Jonathan Lynn
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and one Guido lawyer from NYC running loose in the Deep (very Deep) South…
If the movies are to be believed, the South might as well be the frickin’ Twilight Zone. Time and again, we’ve seen the population below the Mason Dixon line portrayed as: (1) spoiled debutantes; (2) corrupt sheriffs; (3) sleazy plantation owners; and the most popular one: (3) in-bred bastards from hell. Hey, look, you don’t believe me? Go watch DELIVERANCE, SOUTHERN COMFORT, SWEET HOME ALABAMA, WRONG TURN, MACON COUNTY LINE, RETURN TO MACON COUNTY, etc., etc., etc., etc….
Bottom line: if you’re a movie character, you’d have to be out of your fucking mind to go traipsing below the Mason/Dixon line without: (1) an Uzi; (2) Mace; (3) or your own personal traveling attorney to defend you, just in case you get slapped with a murder charge so utterly bogus it could only happen in a movie set in the Deep South. Which happens to be our latest review, the hilarious Guido-Out-Of-Noo Yawk comedy MY COUSIN VINNY. For all of you out there who think The Situation has no chance of growing up and making something of himself, I offer up this movie as proof that, yessir, he can.
Our hero is Vinny Gambini (Jou Pesci), an Italian-American with shellacked hair and matching attitude, who never met a gold chain that he didn’t feel the need to wrap around his neck several times. Vinnie and his sassy girlfriend Mona Lisa Vito (Marisa Tomei) get yanked into rural Alabama (Wazoo, AL, to be exact) to save the keesters of his nephew, Bill (Ralph Macchio), and Bill’s tweaker best friend, Stan (Mitchell Whitfield). Seems our two young dumbasses got themselves into hot water (AKA Bogus Murder Charge) while driving cross-country to Los Angeles to attend UCLA.
Now, folks… Let me just come out and say that I have just about as much sympathy for these two numbnuts as I do for your average moth flying right into the flame. No, scratch that… at least the moth can’t help it. It’s a dumb creature, and the flame sure looks purdy, don’t it? However, with our two choads named Bill and Stan, consider this: if they were smart enough to get into UCLA (which, believe me, is not exactly Podunk Community College), then they should’ve been canny enough to also map out a route that takes them through the Great Lakes, down into the Midwest, then into Montana, and into the Northwest, then down to L.A. I actually took this route myself when I move to Los Angeles from Michigan - so, yes, it can be done. There was no need to go into Colonel Sanders Territory, thank you very much.
But whatevs. If Bill and Stan hadn’t made this colossal blunder in road-trip planning, there wouldn’t be a fucking movie. And we wouldn’t have the pleasure of watching Vinny and Mona Lisa basically roll into town and gape at everything around them like they just walked into Madame Tussaud’s House of Wax. Again, scratch that… at least in Madame Tussaud’s House of Wax, the horrors are fake. In Wazoo, AL, the whackjobs are very, very real, buddy boy. Enough to make our visitors from Brooklyn and the Jersey Shore wish they’d never set foot outside the Tri-State Area. Then again, Vinnie and Mona Lisa are probably just as terrifying to the backward (in more ways than one) residents of Wazoo.
To say that Vinny’s got an uphill battle in defending Bill and Stan, is like saying a porn actress’ vagina is a little used. For starters, he: (1) has only practiced law for six months; (2) took six times to pass the bar exam; and (3) is, well, a Guido. Now, folks, the most wonderful people I know are Guidos, or somewhat close to being one. And the most delightful people in the world are Italians and Italian-Americans. But I think it’s fairly safe to say that a Guido in a Deep South town full of Grade-A Rednecks is kind of like a Drag Queen flashing his shit at a Westpoint dormitory. In other words: good luck with that. And get the forensics clean-up crew ready.
Just a few of the things that Vinny has to contend with: (1) an irascible judge (Fred Gwynne), (2) a ruthless district attorney (Lane Smith), (3) a legal system just a little bit more lenient than a medieval execution, and (4) Mona Lisa herself, who - by her own admission - has a biological clock ticking down more relentlessly than a massive time bomb from the climax of a James Bond flick. Way to pick a time to play the Ovary Card, Mona Lisa. It’s not like Vinny has time to kill to listen to you whine, you know.
So… does Vinny stand a chance against the “Good-Ol’-Boy” system? Will he find a way to win the case against Bill and Stan? Or are their asses pretty much toast? What chance do they have with an attorney whose opening statement consists of one line: “Everything that guy just said is bullshit.“ ? What happens when the “Good-Ol’-Boy” system tries to beckon Vinny over to the dark side? Are they playing him? What does a Guido have to do to catch a break in Wazoo, AL? And what secret skill does Mona Lisa have that just might win their case?
I mean, besides the ability to suck a golf ball through twenty feet of garden hose, that is. Presumably, the rednecks are more into farm animals.
BUT, SERIOUSLY: In past reviews of comedies like JUST ONE OF THE GUYS (review # 38 ), TROPIC THUNDER (review # 46), and WHO’S THAT GIRL (review # 268), we discussed how confidence and charm can go a long way in making a funny movie click with audiences. Both of those films foisted on us a potent combo of engaging characters, sharp dialogue, amusing situations, and sweet sincerity to basically seduce us into a state of cinematic bliss. That’s a hard thing to do.
For starters, you need the following: (1) a strong plot hook, (2) a smart, funny script, and (3) a gallery of vivid, vibrant characters. JUST ONE OF THE GUYS, TROPIC THUNDER, and WHO’S THAT GIRL had those elements. MY COUSIN VINNY is another such film. It’s a comedy that is smart, funny, and unexpectedly sincere. In short, it’s a winner.
MY COUSIN VINNY’s plot hook is a winner: an Italian-American from the big city finds himself neck-deep in the alien world of a Deep South small town. This is even more hilarious than your basic “City Mouse Stuck Outside The Big City” premise. Mainly because Vinny and Mona Lisa (particularly Vinny) react to the country folk with such hard-edged profanity, which can be very funny if done correctly - and it is here.
The script is loaded with hilarious Guido-out-of-water scenarios, as well as some choice lines. I could recount a lot of the jokes here, particularly Vinny’s profane reaction to everything Southern (and, in his view, shocking). Mona Lisa gets a lot of sharp lines herself, and makes a more-than-worthy adversary/partner to Vinny. While the script doesn’t really do much more than trot out stereotypes, both urban and rural, at least they are very funny. Each of the characters, whether from New York or Alabama, are all vivid, hilarious, and distinct - and that’s more than half the battle of comedy. While everyone is very good, this film belongs to Joe Pesci and Maris Tomei who - say what you want - deserved that Oscar for Best Supporting Actress.
In the end, MY COUSIN VINNY succeeds because of it potent combo of charm, gumption, and rough - but also sweet - humor. In short, it’s a bit of a modern classic - whether you’re a Guido or a Redneck.
(Imagine if The Situation was thirty years older - with a law degree… Now pray to God you wake up soon. )
CAST: Joe Pesci, Ralph Macchio, Marisa Tomei, Mitchell Whitfield, Fred Gwynne, Austin Pendleton, Bruce McGill.
DIRECTOR: Jonathan Lynn
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and one Guido lawyer from NYC running loose in the Deep (very Deep) South…
If the movies are to be believed, the South might as well be the frickin’ Twilight Zone. Time and again, we’ve seen the population below the Mason Dixon line portrayed as: (1) spoiled debutantes; (2) corrupt sheriffs; (3) sleazy plantation owners; and the most popular one: (3) in-bred bastards from hell. Hey, look, you don’t believe me? Go watch DELIVERANCE, SOUTHERN COMFORT, SWEET HOME ALABAMA, WRONG TURN, MACON COUNTY LINE, RETURN TO MACON COUNTY, etc., etc., etc., etc….
Bottom line: if you’re a movie character, you’d have to be out of your fucking mind to go traipsing below the Mason/Dixon line without: (1) an Uzi; (2) Mace; (3) or your own personal traveling attorney to defend you, just in case you get slapped with a murder charge so utterly bogus it could only happen in a movie set in the Deep South. Which happens to be our latest review, the hilarious Guido-Out-Of-Noo Yawk comedy MY COUSIN VINNY. For all of you out there who think The Situation has no chance of growing up and making something of himself, I offer up this movie as proof that, yessir, he can.
Our hero is Vinny Gambini (Jou Pesci), an Italian-American with shellacked hair and matching attitude, who never met a gold chain that he didn’t feel the need to wrap around his neck several times. Vinnie and his sassy girlfriend Mona Lisa Vito (Marisa Tomei) get yanked into rural Alabama (Wazoo, AL, to be exact) to save the keesters of his nephew, Bill (Ralph Macchio), and Bill’s tweaker best friend, Stan (Mitchell Whitfield). Seems our two young dumbasses got themselves into hot water (AKA Bogus Murder Charge) while driving cross-country to Los Angeles to attend UCLA.
Now, folks… Let me just come out and say that I have just about as much sympathy for these two numbnuts as I do for your average moth flying right into the flame. No, scratch that… at least the moth can’t help it. It’s a dumb creature, and the flame sure looks purdy, don’t it? However, with our two choads named Bill and Stan, consider this: if they were smart enough to get into UCLA (which, believe me, is not exactly Podunk Community College), then they should’ve been canny enough to also map out a route that takes them through the Great Lakes, down into the Midwest, then into Montana, and into the Northwest, then down to L.A. I actually took this route myself when I move to Los Angeles from Michigan - so, yes, it can be done. There was no need to go into Colonel Sanders Territory, thank you very much.
But whatevs. If Bill and Stan hadn’t made this colossal blunder in road-trip planning, there wouldn’t be a fucking movie. And we wouldn’t have the pleasure of watching Vinny and Mona Lisa basically roll into town and gape at everything around them like they just walked into Madame Tussaud’s House of Wax. Again, scratch that… at least in Madame Tussaud’s House of Wax, the horrors are fake. In Wazoo, AL, the whackjobs are very, very real, buddy boy. Enough to make our visitors from Brooklyn and the Jersey Shore wish they’d never set foot outside the Tri-State Area. Then again, Vinnie and Mona Lisa are probably just as terrifying to the backward (in more ways than one) residents of Wazoo.
To say that Vinny’s got an uphill battle in defending Bill and Stan, is like saying a porn actress’ vagina is a little used. For starters, he: (1) has only practiced law for six months; (2) took six times to pass the bar exam; and (3) is, well, a Guido. Now, folks, the most wonderful people I know are Guidos, or somewhat close to being one. And the most delightful people in the world are Italians and Italian-Americans. But I think it’s fairly safe to say that a Guido in a Deep South town full of Grade-A Rednecks is kind of like a Drag Queen flashing his shit at a Westpoint dormitory. In other words: good luck with that. And get the forensics clean-up crew ready.
Just a few of the things that Vinny has to contend with: (1) an irascible judge (Fred Gwynne), (2) a ruthless district attorney (Lane Smith), (3) a legal system just a little bit more lenient than a medieval execution, and (4) Mona Lisa herself, who - by her own admission - has a biological clock ticking down more relentlessly than a massive time bomb from the climax of a James Bond flick. Way to pick a time to play the Ovary Card, Mona Lisa. It’s not like Vinny has time to kill to listen to you whine, you know.
So… does Vinny stand a chance against the “Good-Ol’-Boy” system? Will he find a way to win the case against Bill and Stan? Or are their asses pretty much toast? What chance do they have with an attorney whose opening statement consists of one line: “Everything that guy just said is bullshit.“ ? What happens when the “Good-Ol’-Boy” system tries to beckon Vinny over to the dark side? Are they playing him? What does a Guido have to do to catch a break in Wazoo, AL? And what secret skill does Mona Lisa have that just might win their case?
I mean, besides the ability to suck a golf ball through twenty feet of garden hose, that is. Presumably, the rednecks are more into farm animals.
BUT, SERIOUSLY: In past reviews of comedies like JUST ONE OF THE GUYS (review # 38 ), TROPIC THUNDER (review # 46), and WHO’S THAT GIRL (review # 268), we discussed how confidence and charm can go a long way in making a funny movie click with audiences. Both of those films foisted on us a potent combo of engaging characters, sharp dialogue, amusing situations, and sweet sincerity to basically seduce us into a state of cinematic bliss. That’s a hard thing to do.
For starters, you need the following: (1) a strong plot hook, (2) a smart, funny script, and (3) a gallery of vivid, vibrant characters. JUST ONE OF THE GUYS, TROPIC THUNDER, and WHO’S THAT GIRL had those elements. MY COUSIN VINNY is another such film. It’s a comedy that is smart, funny, and unexpectedly sincere. In short, it’s a winner.
MY COUSIN VINNY’s plot hook is a winner: an Italian-American from the big city finds himself neck-deep in the alien world of a Deep South small town. This is even more hilarious than your basic “City Mouse Stuck Outside The Big City” premise. Mainly because Vinny and Mona Lisa (particularly Vinny) react to the country folk with such hard-edged profanity, which can be very funny if done correctly - and it is here.
The script is loaded with hilarious Guido-out-of-water scenarios, as well as some choice lines. I could recount a lot of the jokes here, particularly Vinny’s profane reaction to everything Southern (and, in his view, shocking). Mona Lisa gets a lot of sharp lines herself, and makes a more-than-worthy adversary/partner to Vinny. While the script doesn’t really do much more than trot out stereotypes, both urban and rural, at least they are very funny. Each of the characters, whether from New York or Alabama, are all vivid, hilarious, and distinct - and that’s more than half the battle of comedy. While everyone is very good, this film belongs to Joe Pesci and Maris Tomei who - say what you want - deserved that Oscar for Best Supporting Actress.
In the end, MY COUSIN VINNY succeeds because of it potent combo of charm, gumption, and rough - but also sweet - humor. In short, it’s a bit of a modern classic - whether you’re a Guido or a Redneck.
UPCOMING REVIEWS FOR THE WEEK OF 3/28/11 - 4/3/11
Hey, folks...
Just as you thought, our theme for next week is Soccer Movie Week 2. Our last Soccer Week was back in December, and it's time for another one. I'm still pumped from the game between the Seattle Sounders and the Houston Dynamos last Friday night - and looking forward to the one on April 9 between the Sounders and the Chicago Fire. Good thing we're seated in an "Alcohol Okay" section. As always... Yeah!
At any rate, please find the list below:
# 288 - MEAN MACHINE: 2002 (AKA: Football Plus Jason Statham and Vinnie Jones Equals Lookout!)
# 289 - THE GREAT MATCH: 2006 (AKA: Football in the Desert)
# 290 - OFFSIDE: 2006 (AKA: Bend it Like Beckham - In Iran)
# 291 - L'ALLENATORE NEL PALLONE: 1984 (AKA: Football Drama In Italia - Imagine That!)
# 292 - KICKING IT: 2008 (AKA: Humanitarian Football)
# 293 - ZIDANE: 2006 (AKA: Football Player Equals Superman)
# 294 - ONCE IN A LIFETIME: 2006 (AKA: Football In The Big Apple - And Not The One With Shoulder Pads)
Have a great week, folks. And let's avoid any offside traps...
Just as you thought, our theme for next week is Soccer Movie Week 2. Our last Soccer Week was back in December, and it's time for another one. I'm still pumped from the game between the Seattle Sounders and the Houston Dynamos last Friday night - and looking forward to the one on April 9 between the Sounders and the Chicago Fire. Good thing we're seated in an "Alcohol Okay" section. As always... Yeah!
At any rate, please find the list below:
# 288 - MEAN MACHINE: 2002 (AKA: Football Plus Jason Statham and Vinnie Jones Equals Lookout!)
# 289 - THE GREAT MATCH: 2006 (AKA: Football in the Desert)
# 290 - OFFSIDE: 2006 (AKA: Bend it Like Beckham - In Iran)
# 291 - L'ALLENATORE NEL PALLONE: 1984 (AKA: Football Drama In Italia - Imagine That!)
# 292 - KICKING IT: 2008 (AKA: Humanitarian Football)
# 293 - ZIDANE: 2006 (AKA: Football Player Equals Superman)
# 294 - ONCE IN A LIFETIME: 2006 (AKA: Football In The Big Apple - And Not The One With Shoulder Pads)
Have a great week, folks. And let's avoid any offside traps...
REVIEW UPDATE: The Last Two Courtroom Flicks...
Hiya, folks...
Just got back in from our urban bike adventure - and I am soaked to the goddamn bone. But we had fun, so that's all that matters...
At any rate, because of how busy the weekend has been, we are two reviews behind (MY COUSIN VINNY and LEGALLY BLONDE). But rest assured they will post tomorrow or Tuesday at the latest.
Then we begin our schedule of reviews for next week. Which, in case you hadn't guessed from our collage yesterday, is another week of Soccer flicks! Yup, in honor of the Sounders Season kicking off recently, it's time to celebrate that greatest of all sports...
Please expect the list of films to post shortly. Then, it's beddy-bye for me. Because I feel like I just biked to and from the moon...
Just got back in from our urban bike adventure - and I am soaked to the goddamn bone. But we had fun, so that's all that matters...
At any rate, because of how busy the weekend has been, we are two reviews behind (MY COUSIN VINNY and LEGALLY BLONDE). But rest assured they will post tomorrow or Tuesday at the latest.
Then we begin our schedule of reviews for next week. Which, in case you hadn't guessed from our collage yesterday, is another week of Soccer flicks! Yup, in honor of the Sounders Season kicking off recently, it's time to celebrate that greatest of all sports...
Please expect the list of films to post shortly. Then, it's beddy-bye for me. Because I feel like I just biked to and from the moon...
# 285 - THE VERDICT (1982)
THE VERDICT (1982 - DRAMA / ROMANCE / COURTROOM FLICK) ****1/2 out of *****
(Paul Newman - hottest attorney ever.)
CAST: Paul Newman, Charlotte Rampling, Jack Warden, Milo O‘Shea, James Mason, Lindsay Crouse, Roxanne Hart,
DIRECTOR: Sidney Lumet
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and one lawyer on the path to redemption - straight ahead…
Is there a cooler dude in the universe than the late Paul Newman? I don’t really think so. Many come close, but in the end they just don’t hold a candle to ol‘ Butch Cassidy. And it’s not just because he’s a smokin’ hot piece of prime Man Meat. Nope, I’d like to think I’m a little less shallow than that (ha ha). The truth is, what’s great about Paul Newman is how he subverted everyone’s expectations about how someone who looks like him should behave and think. Basically, we’re talking about someone who looks like a Roman God, but is as sharp as a finely-honed steak knife. Best of both worlds…
In THE VERDICT, our dude Paul plays Boston defense attorney Frank Galvin, who is actually more of an “ambulance chaser” if we’re getting down to brass tacks. Frank spends his days: (1) drinking; (2) hanging out at funerals hoping to get some malpractice lawsuits going; and (3) playing pinball at the local pub and… drinking. Safe to say that our Frank is not exactly the crème-de-la-crème of lawyers. Otherwise, he wouldn’t be chasing ambulances. He’d be chasing skirts at the local pub.
Oh, wait… he does that anyway. He ends up meeting cool, secretive, gorgeous Laura Fischer (Charlotte Rampling), who is apparently rebounding from a bad marriage. And she likes her booze, as well. Which pretty much makes her Ms. Right for ol’ Frank, who apparently never met a bottle of whiskey he never didn’t manage to inhale into his liver in three minutes flat. Marriages have been built on less, thank you very much.
At any rate, while Frank is making Laura’s acquaintance, the following interesting things are happening: (1) his best friend/mentor, Mickey Morrisey (Jack Warden), has found him a case that just might be his ticket back to the big-time; (2) it involves a pregnant woman who ended up in a coma because she was given the wrong anesthetic during her delivery; and (3) the archdiocese of Boston is implicated in the case because the hospital was a renowned Catholic institution. From Frank’s perspective, it’s pretty much an open-shut case, and he knows exactly what he needs to do: take pictures of the comatose patient and play hardball with the Catholic Church into settling big.
Which actually works. The Church offers to pay the patient’s family the nice, tidy sum (for 1982, anyway) of $210,000. As you can imagine, Frank pretty much jumps all over that, unaware of the fact that in 2011, that’s barely enough to buy you a condo in the sketchier neighborhoods of San Francisco or Los Angeles. Fortunately (or unfortunately, if you’re a miscreant), Franklin has a “crisis-of-conscience” and decides he cannot accept that settlement check ($70K of which would be his take-home pay) because it would be, you know, fucking wrong. Instead, he turns down the settlement - and decides to face off with the archdiocese and his homies in court.
Gotta love how these morally-bankrupt alcoholics grow a goddamn conscience at the most inopportune times. Sorry, but if I were Frank, my response would’ve been: “We’ll settle for nothing less than $300 grand. Make it happen, bitches - or else.” At any rate, Frank pretty much kisses off that payday and decides to go the rockier route of, ahem, redemption - which involves duking it out with the Church’s high-powered attorney, Ed Colcannon (James Mason), and his team of highly-trained pit bulls in human form. Safe to say, let’s hope Frank lays off the booze a little - otherwise Ed and his peeps are going to catch him seriously off-guard. Insert David vs. Goliath reference here.
So… does Frank stand a chance at proving the hospital caused his client to slip into the coma? Or will Ed’s team of eager-beaver junior partners tear Frank a new bunghole? What can Mickey do to help his pal/protégé? What about Laura? What role does she play in the unfolding case? Is she more than your basic love interest? Does she have an agenda of her own? Will Frank wish he’d just rolled over, gotten his belly rubbed, and scampered off with that check for $210k? Or will his “conscience” continue to “guide” him
Hard to say. Just don’t be surprised if his client’s family bitch-slaps him into the next zipcode when they find out how much moolah he turned down…
BUT, SERIOUSLY: I’ve always had a fondness for Underdog Films - movies in which a downtrodden and unfairly maligned protagonist seizes a chance to prove himself/herself and even the playing field. It’s one of the most enduring plots in the history of storytelling, and it has been the core of many classics throughout cinematic history. THE VERDICT is probably one of the best examples of this type of film. We have a down-on-his-luck attorney who is given a case that he could easily settle with a nice payday to himself - but he chooses, against all odds, to go the distance and fight to the finish - and to the death. Figuratively speaking.
Paul Newman proves again just how special an actor her is. As I mentioned before, you’d be hard-pressed to find an actor more handsome than Paul Newman. But unlike many actors who are strikingly attractive, Newman has a way of downplaying his physical appeal to make you see him as a vulnerable human being. Conversely, he also has the ability to play up his charm and smashing good looks to basically conceal a keen intelligence under those perfect looks. This is a very rare quality for an actor, and I’ve only seen it in elsewhere in Robert Redford and Kevin Costner.
Newman makes the character of Frank Galvin someone we can believe in absolutely. The script doesn’t shirk away from playing up just how decrepit Frank’s life has become. This is crucial so that, when he begins his climb out of the abyss (in the form of the malpractice case), the arc is all that more exhilarating and effective. You’d have to search hard to find a more classic underdog character than Frank Galvin - and Paul Newman brings this man to vibrant life, making him yet another memorable role in Newman’s illustrious career.
The supporting cast is filled with equally stellar performances. Jack Warden is his usual awesome gruff self as Frank’s hard-edged mentor who pushes Frank relentlessly because he cares about him and urgently wants him to take steps to improve himself. Charlotte Rampling takes the role of Laura Fischer, one that was never meant to be just another love interest role, and runs with it - turning the character into an alluring combo of cool mystery and unexpected loyalty. You can see why Frank would fall for her.
James Mason fleshes out a very interesting antagonist role in Ed Concannon. This guy is someone who is clearly a decent human being, and is adored by his his co-workers and friends. Yet, the fact remains that he’s been hired to protect the Catholic Church’s interest - and has to play hardball with Frank Galvin. So intriguing is this character that I found myself sympathizing with him in many scenes - even though he’s supposed to be the “villain”. Credit for that charismatic and magnetic performance should go to James Mason’s skills - as well as the literate script which refuses to paint any of the characters in simplistic shades of black and white.
In the end, THE VERDICT is intelligent, powerful entertainment that plays just as good now as it did in 1982. That’s the stamp of a great movie: it’s timeless….
(Paul Newman - hottest attorney ever.)
CAST: Paul Newman, Charlotte Rampling, Jack Warden, Milo O‘Shea, James Mason, Lindsay Crouse, Roxanne Hart,
DIRECTOR: Sidney Lumet
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and one lawyer on the path to redemption - straight ahead…
Is there a cooler dude in the universe than the late Paul Newman? I don’t really think so. Many come close, but in the end they just don’t hold a candle to ol‘ Butch Cassidy. And it’s not just because he’s a smokin’ hot piece of prime Man Meat. Nope, I’d like to think I’m a little less shallow than that (ha ha). The truth is, what’s great about Paul Newman is how he subverted everyone’s expectations about how someone who looks like him should behave and think. Basically, we’re talking about someone who looks like a Roman God, but is as sharp as a finely-honed steak knife. Best of both worlds…
In THE VERDICT, our dude Paul plays Boston defense attorney Frank Galvin, who is actually more of an “ambulance chaser” if we’re getting down to brass tacks. Frank spends his days: (1) drinking; (2) hanging out at funerals hoping to get some malpractice lawsuits going; and (3) playing pinball at the local pub and… drinking. Safe to say that our Frank is not exactly the crème-de-la-crème of lawyers. Otherwise, he wouldn’t be chasing ambulances. He’d be chasing skirts at the local pub.
Oh, wait… he does that anyway. He ends up meeting cool, secretive, gorgeous Laura Fischer (Charlotte Rampling), who is apparently rebounding from a bad marriage. And she likes her booze, as well. Which pretty much makes her Ms. Right for ol’ Frank, who apparently never met a bottle of whiskey he never didn’t manage to inhale into his liver in three minutes flat. Marriages have been built on less, thank you very much.
At any rate, while Frank is making Laura’s acquaintance, the following interesting things are happening: (1) his best friend/mentor, Mickey Morrisey (Jack Warden), has found him a case that just might be his ticket back to the big-time; (2) it involves a pregnant woman who ended up in a coma because she was given the wrong anesthetic during her delivery; and (3) the archdiocese of Boston is implicated in the case because the hospital was a renowned Catholic institution. From Frank’s perspective, it’s pretty much an open-shut case, and he knows exactly what he needs to do: take pictures of the comatose patient and play hardball with the Catholic Church into settling big.
Which actually works. The Church offers to pay the patient’s family the nice, tidy sum (for 1982, anyway) of $210,000. As you can imagine, Frank pretty much jumps all over that, unaware of the fact that in 2011, that’s barely enough to buy you a condo in the sketchier neighborhoods of San Francisco or Los Angeles. Fortunately (or unfortunately, if you’re a miscreant), Franklin has a “crisis-of-conscience” and decides he cannot accept that settlement check ($70K of which would be his take-home pay) because it would be, you know, fucking wrong. Instead, he turns down the settlement - and decides to face off with the archdiocese and his homies in court.
Gotta love how these morally-bankrupt alcoholics grow a goddamn conscience at the most inopportune times. Sorry, but if I were Frank, my response would’ve been: “We’ll settle for nothing less than $300 grand. Make it happen, bitches - or else.” At any rate, Frank pretty much kisses off that payday and decides to go the rockier route of, ahem, redemption - which involves duking it out with the Church’s high-powered attorney, Ed Colcannon (James Mason), and his team of highly-trained pit bulls in human form. Safe to say, let’s hope Frank lays off the booze a little - otherwise Ed and his peeps are going to catch him seriously off-guard. Insert David vs. Goliath reference here.
So… does Frank stand a chance at proving the hospital caused his client to slip into the coma? Or will Ed’s team of eager-beaver junior partners tear Frank a new bunghole? What can Mickey do to help his pal/protégé? What about Laura? What role does she play in the unfolding case? Is she more than your basic love interest? Does she have an agenda of her own? Will Frank wish he’d just rolled over, gotten his belly rubbed, and scampered off with that check for $210k? Or will his “conscience” continue to “guide” him
Hard to say. Just don’t be surprised if his client’s family bitch-slaps him into the next zipcode when they find out how much moolah he turned down…
BUT, SERIOUSLY: I’ve always had a fondness for Underdog Films - movies in which a downtrodden and unfairly maligned protagonist seizes a chance to prove himself/herself and even the playing field. It’s one of the most enduring plots in the history of storytelling, and it has been the core of many classics throughout cinematic history. THE VERDICT is probably one of the best examples of this type of film. We have a down-on-his-luck attorney who is given a case that he could easily settle with a nice payday to himself - but he chooses, against all odds, to go the distance and fight to the finish - and to the death. Figuratively speaking.
Paul Newman proves again just how special an actor her is. As I mentioned before, you’d be hard-pressed to find an actor more handsome than Paul Newman. But unlike many actors who are strikingly attractive, Newman has a way of downplaying his physical appeal to make you see him as a vulnerable human being. Conversely, he also has the ability to play up his charm and smashing good looks to basically conceal a keen intelligence under those perfect looks. This is a very rare quality for an actor, and I’ve only seen it in elsewhere in Robert Redford and Kevin Costner.
Newman makes the character of Frank Galvin someone we can believe in absolutely. The script doesn’t shirk away from playing up just how decrepit Frank’s life has become. This is crucial so that, when he begins his climb out of the abyss (in the form of the malpractice case), the arc is all that more exhilarating and effective. You’d have to search hard to find a more classic underdog character than Frank Galvin - and Paul Newman brings this man to vibrant life, making him yet another memorable role in Newman’s illustrious career.
The supporting cast is filled with equally stellar performances. Jack Warden is his usual awesome gruff self as Frank’s hard-edged mentor who pushes Frank relentlessly because he cares about him and urgently wants him to take steps to improve himself. Charlotte Rampling takes the role of Laura Fischer, one that was never meant to be just another love interest role, and runs with it - turning the character into an alluring combo of cool mystery and unexpected loyalty. You can see why Frank would fall for her.
James Mason fleshes out a very interesting antagonist role in Ed Concannon. This guy is someone who is clearly a decent human being, and is adored by his his co-workers and friends. Yet, the fact remains that he’s been hired to protect the Catholic Church’s interest - and has to play hardball with Frank Galvin. So intriguing is this character that I found myself sympathizing with him in many scenes - even though he’s supposed to be the “villain”. Credit for that charismatic and magnetic performance should go to James Mason’s skills - as well as the literate script which refuses to paint any of the characters in simplistic shades of black and white.
In the end, THE VERDICT is intelligent, powerful entertainment that plays just as good now as it did in 1982. That’s the stamp of a great movie: it’s timeless….
REVIEW UPDATE: TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD and 12 ANGRY MEN...
Hello, folks... Hope everyone's having a great Sunday morning. Just a quick update on our schedule before I take Maximus (that's the name of my new mountain bike) out for a marathon trek with some fellow extreme bikers through this urban jungle of ours...
Please note that, due to the unavailability of TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD and 12 ANGRY MEN from my loyal-but-occasionally flaky DVD Pimp, I am replacing them with LEGALLY BLONDE and MY COUSIN VINNY. Yes, folks... MY COUSIN VINNY is legal thriller, albeit with an aging Guido. Still, it's a hoot. And it's now on our schedule. We need more comedies to offset the likes of JAGGED EDGE, SUSPECT, and THE VERDICT.
Please expect the last three Courtroom Flicks to post tonight when I get back from our bike adventure. Rain or shine, just do it.
Have a memorable weekend, folks!
Please note that, due to the unavailability of TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD and 12 ANGRY MEN from my loyal-but-occasionally flaky DVD Pimp, I am replacing them with LEGALLY BLONDE and MY COUSIN VINNY. Yes, folks... MY COUSIN VINNY is legal thriller, albeit with an aging Guido. Still, it's a hoot. And it's now on our schedule. We need more comedies to offset the likes of JAGGED EDGE, SUSPECT, and THE VERDICT.
Please expect the last three Courtroom Flicks to post tonight when I get back from our bike adventure. Rain or shine, just do it.
Have a memorable weekend, folks!
# 284 - LEGAL EAGLES (1986)
LEGAL EAGLES (1986 - MYSTERY / COMEDY / ROMANCE / COURTROOM FLICK) **1/2 out of *****
(Everything but the kitchen sink…)
CAST: Robert Redford, Debra Winger, Daryl Hannah, Brian Dennehy, Steven Hill, Terence Stamp, John McMartin, Christine Baranski, Sara Botsford.
DIRECTOR: Ivan Reitman
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and one big goulash of a movie - straight ahead…
In our review for GHOSTBUSTERS (review # 98) and GREMLINS (review #196), we talked about how tricky the “Horror Comedy Genre” is. You have to be very precise with how you blend the scares and yuks, otherwise you wind up with something awful like CRITTERS (review #276). Same goes for the “Thriller Comedy Genre.” The balance between thrills and laughs needs to be absolutely perfect, otherwise you wind up with a film that is neither thrilling enough to be a thriller, yet not funny enough to be a comedy. In other words, let’s recall that famous Chinese Proverb: “He Who Chases Two Rabbits, Eventually Loses Both.” Or is that “Never Eat General Tso’s Chicken With Ho-Hos and Twizzlers Or You Will End Up With A Fucker Of A Tummy Ache?”
Whatever. The point is this: just like the Horror Comedy Genre, the Thriller Comedy Genre is one that is very difficult to get right. Proof of that lies with our next review, the 1986 Robert Redford / Debra Winger vehicle LEGAL EAGLES. This flick doesn’t know whether it wants to be a sophisticated comedy, a screwball satire, a light romance, or a suspense/thriller - so it tries to be all of them at the same time. And let’s just say I haven’t this bad a case of whiplash since I rode the New York-New York rollercoaster during my last Vegas sin-fest. Actually, with this flick’s erratic swinging from genre to genre, it makes that rollercoaster look like a pleasant bicycle ride.
Our hero is NYC Assistant District Attorney Tom Logan (Robert Redford), who finds himself drawn into a knotty robbery case involving Chelsea Reardon (Daryl Hannah), daughter of a once-famous-now-dead artist who may or may not have been the victim of foul play many years ago. Chelsea’s been accused of trying to steal one of her late father’s paintings from one of his former associates, a sleazebag known as Forrester (John McMartin).
Defending Chelsea is pretty but dingbat-ish defense attorney Laura J. Kelly (Debra Winger), who is famous (actually, “infamous” would be a more appropriate adjective) for her zany courtroom tactics like: (1) trying to put a dog (not a highly unattractive person - an actual canine) on the stand; (2) trying to defend a fence by saying the dozens and dozens of stolen electronics in his house were all gifts from his family; and (3) generally behaving like a female version of Jim Carrey. Let’s just say I’d be interested in hearing how Chelsea figured Laura would be the best counsel to defend her. Well… come to think of it, Chelsea’s pretty daffy herself, so there you have it: soul sisters.
Anyhow, through a convoluted series of events that makes the plot of SUCKER PUNCH look downright believable, Tom finds himself pulled into Laura’s crazy-ass plot to get Chelsea off. Not that way, pervs. I’m talking about the robbery charge, which is mysteriously dropped - then replaced with a murder charge when one of her exes turns up dead. For someone as stunningly hot as Chelsea, she sure doesn’t seem to have much luck with men.
Before you know it, Tom and Laura are co-defending Chelsea in open court. With a tight-ass like Tom and a loon like Laura, how will this all turn out? Will they kill each other before even cross-examining the first witness? Or will these two dipshits actually, you know, learn to work with each other? Is Chelsea actually guilty? What secret is she hiding? What is her secret agenda? Is she playing Tom and Laura? Or is someone else behind the whole art theft murder mystery? Is it her dead father's former associates? Is it… Andy Warhol? Or even - gasp! - Pablo Picasso?
Yes, I know Picasso and Warhol are both dead, Peanut Gallery. Cut me some slack here, would ya?
BUT, SERIOUSLY: I wasn’t kidding earlier when I wrote that LEGAL EAGLES tries to blend several genres all at once. Part-legal thriller, part-mystery, part-sophisticated comedy, part-satire, part-romance… this film has one busy plot. Unfortunately, the end result is a cinematic metaphor of that old chestnut: “Jack of all Trades, Master of None…” Neither thrilling enough to be a good thriller, nor atmospheric enough to be a good mystery, or funny enough to be a good comedy, or romantic enough to be a good romance - LEGAL EAGLES, while sleek and competently made, is ultimately a disappointment on all fronts.
Credit the talented and attractive cast for giving this film whatever virtue it has. Robert Redford proves again that he is a natural leading man. Redford has always been one of those actors like Paul Newman and Kevin Costner who slyly use their good looks to allow audiences to underestimate them. But under those “Football Captain” features is a sharp, keen intelligence. Redford manages to make Tom Logan interesting enough that we keep a bead on him.
Debra Winger is equally good as Laura Kelly. Winger brings a nice, goofy air to this “professional woman” role, as well as a certain gawky quality that is absolutely endearing. While Winger’s chemistry with Redford isn’t something to write home about, it isn’t exactly lukewarm, either. They have just enough spark between them to keep Laura and Tom’s relationship reasonably interesting.
As the mysterious “femme fatale” who may or may not be a thief/murderess, Daryl Hannah brings just the right amount of cool allure and distant spaciness to Chelsea Reardon to keep us on our toes. As with future ice princesses like Catherine Trammell (Sharon Stone) from BASIC INSTINCT and past ones like Francie Stevens (Grace Kelly) from TO CATCH A THIEF, Chelsea is meant to be an ambiguous figure whose true alliance is never clear until close to the end. While Hannah's performance isn’t quite on the same level as Winger's and Redford's, she still delivers and holds her own.
The supporting cast of Brian Dennehy, John McMartin, Christine Baranski, and Terence Stamp are okay, but LEGAL EAGLES reaches the average mark mainly because of the talent of its three leads. Without them, this film might’ve rated even lower. When you have a film that tries to be everything at once, it helps to have charismatic stars to help distract you from the fact that the movie misses the mark in a big way.
(Everything but the kitchen sink…)
CAST: Robert Redford, Debra Winger, Daryl Hannah, Brian Dennehy, Steven Hill, Terence Stamp, John McMartin, Christine Baranski, Sara Botsford.
DIRECTOR: Ivan Reitman
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and one big goulash of a movie - straight ahead…
In our review for GHOSTBUSTERS (review # 98) and GREMLINS (review #196), we talked about how tricky the “Horror Comedy Genre” is. You have to be very precise with how you blend the scares and yuks, otherwise you wind up with something awful like CRITTERS (review #276). Same goes for the “Thriller Comedy Genre.” The balance between thrills and laughs needs to be absolutely perfect, otherwise you wind up with a film that is neither thrilling enough to be a thriller, yet not funny enough to be a comedy. In other words, let’s recall that famous Chinese Proverb: “He Who Chases Two Rabbits, Eventually Loses Both.” Or is that “Never Eat General Tso’s Chicken With Ho-Hos and Twizzlers Or You Will End Up With A Fucker Of A Tummy Ache?”
Whatever. The point is this: just like the Horror Comedy Genre, the Thriller Comedy Genre is one that is very difficult to get right. Proof of that lies with our next review, the 1986 Robert Redford / Debra Winger vehicle LEGAL EAGLES. This flick doesn’t know whether it wants to be a sophisticated comedy, a screwball satire, a light romance, or a suspense/thriller - so it tries to be all of them at the same time. And let’s just say I haven’t this bad a case of whiplash since I rode the New York-New York rollercoaster during my last Vegas sin-fest. Actually, with this flick’s erratic swinging from genre to genre, it makes that rollercoaster look like a pleasant bicycle ride.
Our hero is NYC Assistant District Attorney Tom Logan (Robert Redford), who finds himself drawn into a knotty robbery case involving Chelsea Reardon (Daryl Hannah), daughter of a once-famous-now-dead artist who may or may not have been the victim of foul play many years ago. Chelsea’s been accused of trying to steal one of her late father’s paintings from one of his former associates, a sleazebag known as Forrester (John McMartin).
Defending Chelsea is pretty but dingbat-ish defense attorney Laura J. Kelly (Debra Winger), who is famous (actually, “infamous” would be a more appropriate adjective) for her zany courtroom tactics like: (1) trying to put a dog (not a highly unattractive person - an actual canine) on the stand; (2) trying to defend a fence by saying the dozens and dozens of stolen electronics in his house were all gifts from his family; and (3) generally behaving like a female version of Jim Carrey. Let’s just say I’d be interested in hearing how Chelsea figured Laura would be the best counsel to defend her. Well… come to think of it, Chelsea’s pretty daffy herself, so there you have it: soul sisters.
Anyhow, through a convoluted series of events that makes the plot of SUCKER PUNCH look downright believable, Tom finds himself pulled into Laura’s crazy-ass plot to get Chelsea off. Not that way, pervs. I’m talking about the robbery charge, which is mysteriously dropped - then replaced with a murder charge when one of her exes turns up dead. For someone as stunningly hot as Chelsea, she sure doesn’t seem to have much luck with men.
Before you know it, Tom and Laura are co-defending Chelsea in open court. With a tight-ass like Tom and a loon like Laura, how will this all turn out? Will they kill each other before even cross-examining the first witness? Or will these two dipshits actually, you know, learn to work with each other? Is Chelsea actually guilty? What secret is she hiding? What is her secret agenda? Is she playing Tom and Laura? Or is someone else behind the whole art theft murder mystery? Is it her dead father's former associates? Is it… Andy Warhol? Or even - gasp! - Pablo Picasso?
Yes, I know Picasso and Warhol are both dead, Peanut Gallery. Cut me some slack here, would ya?
BUT, SERIOUSLY: I wasn’t kidding earlier when I wrote that LEGAL EAGLES tries to blend several genres all at once. Part-legal thriller, part-mystery, part-sophisticated comedy, part-satire, part-romance… this film has one busy plot. Unfortunately, the end result is a cinematic metaphor of that old chestnut: “Jack of all Trades, Master of None…” Neither thrilling enough to be a good thriller, nor atmospheric enough to be a good mystery, or funny enough to be a good comedy, or romantic enough to be a good romance - LEGAL EAGLES, while sleek and competently made, is ultimately a disappointment on all fronts.
Credit the talented and attractive cast for giving this film whatever virtue it has. Robert Redford proves again that he is a natural leading man. Redford has always been one of those actors like Paul Newman and Kevin Costner who slyly use their good looks to allow audiences to underestimate them. But under those “Football Captain” features is a sharp, keen intelligence. Redford manages to make Tom Logan interesting enough that we keep a bead on him.
Debra Winger is equally good as Laura Kelly. Winger brings a nice, goofy air to this “professional woman” role, as well as a certain gawky quality that is absolutely endearing. While Winger’s chemistry with Redford isn’t something to write home about, it isn’t exactly lukewarm, either. They have just enough spark between them to keep Laura and Tom’s relationship reasonably interesting.
As the mysterious “femme fatale” who may or may not be a thief/murderess, Daryl Hannah brings just the right amount of cool allure and distant spaciness to Chelsea Reardon to keep us on our toes. As with future ice princesses like Catherine Trammell (Sharon Stone) from BASIC INSTINCT and past ones like Francie Stevens (Grace Kelly) from TO CATCH A THIEF, Chelsea is meant to be an ambiguous figure whose true alliance is never clear until close to the end. While Hannah's performance isn’t quite on the same level as Winger's and Redford's, she still delivers and holds her own.
The supporting cast of Brian Dennehy, John McMartin, Christine Baranski, and Terence Stamp are okay, but LEGAL EAGLES reaches the average mark mainly because of the talent of its three leads. Without them, this film might’ve rated even lower. When you have a film that tries to be everything at once, it helps to have charismatic stars to help distract you from the fact that the movie misses the mark in a big way.
SNEAK PEEK: Next Week's Reviews...
Hello, all...
Please find below a preview of next week's reviews... Hmmm... what could these films have in common? What indeed?
GOAL!
Have a great weekend, folks. I'm zipping this way and that today and tomorrow (in the name of fun and carpe diem), but will try to get the last four of this week's Court Room Flicks posted...
Ciao ciao...
Please find below a preview of next week's reviews... Hmmm... what could these films have in common? What indeed?
GOAL!
Have a great weekend, folks. I'm zipping this way and that today and tomorrow (in the name of fun and carpe diem), but will try to get the last four of this week's Court Room Flicks posted...
Ciao ciao...
# 283 - SUSPECT (1987)
SUSPECT (1987 - MYSTERY/THRILLER/COURTROOM FLICK) ***1/2 out of *****
(Cher puts on a suit, tries to makes us think she‘s an attorney, succeeds…)
CAST: Cher, Dennis Quaid, Liam Neeson, John Mahoney, Phillip Bosco, Joe Mantegna.
DIRECTOR: Peter Yates
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and highly noble portrayal of a highly thankless profession straight ahead…
In our reviews for SUNSHINE CLEANING (review # 240 ), COPYCAT (review #256), and CHASING LIBERTY (review # 269), we discussed jobs that are portrayed as ultra-glamorous and fun on the silver screen, but are decidedly less so in real life. The professions essayed in those films were, respectively: (1) Crime-Scene Cleaners; (2) Criminal Psychologist; and (3) First Daughter. Okay, I know… that last one is technically more of a high-profile role that only feels like work. But you get the idea…
At any rate, the movies also traffic in jobs that are definitely not glamorous in real life, and aren’t portrayed as such on the silver screen. One of those is Public Defender. This job is essentially the diametrical opposite of Flashy Defense Attorney. Let’s just say you’re not likely to see a P.D. driving around in a Maserati and living in a mansion on Mulholland Drive. Also, P.D.s don’t have the luxury that Flashy Defense Attorneys have: being able to choose their clients. On top of that, Public Defenders usually have more cases than there are porn stars in Los Angeles. Underpaid, overworked, probably unappreciated for the most part - makes you almost wonder why anyone would do it.
Well, if the heroine of our next review is anyone to go by, Public Defenders do what they do to save the underdogs - folks who don’t have the means to hire the Flashy Defense Attorneys. She is D.C. Public Defender Kathleen Riley (Cher), and by her own admission, she is: (1) overworked; (2) hasn’t dated in, like, a millennium; (3) and does what she does because of chance to help the under-privileged. If this isn’t enough to make you sympathize with Kathleen, you are obviously a promiscuous Trust Fund Baby who needs to be slapped around. Bring your ass over here.
Anyway, Kathleen’s ideals are tested when she finds herself defending a homeless dude named Carl Wayne Anderson (Liam Neeson). See, Carl’s been accused of murdering a legislative aide named Elizabeth Rose Quinn (Katie O’Hare) - and stealing $9 from her wallet. Safe to say Carl ain’t exactly one of those big-time robbers, eh? Of course, this was back in 1987, when $9 could buy you more than just a Starbuck’s Iced Mocha. Too bad poor Elizabeth had to get her throat cut over it.
With circumstantial evidence practically overwhelming the case, Kathleen has got her work cut out for her. To make matters worse, our lovely Public Defender has to deal with the following headaches: (1) Carl is a deaf mute and can only communicate through writing; (2) the prosecuting attorney, Charlie Stella (Joe Mantegna), is an asshole; (3) the presiding judge, Justice Matthew Bishop Helms (John Mahoney), is an even bigger asshole; and (4) one of the jurors, Eddie Sanger (Dennis Quaid), insists on making like a Hardy Boy and digging to the case - then feeding clues to Kathleen secretly.
Now, folks, in our last review for JAGGED EDGE (review # 282), I alluded to the fact that I am dumber than a hamper full of dirty socks, but even I know that what Eddie and Kathleen are doing is called, um, Jury Tampering. And basically any kind of tampering is probably illegal. Which leads me to conclude that these two are cut from the same cloth that Glenn Close’s character was cut from in JAGGED EDGE: educated, driven, intelligent, but prone to unexpected I.Q. dumps that results in colossally bad decisions. Or, as we discussed in THE BEDROOM WINDOW (review # 254) which was filled with colossally bad decisions: “Oh. My. God! You Fucking Idiots!”
Why is Eddie helping Kathleen? What does he hope to get out of it? Did Carl really kill Elizabeth in an botched mugging? Or is he being framed? What is the real motive behind Elizabeth’s murder? What happens when Eddie’s, uh, probing uncovers connections to the powers-that-be in Washington D.C.? Will he and Kathleen be endangered? For that matter, what happens when Judge Helms realizes that Kathleen and Eddie have been working together? Will he have her disbarred and have Eddie thrown off the case? Why are all these people so pale and irritable?
Maybe they’d all be less cranky if they took the day off and went mountain biking with some serious hotties and worked on their tans. Not that I would know anything about that…
BUT, SERIOUSLY: In our recent review for THE LINCOLN LAWYER (review # 281), I referenced a type of film that has nothing more going for it than a strong cast, solid story, and good old-fashioned storytelling. In other words, they do not rely on flashy special effects or over-the-top, larger-than-life plotlines. Instead, they just want to entertain you without insulting your intelligence. Many movies from the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s and even the 90’s focused on these down-to-earth aspects.
SUSPECT from 1987 is one such film. In this day and age, this movie would probably end up being made as a TV movie - if at all, owing to the fact that there’s nothing flashy about it. It’s just a very good mystery that keeps you leaning forward as each twist, turn, and clue is unveiled by a talented director and his equally-skilled cast.
Director Peter Yates brings a very Hitchcockian feel to the proceedings, starting from the sinister opening credits that echo many of the Master’s own touches, to the final confrontation and revelation of “whodunit.” Even the investigative sequences hum with quiet suspense, as Kathleen and Eddie realize that Elizabeth’s murder is just the tip of a very sinister iceberg, and Carl is likely the fall guy for a very powerful murderer. Especially unnerving is the scene where Kathleen is chased by the real killer through the courthouse after-hours, leading to a jumpy game of cat-and-mouse.
Cher is quietly terrific as Kathleen Riley. She successfully sheds her “glamour-puss” image, and turns Kathleen into a very likable “everywoman” heroine that we easily root for - someone who still believes in the system despite everything, and still manages to hold on to her ideals, and refuses to go the easy, lazy route of cynicism. After MOONSTRUCK, this is easily Cher’s best role.
Dennis Quaid may not be as strong as Cher, and you can easily see at least three other actors playing his role, but he still manages to engage us. The problem with Eddie Sanger is we’re never really sure why he risks charges of Jury Tampering to try to help Kathleen. Is he just naturally reckless? Naïve? Is he attracted to Kathleen? Does he sympathize with underdogs? Quaid never really allows us to fathom the character completely. Not sure if this is even his fault or the script’s (probably the latter). In any case, he’s good enough to keep us interested in Eddie’s actions, however inscrutable, and doesn’t hamper the film too much. Still, SUSPECT would’ve rated **** (very good) if Eddie would’ve been as fleshed-out as Kathleen.
Another reason SUSPECT doesn’t rate higher than ***½ (good) is because a potentially-intriguing plot thread is never explored satisfactorily. What should’ve been the emotional core of the film is Kathleen’s relationship with the downtrodden homeless vet, Carl Wayne Anderson. Despite not uttering a single word, Liam Neeson turns the character into an endlessly expressive and soulful figure. Carl’s sordid history is imprinted in his sad eyes, and Neeson’s scenes with Cher threaten to turn SUSPECT into something more than a good thriller. Unfortunately, time and again, the script drops this thread and keeps returning to Kathleen’s tricky relationship with Dennis. Had SUSPECT turned the Kathleen-Carl relationship into the center of the film, and either minimized or nixed the Kathleen-Eddie one, this film would’ve been a classic.
In the end, the core story of SUSPECT - Public Defender realizes her homeless client is the patsy for a high-powered political conspiracy - is dynamic enough to surmount a slight issue in how the leading man’s role is conceived. It further helps that Cher is stunning - literally and figuratively - as our beleaguered heroine, and that a superb roster of character actors (John Mahoney, Joe Mantegna, Phillip Bosco, E. Katherine Kerr) lend more-than-able support to our leads.
Despite SUSPECT’s flaws, Hitchcock still would’ve been proud.
(Cher puts on a suit, tries to makes us think she‘s an attorney, succeeds…)
CAST: Cher, Dennis Quaid, Liam Neeson, John Mahoney, Phillip Bosco, Joe Mantegna.
DIRECTOR: Peter Yates
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and highly noble portrayal of a highly thankless profession straight ahead…
In our reviews for SUNSHINE CLEANING (review # 240 ), COPYCAT (review #256), and CHASING LIBERTY (review # 269), we discussed jobs that are portrayed as ultra-glamorous and fun on the silver screen, but are decidedly less so in real life. The professions essayed in those films were, respectively: (1) Crime-Scene Cleaners; (2) Criminal Psychologist; and (3) First Daughter. Okay, I know… that last one is technically more of a high-profile role that only feels like work. But you get the idea…
At any rate, the movies also traffic in jobs that are definitely not glamorous in real life, and aren’t portrayed as such on the silver screen. One of those is Public Defender. This job is essentially the diametrical opposite of Flashy Defense Attorney. Let’s just say you’re not likely to see a P.D. driving around in a Maserati and living in a mansion on Mulholland Drive. Also, P.D.s don’t have the luxury that Flashy Defense Attorneys have: being able to choose their clients. On top of that, Public Defenders usually have more cases than there are porn stars in Los Angeles. Underpaid, overworked, probably unappreciated for the most part - makes you almost wonder why anyone would do it.
Well, if the heroine of our next review is anyone to go by, Public Defenders do what they do to save the underdogs - folks who don’t have the means to hire the Flashy Defense Attorneys. She is D.C. Public Defender Kathleen Riley (Cher), and by her own admission, she is: (1) overworked; (2) hasn’t dated in, like, a millennium; (3) and does what she does because of chance to help the under-privileged. If this isn’t enough to make you sympathize with Kathleen, you are obviously a promiscuous Trust Fund Baby who needs to be slapped around. Bring your ass over here.
Anyway, Kathleen’s ideals are tested when she finds herself defending a homeless dude named Carl Wayne Anderson (Liam Neeson). See, Carl’s been accused of murdering a legislative aide named Elizabeth Rose Quinn (Katie O’Hare) - and stealing $9 from her wallet. Safe to say Carl ain’t exactly one of those big-time robbers, eh? Of course, this was back in 1987, when $9 could buy you more than just a Starbuck’s Iced Mocha. Too bad poor Elizabeth had to get her throat cut over it.
With circumstantial evidence practically overwhelming the case, Kathleen has got her work cut out for her. To make matters worse, our lovely Public Defender has to deal with the following headaches: (1) Carl is a deaf mute and can only communicate through writing; (2) the prosecuting attorney, Charlie Stella (Joe Mantegna), is an asshole; (3) the presiding judge, Justice Matthew Bishop Helms (John Mahoney), is an even bigger asshole; and (4) one of the jurors, Eddie Sanger (Dennis Quaid), insists on making like a Hardy Boy and digging to the case - then feeding clues to Kathleen secretly.
Now, folks, in our last review for JAGGED EDGE (review # 282), I alluded to the fact that I am dumber than a hamper full of dirty socks, but even I know that what Eddie and Kathleen are doing is called, um, Jury Tampering. And basically any kind of tampering is probably illegal. Which leads me to conclude that these two are cut from the same cloth that Glenn Close’s character was cut from in JAGGED EDGE: educated, driven, intelligent, but prone to unexpected I.Q. dumps that results in colossally bad decisions. Or, as we discussed in THE BEDROOM WINDOW (review # 254) which was filled with colossally bad decisions: “Oh. My. God! You Fucking Idiots!”
Why is Eddie helping Kathleen? What does he hope to get out of it? Did Carl really kill Elizabeth in an botched mugging? Or is he being framed? What is the real motive behind Elizabeth’s murder? What happens when Eddie’s, uh, probing uncovers connections to the powers-that-be in Washington D.C.? Will he and Kathleen be endangered? For that matter, what happens when Judge Helms realizes that Kathleen and Eddie have been working together? Will he have her disbarred and have Eddie thrown off the case? Why are all these people so pale and irritable?
Maybe they’d all be less cranky if they took the day off and went mountain biking with some serious hotties and worked on their tans. Not that I would know anything about that…
BUT, SERIOUSLY: In our recent review for THE LINCOLN LAWYER (review # 281), I referenced a type of film that has nothing more going for it than a strong cast, solid story, and good old-fashioned storytelling. In other words, they do not rely on flashy special effects or over-the-top, larger-than-life plotlines. Instead, they just want to entertain you without insulting your intelligence. Many movies from the 60’s, 70’s, 80’s and even the 90’s focused on these down-to-earth aspects.
SUSPECT from 1987 is one such film. In this day and age, this movie would probably end up being made as a TV movie - if at all, owing to the fact that there’s nothing flashy about it. It’s just a very good mystery that keeps you leaning forward as each twist, turn, and clue is unveiled by a talented director and his equally-skilled cast.
Director Peter Yates brings a very Hitchcockian feel to the proceedings, starting from the sinister opening credits that echo many of the Master’s own touches, to the final confrontation and revelation of “whodunit.” Even the investigative sequences hum with quiet suspense, as Kathleen and Eddie realize that Elizabeth’s murder is just the tip of a very sinister iceberg, and Carl is likely the fall guy for a very powerful murderer. Especially unnerving is the scene where Kathleen is chased by the real killer through the courthouse after-hours, leading to a jumpy game of cat-and-mouse.
Cher is quietly terrific as Kathleen Riley. She successfully sheds her “glamour-puss” image, and turns Kathleen into a very likable “everywoman” heroine that we easily root for - someone who still believes in the system despite everything, and still manages to hold on to her ideals, and refuses to go the easy, lazy route of cynicism. After MOONSTRUCK, this is easily Cher’s best role.
Dennis Quaid may not be as strong as Cher, and you can easily see at least three other actors playing his role, but he still manages to engage us. The problem with Eddie Sanger is we’re never really sure why he risks charges of Jury Tampering to try to help Kathleen. Is he just naturally reckless? Naïve? Is he attracted to Kathleen? Does he sympathize with underdogs? Quaid never really allows us to fathom the character completely. Not sure if this is even his fault or the script’s (probably the latter). In any case, he’s good enough to keep us interested in Eddie’s actions, however inscrutable, and doesn’t hamper the film too much. Still, SUSPECT would’ve rated **** (very good) if Eddie would’ve been as fleshed-out as Kathleen.
Another reason SUSPECT doesn’t rate higher than ***½ (good) is because a potentially-intriguing plot thread is never explored satisfactorily. What should’ve been the emotional core of the film is Kathleen’s relationship with the downtrodden homeless vet, Carl Wayne Anderson. Despite not uttering a single word, Liam Neeson turns the character into an endlessly expressive and soulful figure. Carl’s sordid history is imprinted in his sad eyes, and Neeson’s scenes with Cher threaten to turn SUSPECT into something more than a good thriller. Unfortunately, time and again, the script drops this thread and keeps returning to Kathleen’s tricky relationship with Dennis. Had SUSPECT turned the Kathleen-Carl relationship into the center of the film, and either minimized or nixed the Kathleen-Eddie one, this film would’ve been a classic.
In the end, the core story of SUSPECT - Public Defender realizes her homeless client is the patsy for a high-powered political conspiracy - is dynamic enough to surmount a slight issue in how the leading man’s role is conceived. It further helps that Cher is stunning - literally and figuratively - as our beleaguered heroine, and that a superb roster of character actors (John Mahoney, Joe Mantegna, Phillip Bosco, E. Katherine Kerr) lend more-than-able support to our leads.
Despite SUSPECT’s flaws, Hitchcock still would’ve been proud.
REVIEW UPDATE: The Last Five Courtroom Flicks Reviews...
Hello, all...
Hope everyone is having a blast. Took the day off to recover from some late-night shenanigans last night - then went hiking and biking today with some pals in what I can only call an "urban oasis." AKA Carkeek Park. The sun is shining gloriously and outdoors is the place to be today in Rain City - because there ain't no rain. Yup, we broke that new mountain bike in. Regarding the old bike, anyone wants it, just let me know and I'll ship it to you wherever you are in the world... You pay the shipping. Of course, the bike is a piece of rusty shit by now, so you're better off exploring other options.
At any rate, due to busy, busy, busy week (and nights) I have not been able to get any more of the subject reviews posted. They will all post, as per usual, by Sunday night - hook or by crook.
Also, please note that because we have so many thrillers among the Courtroom Flicks, I am pulling CRIMINAL LAW and substituting it with the comedy LEGAL EAGLES, for variety.
Please expect the review to post whenever I can manage this weekend. Hiking and biking again tomorrow, rain or shine, but if it's shine, you may not hear from me until Sunday night!
Hanno un grande giorno!
Hope everyone is having a blast. Took the day off to recover from some late-night shenanigans last night - then went hiking and biking today with some pals in what I can only call an "urban oasis." AKA Carkeek Park. The sun is shining gloriously and outdoors is the place to be today in Rain City - because there ain't no rain. Yup, we broke that new mountain bike in. Regarding the old bike, anyone wants it, just let me know and I'll ship it to you wherever you are in the world... You pay the shipping. Of course, the bike is a piece of rusty shit by now, so you're better off exploring other options.
At any rate, due to busy, busy, busy week (and nights) I have not been able to get any more of the subject reviews posted. They will all post, as per usual, by Sunday night - hook or by crook.
Also, please note that because we have so many thrillers among the Courtroom Flicks, I am pulling CRIMINAL LAW and substituting it with the comedy LEGAL EAGLES, for variety.
Please expect the review to post whenever I can manage this weekend. Hiking and biking again tomorrow, rain or shine, but if it's shine, you may not hear from me until Sunday night!
Hanno un grande giorno!
# 282 - JAGGED EDGE (1985)
JAGGED EDGE (1985 - THRILLER / MYSTERY / COURTROOM FLICK) ***½ out of *****
(Wow, she really fought against sleeping with her client, didn‘t she? Not…)
CAST: Jeff Bridges, Glenn Close, Robert Loggia, Peter Coyote, Maria Mayenzet, Leigh Taylor-Young, Karen Austin.
DIRECTOR: Richard Marquand
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and highly questionable legal eagle antics straight ahead…
Our next review, the twisty courtroom thriller JAGGED EDGE, has a special place in my heart. Not because it’s a suspenseful - if also highly implausible - thriller. Not because it’s a terrific showcase for the acting talents of Jeff Bridges, Glenn Close, Robert Loggia, and Peter Coyote. Not because it was one of the surprise box-office hits of 1985. While I do love JAGGED EDGE for all the above reasons, there’s another one that makes it sit in a prominent place in my pantheon of “Must-See-Movies.”
The part where Glenn Close’s character’s costume changes three times - in one scene. And trust me when I say it wasn’t supposed to. See, the scene is the first day of the trial that our heroine, Teddy Barnes (Close), is trying, and while I may not be an attorney or smart enough to be one, I do know this: they do not change out their suits completely in between cross-examinations on the same goddamn day. Seriously, folks… the first time I saw this scene as a kid I had to slap myself over and over again to make sure I wasn’t dreaming. And nothing is more disconcerting to parents anywhere than seeing their young son slapping himself relentlessly. That’s the kind of shit that gets your parents talking to an exorcist. Kind of cuts into playground time - if you know what I’m saying.
At any rate, enough about the infamous “three-outfits-in-one-scene”; we should probably discuss what the fuck JAGGED EDGE is about. Basically, it’s about this ultra-rich San Francisco dude named John “Jack” Forrester (Jeff Bridges), who is accused of the grisly murder of his heiress wife, Paige (Maria Mayenzet). He employs the services of hot-shot attorney, Teddy Barnes (Glenn Close), who used to work for the District Attorney’s office until a falling out with her boss, Thomas Krasny (Peter Coyote), led to her defection to the corporate (and more profitable) side - and a personal vow to never practice criminal law ever again.
That vow is tested when her senior partners pretty much beg her to take the case. Evidently, she’s the only one in the firm with any kind of criminal law background, and they desperately want to keep Jack as a client - even if it means tossing Teddy back into the field that she despises so much?
Before you know it, Teddy has agreed to represent Jack, but on one condition: she will only represent Jack if she believes he’s innocent. Now, as I mentioned before, I know I’m not the smartest person out there, and I certainly know I’m not smart enough to be a lawyer, but - again - I know this much for certain: defense attorneys supposed to defend their clients whether or not they believe in their innocence. Which makes Teddy’s condition kind of, well, stupid. And this is a stupid person making that statement, so that’s saying something.
At any rate, Jack agrees to Teddy’s condition, stating that he’s innocent and she ain‘t got nothing to worry about. Now, either Jack is the hottest creature on the planet (he’s played by a young, clean-shaven Jeff Bridges, so he comes close) and can get anyone to believe anything he says, or Teddy is about as dumb as a dumpster full of styrofoam packing peanuts. Because not only does she believe him on the spot, but she also does the following: (1) goes horse-back riding with him; (2) makes major googley eyes at him; and (3) fucks him until he can barely walk. Or, more accurately, he fucks her until she can barely walk. Which is not good for a defense attorney, because it just looks sad when you have to make your opening statement holding on to the edge of the jury counter because your legs feel like jelly.
Then there’s the real question of Jack’s guilt. Evidently, Paige was getting ready to divorce him. And that would’ve ruined him. Did he kill her before she could get the ball rolling? Even more troubling is the fact that Jack - despite his claims to the contrary - was apparently unfaithful with another woman (Diane Erickson). Add to that the allegation that a knife very similar to the murder weapon was found in Jack’s locker at the country club - and I guess you could say our sistah Teddy has got a major dilemma on her hands.
Is this guy the “perfect husband” that everyone makes him out to be? Or is he, as Thomas Krasny says, an “iceman” capable of anything? Will Teddy regret believing in his innocence? Or is he truly not guilty? How can Teddy defend someone she is both falling in love with and still cannot trust? What secret from her own past might affect her decisions in the present? And the most important question of all: is Jeff Bridges hotter in this flick or STARMAN?
Inquiring minds want to know…
BUT, SERIOUSLY: In our review for BASIC INSTINCT (review # 83), we discussed films that are so well-cast, sharply-written, and cleverly-filmed, that any potential gaps in plausibility are easily papered over by sheer cinematic elan. BASIC INSTINCT could’ve easily failed, but the talents of writer Joe Eszterhas, stars Michael Douglas and Sharon Stone, and director Paul Verhoeven easily save the movie - and turn it into a guilty pleasure worth savoring over and over again.
JAGGED EDGE is yet another movie of this kind, and it bears more than a passing resemblance to BASIC INSTINCT: (1) it is about a protagonist falling in love with a love interest who may be a vicious killer, (2) it stars actors who elevate the film with their performances, (3) it is helmed by a director who knows his stuff, and (4) it is written by once-uber screenwriter Joe Eszterhas.
This is quite telling, because Eszterhas’ films all have the same formula: an innocent lead is seduced by an enigmatic love interest who may or may not be deadly. He explored this premise in film after film: JAGGED EDGE, BETRAYED, THE MUSIC BOX, BASIC INSTINCT, SLIVER, and JADE. Only the details were different. Of these films, BASIC INSTINCT and JAGGED EDGE were the best.
That’s not to say that JAGGED EDGE is perfect, though. Far from it. The film suffers from some truly ludicrous suspensions of disbelief. Specifically to do with Teddy Barnes’ actions. Here is a woman who is accomplished, intelligent, and sharp - yet she believes in her client’s innocence at the drop of a hat - and sleeps with him even quicker. It’s a testament to the energy and confidence of the script - and Close’s performance - that we don’t dwell on this too much.
As the enigmatic (and possibly lethal) Jack Forrester, Jeff Bridges hits all the right notes of stoicism and charisma. Forrester is an ambitious guy who’ll stop at nothing to realize his vision - but is this enough to make him a murderer? Credit goes to Bridges for layering the thinnest veneer of ambiguity to this “all-american-guy” character. Another actor might have played Jack Forrester as squeaky-clean. Bridges, however, blends in a hint of danger - which might help explain Teddy’s attraction to him.
The rest of the cast is aces, with Robert Loggia, Peter Coyote, Karen Austin, and Leigh Taylor-Young lending more-than-able support as characters who play pivotal roles in the unfolding mystery. Coyote, in particular, is great as the unethical and unscrupulous D.A. Thomas Krasny who’ll stop at nothing (even breaking the law) to get the verdict that he wants.
In the end, JAGGED EDGE rates as a good film because of the stellar talent involved. Try not to think about the plot (or the heroine’s actions) too much, and you’ll be entertained.
(Wow, she really fought against sleeping with her client, didn‘t she? Not…)
CAST: Jeff Bridges, Glenn Close, Robert Loggia, Peter Coyote, Maria Mayenzet, Leigh Taylor-Young, Karen Austin.
DIRECTOR: Richard Marquand
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and highly questionable legal eagle antics straight ahead…
Our next review, the twisty courtroom thriller JAGGED EDGE, has a special place in my heart. Not because it’s a suspenseful - if also highly implausible - thriller. Not because it’s a terrific showcase for the acting talents of Jeff Bridges, Glenn Close, Robert Loggia, and Peter Coyote. Not because it was one of the surprise box-office hits of 1985. While I do love JAGGED EDGE for all the above reasons, there’s another one that makes it sit in a prominent place in my pantheon of “Must-See-Movies.”
The part where Glenn Close’s character’s costume changes three times - in one scene. And trust me when I say it wasn’t supposed to. See, the scene is the first day of the trial that our heroine, Teddy Barnes (Close), is trying, and while I may not be an attorney or smart enough to be one, I do know this: they do not change out their suits completely in between cross-examinations on the same goddamn day. Seriously, folks… the first time I saw this scene as a kid I had to slap myself over and over again to make sure I wasn’t dreaming. And nothing is more disconcerting to parents anywhere than seeing their young son slapping himself relentlessly. That’s the kind of shit that gets your parents talking to an exorcist. Kind of cuts into playground time - if you know what I’m saying.
At any rate, enough about the infamous “three-outfits-in-one-scene”; we should probably discuss what the fuck JAGGED EDGE is about. Basically, it’s about this ultra-rich San Francisco dude named John “Jack” Forrester (Jeff Bridges), who is accused of the grisly murder of his heiress wife, Paige (Maria Mayenzet). He employs the services of hot-shot attorney, Teddy Barnes (Glenn Close), who used to work for the District Attorney’s office until a falling out with her boss, Thomas Krasny (Peter Coyote), led to her defection to the corporate (and more profitable) side - and a personal vow to never practice criminal law ever again.
That vow is tested when her senior partners pretty much beg her to take the case. Evidently, she’s the only one in the firm with any kind of criminal law background, and they desperately want to keep Jack as a client - even if it means tossing Teddy back into the field that she despises so much?
Before you know it, Teddy has agreed to represent Jack, but on one condition: she will only represent Jack if she believes he’s innocent. Now, as I mentioned before, I know I’m not the smartest person out there, and I certainly know I’m not smart enough to be a lawyer, but - again - I know this much for certain: defense attorneys supposed to defend their clients whether or not they believe in their innocence. Which makes Teddy’s condition kind of, well, stupid. And this is a stupid person making that statement, so that’s saying something.
At any rate, Jack agrees to Teddy’s condition, stating that he’s innocent and she ain‘t got nothing to worry about. Now, either Jack is the hottest creature on the planet (he’s played by a young, clean-shaven Jeff Bridges, so he comes close) and can get anyone to believe anything he says, or Teddy is about as dumb as a dumpster full of styrofoam packing peanuts. Because not only does she believe him on the spot, but she also does the following: (1) goes horse-back riding with him; (2) makes major googley eyes at him; and (3) fucks him until he can barely walk. Or, more accurately, he fucks her until she can barely walk. Which is not good for a defense attorney, because it just looks sad when you have to make your opening statement holding on to the edge of the jury counter because your legs feel like jelly.
Then there’s the real question of Jack’s guilt. Evidently, Paige was getting ready to divorce him. And that would’ve ruined him. Did he kill her before she could get the ball rolling? Even more troubling is the fact that Jack - despite his claims to the contrary - was apparently unfaithful with another woman (Diane Erickson). Add to that the allegation that a knife very similar to the murder weapon was found in Jack’s locker at the country club - and I guess you could say our sistah Teddy has got a major dilemma on her hands.
Is this guy the “perfect husband” that everyone makes him out to be? Or is he, as Thomas Krasny says, an “iceman” capable of anything? Will Teddy regret believing in his innocence? Or is he truly not guilty? How can Teddy defend someone she is both falling in love with and still cannot trust? What secret from her own past might affect her decisions in the present? And the most important question of all: is Jeff Bridges hotter in this flick or STARMAN?
Inquiring minds want to know…
BUT, SERIOUSLY: In our review for BASIC INSTINCT (review # 83), we discussed films that are so well-cast, sharply-written, and cleverly-filmed, that any potential gaps in plausibility are easily papered over by sheer cinematic elan. BASIC INSTINCT could’ve easily failed, but the talents of writer Joe Eszterhas, stars Michael Douglas and Sharon Stone, and director Paul Verhoeven easily save the movie - and turn it into a guilty pleasure worth savoring over and over again.
JAGGED EDGE is yet another movie of this kind, and it bears more than a passing resemblance to BASIC INSTINCT: (1) it is about a protagonist falling in love with a love interest who may be a vicious killer, (2) it stars actors who elevate the film with their performances, (3) it is helmed by a director who knows his stuff, and (4) it is written by once-uber screenwriter Joe Eszterhas.
This is quite telling, because Eszterhas’ films all have the same formula: an innocent lead is seduced by an enigmatic love interest who may or may not be deadly. He explored this premise in film after film: JAGGED EDGE, BETRAYED, THE MUSIC BOX, BASIC INSTINCT, SLIVER, and JADE. Only the details were different. Of these films, BASIC INSTINCT and JAGGED EDGE were the best.
That’s not to say that JAGGED EDGE is perfect, though. Far from it. The film suffers from some truly ludicrous suspensions of disbelief. Specifically to do with Teddy Barnes’ actions. Here is a woman who is accomplished, intelligent, and sharp - yet she believes in her client’s innocence at the drop of a hat - and sleeps with him even quicker. It’s a testament to the energy and confidence of the script - and Close’s performance - that we don’t dwell on this too much.
As the enigmatic (and possibly lethal) Jack Forrester, Jeff Bridges hits all the right notes of stoicism and charisma. Forrester is an ambitious guy who’ll stop at nothing to realize his vision - but is this enough to make him a murderer? Credit goes to Bridges for layering the thinnest veneer of ambiguity to this “all-american-guy” character. Another actor might have played Jack Forrester as squeaky-clean. Bridges, however, blends in a hint of danger - which might help explain Teddy’s attraction to him.
The rest of the cast is aces, with Robert Loggia, Peter Coyote, Karen Austin, and Leigh Taylor-Young lending more-than-able support as characters who play pivotal roles in the unfolding mystery. Coyote, in particular, is great as the unethical and unscrupulous D.A. Thomas Krasny who’ll stop at nothing (even breaking the law) to get the verdict that he wants.
In the end, JAGGED EDGE rates as a good film because of the stellar talent involved. Try not to think about the plot (or the heroine’s actions) too much, and you’ll be entertained.
# 281 - THE LINCOLN LAWYER (2011)
THE LINCOLN LAWYER (2011 - THRILLER / COURTROOM FLICK) ***½ out of *****
(I‘ve heard of working remotely, but this is just ridiculous…)
CAST: Matthew McConaughey, Marisa Tomei, Ryan Phillipe, William H. Macy, Josh Lucas, Frances Fisher, Margaret Levieva, John Leguizamo, Michael Pare.
DIRECTOR: Brad Furman
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and surprisingly mobile defense attorneys straight ahead…
Let me answer the burning questions on everyone’s minds right now: in his new flick (and our latest review) titled THE LINCOLN LAWYER, Matthew McConaughey doesn’t take his shirt off - not even once. Not. Once.
THUMP!
Hear that? That’s the sound of a thousand jaws hitting the floor all over the world. Sorry to disappoint you folks, but M. Con keeps his duds on in this one, and thank God, too. Don’t get me wrong: there’s nothing I love more than a nice pair of pectoral muscles, but McConaughey has flashed his shit around so much that I’m starting to look at his chest and body the way titty-bar bouncers must look at the strippers they have no choice but look at 24/7: it’s all starting to blend into the scenery. Besides, the dude looks like he waxes his chest, and I’m sorry, but that’s a first-degree felony in my book.
Whatever. McConaughey plays Mick Haller, a high-powered Los Angeles attorney who is definitely not your typical high-powered Los Angeles attorney. For starters, he: (1) looks like Matthew McConaughey, (2) talks like Matthew McConaughey, and (3) gets chauffeured around in a Lincoln Town Car which doubles as his office. Look at this way: at least the view from his window is always different. Oh, and he has a love child with Assistant District Attorney Maggie McPherson (Marisa Tomei). Given he’s a defense attorney, I guess you could say that’s one of them awkward situations. And I’m not talking about the one that prowls the Jersey Shore.
Anyhow, Mick’s life gets thrown for a loop when he is hired to defend pretty-boy rich kid Louis Roulet (Ryan Philippe), who gets picked up by the LAPD for beating the shit out of a prostitute called Reggie Campo (Margarita Levieva) and nearly killing her. According to Louis, Reggie came on to him at the club they were at. When he snuck over to her apartment, she clubbed him over the head and set him up for assault and attempted murder. Or something. Evidently, Louis and his family think that Reggie is trying to milk him for his inheritance. Can’t blame a girl for trying, right?
Anyhow, what appears to be an open-and-shut case suddenly turns into one of those Chinese Puzzle Boxes that never fail to give me a fucking migraine. Specifically, Louis’s
“Poor Me Wuz Framed, Yo!” story begins to show more holes than your average colander. For starters, the attack on Reggie bears some strong parallels with another case that Mick tried a few years ago - one that he had to plea bargain and landed his client in jail for life instead of the death penalty.
Did Louis attack Reggie? Or did she frame him for an easy payday? Is there a connection between this case and the other one that Mick had from awhile back? If so, what is it? What is Louis really planning? Is he a serial killer? Or an innocent man wronged? What does Mick have to do to get at the truth? And what will he find when he finds it? Will Maggie and his daughter become endangered? Will Mick wish he’d just taken a vacation to the Philippines when he had a chance? Just so he could have a reason to take that shirt off and try (in vain) to impress the locals with his (sadly) waxed chest?
They can keep that shit. Give me a man-carpet any day of the week. I’ll roll ‘round and ‘round in it until I pass out…
BUT, SERIOUSLY: Time and again, I’ve lamented about how movies have changed from the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, and even as recent as the 90’s. Back then, movies could generally get by on good old-fashioned storytelling and didn’t have to depend so much on visual razzle-dazzle. Movies like these became less and less common as the needs and wants of the PlayStation Crowd and Twitter crowd took precedence over quality filmmaking.
THE LINCOLN LAWYER is one of those movies. It’s based on the best-selling novel by Michael Connelly, so it comes with the built-in audience that studios crave these days. The interesting thing about it, though, is that it harkens back to the films of earlier decades that focused more on character and plot than the flashy gimmicks that seem to be the norm at the cineplex these days. For me, that’s as refreshing as a tall glass of iced tea on a hot summer day. Especially after having to sit through the likes of SEASON OF THE WITCH, PIRANHA, and WHEN IN ROME.
At its core, THE LINCOLN LAWYER is a straightforward legal thriller with echoes of CRIMINAL LAW (review coming later this week) and hints of GUILTY AS SIN and PRIMAL FEAR. It also thankfully gives its characters room to breathe and develop, which goes a long way in keeping our interest. Had THE LINCOLN LAWYER been more gimmick-intensive, it wouldn’t have been quite as enjoyable at it is. It’s the people at its heart who make the ride worthwhile.
I’ve never really been much of a fan of Matthew McConaughey’s. That’s not due to any failing in the acting department - he’s always been a good actor. With the exception of his appealing turns in THE WEDDING PLANNER and A TIME TO KILL, I’ve just never found him very interesting. In THE LINCOLN LAWYER, though, he scores another surprisingly compelling performance. Mainly because he refuses to turn Mick Haller into a guy who just coasts on his good looks. Instead, we get a hero who is charming and knows it, but also relies on his other faculties to get to the bottom of things - especially the thorny case before him.
As Mick Haller’s adversary, Ryan Philippe is competent - but not necessarily commanding. He doesn’t really do much with the role of Louis Roulet except project a sort of blank malice that doesn’t necessarily make him the scariest villain. Let’s just say he doesn’t come close to Edward Norton’s terrifying portrayal of a similar role in PRIMAL FEAR - which kept you guessing until the very end. There’s never really any doubt as to Roulet’s guilt or innocence, and this is largely due to Philippe’s predictable performance. A thriller is only as great as its villain, and Philippe’s bland performance kind of keeps THE LINCOLN LAWYER from rating higher.
The supporting cast fares much better, though, with the likes of Marisa Tomei, William H. Macy, John Leguizamo, Bob Gunton, Frances Fisher, and Michael Pare scoring vividly in their important roles. Tomei, Fisher, and Macy, in particular, do very well and can be considered the standouts.
In the end, THE LINCOLN LAWYER is a nice throwback to the films of earlier decades that seem almost quaint because they seek to tell their stories the classical way: through character and plot, and not eye candy visuals. How quaint, indeed…
(I‘ve heard of working remotely, but this is just ridiculous…)
CAST: Matthew McConaughey, Marisa Tomei, Ryan Phillipe, William H. Macy, Josh Lucas, Frances Fisher, Margaret Levieva, John Leguizamo, Michael Pare.
DIRECTOR: Brad Furman
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and surprisingly mobile defense attorneys straight ahead…
Let me answer the burning questions on everyone’s minds right now: in his new flick (and our latest review) titled THE LINCOLN LAWYER, Matthew McConaughey doesn’t take his shirt off - not even once. Not. Once.
THUMP!
Hear that? That’s the sound of a thousand jaws hitting the floor all over the world. Sorry to disappoint you folks, but M. Con keeps his duds on in this one, and thank God, too. Don’t get me wrong: there’s nothing I love more than a nice pair of pectoral muscles, but McConaughey has flashed his shit around so much that I’m starting to look at his chest and body the way titty-bar bouncers must look at the strippers they have no choice but look at 24/7: it’s all starting to blend into the scenery. Besides, the dude looks like he waxes his chest, and I’m sorry, but that’s a first-degree felony in my book.
Whatever. McConaughey plays Mick Haller, a high-powered Los Angeles attorney who is definitely not your typical high-powered Los Angeles attorney. For starters, he: (1) looks like Matthew McConaughey, (2) talks like Matthew McConaughey, and (3) gets chauffeured around in a Lincoln Town Car which doubles as his office. Look at this way: at least the view from his window is always different. Oh, and he has a love child with Assistant District Attorney Maggie McPherson (Marisa Tomei). Given he’s a defense attorney, I guess you could say that’s one of them awkward situations. And I’m not talking about the one that prowls the Jersey Shore.
Anyhow, Mick’s life gets thrown for a loop when he is hired to defend pretty-boy rich kid Louis Roulet (Ryan Philippe), who gets picked up by the LAPD for beating the shit out of a prostitute called Reggie Campo (Margarita Levieva) and nearly killing her. According to Louis, Reggie came on to him at the club they were at. When he snuck over to her apartment, she clubbed him over the head and set him up for assault and attempted murder. Or something. Evidently, Louis and his family think that Reggie is trying to milk him for his inheritance. Can’t blame a girl for trying, right?
Anyhow, what appears to be an open-and-shut case suddenly turns into one of those Chinese Puzzle Boxes that never fail to give me a fucking migraine. Specifically, Louis’s
“Poor Me Wuz Framed, Yo!” story begins to show more holes than your average colander. For starters, the attack on Reggie bears some strong parallels with another case that Mick tried a few years ago - one that he had to plea bargain and landed his client in jail for life instead of the death penalty.
Did Louis attack Reggie? Or did she frame him for an easy payday? Is there a connection between this case and the other one that Mick had from awhile back? If so, what is it? What is Louis really planning? Is he a serial killer? Or an innocent man wronged? What does Mick have to do to get at the truth? And what will he find when he finds it? Will Maggie and his daughter become endangered? Will Mick wish he’d just taken a vacation to the Philippines when he had a chance? Just so he could have a reason to take that shirt off and try (in vain) to impress the locals with his (sadly) waxed chest?
They can keep that shit. Give me a man-carpet any day of the week. I’ll roll ‘round and ‘round in it until I pass out…
BUT, SERIOUSLY: Time and again, I’ve lamented about how movies have changed from the 50’s, 60’s, 70’s, 80’s, and even as recent as the 90’s. Back then, movies could generally get by on good old-fashioned storytelling and didn’t have to depend so much on visual razzle-dazzle. Movies like these became less and less common as the needs and wants of the PlayStation Crowd and Twitter crowd took precedence over quality filmmaking.
THE LINCOLN LAWYER is one of those movies. It’s based on the best-selling novel by Michael Connelly, so it comes with the built-in audience that studios crave these days. The interesting thing about it, though, is that it harkens back to the films of earlier decades that focused more on character and plot than the flashy gimmicks that seem to be the norm at the cineplex these days. For me, that’s as refreshing as a tall glass of iced tea on a hot summer day. Especially after having to sit through the likes of SEASON OF THE WITCH, PIRANHA, and WHEN IN ROME.
At its core, THE LINCOLN LAWYER is a straightforward legal thriller with echoes of CRIMINAL LAW (review coming later this week) and hints of GUILTY AS SIN and PRIMAL FEAR. It also thankfully gives its characters room to breathe and develop, which goes a long way in keeping our interest. Had THE LINCOLN LAWYER been more gimmick-intensive, it wouldn’t have been quite as enjoyable at it is. It’s the people at its heart who make the ride worthwhile.
I’ve never really been much of a fan of Matthew McConaughey’s. That’s not due to any failing in the acting department - he’s always been a good actor. With the exception of his appealing turns in THE WEDDING PLANNER and A TIME TO KILL, I’ve just never found him very interesting. In THE LINCOLN LAWYER, though, he scores another surprisingly compelling performance. Mainly because he refuses to turn Mick Haller into a guy who just coasts on his good looks. Instead, we get a hero who is charming and knows it, but also relies on his other faculties to get to the bottom of things - especially the thorny case before him.
As Mick Haller’s adversary, Ryan Philippe is competent - but not necessarily commanding. He doesn’t really do much with the role of Louis Roulet except project a sort of blank malice that doesn’t necessarily make him the scariest villain. Let’s just say he doesn’t come close to Edward Norton’s terrifying portrayal of a similar role in PRIMAL FEAR - which kept you guessing until the very end. There’s never really any doubt as to Roulet’s guilt or innocence, and this is largely due to Philippe’s predictable performance. A thriller is only as great as its villain, and Philippe’s bland performance kind of keeps THE LINCOLN LAWYER from rating higher.
The supporting cast fares much better, though, with the likes of Marisa Tomei, William H. Macy, John Leguizamo, Bob Gunton, Frances Fisher, and Michael Pare scoring vividly in their important roles. Tomei, Fisher, and Macy, in particular, do very well and can be considered the standouts.
In the end, THE LINCOLN LAWYER is a nice throwback to the films of earlier decades that seem almost quaint because they seek to tell their stories the classical way: through character and plot, and not eye candy visuals. How quaint, indeed…
UPCOMING REVIEWS FOR THE WEEK OF 3/21/11 - 3/27/11
Evening, folks...
Hope y'all had a great weekend. I certainly did. And I learned what a wonderful place Sports Authority is. Where else can you get a new mountain bike, a new pair of roller-blades, and a new pair of running shoes - for next to nothing!? Love that place.
But I digress. Forgive me. Anyhow, with the publication of SIGNS a few minutes ago, we are right on schedule. Please find below the list of our reviews for next week. In case you couldn't guess from the collage I posted earlier this week, our theme is "Courtroom Movies"!
Yup, in honor of Matthew McConaughey's THE LINCOLN LAWYER being released this past weekend, we are reviewing seven films that deal with legal shenanigans in and out of the courtrooms. Should be a blast...
Please find the movies below:
# 281 - THE LINCOLN LAWYER: 2011 (AKA: Matthew McConaughey In Another Movie Where He Keeps His Shirt On - Good, Because If That Chest Ain't Got Hair, I Ain't Interested)
# 282 - JAGGED EDGE: 1985 (AKA: The World's Dumbest Defense ttorney)
# 283 - SUSPECT: 1987 (AKA: The World's Noblest Defense Attorney)
# 284 - TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD: 1962 (AKA: A Time To Kill, circa 1962)
# 285 - CRIMINAL LAW: 1988 (AKA: Kevin Bacon And Gary Oldman Dance The Dance Of Death)
# 286 - THE VERDICT: 1983 (AKA: Exactly What City Has Attorneys Who Look Like Paul Newman?)
# 287 - 12 ANGRY MEN: 1957 (AKA: Peer Pressure Of The Worst Order)
This week is going to be an entertaining one... beyond a reasonable doubt. Hang on to your law books.
Hope y'all had a great weekend. I certainly did. And I learned what a wonderful place Sports Authority is. Where else can you get a new mountain bike, a new pair of roller-blades, and a new pair of running shoes - for next to nothing!? Love that place.
But I digress. Forgive me. Anyhow, with the publication of SIGNS a few minutes ago, we are right on schedule. Please find below the list of our reviews for next week. In case you couldn't guess from the collage I posted earlier this week, our theme is "Courtroom Movies"!
Yup, in honor of Matthew McConaughey's THE LINCOLN LAWYER being released this past weekend, we are reviewing seven films that deal with legal shenanigans in and out of the courtrooms. Should be a blast...
Please find the movies below:
# 281 - THE LINCOLN LAWYER: 2011 (AKA: Matthew McConaughey In Another Movie Where He Keeps His Shirt On - Good, Because If That Chest Ain't Got Hair, I Ain't Interested)
# 282 - JAGGED EDGE: 1985 (AKA: The World's Dumbest Defense ttorney)
# 283 - SUSPECT: 1987 (AKA: The World's Noblest Defense Attorney)
# 284 - TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD: 1962 (AKA: A Time To Kill, circa 1962)
# 285 - CRIMINAL LAW: 1988 (AKA: Kevin Bacon And Gary Oldman Dance The Dance Of Death)
# 286 - THE VERDICT: 1983 (AKA: Exactly What City Has Attorneys Who Look Like Paul Newman?)
# 287 - 12 ANGRY MEN: 1957 (AKA: Peer Pressure Of The Worst Order)
This week is going to be an entertaining one... beyond a reasonable doubt. Hang on to your law books.
# 280 - SIGNS (2002)
SIGNS (2002 - DRAMA / SCI-FI / ALIEN INVASION FLICK) ***½ out of *****
(Pretty strong argument for city living, eh?)
CAST: Mel Gibson, Joaquin Phoenix, Kieran Culkin, Cherry Jones, Abigail Breslin.
DIRECTOR: M. Night Shymalan
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and questionable use of tin foil - straight ahead…
My father grew up on a farm and had fond memories of it. That fact, plus the fact that FIELD OF DREAMS made living on a farm look like the shiznit, was enough to make me basically pine for my own little 50 acres in Michigan or Minnesota. There’s just something about growing your own food that appeals to an independent, self-reliant dickhead like me. Besides, you’d never go hungry. As long as you don’t get lazy, that is.
If FIELD OF DREAMS is the movie that makes living on a farm look like a slice of paradise, our latest review is the film that basically tosses a bucket of kerosene on that idea and chases it down with a lit match. That film is SIGNS, and it portrays an alien invasion as seen from the rather isolated perspective of a guilt-ridden farmer and his equally troubled clan.
Mel Gibson plays Rev. Graham Hess, a dude who recently lost his wife Colleen (Patricia Kalember) in a particularly gruesome car accident that basically severs her in half. That doesn’t stop her, though, from whispering some significant parting words to him. Words that will play an important role in the movie later. Hence my use of the adjective “significant” to describe them. A-fucking-hem, folks…
Anyhow, Reverend G. lives on his farm with: (1) his has-been baseball player brother Merrill (Joaquin Phoenix), (2) his know-it-all son Morgan (Rory Culkin), and (3) his preciouser-than-precious daughter Bo (Abigail Breslin). These folks are barely getting by in the wake of Colleen’s death when strange things start to happen. To wit, we witness the following heebie-jeebie shite: (1) crop circles start showing up in Rev. G’s fields, (2) Bo’s baby monitor starts picking up some bizarre - to say the least - transmissions; and (3) unseen prowlers start, uh, prowling around their property. Not exactly the kind of stuff you’d expect to find in Hee-Haw country. Not even close.
Then things get even worse, if you can even imagine, when news reports reach Graham and his family that - GASP! - alien ships have appeared in the skies above major cities around the world. To make things even more interesting (read: fucked-up), footage surfaces from Argentina of an “alien” sighting. Based on this grainy video, these inter-galactic interlopers look like… gangly human dudes wearing alien costumes that look like half-off rentals from the local party store.
What exactly is going on here? Is there an alien invasion afoot? Or is it all in the minds of the Rev. G. and his family? If it is an invasion, what can they do to stop it? Do all the strange occurrences on the Hess farm have anything to do with what is happening in the rest of the world? What secret knowledge from Rev. G.’s past can he use to stop the mayhem? Specifically, what role does Colleen have in the ensuing drama? Will Graham find it out in time? Or is his farm - and the planet Earth - pretty much toast?
Hard to say. Let’s just say that condo living in the big, swinging city is starting look more and more appealing after watching this movie…
BUT, SERIOUSLY: Say what you want about M. Night Shymalan, but there is no denying the man has talent. Yes, he has often come across as just a tad egotistical in interviews, and has attracted a pack of rabid haters because of it. The fact remains, though, that all one has to do is watch any film from his oeuvre to see that this guy has something special.
THE SIXTH SENSE was supremely overrated, and I saw its twist coming from a mile away because it was reminiscent of one of my favorite books (James Herbert’s “The Survivor”). Yet, I admired Shymalan’s sensitive treatment of this potentially hoary subject matter (a kid who can see dead people) and how he transformed in into a chronicle of a boy coming to terms with a gift that is both a blessing and a curse - instead of the horror schlockfest that it could’ve been. UNBREAKABLE suffered from a rather truncated twist that was not as clever as Shymalan clearly believed it to be. But there were moments of pure dread in it that Hitchcock would have envied - specifically, the scenes where Bruce Willis character saves the imperiled family from the killer in their house. THE VILLAGE was an even better film - better than even THE SIXTH SENSE in my estimation - that tried to tell an old-fashioned story through emotional terms and not flashy ones. Perhaps that’s why it misfired and underperformed critically and commercially.
Bottom line, as controversial and often exasperating as Shymalan can come across, the man has never taken the easy route. His films are always rich in character, subtext, and feeling. They may ultimately be imperfect, but they are certainly more accomplished in their imperfect form than half the polished garbage that gets released these days.
SIGNS is no exception. Instead of going the bombastic route of INDEPENDENCE DAY, BATTLE: LOS ANGELES, or SKYLINE, this films cleverly tells the tale of how an isolated community witnesses a global invasion from outer space. In this regard, SIGNS is kind of similar to TESTAMENT, the 1983 film about a small town that suffers that aftermath of a Nuclear War. As with TESTAMENT, the terror builds gradually: first, through rumors and scattered news reports from the outside world, then later, through much more immediate and horrifying first-hand experiences of the madness that is slowly destroying the world - and has now invaded their community.
Shymalan instinctively understands that what you cannot see is far more frightening than what you can. Sigmund Freud once said, “Mankind’s greatest emotion is fear - and mankind’s greatest fear is fear of the unknown.” SIGNS scarily brings that to life. As Graham and his family gradually become aware of the sinister presence on their farm, we never glimpse more than they do - which puts us right in their shoes and allows our fear to build along with theirs. It’s a brave move on Shymalan’s part to keep so much hidden in this age of “Show me! Show me! Show me! Show me!”, but it works wonderfully. What makes SIGNS a good film is how well it exploits our fears of the unseen and the unknown.
Mel Gibson, Joaquin Phoenix, Cherry Jones, Abigail Breslin, and Rory Culkin comprise the major cast, and they all turn in solid, compelling performances. Shymalan allows them to breathe life and flesh out their characters. Another director might have limited or even excised all the “character-building” scenes, and substituted them with flashy and explicit “alien” scenes - to the ultimate detriment of the film. Fortunately, Shymalan has enough confidence in his characters and their stories to let them take free rein.
SIGNS would have rated higher than good (***½) if it weren’t for one little quibble: this film addresses both Graham’s crisis of faith in God, and how he regains it, but also the idea of life forms from other planets. Isn’t that a bit of a contradiction - or conundrum? Isn’t the existence of God (religion) in direct conflict with the existence of aliens (science)? This little nit-noid is what keeps SIGNS from rating higher.
All in all, however, SIGNS is an admirable attempt to tell an alien invasion story from not only an atypical viewpoint, but also ground it in an emotionally-resonant place. While Graham’s faith problems ultimately do not jive with the threat at hand, it doesn’t pose a problem in the moment. And that’s enough to make SIGNS a rewarding and harrowing ride.
(Pretty strong argument for city living, eh?)
CAST: Mel Gibson, Joaquin Phoenix, Kieran Culkin, Cherry Jones, Abigail Breslin.
DIRECTOR: M. Night Shymalan
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and questionable use of tin foil - straight ahead…
My father grew up on a farm and had fond memories of it. That fact, plus the fact that FIELD OF DREAMS made living on a farm look like the shiznit, was enough to make me basically pine for my own little 50 acres in Michigan or Minnesota. There’s just something about growing your own food that appeals to an independent, self-reliant dickhead like me. Besides, you’d never go hungry. As long as you don’t get lazy, that is.
If FIELD OF DREAMS is the movie that makes living on a farm look like a slice of paradise, our latest review is the film that basically tosses a bucket of kerosene on that idea and chases it down with a lit match. That film is SIGNS, and it portrays an alien invasion as seen from the rather isolated perspective of a guilt-ridden farmer and his equally troubled clan.
Mel Gibson plays Rev. Graham Hess, a dude who recently lost his wife Colleen (Patricia Kalember) in a particularly gruesome car accident that basically severs her in half. That doesn’t stop her, though, from whispering some significant parting words to him. Words that will play an important role in the movie later. Hence my use of the adjective “significant” to describe them. A-fucking-hem, folks…
Anyhow, Reverend G. lives on his farm with: (1) his has-been baseball player brother Merrill (Joaquin Phoenix), (2) his know-it-all son Morgan (Rory Culkin), and (3) his preciouser-than-precious daughter Bo (Abigail Breslin). These folks are barely getting by in the wake of Colleen’s death when strange things start to happen. To wit, we witness the following heebie-jeebie shite: (1) crop circles start showing up in Rev. G’s fields, (2) Bo’s baby monitor starts picking up some bizarre - to say the least - transmissions; and (3) unseen prowlers start, uh, prowling around their property. Not exactly the kind of stuff you’d expect to find in Hee-Haw country. Not even close.
Then things get even worse, if you can even imagine, when news reports reach Graham and his family that - GASP! - alien ships have appeared in the skies above major cities around the world. To make things even more interesting (read: fucked-up), footage surfaces from Argentina of an “alien” sighting. Based on this grainy video, these inter-galactic interlopers look like… gangly human dudes wearing alien costumes that look like half-off rentals from the local party store.
What exactly is going on here? Is there an alien invasion afoot? Or is it all in the minds of the Rev. G. and his family? If it is an invasion, what can they do to stop it? Do all the strange occurrences on the Hess farm have anything to do with what is happening in the rest of the world? What secret knowledge from Rev. G.’s past can he use to stop the mayhem? Specifically, what role does Colleen have in the ensuing drama? Will Graham find it out in time? Or is his farm - and the planet Earth - pretty much toast?
Hard to say. Let’s just say that condo living in the big, swinging city is starting look more and more appealing after watching this movie…
BUT, SERIOUSLY: Say what you want about M. Night Shymalan, but there is no denying the man has talent. Yes, he has often come across as just a tad egotistical in interviews, and has attracted a pack of rabid haters because of it. The fact remains, though, that all one has to do is watch any film from his oeuvre to see that this guy has something special.
THE SIXTH SENSE was supremely overrated, and I saw its twist coming from a mile away because it was reminiscent of one of my favorite books (James Herbert’s “The Survivor”). Yet, I admired Shymalan’s sensitive treatment of this potentially hoary subject matter (a kid who can see dead people) and how he transformed in into a chronicle of a boy coming to terms with a gift that is both a blessing and a curse - instead of the horror schlockfest that it could’ve been. UNBREAKABLE suffered from a rather truncated twist that was not as clever as Shymalan clearly believed it to be. But there were moments of pure dread in it that Hitchcock would have envied - specifically, the scenes where Bruce Willis character saves the imperiled family from the killer in their house. THE VILLAGE was an even better film - better than even THE SIXTH SENSE in my estimation - that tried to tell an old-fashioned story through emotional terms and not flashy ones. Perhaps that’s why it misfired and underperformed critically and commercially.
Bottom line, as controversial and often exasperating as Shymalan can come across, the man has never taken the easy route. His films are always rich in character, subtext, and feeling. They may ultimately be imperfect, but they are certainly more accomplished in their imperfect form than half the polished garbage that gets released these days.
SIGNS is no exception. Instead of going the bombastic route of INDEPENDENCE DAY, BATTLE: LOS ANGELES, or SKYLINE, this films cleverly tells the tale of how an isolated community witnesses a global invasion from outer space. In this regard, SIGNS is kind of similar to TESTAMENT, the 1983 film about a small town that suffers that aftermath of a Nuclear War. As with TESTAMENT, the terror builds gradually: first, through rumors and scattered news reports from the outside world, then later, through much more immediate and horrifying first-hand experiences of the madness that is slowly destroying the world - and has now invaded their community.
Shymalan instinctively understands that what you cannot see is far more frightening than what you can. Sigmund Freud once said, “Mankind’s greatest emotion is fear - and mankind’s greatest fear is fear of the unknown.” SIGNS scarily brings that to life. As Graham and his family gradually become aware of the sinister presence on their farm, we never glimpse more than they do - which puts us right in their shoes and allows our fear to build along with theirs. It’s a brave move on Shymalan’s part to keep so much hidden in this age of “Show me! Show me! Show me! Show me!”, but it works wonderfully. What makes SIGNS a good film is how well it exploits our fears of the unseen and the unknown.
Mel Gibson, Joaquin Phoenix, Cherry Jones, Abigail Breslin, and Rory Culkin comprise the major cast, and they all turn in solid, compelling performances. Shymalan allows them to breathe life and flesh out their characters. Another director might have limited or even excised all the “character-building” scenes, and substituted them with flashy and explicit “alien” scenes - to the ultimate detriment of the film. Fortunately, Shymalan has enough confidence in his characters and their stories to let them take free rein.
SIGNS would have rated higher than good (***½) if it weren’t for one little quibble: this film addresses both Graham’s crisis of faith in God, and how he regains it, but also the idea of life forms from other planets. Isn’t that a bit of a contradiction - or conundrum? Isn’t the existence of God (religion) in direct conflict with the existence of aliens (science)? This little nit-noid is what keeps SIGNS from rating higher.
All in all, however, SIGNS is an admirable attempt to tell an alien invasion story from not only an atypical viewpoint, but also ground it in an emotionally-resonant place. While Graham’s faith problems ultimately do not jive with the threat at hand, it doesn’t pose a problem in the moment. And that’s enough to make SIGNS a rewarding and harrowing ride.
# 279 - INDEPENDENCE DAY (1996)
INDEPENDENCE DAY (1996 - ACTION / SCI-FI / ALIEN INVASION FLICK) ***½ out of *****
(I guess that barbeque is out the window, huh?)
CAST: Will Smith, Bill Pullman, Jeff Goldblum, Mary McDonnell, Judd Hirsch, Robert Loggia, Margaret Colin, Vivica Fox.
DIRECTOR: Noah Emmerich
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and one royally fucked-up Fourth of July weekend straight ahead…
The aliens who invade Earth in our next review, the mega-blockbuster INDEPENDENCE DAY, must have an innate knowledge of American culture. Why else would they time their attack during the Fourth-of-July weekend when the whole country has its pants down? Figuratively speaking, that is. Well, I guess literally, as well. Nothing is better than summer sex, after all. Except maybe spring sex.
But I digress. Again. Anyhow, our movie starts out in New Mexico at the SETI station. SETI stands for “Search For Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence”. Basically, the station receives a shitload of transmissions indicating alien life forms on a grand scale. This would normally be greeted with joy by the SETI staff. Unfortunately, further analysis of the signals reveal that the fuckers are pretty close by - near the moon, in fact - and are closing in on Earth.
This kind of reminds me of the time when I was living in Germany and I got a phone call from a large group of rowdy friends - who were just around the corner from my place and wanted to drop by to party-hearty. Let’s just say that it took me three days to un-trash my place. Thank God that was before the era of You Tube - otherwise, I’d be one popular mo-fo. Or maybe, notorious. Basically, we have the same thing in INDEPENDENCE DAY: a bunch of rambunctious inter-galactic interlopers dropping by on our turf - extremely uninvited and ready to throw down.
Sure enough, the White House, NASA, and pretty much the rest of the World freak out when they learn of massive objects just hanging off Earth’s orbit. If my experience in Germany is any indication, our heroes have precious little time before the impromptu Party From Hell begins. Only my party didn’t involve spaceships, laser beams, and creatures with more tentacles than five clans of octopi. Nor did it involve spaceships so frickin’ huge they dwarf most major cities.
Of course, this being a summer popcorn movie, we have to have more than just the aliens. We need a cast of characters to root for - unless they’re the kind that you can’t help but wish a horrible death on, preferably at the hands, er, tentacles of the aliens.
Our heroes are: (1) President Whitmore (Bill Pullman), sexy American Prez; (2) Capt Steven Hiller (Will Smith), sexy military pilot; (3) David Levinson (Jeff Goldblum), sexy journalist; (4) First Lady Marilyn Whitmore (Mary McDonnell), sexy wife to the American Prez; (5) Connie Spano (Margaret Colin), sexy Chief of Staff to the American Prez; (6) Julius Levinson (Judd Hirsch), not-so-sexy Pops to David; (7) General Casse (Robert Loggia), sort-of-sexy head of White House military ops; and (8) Jasmine Dubrow (Vivica Fox), smokin’ hot sexy stripper who loves Capt Hiller.
There are more alien fodder than the above. However, these folks are the main crew to keep your eyes on. Who among them will make it? Who will bite the dust? How will they overcome the alien invasion? What is the aliens’ secret weakness? Will the humans discover it in time? Can this Fourth of July weekend be saved?
I mean, come on… at least take the time to enjoy some sausages. Once again: Peanut Gallery, shut the fuck up.
BUT, SERIOUSLY: One of our recent reviews was BATTLE: LOS ANGELES (review # 274), which chronicled the attempts of an unknown alien race to invade and colonize Earth. In that regard, it is very similar INDEPENDENCE DAY, only grittier and much more raw. When you get past the alien invasion parallels, though, INDEPENDENCE DAY has much more in common with the polished 70’s disaster films like THE TOWERING INFERNO, THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE, and THE SWARM.
Essentially, those films took a wide array of colorful characters, gradually built them up and their relationships during the first act while also slowly introducing the threat - then unleashed the mayhem on us during the second act onward. The success or failure of these films depended on two things: (1) the likability of the characters imperiled; and (2) the seriousness of the threat facing them. On those two levels, INDEPENDENCE DAY rates fairly high.
The characters are generally vivid and likable, and their humanity is never compromised by the action. Bill Pullman, Jeff Goldblum, Randy Quaid, and Will Smith are all sympathetic and terrific as the major male characters, while Margaret Colin, Mary McDonnell, and - especially - Vivica Fox are equally good and likable as their female counterparts. I should also point out that the women in this film are substantially more interesting than the ones in director Noah Emmerich’s similar 2012, where they were essentially window-dressing.
The alien threat is also presented in a way that, while not as raw and terrifying as that of BATTLE: LOS ANGELES, is still quite menacing. The sight of massive spaceships casting their shadows across entire major cities is a chilling one that has become iconic and unforgettable. Emmerich and his writers may push the envelope of believability during many scenes, but they do it with conviction and confidence. Sometimes, that makes all the difference.
All in all, INDEPENDENCE DAY is solid entertainment that is proud of its B-movie roots. A charismatic, first-rate cast further elevates this film above the cheese-fest it could have easily been (and still is, in some respects). And given how most films from this genre often turn out, that is something to be grateful for.
(I guess that barbeque is out the window, huh?)
CAST: Will Smith, Bill Pullman, Jeff Goldblum, Mary McDonnell, Judd Hirsch, Robert Loggia, Margaret Colin, Vivica Fox.
DIRECTOR: Noah Emmerich
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and one royally fucked-up Fourth of July weekend straight ahead…
The aliens who invade Earth in our next review, the mega-blockbuster INDEPENDENCE DAY, must have an innate knowledge of American culture. Why else would they time their attack during the Fourth-of-July weekend when the whole country has its pants down? Figuratively speaking, that is. Well, I guess literally, as well. Nothing is better than summer sex, after all. Except maybe spring sex.
But I digress. Again. Anyhow, our movie starts out in New Mexico at the SETI station. SETI stands for “Search For Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence”. Basically, the station receives a shitload of transmissions indicating alien life forms on a grand scale. This would normally be greeted with joy by the SETI staff. Unfortunately, further analysis of the signals reveal that the fuckers are pretty close by - near the moon, in fact - and are closing in on Earth.
This kind of reminds me of the time when I was living in Germany and I got a phone call from a large group of rowdy friends - who were just around the corner from my place and wanted to drop by to party-hearty. Let’s just say that it took me three days to un-trash my place. Thank God that was before the era of You Tube - otherwise, I’d be one popular mo-fo. Or maybe, notorious. Basically, we have the same thing in INDEPENDENCE DAY: a bunch of rambunctious inter-galactic interlopers dropping by on our turf - extremely uninvited and ready to throw down.
Sure enough, the White House, NASA, and pretty much the rest of the World freak out when they learn of massive objects just hanging off Earth’s orbit. If my experience in Germany is any indication, our heroes have precious little time before the impromptu Party From Hell begins. Only my party didn’t involve spaceships, laser beams, and creatures with more tentacles than five clans of octopi. Nor did it involve spaceships so frickin’ huge they dwarf most major cities.
Of course, this being a summer popcorn movie, we have to have more than just the aliens. We need a cast of characters to root for - unless they’re the kind that you can’t help but wish a horrible death on, preferably at the hands, er, tentacles of the aliens.
Our heroes are: (1) President Whitmore (Bill Pullman), sexy American Prez; (2) Capt Steven Hiller (Will Smith), sexy military pilot; (3) David Levinson (Jeff Goldblum), sexy journalist; (4) First Lady Marilyn Whitmore (Mary McDonnell), sexy wife to the American Prez; (5) Connie Spano (Margaret Colin), sexy Chief of Staff to the American Prez; (6) Julius Levinson (Judd Hirsch), not-so-sexy Pops to David; (7) General Casse (Robert Loggia), sort-of-sexy head of White House military ops; and (8) Jasmine Dubrow (Vivica Fox), smokin’ hot sexy stripper who loves Capt Hiller.
There are more alien fodder than the above. However, these folks are the main crew to keep your eyes on. Who among them will make it? Who will bite the dust? How will they overcome the alien invasion? What is the aliens’ secret weakness? Will the humans discover it in time? Can this Fourth of July weekend be saved?
I mean, come on… at least take the time to enjoy some sausages. Once again: Peanut Gallery, shut the fuck up.
BUT, SERIOUSLY: One of our recent reviews was BATTLE: LOS ANGELES (review # 274), which chronicled the attempts of an unknown alien race to invade and colonize Earth. In that regard, it is very similar INDEPENDENCE DAY, only grittier and much more raw. When you get past the alien invasion parallels, though, INDEPENDENCE DAY has much more in common with the polished 70’s disaster films like THE TOWERING INFERNO, THE POSEIDON ADVENTURE, and THE SWARM.
Essentially, those films took a wide array of colorful characters, gradually built them up and their relationships during the first act while also slowly introducing the threat - then unleashed the mayhem on us during the second act onward. The success or failure of these films depended on two things: (1) the likability of the characters imperiled; and (2) the seriousness of the threat facing them. On those two levels, INDEPENDENCE DAY rates fairly high.
The characters are generally vivid and likable, and their humanity is never compromised by the action. Bill Pullman, Jeff Goldblum, Randy Quaid, and Will Smith are all sympathetic and terrific as the major male characters, while Margaret Colin, Mary McDonnell, and - especially - Vivica Fox are equally good and likable as their female counterparts. I should also point out that the women in this film are substantially more interesting than the ones in director Noah Emmerich’s similar 2012, where they were essentially window-dressing.
The alien threat is also presented in a way that, while not as raw and terrifying as that of BATTLE: LOS ANGELES, is still quite menacing. The sight of massive spaceships casting their shadows across entire major cities is a chilling one that has become iconic and unforgettable. Emmerich and his writers may push the envelope of believability during many scenes, but they do it with conviction and confidence. Sometimes, that makes all the difference.
All in all, INDEPENDENCE DAY is solid entertainment that is proud of its B-movie roots. A charismatic, first-rate cast further elevates this film above the cheese-fest it could have easily been (and still is, in some respects). And given how most films from this genre often turn out, that is something to be grateful for.
# 278 - STARMAN (1984)
STARMAN (1984 - ROMANCE / SCI-FI / ALIEN VISITOR FLICK) **** out of *****
(This is what happens when we do stupid shit like send a broadcast into space inviting aliens to come visit…)
CAST: Jeff Bridges, Karen Allen, Charles Martin Smith, Richard Jaeckel.
DIRECTOR: John Carpenter
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and one hot intergalactic romance straight ahead…
I recently conducted a poll among friends on a very, very, very, very, very, very, very important question: if an alien being came to Earth and assumed the form of an extremely hot ex of yours, would you have smoking-hot sex with it? Surprisingly, six out of the eight friends I polled answered “Are you fucking kidding me? Hell, no!” Meanwhile, two of the eight answered: “Yes. I would fuck the shit out of that alien - as long as he looked like a smokin’ hot ex of mine.”
Which is kind of what I would be inclined to do. After all, you gotta figure that an alien knows his way in the sack, right? We’re talking searing orgasms that would keep you limping for days, folks. But I digress! Again! Shocker! Anyway, that above question is the conundrum that faces the heroine of our latest review, the lovely and underrated STARMAN. Basically, it’s like E.T. THE EXTRA TERRESTRIAL - except E.T. is actually pretty fucking attractive and Elliot is actually a hot chick.
Our lady is Jenny Hayden (Karen Allen), a Wisconsin widow who is mourning the passing of her husband Scott (Jeff Bridges) in an accident. They say that people grieve in different ways, and have to find their own paths to moving on. Jenny’s path, apparently, involves the following: (1) drinking a shitload of wine; (2) watching film reels of her and Scott goofing around and acting high on life (and other things); and (3) generally bawling her eyes out. In other words, I don’t think this method of recovery is sanctioned by any psychiatrist who didn’t get his/her degree from the back of a cereal box.
No matter, though. Because Jenny’s mourning is rudely interrupted by the arrival of a shiny orb from space carrying… well, I’m not really sure what the fuck it is. I do know it’s some sort of life form that can float in the air and move with deadly intent. No, it’s not a fart, people. If it were, it would not be able to do what it does next: find a lock of Scott’s hair (which Jenny saved) and use it to create a spitting image of him that the life form can inhabit. Cue Jenny’s emergence from her bedroom to find her dead husband come to life right in front of her. Only, he moves like someone just corn-holed him with a scuba tank. And he talks like a toddler high on Benadryl.
You can’t really blame poor Jenny for fainting dead-away. Just imagine: the poor girl wakes up after having slammed back five bottles of Pinot Noir - and she finds her dead husband standing butt-nekkid in front of her. Personally, I’m not one to look a gift-horse in the mouth, and would’ve jumped all over that ass like a starving jack rabbit in a carrot patch. But Jenny is apparently more of a lady than me. Prude.
Anyhow, it quickly becomes apparent that even though this “man” looks like Scott, he is most definitely not of this Earth. We find out through the wonderful use of alien subtitles that “Scott” is actually an alien that fell for Voyager’s invitation to come visit the lovely vacation spot called planet Earth. Except he’s not sure he really wants to be here, and has to rendezvous with the Mother Ship in three days if he hopes to keep his alien ass in one piece. Yes, folks… the Mother Ship. Who says E.T. is the only one who gets to have one?
Before you know it, “Scott” has coerced Jenny into helping him drive from Wisconsin to Arizona, where the Mother Ship will apparently come to pick him up in 72 hours. You’d think that with technology as advanced as theirs, these aliens could, you know, shift their pick-up points just like that. Not these guys, apparently. Clearly, the United States Air Force’s motto of “Flexibility Is The Key To Airpower” means shit to them.
So, off to Arizona Jenny and her alien hubby go. It ain’t going to be a quiet trip, though, because our heroes must contend with a couple of government scientists, Fox and Shermin (Charles Martin Smith, Richard Jaeckel) who must want a promotion really bad, and think that, you know, bagging an alien and shit will make that happen. Good luck with that one, guys. In other words, the chase in on!
Will Jenny and Starman make it to Arizona in one piece? Or will Fox and Shermin catch up with them? What happens when Jenny finds herself falling in love with Starman? Will she be able to say goodbye to him when the Mother Ship comes to pick up his fine ass? Or will Starman decide to stay on Earth with her? Do they stand a chance at having that house, white picket fence, SUV, and 2.5 children?
Let me put it this way: why settle for suburbia when you can own the solar system?
BUT, SERIOUSLY: Someone I know once referred to STARMAN as “E.T. - with sex”. While that description has some truth to it, it also a very simplistic one. STARMAN is much more than that. Many folks will be fooled by the trailer into thinking that this is a slam-bang action movie. While it certainly has elements of that, and they are executed very well, STARMAN is primarily a love story about a woman who gets a chance to shed her grief by confronting her lost love - one last time. Karen Allen and Jeff Bridges nail their roles, and the romance aspect of the film is crucial to the overall effectiveness of the film. If we don’t buy into the love story - there is no story. With Allen and Bridges in the roles, we buy it completely.
Director John Carpenter does an admirable job of telling a story that is both sensitive and kinetic. STARMAN is probably his most atypical film. It’s his most romantic one, and you sometimes have to remind yourself that this is the same guy who directed such horror classics as HALLOWEEN, THE FOG, THE THING, CHRISTINE, PRINCE OF DARKNESS and IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS. To be fair, though, those movies also had pockets of humanity and sensitivity within them. In STARMAN, however, those qualities are brought completely to the fore. And it is a lovely change-of-pace for Carpenter.
Jack Nietzsche’s simple yet effectively poignant score also deserves special mention. Carpenter usually score his own films, but he wisely chose to have someone else compose STARMAN’s. Carpenter’s horror scores are some of the most recognizable themes today. But this film needed a lighter, more ethereal touch - and Nietzsche beautifully gives us that. After all, this movie is a love story at its core, and only a chase film on the exterior.
In the end, STARMAN succeeds both at thrilling us with its “alien-on-the-run” plot thread, and also moving us with its simple yet haunting romance about unexpected, other-worldly love. If you don’t have even one tear in your eye at the end of this movie, you may not be human…
(This is what happens when we do stupid shit like send a broadcast into space inviting aliens to come visit…)
CAST: Jeff Bridges, Karen Allen, Charles Martin Smith, Richard Jaeckel.
DIRECTOR: John Carpenter
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and one hot intergalactic romance straight ahead…
I recently conducted a poll among friends on a very, very, very, very, very, very, very important question: if an alien being came to Earth and assumed the form of an extremely hot ex of yours, would you have smoking-hot sex with it? Surprisingly, six out of the eight friends I polled answered “Are you fucking kidding me? Hell, no!” Meanwhile, two of the eight answered: “Yes. I would fuck the shit out of that alien - as long as he looked like a smokin’ hot ex of mine.”
Which is kind of what I would be inclined to do. After all, you gotta figure that an alien knows his way in the sack, right? We’re talking searing orgasms that would keep you limping for days, folks. But I digress! Again! Shocker! Anyway, that above question is the conundrum that faces the heroine of our latest review, the lovely and underrated STARMAN. Basically, it’s like E.T. THE EXTRA TERRESTRIAL - except E.T. is actually pretty fucking attractive and Elliot is actually a hot chick.
Our lady is Jenny Hayden (Karen Allen), a Wisconsin widow who is mourning the passing of her husband Scott (Jeff Bridges) in an accident. They say that people grieve in different ways, and have to find their own paths to moving on. Jenny’s path, apparently, involves the following: (1) drinking a shitload of wine; (2) watching film reels of her and Scott goofing around and acting high on life (and other things); and (3) generally bawling her eyes out. In other words, I don’t think this method of recovery is sanctioned by any psychiatrist who didn’t get his/her degree from the back of a cereal box.
No matter, though. Because Jenny’s mourning is rudely interrupted by the arrival of a shiny orb from space carrying… well, I’m not really sure what the fuck it is. I do know it’s some sort of life form that can float in the air and move with deadly intent. No, it’s not a fart, people. If it were, it would not be able to do what it does next: find a lock of Scott’s hair (which Jenny saved) and use it to create a spitting image of him that the life form can inhabit. Cue Jenny’s emergence from her bedroom to find her dead husband come to life right in front of her. Only, he moves like someone just corn-holed him with a scuba tank. And he talks like a toddler high on Benadryl.
You can’t really blame poor Jenny for fainting dead-away. Just imagine: the poor girl wakes up after having slammed back five bottles of Pinot Noir - and she finds her dead husband standing butt-nekkid in front of her. Personally, I’m not one to look a gift-horse in the mouth, and would’ve jumped all over that ass like a starving jack rabbit in a carrot patch. But Jenny is apparently more of a lady than me. Prude.
Anyhow, it quickly becomes apparent that even though this “man” looks like Scott, he is most definitely not of this Earth. We find out through the wonderful use of alien subtitles that “Scott” is actually an alien that fell for Voyager’s invitation to come visit the lovely vacation spot called planet Earth. Except he’s not sure he really wants to be here, and has to rendezvous with the Mother Ship in three days if he hopes to keep his alien ass in one piece. Yes, folks… the Mother Ship. Who says E.T. is the only one who gets to have one?
Before you know it, “Scott” has coerced Jenny into helping him drive from Wisconsin to Arizona, where the Mother Ship will apparently come to pick him up in 72 hours. You’d think that with technology as advanced as theirs, these aliens could, you know, shift their pick-up points just like that. Not these guys, apparently. Clearly, the United States Air Force’s motto of “Flexibility Is The Key To Airpower” means shit to them.
So, off to Arizona Jenny and her alien hubby go. It ain’t going to be a quiet trip, though, because our heroes must contend with a couple of government scientists, Fox and Shermin (Charles Martin Smith, Richard Jaeckel) who must want a promotion really bad, and think that, you know, bagging an alien and shit will make that happen. Good luck with that one, guys. In other words, the chase in on!
Will Jenny and Starman make it to Arizona in one piece? Or will Fox and Shermin catch up with them? What happens when Jenny finds herself falling in love with Starman? Will she be able to say goodbye to him when the Mother Ship comes to pick up his fine ass? Or will Starman decide to stay on Earth with her? Do they stand a chance at having that house, white picket fence, SUV, and 2.5 children?
Let me put it this way: why settle for suburbia when you can own the solar system?
BUT, SERIOUSLY: Someone I know once referred to STARMAN as “E.T. - with sex”. While that description has some truth to it, it also a very simplistic one. STARMAN is much more than that. Many folks will be fooled by the trailer into thinking that this is a slam-bang action movie. While it certainly has elements of that, and they are executed very well, STARMAN is primarily a love story about a woman who gets a chance to shed her grief by confronting her lost love - one last time. Karen Allen and Jeff Bridges nail their roles, and the romance aspect of the film is crucial to the overall effectiveness of the film. If we don’t buy into the love story - there is no story. With Allen and Bridges in the roles, we buy it completely.
Director John Carpenter does an admirable job of telling a story that is both sensitive and kinetic. STARMAN is probably his most atypical film. It’s his most romantic one, and you sometimes have to remind yourself that this is the same guy who directed such horror classics as HALLOWEEN, THE FOG, THE THING, CHRISTINE, PRINCE OF DARKNESS and IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS. To be fair, though, those movies also had pockets of humanity and sensitivity within them. In STARMAN, however, those qualities are brought completely to the fore. And it is a lovely change-of-pace for Carpenter.
Jack Nietzsche’s simple yet effectively poignant score also deserves special mention. Carpenter usually score his own films, but he wisely chose to have someone else compose STARMAN’s. Carpenter’s horror scores are some of the most recognizable themes today. But this film needed a lighter, more ethereal touch - and Nietzsche beautifully gives us that. After all, this movie is a love story at its core, and only a chase film on the exterior.
In the end, STARMAN succeeds both at thrilling us with its “alien-on-the-run” plot thread, and also moving us with its simple yet haunting romance about unexpected, other-worldly love. If you don’t have even one tear in your eye at the end of this movie, you may not be human…
# 276 - CRITTERS (1986)
CRITTERS (1986 - HORROR / SCI-FI / ALIEN INVASION FLICK) ** out of *****
(Just what I always suspected: aliens from outer space really look like Moray Eels with Jon Bon Jovi rocker haircuts…)
CAST: Dee Wallace Stone, Billy Green Bush, Billy Zane, Nadine Van Der Velde, Scott Grimes, Lin Shaye, M. Emmet Walsh.
DIRECTOR: Stephen Herek
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and pretty strong parallel to LILO AND STITCH - straight ahead…
Ah, the 80’s… That magical era when shoulder pads were behemoth, hair was even more herculean, and you could count on cheesy, low-budget rip-offs to flood the cinemas not too long after their classier (and more expensive) progenitors. For every INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM, we had to suffer at least a dozen knock-offs with titles like KING SOLOMON’S MINES, SKY PIRATES, THE PERILS OF GWENDOLINE, and FIREWALKER. For every PORKY‘S (which wasn‘t any great shakes to begin with), we had to endure at least ten low-rent (if that’s possible) clones going by monikers like SCREWBALLS, PRIVATE SCHOOL, JOCKS, SENIOR WEEK, THE FIRST TIME, ZAPPED, HOLLYWOOD HOT TUBS, and - the most subtly-titled one - JOYSTICKS.
Basically, if any movie made decent bank in the 80’s, it was soon imitated, repackaged under another title, and tossed onto the market for undiscriminating moviegoers to lap up like so much gelato melting off some hot lifeguard’s chest. Most of these knock-offs saw theatrical releases, because the “direct-to-video” phenomenon had unfortunately not taken hold just yet. Imagine saying to your date, “Say, babe… Wanna go have dinner tonight and then go see JOYSTICKS?” Then imagine having to actually pay for parking just to see the fucking thing.
Which brings us to our latest review, which is basically a rip-off of GREMLINS with a little E.T. and ALIEN thrown in for good measure. The movie is called CRITTERS, and its creators obviously weren’t fucking around: they must have figured if they were going unleash a knock-off on us, they’d cannibalize as much as they could. Even LILO AND STITCH, which would not come out for another 16 years. I guess I could say that LILO AND STITCH cloned CRITTERS, but I’m not even going to go there. I mean, seriously… who would clone CRITTERS? Ahem?
Anyhow, our story revolves around a large ball full of the title voracious creatures that escapes from its home planet - and heads towards ours. Apparently, they heard that we’ve got a much better climate and a more comely-looking population. Not hard to pull off, considering the creatures’ home planet looks a lot like a city garbage dump staffed by people who look like they pulled a white garbage bag tight over their faces and decided to leave it there for eternity. Let’s just say this is probably not a planet with supermodels. Unless you count a pink garbage bag instead of a white one pulled tight over your head as more attractive.
At any rate, the Big Ball of Beasties crash lands in a small rural town in what sure looks like a Red State. Before you know it, the ugly, uh, critters have infested the town and rapidly introduce the townspeople to the business end of their very sharp teeth. Have no fear, though, because the Planet That Looks Like A Garbage Dump has sent forth a bounty hunter (Terrence Mann) to catch and kill these nasty “Crites”, as he calls them. I should point out the bounty hunter’s name is Ugg, and considering that underneath his Earth rocker disguise he is really about as attractive as a guy wearing a garbage bag over his head, the name is entirely appropriate.
Unfortunately, our Red State townspeople get caught in the crossfire of the battle between Ugg and the critters. Mostly, they are the Brown family and several close friends: (1) Helen (Dee Wallace Stone), momma Brown; (2) Jay (Billy Green Bush); poppa Brown; (3) April (Nadine Van Der Velde), slutty daughter Brown; (4) Brad (Scott Grimes), rambunction son Brown; (5) Steve (Billy Zane), April’s boy toy; and (6) Harv (M. Emmett Walsh), your basic Red State sheriff.
There are a bunch of other town folks who must fend off the critters, but most of them wind up as lunch meat, so let’s not waste any time on them. What will happen to the Brown Family, et al.? Will they successfully fight off the critter invasion? Or will they learn first-hand what it feels like to have five dozen needle-like teeth pierce your ass? Will Ugg save the day and send those nasty things back to the Planet That Looks Like A Garbage Dump? Or will he realize he’s named after one of the most popular footwear in the Universe and try to get his cut of the company stock?
I would. You know I would. Screw the Red State townspeople and the critters. Let them eat each other up.
BUT, SERIOUSLY: Like I wrote above, CRITTERS comes across as a low-budget blend of ALIEN, E.T., and GREMLINS. The problem is those films have all aged well, and are just as entertaining and enjoyable as they were when they first came out in the late 70’s/early 80’s. They also have decent special effects which help us buy into the stories. CRITTERS, on the other hand, has aged quite badly, and boasts some rather lame F/X that constantly undermine the narrative.
To be fair, CRITTERS doesn’t have the high budget that those other films enjoyed, so it’s only natural that the special effects may not be up to par. However, the problem with this movie goes much deeper than that. It’s just not interesting enough. The pace is too slow in the first half of the film, and it takes too long for the creatures to join the plot. Normally, I am a proponent of thrillers and horror films taking the time to flesh out their characters before unleashing the mayhem. Unfortunately, the characters in CRITTERS are generally so thin and dull that these scenes are a chore to get through. Dee Wallace Stone (the mother in E.T.) does the best she can with her role, and so do the rest of the cast with theirs. In the end, though, the whole movie is weakened not only by the substandard special effects but also by the fact that the critters themselves are such boring, one-note adversaries. You didn’t feel that way about the monsters in ALIEN and GREMLINS.
Still, CRITTERS does have a very loyal following, including Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert who both gave the movie a “Thumbs Up.” I respect their opinion, but I just don’t get it.
(Just what I always suspected: aliens from outer space really look like Moray Eels with Jon Bon Jovi rocker haircuts…)
CAST: Dee Wallace Stone, Billy Green Bush, Billy Zane, Nadine Van Der Velde, Scott Grimes, Lin Shaye, M. Emmet Walsh.
DIRECTOR: Stephen Herek
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and pretty strong parallel to LILO AND STITCH - straight ahead…
Ah, the 80’s… That magical era when shoulder pads were behemoth, hair was even more herculean, and you could count on cheesy, low-budget rip-offs to flood the cinemas not too long after their classier (and more expensive) progenitors. For every INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM, we had to suffer at least a dozen knock-offs with titles like KING SOLOMON’S MINES, SKY PIRATES, THE PERILS OF GWENDOLINE, and FIREWALKER. For every PORKY‘S (which wasn‘t any great shakes to begin with), we had to endure at least ten low-rent (if that’s possible) clones going by monikers like SCREWBALLS, PRIVATE SCHOOL, JOCKS, SENIOR WEEK, THE FIRST TIME, ZAPPED, HOLLYWOOD HOT TUBS, and - the most subtly-titled one - JOYSTICKS.
Basically, if any movie made decent bank in the 80’s, it was soon imitated, repackaged under another title, and tossed onto the market for undiscriminating moviegoers to lap up like so much gelato melting off some hot lifeguard’s chest. Most of these knock-offs saw theatrical releases, because the “direct-to-video” phenomenon had unfortunately not taken hold just yet. Imagine saying to your date, “Say, babe… Wanna go have dinner tonight and then go see JOYSTICKS?” Then imagine having to actually pay for parking just to see the fucking thing.
Which brings us to our latest review, which is basically a rip-off of GREMLINS with a little E.T. and ALIEN thrown in for good measure. The movie is called CRITTERS, and its creators obviously weren’t fucking around: they must have figured if they were going unleash a knock-off on us, they’d cannibalize as much as they could. Even LILO AND STITCH, which would not come out for another 16 years. I guess I could say that LILO AND STITCH cloned CRITTERS, but I’m not even going to go there. I mean, seriously… who would clone CRITTERS? Ahem?
Anyhow, our story revolves around a large ball full of the title voracious creatures that escapes from its home planet - and heads towards ours. Apparently, they heard that we’ve got a much better climate and a more comely-looking population. Not hard to pull off, considering the creatures’ home planet looks a lot like a city garbage dump staffed by people who look like they pulled a white garbage bag tight over their faces and decided to leave it there for eternity. Let’s just say this is probably not a planet with supermodels. Unless you count a pink garbage bag instead of a white one pulled tight over your head as more attractive.
At any rate, the Big Ball of Beasties crash lands in a small rural town in what sure looks like a Red State. Before you know it, the ugly, uh, critters have infested the town and rapidly introduce the townspeople to the business end of their very sharp teeth. Have no fear, though, because the Planet That Looks Like A Garbage Dump has sent forth a bounty hunter (Terrence Mann) to catch and kill these nasty “Crites”, as he calls them. I should point out the bounty hunter’s name is Ugg, and considering that underneath his Earth rocker disguise he is really about as attractive as a guy wearing a garbage bag over his head, the name is entirely appropriate.
Unfortunately, our Red State townspeople get caught in the crossfire of the battle between Ugg and the critters. Mostly, they are the Brown family and several close friends: (1) Helen (Dee Wallace Stone), momma Brown; (2) Jay (Billy Green Bush); poppa Brown; (3) April (Nadine Van Der Velde), slutty daughter Brown; (4) Brad (Scott Grimes), rambunction son Brown; (5) Steve (Billy Zane), April’s boy toy; and (6) Harv (M. Emmett Walsh), your basic Red State sheriff.
There are a bunch of other town folks who must fend off the critters, but most of them wind up as lunch meat, so let’s not waste any time on them. What will happen to the Brown Family, et al.? Will they successfully fight off the critter invasion? Or will they learn first-hand what it feels like to have five dozen needle-like teeth pierce your ass? Will Ugg save the day and send those nasty things back to the Planet That Looks Like A Garbage Dump? Or will he realize he’s named after one of the most popular footwear in the Universe and try to get his cut of the company stock?
I would. You know I would. Screw the Red State townspeople and the critters. Let them eat each other up.
BUT, SERIOUSLY: Like I wrote above, CRITTERS comes across as a low-budget blend of ALIEN, E.T., and GREMLINS. The problem is those films have all aged well, and are just as entertaining and enjoyable as they were when they first came out in the late 70’s/early 80’s. They also have decent special effects which help us buy into the stories. CRITTERS, on the other hand, has aged quite badly, and boasts some rather lame F/X that constantly undermine the narrative.
To be fair, CRITTERS doesn’t have the high budget that those other films enjoyed, so it’s only natural that the special effects may not be up to par. However, the problem with this movie goes much deeper than that. It’s just not interesting enough. The pace is too slow in the first half of the film, and it takes too long for the creatures to join the plot. Normally, I am a proponent of thrillers and horror films taking the time to flesh out their characters before unleashing the mayhem. Unfortunately, the characters in CRITTERS are generally so thin and dull that these scenes are a chore to get through. Dee Wallace Stone (the mother in E.T.) does the best she can with her role, and so do the rest of the cast with theirs. In the end, though, the whole movie is weakened not only by the substandard special effects but also by the fact that the critters themselves are such boring, one-note adversaries. You didn’t feel that way about the monsters in ALIEN and GREMLINS.
Still, CRITTERS does have a very loyal following, including Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert who both gave the movie a “Thumbs Up.” I respect their opinion, but I just don’t get it.
# 277 - THEY LIVE (1988)
THEY LIVE (1988 - HORROR / SCI-FI / ALIEN INVASION FLICK) **½ out of *****
(Can I get a pair of those glasses? But one that can see through clothing? That’s all I want for Christmas…)
CAST: Roddy Piper, Keith David, Meg Foster, George “Buck” Flowers, Peter Jason, Raymond St. Jacques.
DIRECTOR: John Carpenter
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and rather special sunglasses straight ahead…
In our recent review of INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS (review # 275), we saw how the arrival of “spores” from outer space created plants which then cloned human beings in their sleep. The humans would then die, and their emotionless replicas assumed their identities - leading to a global pandemic of “body-snatching”. With the number of unaffected humans rapidly dwindling, a group of survivors must try to find a way to escape the invasion without losing their own humanity.
Our latest review, THEY LIVE, also deals with the idea of an alien invasion. The difference between this film and INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, though, is that in this film, the aliens are not new arrivals. In fact, “they” have been among us for decades. Hence the title. From that point on, the parallels with INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS are consistent: (1) a small group of people gradually becoming aware of the aliens in their midst; (2) the aliens discovering that they’ve been made; and (3) all hell breaking loose.
What is the key that triggers our heroes’ realization that there are some skull-faced creeps from another planet lurking among them? See, not only is the alien presence already established at the beginning of THEY LIVE, but so is the resistance against it. Our protagonist is George Nada (Roddy Piper), a noble drifter who arrives in Los Angeles trying to find work. Through a series of events not worth breaking down here because I need to get ready for a thang tonight, George stumbles across a box full of special sunglasses.
How is that supposed to tip him off that aliens have not only landed but are actually also grabbing that last pint of Mango Ice Cream you had your eye on from the chiller at the local Safeway? Well, these glasses aren’t just your average sunglasses. These puppies can do the following things: (1) reveal who is an alien and who isn’t; (2) reveal the subliminal messages behind magazine ads, billboards, and TV shows; and (3) see through clothing and reveal who is really hung like a horse and who is just stuffing his pants with a rolled-up sock.
Okay, I was kidding about that last part. Those are the sunglasses that I’m trying to invent. Wish me luck. Anyhow, once George takes a stroll through downtown L.A. wearing those babies, his outlook changes 180 degrees. To say the goddamned least. I mean, it can’t be easy discovering that the guy who’s rung up your booze at the local liquor store for the last three years is actually a Bug-Eyed Freak From Deep Space. Not to mention also the one you’ve actually been, you know, fucking six ways from Sunday. Just a tad disconcerting, in my book.
At any rate, George also discovers that all the magazine ads and billboards around the city actually say things like OBEY or STAY SLEEP or CONFORM or MARRY AND REPRODUCE or - my favorite - SLATHER BODY OIL ALL OVER YOURSELF AND ROLL AROUND IN A BATHTUB FULL OF M&Ms THEN HAVE SOMEONE EAT THEM OFF YOU. Okay, that last one was really my invention. But you should really try it sometime.
So… will George be able to warn his fellow human about the creatures around them who only look like they’re human? Will he be able to find more of those super-duper sunglasses? Will he join the underground resistance against the alien empire? Who else will take a stand with him? His construction buddy, Frank (Keith David)? The beautiful TV programmer named Holly (Meg Foster)? What does she know that George can use to overthrow the aliens? If this movie is correct, does that mean that 2 in 5 people are actually Skull-Faced Bug-Eyed Monsters From Mars?
I knew it was just a matter of time before the truth came out.
BUT, SERIOUSLY: While THEY LIVE has some parallels with INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, the former is far inferior to the latter. Of course, as with CRITTERS and GREMLINS, this is possibly due to THEY LIVE’s lower budget. I can only imagine what writer/director John Carpenter might have been able to pull of with more money in his corner. THEY LIVE has many intriguing ideas, some of which - humans “asleep” and unaware they’re being exploited - predate THE MATRIX. Unfortunately, Carpenter never really gets the opportunity to deliver more than a passable alien-invasion thriller.
The movie actually drags quite a bit, and is only sporadically enlivened by exciting chase/fight passages. But these scenes are kinetic enough to given an overall lift to the film. Unfortunately, for every exciting sequence, there are at least two interminable ones wherein we see George and Frank just ambling along with Carpenter’s inexplicably twangy and western-sounding score chirping in the background. While it makes some sense for this kind of music to be used in what is essentially a satire, it does get a bit exasperating.
The cast is at least proficient, with wrestler Roddy Piper making his screen debut. Piper isn’t really playing a real character, but more of pawn to kick off some humorous action scenes. But he certainly has screen presence and is one handsome man. Keith David as George’s reluctant partner Frank is appropriately gruff and incredulous in light of what he discovers. Meg Foster does what she’s required to do in her surprisingly limited role of Holly Thompson, the TV programmer who gradually comes to believe in George’s conspiracy theory.
In the end, THEY LIVE is a film whose promise is snuffed out by a low budget, but Carpenter still manages to deliver a reasonable amount of tension, scares, and humor. It could’ve been much better, but it also could’ve been much worse.
(Can I get a pair of those glasses? But one that can see through clothing? That’s all I want for Christmas…)
CAST: Roddy Piper, Keith David, Meg Foster, George “Buck” Flowers, Peter Jason, Raymond St. Jacques.
DIRECTOR: John Carpenter
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and rather special sunglasses straight ahead…
In our recent review of INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS (review # 275), we saw how the arrival of “spores” from outer space created plants which then cloned human beings in their sleep. The humans would then die, and their emotionless replicas assumed their identities - leading to a global pandemic of “body-snatching”. With the number of unaffected humans rapidly dwindling, a group of survivors must try to find a way to escape the invasion without losing their own humanity.
Our latest review, THEY LIVE, also deals with the idea of an alien invasion. The difference between this film and INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, though, is that in this film, the aliens are not new arrivals. In fact, “they” have been among us for decades. Hence the title. From that point on, the parallels with INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS are consistent: (1) a small group of people gradually becoming aware of the aliens in their midst; (2) the aliens discovering that they’ve been made; and (3) all hell breaking loose.
What is the key that triggers our heroes’ realization that there are some skull-faced creeps from another planet lurking among them? See, not only is the alien presence already established at the beginning of THEY LIVE, but so is the resistance against it. Our protagonist is George Nada (Roddy Piper), a noble drifter who arrives in Los Angeles trying to find work. Through a series of events not worth breaking down here because I need to get ready for a thang tonight, George stumbles across a box full of special sunglasses.
How is that supposed to tip him off that aliens have not only landed but are actually also grabbing that last pint of Mango Ice Cream you had your eye on from the chiller at the local Safeway? Well, these glasses aren’t just your average sunglasses. These puppies can do the following things: (1) reveal who is an alien and who isn’t; (2) reveal the subliminal messages behind magazine ads, billboards, and TV shows; and (3) see through clothing and reveal who is really hung like a horse and who is just stuffing his pants with a rolled-up sock.
Okay, I was kidding about that last part. Those are the sunglasses that I’m trying to invent. Wish me luck. Anyhow, once George takes a stroll through downtown L.A. wearing those babies, his outlook changes 180 degrees. To say the goddamned least. I mean, it can’t be easy discovering that the guy who’s rung up your booze at the local liquor store for the last three years is actually a Bug-Eyed Freak From Deep Space. Not to mention also the one you’ve actually been, you know, fucking six ways from Sunday. Just a tad disconcerting, in my book.
At any rate, George also discovers that all the magazine ads and billboards around the city actually say things like OBEY or STAY SLEEP or CONFORM or MARRY AND REPRODUCE or - my favorite - SLATHER BODY OIL ALL OVER YOURSELF AND ROLL AROUND IN A BATHTUB FULL OF M&Ms THEN HAVE SOMEONE EAT THEM OFF YOU. Okay, that last one was really my invention. But you should really try it sometime.
So… will George be able to warn his fellow human about the creatures around them who only look like they’re human? Will he be able to find more of those super-duper sunglasses? Will he join the underground resistance against the alien empire? Who else will take a stand with him? His construction buddy, Frank (Keith David)? The beautiful TV programmer named Holly (Meg Foster)? What does she know that George can use to overthrow the aliens? If this movie is correct, does that mean that 2 in 5 people are actually Skull-Faced Bug-Eyed Monsters From Mars?
I knew it was just a matter of time before the truth came out.
BUT, SERIOUSLY: While THEY LIVE has some parallels with INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, the former is far inferior to the latter. Of course, as with CRITTERS and GREMLINS, this is possibly due to THEY LIVE’s lower budget. I can only imagine what writer/director John Carpenter might have been able to pull of with more money in his corner. THEY LIVE has many intriguing ideas, some of which - humans “asleep” and unaware they’re being exploited - predate THE MATRIX. Unfortunately, Carpenter never really gets the opportunity to deliver more than a passable alien-invasion thriller.
The movie actually drags quite a bit, and is only sporadically enlivened by exciting chase/fight passages. But these scenes are kinetic enough to given an overall lift to the film. Unfortunately, for every exciting sequence, there are at least two interminable ones wherein we see George and Frank just ambling along with Carpenter’s inexplicably twangy and western-sounding score chirping in the background. While it makes some sense for this kind of music to be used in what is essentially a satire, it does get a bit exasperating.
The cast is at least proficient, with wrestler Roddy Piper making his screen debut. Piper isn’t really playing a real character, but more of pawn to kick off some humorous action scenes. But he certainly has screen presence and is one handsome man. Keith David as George’s reluctant partner Frank is appropriately gruff and incredulous in light of what he discovers. Meg Foster does what she’s required to do in her surprisingly limited role of Holly Thompson, the TV programmer who gradually comes to believe in George’s conspiracy theory.
In the end, THEY LIVE is a film whose promise is snuffed out by a low budget, but Carpenter still manages to deliver a reasonable amount of tension, scares, and humor. It could’ve been much better, but it also could’ve been much worse.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)