Tag Archives: movies

“THE VERDICT” – 4 1/2 STARS

by

1

I really enjoy courtroom dramas and “The Verdict” is a good one. It’s directed by Sidney Lumet and stars Paul Newman in one of his finest performances. David Mamet adapted the Barry Reed novel of the same name. The film received high praise from critics and Newman, Lumet, and Mamet each received Oscar nominations. It’s unique compared to other courtroom pictures in that the main case isn’t a huge unfolding mystery. In fact the case at the center of the film is pretty cut and dry. It’s the organizing of their defense, the fighting through the legal process, and the presentation of the case that fuels the narrative.

But “The Verdict” is also the tale of redemption. Underneath the courtroom drama is the story of a man who has watched his life crumble and but now sees a chance to get his life in order. Paul Newman plays Frank Galvin, a boozing Boston lawyer who has found himself resorting to ambulance chasing in order to pick up clients. In fact, he’s only had four cases in three years and lost them all. Just like his practice, his personal life is in shambles and he finds his only destructive solace at the bottom of a bottle. Newman nails this character and his Oscar nomination for the role was well deserved. It’s a nuanced performance that shows Frank as more than just a down-on-his-luck alcoholic. Newman expertly conveys the inner conflict within Frank and it’s that internal, personal struggle that drives one of the picture’s most compelling components.

Frank’s luck appears to change when an old friend and former partner Mickey (Jack Warden) hooks him up with a medical malpractice case that should be a slam dunk. But what kind of movie would this be if everything was all sunshine and flowers? Frank decides to take the case to trial and turns down a substantial settlement which baffles everyone including his clients. He then finds himself up against a biased judge and a prominent law firm led by Ed Concannon (played wonderfully by James Mason). It’s a legal David and Goliath story with Frank running into one complication after another. Add to it his personal and emotional fragility and you have the ingredients for a top-notch story.

David Mamet’s screenplay is intelligent and razor-sharp. The dialogue is well written and the pacing is methodical. While Mamet’s story intentionally moves deliberately, it does seem to spin its wheels a little during the middle of the film. And some people may argue that the movie isn’t the most detailed and cohesive courtroom drama. But Mamet doesn’t use the courtroom as his main focus. It’s a vehicle that allows this tired and broken man to try for redemption by doing the right thing. Lumet’s direction is fantastic and his ability to capture emotion and intensity through silence is impressive. He also gives the movie a gritty edge and authenticity that perfectly fits.

While Lumet and Mamet’s work is solid and there is a wonderful supporting cast, everything comes back to Paul Newman. Almost always seen on-screen as the handsome and vibrant performer, here he looks old, worn-down, and defeated. He perfectly captures this character and we never doubt him for a second. There’s no hard-to-believe miracle transformation. Instead we see someone taking one step at a time trying to dig himself out of the hole he made. Newman sells all of this with a down-to-earth genuineness that is easy to buy into. “The Verdict” may not be the most highly polished courtroom movie but it certainly holds its own. It’s an emotionally charged drama with a redemptive subtext that worked for me on so many levels. And how can you not love watching Newman dominate the screen in what is arguably his greatest performance.

REVIEW: “Jack and Jill” (2011)

by

4

Adam Sandler has become a machine that produces what seems like an endless number of garbage comedies. Whether he’s the lead actor, writer, or producer, his movies feel like retreads that hit many of the same notes and feature the same sloppy filmmaking. In “Jack and Jill” his one attempt at originality has him playing dual roles as brother and sister. Then again it’s hard to call it original when everyone from Tyler Perry to Jean-Claude Van Damme have done it. But here Sandler manages to create one of the most obnoxious and unfunny characters to go with this obnoxious and unfunny film.

Sandler plays Jack, a Los Angeles advertising executive who has made a good life for himself. He’s married to Erin (Katie Holmes) and has two eccentric children. Each year at Thanksgiving his compulsive, neurotic twin sister Jill (also played by Sandler) comes to visit from New York. Jill drives Jack (and the audience) crazy with her quirkiness and bizarre behavior even though his wife and kids are crazy about her. Al Pacino plays himself in what could be defined as the low point of his career. He’s completely unhinged and over-the-top as evident by his infatuation with Jill. There’s also a host of cameos ranging from Regis Philbin to Shaquille O’Neal. None of them add much to the movie with the exception of Johnny Depp who provides a couple of the film’s few laughs.

“Jack and Jill” bombards us with overused sight gags, pathetically lame dialogue, and tons of boring comedic clichés. Apparently farts, diarrhea, and armpits are still funny in Sandler’s world and he’s so kind to give us so many of them. But in many ways he has to rely on that nonsense since there is nothing redeeming about the script. It’s pure laziness and there isn’t enough here to even make for a satisfying SNL skit much less a full length movie. There’s also a shamelessly large amount of product placements in this film that did more to make this movie feel like one big cash grab by everyone involved.

Then there’s Jill, a character that is so cartoonish it’s impossible to find a real human quality in her. She’s so outlandish that once the movie tries for sympathy and sentiment it feels like a complete fabrication. And I never saw Jill as anything more than Adam Sandler in drag. She’s certainly not interesting or convincing and she has absolutely no charm whatsoever. She’s like fingernails on a chalkboard and I found myself just wishing she would shut up. And since the biggest joke of the movie is Sandler dressed as a woman, it’s complete and utter ineffectiveness is the ultimate death knell.

I can only remember two scenes that got any kind of laugh out of me. Everything else in “Jack and Jill” is mind-numbingly bad. This is one of those movies that should have been an automatic bomb at the theaters but somehow made almost $150 million. Is this what we’ve grown to call comedy? I understand that comedy and humor is subjective. But how can such poor conception and shoddy filmmaking get a pass? And what on earth is Al Pacino doing here? Does he need money this bad? Early in his career, Adam Sandler made some pretty funny films. But now he’s a one-trick pony who seems more interested in dollar signs than the quality of the movie. Even worse, “Jack and Jill” may be the worst movie on his resume and that’s saying a lot.

VERDICT – 1 STAR

REVIEW: “The Thing” (2011)

by

0

While I would hardly call 2011’s “The Thing” necessary, this prequel to John Carpenter’s 1982 horror classic manages to capture enough of the shocks and paranoia of its predecessor to be successful. While it is indeed a prequel, in many ways it’s a remake borrowing more from Carpenter’s version than offering much new. But trying to recreate a tried-and-true formula isn’t a bad thing and “The Thing” almost nails it. It works more often times than not but it does fall victim to its own poor choices.

The film sets the table for the 1982 picture by detailing the discovery and unleashing of the deadly shape-shifting extraterrestrial by a Norwegian research team in Antarctica. One of the film’s biggest strengths is its desire for a fluid continuity between the two movies. Everything is connected nicely and any fan of the earlier film will appreciate the effort. Here the Norwegian team has found a UFO and a life form buried under the ice. Against wiser suggestions, the head of the group orders the creature be brought back to their base for research. After the creature reveals it’s still alive and escapes, the team learns that the alien assimilates its victims and then imitates them both physically and verbally. Soon everyone is suspected of being a host which leads to fear and panic throughout the base.

Sound familiar? Like I said, the film borrows a lot from its predecessor. It’s moody and creepy and the isolated Antarctic setting still works really well. But it never lives up to Carpenter’s version. One of the problems is the overloaded cast of characters, most of which we never connect to. Only a few characters really stand out while others feel like token kills for the alien. You could have easily cut out about five meaningless characters. They would have never been missed and the others would have benefited from it. Also while the movie does finally start to capture some of the intense paranoia of the earlier film, it seems to come and go. Carpenter’s film was driven by the paranoia and unnerving suspicions of his characters. I also thought this movie got a little off track close to the end. There’s an out-of-place sequence in the underground UFO that felt completely disconnected from the rest of the film. That was one attempt at originality that really fell flat.

On the flip side, Director Matthijs van Heijningen Jr. does effectively employ several of the techniques used by Carpenter. And while I wouldn’t call the special effects better, the availability of CGI does give this creature much more fluid motions and his assimilations are pretty grotesque. Of course I mean that in a good way. The film is also helped by some really good acting throughout. Mary Elizabeth Winstead as especially impressive as a paleontologist who becomes the lead character. The wonderful Australian actor Joel Edgerton is also quite good as an American helicopter pilot who tends to sit on the outside of the largely scientific group. Both performances are natural and true even when the material let’s them down a bit.

“The Thing” is a film that will largely appeal to a small audience. Fans of the 1982 classic will want to see it and should find a lot to like. While it trips itself up with an overloaded cast and a few scenes which feel like they belong in another film, it does deliver that almost old-school sci-fi monster movie feel. It captures some of the paranoia that I keep harping on and it’s connection to the previous picture is very well done.  Top it off with some nice performances and you have a film that is very watchable. Oh, and did I mention they have flamethrowers???

VERDICT – 3 STARS

Oscar – The morning after…

by

0

Well it has come and gone. The 2012 Oscars seemed to get here in a hurry and be done just as quick. As usual for the more recent Oscars, there were few surprises. Most of the “Big 6” went as I predicted and the only real surprises were with the technical awards. But overall it was a fun night. Here’s a few thoughts…

Billy Crystal hosted the 2012 show after the Eddie Murphy debacle (or should I say the Brett Ratner debacle) and he did a solid job. Unlike last year’s odd and sometimes uncomfortable hosting from James Franco and Anne Hathaway, this was more grounded but still quite funny. Crystal used several tried-and-true antics such as the song detailing the Best Picture Nominees and the “What they’re thinking” segment. I found them and several of Crystal’s adaptive one-liners to be very funny. Several of the presenters provided some good laughs including Will Ferrell and Zach Galifianakis, Emma Stone, Chris Rock (I was surprised, too), and of course Robert Downey, Jr. Oh, and c’mon Academy! Am I the only one who thinks that Downey, Jr. would be the funniest Oscars host of all time? Sign him up.

“Hugo” ended the night with five Oscars. It was awarded for its technical achievements and it’s hard for me to argue with that. “A Seperation” won for Best Foreign Language film which was followed by a rather unusual acceptance speech from director Asghar Farhadi. “The Descendants” won Best Adapted Screenplay and I was thrilled that “Midnight in Paris” won for Best Original Screenplay. Of course Woody Allen wasn’t there but did we ever expect him to be?

The supporting categories went exactly as expected. Octavia Spencer (The Help) and Christopher Plummer (Beginners) had already been christened the winners well before the ceremony began and that’s exactly how things played out. Spencer gave one of the most genuine and emotional acceptance speeches of the night and Plummer became the oldest Oscar winner ever. It was good seeing Nick Nolte recognized with a nomination even though I’m not sure he knew where he was last night.

Meryl Streep won Best Actress for her performance in “The Iron Lady”. That category had turned into a two person race and I really felt that Viola Davis had a good chance to win. But Streep was awarded for a performance that certainly outweighed the rather mundane and mixed reviewed movie. The Oscar media had tried their best to sell the whole Clooney (“The Descendants”) versus Pitt (“Moneyball”) Best Actor race. But as I expected (and hoped), Jean Dujardin won the Oscar for his wonderful performance in “The Artist”. Working with several more handicaps than the other nominees, Dujardin nailed his performance and deserved the award. His acceptance speech and subsequent dance showed his enthusiasm and I found myself applauding from my recliner.

The night only got better for “The Artist”. Michael Hazanavicius won the Best Director Oscar which is almost always a sign of which film will win Best Picture. Last night was no different. Hazanavicius’ gutsy project won Best Picture and I have no problem with it. While I was personally rooting for “The Tree of Life”, this was a case where the Academy got it right. “The Artist” was a nostalgic but touching film that felt plucked right out of the silent movie era. I loved seeing it win.

So while it was a fairly predictable night, it was a good night. The stars played dress-up and movie fans witnessed new films and new performances added to that Valhalla of motion picture history. I went 5 for 6 in the “Big 6” categories so that speaks to the shows lack of suspense. But there were some genuinely funny moments and some good movies received their due.

It’s Oscar Time….

by

0

We are only a couple of hours away from the 2012 Oscars. It’s the Super Bowl of movies minus the mystery and minus without the clear deserved winner when the show is over. But it’s still fun and exciting, filled with stars and linking a new group of Oscar-winning movies with a great history. So with just minutes to go, once again here is what I expect to happen tonight…

Tonight will be a big night for “The Artist”. I fully expect it to take home the Best Picture Oscar with its closest competition being Alexander Payne’s “The Descendants”. While personally I’ll be rooting for “The Tree of Life”, it has no chance. This is a two movie race. I also expect Michel Hazanavicius to win Best Director, an award than often times signals what film will be winning Best Picture.

The Oscar media is desperately trying to hype a George Clooney (The Descendants) vs Brad Pitt (Moneyball) Best Actor race but Pitt really has no shot. This is a race between Clooney and Jean Dujardin (The Artist). While Clooney is the golden boy of Hollywood is was strong in “The Descendants”, I expect Dujardin to win the Best Actor Oscar and rightly so.

Yes, Meryl Streep has been nominated 257,000 times and only won twice. Yes, many believe she will win tonight for her work in the underwhelming “The Iron Lady”. I’m not one of those believers. I think Streep will settle for another nomination as Viola Davis gets the win for her work in “The Help”. While it’s also a flawed movie, Davis’ performance outweighs Streep’s and it’s hard to argue with her winning.

The Supporting awards are pretty much a sure thing. Octavia Spencer will easily beat her “The Help” co-star Jessica Chastain (who should have been nominated for her much stronger performances in “Take Shelter” and “The Tree of Life”). Christopher Plummer seems to be the Academy’s choice for Best Supporting Actor already even though I would much rather see Nick Nolte get it for “Warrior”.

I’m hoping “Midnight in Paris” and “Hugo” get some love tonight as well but these are the big winners. What are your thoughts? Agree or disagree? Feel free to share below. One things for sure, it should be a fun night.

REVIEW: “Chronicle”

by

6

“Chronicle” is another one of those “look what I’ve captured on my hand-held video camera” movies but with a super-powered twist. It takes elements from a wide range of movies from “Hancock” to “Paranormal Activity” and everything in between then mixes them together to form a slightly unique but overall predictable 80 minute package. “Chronicle” does spark some interest early in the film as it takes a different look at the concept of superhuman powers. There are some genuine moments of humor and a wild ending filled with special effects that undoubtedly ate up most of the $15 million budget. But it doesn’t take long to figure most things out and the stereotypical, run-of-the-mill teenaged characters started to lose interest.

The story begins with Andrew (Dane DeHaan), a teenager who is somewhat of a closed off social pariah. He doesn’t have many friends, has a mother who is dying of cancer, and an abusive alcoholic for a father. He just randomly decides to start filming everything in his life with a newly purchased video camera. This develops the perspective that we the audience have throughout the picture. Andrew is convinced to go to a party by his “friend” and cousin Matt (Alex Russell). Matt has enough of a bond with Andrew to want to see him come out of his anti-social bubble, but he’s not enough of a friend to spend time with him at the party. Andrew is approached at the party by Steve (Michael B. Jordan), a popular jock and aspiring politician. Steve has been sent by Matt to find Andrew and bring him and his camera to a weird crater found in the woods. The three boys do some ill-advised exploring and stumble across something not of this planet which gives them super-powers.

The majority of the picture focuses on the three teens and their developing powers. They determine that their powers “works like a muscle” and they can tell they are getting stronger the more they use them. This leads to the obvious “we need a set of rules” (think Spider-man’s “with great power comes great responsibility”). They begin developing their own ideas about how to use their new abilities which leads to several disagreements and eventually bigger problems. You’ll see it all coming well before the ending, but that’s not to say there aren’t some good scenes in the build-up. There were some fun moments just watching the teens act like kids with a new super-powered toy. They responded exactly how you would expect them to – silly, playful, immature, and irresponsible. But they also fall into some of the overused and uninteresting teen movie stereotypes that I found disappointing.

The idea to show this from the perspective of a video camera worked for a time but after a while I was feeling that I had seen this all before. It wasn’t fresh or innovative. And in the third act of the film, the video camera perspective seems to just drop for a few shots then come back. Not sure if it was an oversight, but I found myself trying to figure out which camera perspective I was seeing before eventually saying “forget it”. But the ending action sequence is wild and quite impressive. Downtown Seattle is the location for  the massive explosions, flipping cars, and shattered skyscrapers. It’s so good that it almost makes up for the film’s earlier problems.

“Chronicle” was built off of a good idea, but its one thread of originality isn’t enough to support the entire film. First time director and co-writer Josh Trank does some interesting things with his camera, but it’s mostly lost by his decision to use the hand-held perspective and video documentary approach, an approach that’s been done many times before. There are some good lines in the picture and the final action sequence is fantastic. It’s just a shame that this “fresh” look at super-powers features so many things we’ve seen before.

VERDICT – 2 STARS