I Want to Run Away!
Runaway Jury (2003) showed me why I don’t like these John Grisham-style legal thrillers. I have never seen The Practice or any other legal TV show since L.A. Law and Ally McBeal went off the air, and these shows weren’t even about the courtroom. I never consciously avoided these other shows; I just never got around to watching them, just like I have never seen The West Wing or 24. Even though I love to read (even popular fiction), I have never picked up a John Grisham novel. I saw A Time to Kill (1996) and The Rainmaker (1997) back when they came out, and I remember enjoying them but thinking they were a bit overdone. I don’t avoid Grisham novels and movies because I’m a snob (I’ll be one of the first to see The DaVinci Code, after all), but simply because these thrillers generally bore me.
I know that seems improbable because these movies are all about suspense. The idea is to keep you guessing what will happen or how it will be proven, and both sides generally engage in duplicitous behavior that is exciting yet also deplorable. But these films are also kind of simplistic.
I’ll keep my comments to Runaway Jury for now because I just watched it last night. Overall, it’s a decent film featuring decent writing and decent acting. With a cast of Dustin Hoffman, John Cusack, and Gene Hackman (who I generally love), it should have been much better, though. Rachel Weisz was in it, which made it more bearable, for I think she is one of the prettiest women in movies, but she couldn’t make up for the unbelievable plot.
I know gun companies are evil, and if there is anyone who doesn’t think so, Runaway Jury sure pounds that home. I think this is one of its flaws, too. They’re way too evil here. They meet in dark smoky rooms to discuss buying juries, and they engage in all kinds of evil behavior such as breaking and entering, arson, kidnapping, etc. The head of the company doesn’t even care about the law, and he even threatens Gene Hackman, who is working for him. Gene Hackman isn’t exactly evil here—that job is left to the gun corporations—because he is what seems to be a moral relativist. He doesn’t believe in what cannot be bought or pressured. But the gun companies are evil. Just by hiring Hackman and thinking they can buy the jury, they have demonstrated their contempt for the law.
So the plot was a bit too much of good vs. evil for me, at least for a thriller like this. Is this the way all courtroom dramas are? Now I’m thinking about A Civil Action (1998), which I remember as being decent, and it seemed to be the same way. Maybe that’s why I generally don’t like them. Real life isn’t like that. Give me a conflicted character who is caught between two positions and that’s more believable. These characters here are just too bland. But then again, I love Star Wars, so maybe it's about pretense...
The only thing that redeems the film, perhaps, is that Cusack and Weisz are morally conflicted characters, at least through most of the movie. Sure, they turn out to be the good guys, but we don’t learn that until close to the end. I’m sorry if that gives away the plot, but you really should see it coming from a mile away.
Grade for Runaway Jury: 5
Tuesday, September 20, 2005
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Sometimes I Feel Like I Am Julia!
I remember hearing about Being Julia when it came out last year, but then I didn’t hear anything more about it. I happened upon it on the library movie list and decided to take a chance on it. Although it isn’t the type of movie I typically enjoy, it turned out to be quite interesting.
Despite my enjoyment by the end, the beginning of Being Julia is probably one of the most meandering plots I have ever watched. In fact, there doesn’t seem to be a single plot, just a series of wanderings by this character Julia. That may be the point, but it doesn’t make it that entertaining.
Juila is a popular actress on the London stage before the start of WWII. Despite her continued popularity, she is aging (like Annette Bening herself) and feels as if she needs a major change. In fact, she wants to quit acting altogether, at least for a while, and her husband, played by Jeremy Irons, doesn’t want her to because they would lose a ton of money invested in the play. Basically, she is in a mid-life crisis where she has everything she wants and still doesn’t know what she wants. I generally respond to this plot because it seems to be what we all go through. It’s a bit demoralizing when the person is so wealthy, however, and acts just plain spoiled. In fact, I tend to have no sympathy for those people. It’s mean I know, for we’re all human, and we all have the same basic intangible wants, such as true appreciation and love and security, along with interesting conversations and good music (alright, I added those in). But sometimes the rich seem to have it made, and if they don’t appreciate that fact, they should give me some of their money. Maybe that will make them feel better. Of course no one ever gives me any of their money, though, so everyone just stays miserable.
For Julia, her misery lasts until the young American male comes along, and the movie slides into a glorification of adultery. Here, the film tries to make this okay by suggesting that the husband is okay with it. I’m not quite sure if that’s true, but whatever—it’s still weird. Things don’t work out with the young man, and I’m not giving anything away here, because everyone knows it won’t, except for Julia, who thinks she has fallen in love with him.
And that’s when the real plot begins, over half-way through the film. The turn it takes here is interesting and quite enjoyable. I won’t give this part away because it is a surprise, and a good one at that. This is where the movie and its characters redeem themselves, and it makes this otherwise muddy, mediocre drama quite enjoyable. All of the actors in the film are excellent, but if the plot had not taken this turn, I probably would have hated this movie.
But because it did turn, Being Julia gets a 6.
I remember hearing about Being Julia when it came out last year, but then I didn’t hear anything more about it. I happened upon it on the library movie list and decided to take a chance on it. Although it isn’t the type of movie I typically enjoy, it turned out to be quite interesting.
Despite my enjoyment by the end, the beginning of Being Julia is probably one of the most meandering plots I have ever watched. In fact, there doesn’t seem to be a single plot, just a series of wanderings by this character Julia. That may be the point, but it doesn’t make it that entertaining.
Juila is a popular actress on the London stage before the start of WWII. Despite her continued popularity, she is aging (like Annette Bening herself) and feels as if she needs a major change. In fact, she wants to quit acting altogether, at least for a while, and her husband, played by Jeremy Irons, doesn’t want her to because they would lose a ton of money invested in the play. Basically, she is in a mid-life crisis where she has everything she wants and still doesn’t know what she wants. I generally respond to this plot because it seems to be what we all go through. It’s a bit demoralizing when the person is so wealthy, however, and acts just plain spoiled. In fact, I tend to have no sympathy for those people. It’s mean I know, for we’re all human, and we all have the same basic intangible wants, such as true appreciation and love and security, along with interesting conversations and good music (alright, I added those in). But sometimes the rich seem to have it made, and if they don’t appreciate that fact, they should give me some of their money. Maybe that will make them feel better. Of course no one ever gives me any of their money, though, so everyone just stays miserable.
For Julia, her misery lasts until the young American male comes along, and the movie slides into a glorification of adultery. Here, the film tries to make this okay by suggesting that the husband is okay with it. I’m not quite sure if that’s true, but whatever—it’s still weird. Things don’t work out with the young man, and I’m not giving anything away here, because everyone knows it won’t, except for Julia, who thinks she has fallen in love with him.
And that’s when the real plot begins, over half-way through the film. The turn it takes here is interesting and quite enjoyable. I won’t give this part away because it is a surprise, and a good one at that. This is where the movie and its characters redeem themselves, and it makes this otherwise muddy, mediocre drama quite enjoyable. All of the actors in the film are excellent, but if the plot had not taken this turn, I probably would have hated this movie.
But because it did turn, Being Julia gets a 6.
Friday, September 02, 2005
Glad I Never Worked at a Convenience Store
Actually, I did work at a convenience store: my first job was stocking the cooler everyday at a local fooder, stop and shop, grab and go. I didn’t talk to anyone, though. I just went in, restocked everything in the cooler, swept and mopped the floors, collected my $8 for two hours of work, and left. What do you want? I was only fifteen.
But my lack of interaction with witty store employees makes me wonder about the movie Clerks (1994). I am behind the times, I know, for this is my first time seeing it. I enjoyed the twoKevin Smith movies I have seen—Mallrats (1995) and Chasing Amy (1997)—but I didn’t love them enough to watch all of his other films. When it came out, everyone told me that Clerks was really boring, and I was on a bit of an independent-hating kick, so I didn’t go see it. But everyone else saw it, so I had no one to watch it with. Now all I can say is that that “everyone” who told me the film wasn’t that great are a bunch of idiots.
Sure, it’s low budget and the acting is sometimes terrible, but the witty banter is excellent! I have blogged about my love of witty dialogue before, so I won’t rehearse that here. But I really liked seeing people discourse about the politics of the Death Star in Return of the Jedi (1983) and the chosen destiny of video store clerking. The character Randall was a terrible actor, but his lines were excellent. He was random and spontaneous but completely purposeful—somewhat like people I knew in college—and I responded to him.
But let’s face it: I’m more like Dante, as I’m sure most of us are. I may not cheat on my girlfriend/wife (I don’t, I swear!), but I’m one of those people who can’t tell anyone no, just like Dante. And his name isn’t coincidental, either—Dante Hicks. He is the purveyor of the hell that is the town where they live. Stating it like that may be making it a bit too austere, but that’s really what he seems to be doing.
He is an observer of everything, not usually a willing participant. While everyone else does whatever they feel like, which seems to be the film's mantra, we don’t see Dante do anything that we judge as completely wrong. He is guided by a set of loose rules that make sense to me. In fact, I would probably do most of what he does (EXCEPT go out with another girl while I’m dating someone else, I swear!). But this guy simply observes everything that goes on around him. He participates in it sometimes, but only because other people goad him into it. They’re always pushing him to do things he doesn’t want to do. And although we only see one day in the life of Dante Hicks, the film leaves us with the idea (NOT the optional ending, mind you) that this is what happens to Dante everyday. The next day will be just like this one, even though he keeps saying that it’s a terrible day unlike any other. We know it’s not.
The real plight of clerks, then, is the monotony. They have to engage in witty banter because that seems to be what their life consists of. Randall may be the foil for Dante, but he’s really no better off, except, as he says, he has come to terms with his monotonous life. Dante, however, is merely an observer, like his namesake. He won’t stay long.
Grade: 8
Actually, I did work at a convenience store: my first job was stocking the cooler everyday at a local fooder, stop and shop, grab and go. I didn’t talk to anyone, though. I just went in, restocked everything in the cooler, swept and mopped the floors, collected my $8 for two hours of work, and left. What do you want? I was only fifteen.
But my lack of interaction with witty store employees makes me wonder about the movie Clerks (1994). I am behind the times, I know, for this is my first time seeing it. I enjoyed the twoKevin Smith movies I have seen—Mallrats (1995) and Chasing Amy (1997)—but I didn’t love them enough to watch all of his other films. When it came out, everyone told me that Clerks was really boring, and I was on a bit of an independent-hating kick, so I didn’t go see it. But everyone else saw it, so I had no one to watch it with. Now all I can say is that that “everyone” who told me the film wasn’t that great are a bunch of idiots.
Sure, it’s low budget and the acting is sometimes terrible, but the witty banter is excellent! I have blogged about my love of witty dialogue before, so I won’t rehearse that here. But I really liked seeing people discourse about the politics of the Death Star in Return of the Jedi (1983) and the chosen destiny of video store clerking. The character Randall was a terrible actor, but his lines were excellent. He was random and spontaneous but completely purposeful—somewhat like people I knew in college—and I responded to him.
But let’s face it: I’m more like Dante, as I’m sure most of us are. I may not cheat on my girlfriend/wife (I don’t, I swear!), but I’m one of those people who can’t tell anyone no, just like Dante. And his name isn’t coincidental, either—Dante Hicks. He is the purveyor of the hell that is the town where they live. Stating it like that may be making it a bit too austere, but that’s really what he seems to be doing.
He is an observer of everything, not usually a willing participant. While everyone else does whatever they feel like, which seems to be the film's mantra, we don’t see Dante do anything that we judge as completely wrong. He is guided by a set of loose rules that make sense to me. In fact, I would probably do most of what he does (EXCEPT go out with another girl while I’m dating someone else, I swear!). But this guy simply observes everything that goes on around him. He participates in it sometimes, but only because other people goad him into it. They’re always pushing him to do things he doesn’t want to do. And although we only see one day in the life of Dante Hicks, the film leaves us with the idea (NOT the optional ending, mind you) that this is what happens to Dante everyday. The next day will be just like this one, even though he keeps saying that it’s a terrible day unlike any other. We know it’s not.
The real plight of clerks, then, is the monotony. They have to engage in witty banter because that seems to be what their life consists of. Randall may be the foil for Dante, but he’s really no better off, except, as he says, he has come to terms with his monotonous life. Dante, however, is merely an observer, like his namesake. He won’t stay long.
Grade: 8
Thursday, September 01, 2005
Not when I was Thirteen
I remember hearing a couple of years ago about this small art film called Thirteen (2003) that was co-written by one of its young actors. After seeing the film, I think you can tell that it was written by someone so young. However, I don’t that’s necessarily a bad thing.
Let me begin with the worst thing about this movie, which is the acting. These actors are young and inexperienced, and it shows. However, they’re also convincing. I believed that these kids were going through this, so their acting couldn’t have been all that bad. One of the girls played up the fake nice girl too much, and the other one played up the irate bad girl too much, always screaming at her mother that she hated her. But perhaps real life is like that. In some ways, these girls appeared as stereotypes or caricatures, with the exception that they change over the course of the movie. But maybe caricature is the point. Perhaps we’re all just caricatures when we’re thirteen. In some ways, I know I was like the main character. I rebelled against everything my parents had or did, like most of teenagers. But watching it onscreen is demystifying, like pulling the veil back on the wizard to find some horror beneath it. This isn't like watching kids in a Disney flick; this is like watching you when you were thirteen--not a pretty sight.
So if the acting was the worst thing, and I still found it convincing, then this must be a good movie, right? Yeah, it really is. The problem, though, which has nothing to do with the quality of the movie, is that the plot is terrifying.
I have daughter that is nearly a year old, you see, and I am dreading the point twelve years from now, primarily because of this movie. Yes, I always dreaded the teenage years, but, man, this film made me AFRAID of them! Watching the downward spiral this nice girl travels is one of the worst things I have ever seen. I was afraid that she would end up dead or in a hospital, but, as my wife called it, there is a touch of hope.
Watching Holly Hunter (wwho was excellent, of course—I have always loved her, ever since Raising Arizona (1987)) struggle with her daughter was disheartening and hopeful at the same time. I won’t tell you what happens at the end, but it really is very neat without being cheesy. In some ways, my wife and I are probably like Holly Hunter’s character. We’re both still into popular culture, and I want my daughter to do what she wants and make her own decisions, as long as she doesn’t hurt herself. That’s what Hunter tries to do here. Even though her daughter fights her every step of the way, she still struggles to reach her, and it’s wonderful to watch, although, as I keep saying, scary, too.
Overall, this film is pretty great. Yes, it’s a bit too much at times, but not on the scale of Kids (1995), which is just hopeless and so unbelievable (yet true, I’m sure) that I can’t consider it. This film seems somewhat realistic, which is what also makes it so scary.
Grade: 7
I remember hearing a couple of years ago about this small art film called Thirteen (2003) that was co-written by one of its young actors. After seeing the film, I think you can tell that it was written by someone so young. However, I don’t that’s necessarily a bad thing.
Let me begin with the worst thing about this movie, which is the acting. These actors are young and inexperienced, and it shows. However, they’re also convincing. I believed that these kids were going through this, so their acting couldn’t have been all that bad. One of the girls played up the fake nice girl too much, and the other one played up the irate bad girl too much, always screaming at her mother that she hated her. But perhaps real life is like that. In some ways, these girls appeared as stereotypes or caricatures, with the exception that they change over the course of the movie. But maybe caricature is the point. Perhaps we’re all just caricatures when we’re thirteen. In some ways, I know I was like the main character. I rebelled against everything my parents had or did, like most of teenagers. But watching it onscreen is demystifying, like pulling the veil back on the wizard to find some horror beneath it. This isn't like watching kids in a Disney flick; this is like watching you when you were thirteen--not a pretty sight.
So if the acting was the worst thing, and I still found it convincing, then this must be a good movie, right? Yeah, it really is. The problem, though, which has nothing to do with the quality of the movie, is that the plot is terrifying.
I have daughter that is nearly a year old, you see, and I am dreading the point twelve years from now, primarily because of this movie. Yes, I always dreaded the teenage years, but, man, this film made me AFRAID of them! Watching the downward spiral this nice girl travels is one of the worst things I have ever seen. I was afraid that she would end up dead or in a hospital, but, as my wife called it, there is a touch of hope.
Watching Holly Hunter (wwho was excellent, of course—I have always loved her, ever since Raising Arizona (1987)) struggle with her daughter was disheartening and hopeful at the same time. I won’t tell you what happens at the end, but it really is very neat without being cheesy. In some ways, my wife and I are probably like Holly Hunter’s character. We’re both still into popular culture, and I want my daughter to do what she wants and make her own decisions, as long as she doesn’t hurt herself. That’s what Hunter tries to do here. Even though her daughter fights her every step of the way, she still struggles to reach her, and it’s wonderful to watch, although, as I keep saying, scary, too.
Overall, this film is pretty great. Yes, it’s a bit too much at times, but not on the scale of Kids (1995), which is just hopeless and so unbelievable (yet true, I’m sure) that I can’t consider it. This film seems somewhat realistic, which is what also makes it so scary.
Grade: 7
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)