JerryWeaver Reviews

Brannigan (1975)

Great London scenery

[1 September 2003]

First let's get the negatives out of the way. John Wayne is way too old and too fat for this role.

Having said that, this film works well for me, even though I am by no means a John Wayne fan. Wayne plays a Chicago cop who is in London to apprehend a fugitive. He works with Scotland Yard, and his interaction with the British detective, played well by Richard Attenborough, is the ongoing theme of this film. It is the "frontier cop" mentality of Wayne vs. the more sophisticated "British cop" approach of Attenborough, set against the London background which for me is really the star of this film. The London scenery is just wonderful. And, as icing on the cake, there is an interesting plot twist at the end.

Se7en (1995)

Unique detective thriller

[27 May 2002]

This is a good film, though clearly below "The Usual Suspects" when rating films of the '90's. What makes the film stand out is its complete uniqueness. No other film comes to mind to even compare it to.

The achievement of the film is that even though it is unique, there is an undercurrent of believability about the whole thing. We know that mass murderers are a disturbing reality in modern-day life. We also know that it is not unusual for such murderers to plant clues, either consciously or subconsciously, i.e., to make it into a game played between himself and the cops.

This is what happens here, as the murders are carefully orchestrated to illustrate each one of the seven deadly sins. This is not so far out as it sounds, when you consider that we live in an era in which religious fanatics routinely blow themselves up for their cause, and routinely butcher countless thousands of their countrymen who oppose their cause in many places around the globe.

The explanation the Kevin Spacey character gives near the end of the film is entirely believable, and his performance, brief as it is, stands out. What is less believable are the performances of Morgan Freeman and Brad Pitt as the detectives. The cliche of the cop about to retire paired with the energetic young cop has been beaten to death, and I am sorry it was used here. This would have been a better film if it had featured two detectives working together without the baggage thrown in (Freeman with his "I'm out of here" cynicism, and Pitt with his "new in town" naivete). The interaction of the two detectives just did not seem genuine to me. Freeman was better in other films, like "Driving Miss Daisy", "The Shawshank Redemption", and "Unforgiven". And Pitt is just not one of my favorite actors.

Those of us who are fortunate enough to live in one of the relatively few countries of the world in which the "marketplace of ideas" concept has taken root and flourishes are accustomed to expressing our ideas verbally. For the rest of the world, however, there is a depressingly frequent resort to violent action as a way of expressing ideas. In a world in which it is almost routine for Palestinians to sneak into Israel and blow themselves up in support of their cause, it does not seem incredible that the Kevin Spacey character here would sacrifice himself to his cause. As he says, "Wanting people to listen, you can't just tap them on the shoulder anymore. You have to hit them with a sledgehammer, and then you'll notice you've got their strict attention."

8.5/10

Color of Night (1994)

Interesting dark comedy

[27 May 2002]

Like in "The Third Man", the plot of this show has a character who travels to a faraway city to visit a good friend, and then spends the whole movie trying to unravel a mystery. There is a lot of appeal in this sort of plot, and here Bruce Willis plays a psychiatrist who takes a break from his practice after pushing a disturbed patient to her suicide. To recover from this traumatic event, he travels across the country to visit an old friend and colleague. Then after his friend is murdered, he takes over his friend's therapy group at the request of the cop on the case, and tries to figure out who the killer is.

I am no Bruce Willis fan, but after seeing a portion of this on TV I was compelled to rent this film. The tape version supposedly contains 15 extra minutes not in the theater version, some of which no doubt is the steamy sex between the Bruce Willis and Jane March characters. That Bruce Willis would fall head-over-heels for Jane March after only a brief chance encounter is not really believable, but this movie works best if you suspend this sort of disbelief and just enjoy it.

Scott Bakula, who shines as Captain Archer in "Enterprise", the newest entry in the "Star Trek" sequence of TV series, is appealing here as the colleague who Bruce Willis comes to visit. But the performance of Ruben Blades, the detective working the case, is so over-the-top that I have to consider this a dark comedy. If not a dark comedy, then why was Blades permitted to make such a mockery of his character?

The movie works because of the earnestness of the Bruce Willis character, and his determination to unravel the mystery (a la the Joseph Cotton character in "The Third Man"). The situation does get resolved in the end, in a way that is both surprising and satisfying. An enjoyable film if you can suspend your disbelief and take it on its own terms.

7/10

My Cousin Vinny (1992)

A delight

[9/10 · 5 March 2002]

This movie has all the makings of a real dud. The big-city guy tries to defend two kids charged with murder in the South. With this scenario, it could easily have degenerated into hopeless stereotyping.

What a nice surprise to discover that the film resists the temptation to deal in stereotypes, and instead presents the characters as real human beings. The big-city guy (Joe Pesci) tries to learn some things about the Southern culture, and is then able to use this to his advantage during the trial. The Judge (Fred Gwynne) and the prosecutor (Lane Smith, known for playing the newspaperman Perry White on "Lois & Clark) are appropriately bemused by Pesci's attempts to represent his clients (it is his first case), but instead of making it impossible for him to function, they maintain a tolerant attitude, keeping in mind that the overall purpose of the proceeding is to do justice.

SPOILER Marisa Tomei is absolutely fabulous as Joe Pesci's girlfriend, and her Oscar for Best Supporting Actress was well-deserved. She tries to support him as best she can, but the inevitable stress and strain of the trial causes a strain on their relationship. When Pesci puts her on the stand as an expert witness on car mechanics, she is mad at Pesci and it shows, prompting the Judge to ask "Do you two know each other?" When Pesci explains that they do, the Judge says "That would explain the hostility." A hilarious moment, but her subsequent testimony is quite serious and turns out to be a key to the defense case.

In response to her testimony, the prosecution expert witness admits that Tomei is right. Here again, the filmmakers could have degenerated into stereotyping by having her testimony attacked, but do not stoop to this. The key is the pursuit of truth, which, after all, is what a trial is supposed to be about. Unlike other films about trials ("The Verdict" comes to mind), where the desire to win seems to take precedence over anything else, this film gives a balanced portrayal of the legal system.

Joe Pesci is one of my favorite actors, and he does not disappoint here. The film is a nice breath of fresh air.

9/10

Presumed Innocent (1990)

Thumbs down

[4/10 · 5 March 2002]

I don't care for Harrison Ford, and I didn't care for this movie. The best thing about it is that the viewer is kept in the dark as to Ford's guilt or innocence of the murder of his former lover. Another plus is Raul Julia's fine performance as Ford's defense attorney.

But these two elements cannot save this film. It lacks cohesiveness and lacks anything for us to really care about.

4/10

The Verdict (1982)

Fatally flawed

[5 March 2002]

This film struck me as a complete mess. None of the principal players in the legal system is portrayed as a real character. They just do not act like real lawyers and Judges would act.

Paul Newman plays a down-and-out lawyer who takes on a malpractice case against a big Catholic hospital. James Mason plays the defense lawyer who is willing to stoop to anything to oppose Newman's effort to obtain justice for his clients.

SPOILERS The problem is that the filmmakers have these lawyers and the Judge in the case do things which real lawyers or Judges would never do. For example, when Newman receives a generous settlement offer from the hospital, he turns it down without even consulting his clients. This is such a blatant ethical violation that the film loses credibility already at this point. Any attorney practicing in this fashion would be severely sanctioned.

The defense lawyer marshals all the people in his large firm to work on this one case. He asks them to drop everything else they are doing, including canceling planned vacations, to concentrate on this one case. This is ludicrous; no big firm could stay in business by ignoring all its other clients to concentrate on one case. Granted, it is an important case, but it is still only one case. More realistically, in an important case the lead attorney would typically have an attorney helping him as "second chair", and perhaps a para-legal to run errands as needed, but to pull every single attorney in the firm off their other work defies credulity.

And then there is the business of planting a spy in the defense camp. Of course this is beyond the pale ethically. Mason is such a sleazy character here that he is unpleasant to watch on the screen. This would have been a much better movie if Mason had been portrayed realistically, doing whatever he could within the law and Newman then has to surmount these obstacles.

Worst of all is the unholy alliance entered into between the Judge and the defense team. The Judge's ire is raised when Newman turns down the settlement offer. Now, it is certainly not unusual for Judges to encourage parties to settle. But when Newman wants a trial, the Judge should allow him to have it. Instead, he does whatever he can to thwart Newman's efforts to present his case. When Newman unexpectedly comes up with the witness who can help his case, the defense attorney vociferously objects. He is silenced by a stern glance from the Judge, and the viewer is led to believe that the Judge is now going to allow the truth to come out. How disappointing, then, when we discover that the Judge actually silences Mason so as not to draw undue attention to the witness, and he then goes on to rule the testimony inadmissible.

The sad thing is that there are issues here which need to be aired. We have seen in the sexual abuse scandals that have recently come to light that the Catholic Church has indeed been guilty of covering up misconduct of its Priests. So it is not surprising that it would also cover up misconduct by its doctors.

Further, I am told by a leading malpractice lawyer that these days the hospitals will, in more cases than not, attempt to falsify evidence. What they do is substitute another patient's records for the plaintiff's records, and submit it as the plaintiff's own records to show that nothing improper was done. The thinking seems to be that they are going to lose anyway if they present the actual records, so why not take a chance and hope they won't be caught?

So the problem with the film is not that the hospital is crooked, but rather that it portrays the defense lawyer as being part and parcel of the chicanery. No lawyer would keep his license to practice law after something like this. In actuality, the client submits the doctored evidence as real and the lawyer is kept in the dark.

If you want to see a good film about the legal system, there are many to choose from. A short list includes `Inherit the Wind', `To Kill a Mockingbird', `Anatomy of a Murder', `Witness for the Prosecution', `Judgment at Nuremberg', `Breaker Morant', `My Cousin Vinny', and `Amistad'. Go rent any of these fine films, but skip `The Verdict'.

2/10

A Cry in the Dark (1988)

Good film

[8/10 · 4 March 2002]

This is a true story of an Australian couple wha are charged with murder when their infant child disappears. Meryl Streep is excellent, as always, and manages to hold our interest even though she plays a character who isn't particularly likable.

The media frenzy that surrounded this case in Australia is reminiscent of the Sam Sheppard murder case in Ohio during the 50's. These real-life situations demonstrate that the media in fact can affect how a criminal case is handled. I well remember the Cleveland Plain Dealer running a huge headline stating "Why Isn't Sam Sheppard in Jail?". The prosecutor eventually succumbed to this relentless pressure, and Sheppard was tried and convicted. Only after years in jail was he exonerated.

I love movies which tell a true story, do it in an interesting way, and make an important point in the process. This is one of those movies. Other good movies which tell the story of innocent persons charged with crimes include "Hurricane", "The Thin Blue Line", and "Breaker Morant". In particular, the latter is another Australian film which is highly recommended.

8/10

Kiss of the Spider Woman (1985)

Only filmed theater

[4/10 · 4 March 2002]

This movie looks and feels too much like what it is--a play. As a result it has an artificial feel to it, and does not cut it as a movie. William Hurt is one of my favorite actors, but his prancing around his jail cell is painful to watch, and is a poor and uninteresting characterization of a gay person.

4/10

Terms of Endearment (1983)

A disappointment

[3/10 · 4 March 2002]

If you like movies which are merely a series of snapshots, then you might check this one out. Otherwise, stay away from it. The movie jumps around from year to year over a 30-year period, and lacks any cohesiveness as a result.

To me, a movie should be more than a series of snapshots. While the performance of Jack Nicholson is a joy to watch, he has only a small part and cannot save this film.

3/10

The Big Chill (1983)

Boring

[3/10 · 4 March 2002]

As someone who grew up during the 50's and 60's, I had high hopes for this film. Sad to say, I was sorely disappointed. None of the characters seem real or interesting, except perhaps the William Hurt and Meg Tilly characters, who are interesting in a brief scene with each other. Other than that, I did not care about what was happening to any of the characters.

3/10

The World According to Garp (1982)

Only snapshots

[4 March 2002]

This is another one of those films, like "Terms of Endearment", which is merely a series of snapshots. I did not enjoy it and would like the two hours plus of my life back that it cost me.

2/10

First Monday in October (1981)

A failure

[3/10 · 4 March 2002]

This is filmed theater and does not cut it as a movie. It just does not come across with any realism or vibrancy.

The point is not that a film must have action. Indeed, one of my all-time favorite movies is "My Dinner with Andre", which consists entirely of a dinner conversation between two old friends. But "First Monday in October" just doesn't have any spark.

3/10

Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)

Good but flawed

[4 March 2002]

This is a good movie, with excellent performances by Dustin Hoffman, Jane Alexander, and the kid Justin Henry. However, unfortunately Meryl Streep's role isn't really very developed and we don't get to understand very well what is going on with her.

The film shows the agony of people going through a contested Court battle over custody. Although the agony is very real for those going through this, it needs to be noted that the more modern approach to a custody dispute is to require the parties to mediate their differences. By stressing the concept of "parenting time", in which time with the child is divided in a reasonable way between the two parents, as opposed to the "either-or" choice depicted in the film, differences can often be worked out in mediation by simply working out a schedule of who has the child when.

SPOILER COMING UP Another problem with the film is the screenwriter's assumption that the mother should receive custody unless she is unfit. This has not been the law for many, many years, if indeed it ever was. In this situation, where the child had bonded so wonderfully with his father, it seems doubtful that even the older Judges would award custody to the mother. Judges will usually continue whatever the status quo arrangement has been, if it is working, as it was in the film. Certainly the mother would not be permitted to come in and litigate custody, simply because she has changed her mind. Rather, it is necessary to show a "change of circumstances" to even get into Court.

The story is told from a decidedly upper middle class viewpoint. Both parents have good jobs, and the film seems to accept the idea that a person's worth as a parent is determined by how good of a job he or she has. During the Court hearing, when the mother says how much she is making, the camera shows the father's surprised reaction. The mother's attorney is eliciting this information to show how she has "gotten herself together", and therefore should now be granted custody. And when the father loses his job right before the hearing, he desperately finds another one because he "knows" he has no chance at custody unless he has a good job. And then during the hearing, the mother's attorney derides him for making less than he had previously made.

I submit that this viewpoint is just plain false. One's worth as a parent does not depend on how much money one makes! Indeed, it could be argued that the reverse is actually true, in that the less time spent on making a living, the more time and energy one has to devote to the care of one's children. The issue is not who has the best job, but who can best care for the children. Who is the most willing to go the parent-teacher conferences, take the children to the doctor, read to them a story at bedtime, etc.

Despite the various flaws in the film, it still rates an 8 out of 10 due to the very strong performances, and the wonderful way it shows the developing relationship between a father and his son.

Titanic (1997)

A waste of time

[3 March 2002]

What a disappointment this movie was. The story is completely unbelievable. Would any mother who loves her daughter subject her to being forced to marry a complete clod, someone so despicable that he is capable of doing the things this character does in this movie? I think not.

10 (1979)

Fabulous film

[9/10 · 3 March 2002]

There is an old saying, "Be careful of what you ask for, you might get it". But men will be men, and when Dudley Moore sees the beautiful Bo Derek, he is compelled to follow her to Mexico. I suspect most of us men have had the same impulse, though I doubt very many of us have taken it to the extreme that Dudley Moore does here.

I could have done without the slapstick, and I didn't care for Julie Andrews as Moore's girlfriend. One wonders why he would stay with such an unappealing woman, regardless of what happens with his pursuit of Bo Derek.

But those annoyances aside, this is a wonderful film, full of good performances. Brian Dennehy is great as the bartender; the scene in which Dudley Moore sits down and starts ordering doubles is wonderful. Dennehy plays the bartender to perfection, not volunteering too much information, but being accessible to the customer as needed, just like a good bartender is supposed to do. And then after some rapport has been established, he does volunteer a nice compliment to Moore which the viewer is glad to hear.

Moore, after all, is a lovable character, just like he was in Arthur", and we root for him and want him to find whatever it is that will make him happy. And his anguish is not limited to his urge to connect up with a beautiful young woman. He is also anguished by the kind of music kids nowadays are listening to. He realizes he is not at home in a culture in which a young couple can say that "our song" is "Why Don't We Do It in the Road". Having reached this understanding, he can then understand also how he could never be happy with a woman half his age.

Trial and Error (1997)

Excellent film

[7/10 · 1 March 2002]

This film illustrates that appearances can be deceiving. Each of the main characters is playing a role that is somehow contrary to that person's real identity. In the case of the Rip Torn character, who is on trial for fraud, the deception is obvious, despite his ludicrous attempt to justify his fraudulent actions. And it is equally obvious in the case of the Michael Richards character, who is pretending to be a lawyer to help out his friend. But the other characters also are revealed to be different than who they appear to be.

This is a wonderful movie, which raises important questions about the veneer most of us use to hide our real selves. Like most good comedians (e.g., Robin Williams, Steve Martin), Michael Richards is also a fine actor, and his closing argument in the case is an especially masterful piece of acting.