ntadema Reviews

Incendiary: The Willingham Case (2011)

Biased

[3/10 · 1 August 2011]

Here's a brief overview of the case that is the subject of this documentary: Cameron Todd Willingham was convicted of murder by arson of his three daughters in 1991 and put to death in 2004. Since then, a number of death penalty advocates have claimed his innocence by criticizing the evidence presented in 1991.

Before watching the film, I had been following the case very closely and read everything I could about the case. As such, I knew at the conclusion of this film that the filmmakers had presented only one side of the story.

Notably, the entire film is based on, and only on, interviews with Todd Willingham's defense - the most notable interviews are with Willingham's defense attorney at trial, David Martin, and the expert, Gerald Hurst, who claims the state's arson is flawed (based on over 10 years of hindsight). What is absent is an interview with a prosecutor, judge, witness, jury member, state expert, or even a neutral expert to balance the audience's perspective. Instead, the film represents the state with some choice footage which appears to be intended to cast current state politicians (no one who was actually involved in the trial, mind you) in a bad light.

At one point the film cuts to "The State's Case" (or something like that). Who presents "The State's Case?" Not the prosecutor (or any prosecutor for that matter). Rather, the state's case is presented by the same guy advocating for the defense, Gerald Hurst, the expert who calls Willingham "innocent" based on retrospective findings that the arson evidence was inconclusive (Calling someone innocent based on inconclusive findings seems contradicting in itself but the filmmakers never seem to question Hurst's declarations).

This one-sided presentation leaves Martin, Willingham's defense attorney at trial, to defend the state's case because Martin has no doubt that Willingham is guilty. Since when does the defense attorney become the best guy to defend the state's case? Even so, Martin makes a couple of points that strike home - for instance, he points out that Willingham's fire took a very unnatural 90-degree turn into the three girls' bedroom. This point is never refuted. Also, the filmmakers present footage of Willingham's ex-wife (and mother of the dead children) making a public declaration in 2009 or 2010 that Willingham told her he did it. And finally, the most interesting footage of the movie involves Martin stating that there may be other reasons why he believes Willingham is guilty but those reasons are protected by attorney-client privilege...

Despite a few interesting parts like that, I found myself very disappointed in the objectivity of this film. The film never addresses the confession that Willingham supposedly made to a jail-house snitch, Willingham's violent and drug-riddled history, the fact that Willingham kept changing his story as to what happened, Willingham's incriminating behavior during and shortly after the fire, or aspects of the fire that indicated arson (other than Martin's point). Instead, the film seems focused on presenting Willingham's detractors as the bad guys.

The film's unilateral presentation is disappointing because this case could have made for a very educational and interesting case study.

Bull Durham (1988)

The Greatest Sports Film

[10/10 · 28 June 2003]

This is undoubtedly, in my mind, the greatest sports film ever made. Sure, it has great dialogue, good acting, and hilarious moments. But what really makes this a great film is its love of the game of baseball. Anyone who is or was a big baseball fan should consider this film a must-see.

One of the unacknowledged features of the film is the tragedy of Crash Davis' character. By the end of the film, it becomes a tragic plot line. A person who appreciates everything about the sport, but doesn't have the talent to become great, has to mentor someone who doesn't appreciate the sport but is a born star. What avid sports fan can't appreciate this terrible reality?

If you love sports, particularly baseball, see the film. If you don't, don't see it and spare us your ignorant opinion.

Panic Room (2002)

Not everything I hoped for

[6/10 · 28 March 2002]

Overall, "Panic Room" was a disappointment, but was nevertheless fairly entertaining. The film fails to develop its main characters adequately before overeagerly diving into the sticky situation in which the main characters find themselves for 90% of this movie. The "villains" were a bit too weak in my opinion and were more comic than intimidating....not a good quality to have in a movie that is clearly intending to be a thriller. Another aspect that made them weak was that I kept finding myself thinking "Why don't they just...and they would win!?" I'm sorry Mr.Fincher, but I have to have a villain who has more common sense than Joe Schmo in order for a thriller to be thrilling. Nevertheless, I think there was enough solid directing and acting (to be expected from Jodie Foster and Forrest Whitaker) to make this movie worth watching. I attribute all of the shortcomings of this film to the writers. Overall, I give it a 6/10.

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)

Beware

[2/10 · 4 July 2001]

I can't believe how bad this movie turned out. The first hour is very promising as the movie focuses on a family and how it interacts with a robotic child. But after abandoning this setting, the movie demonstrates one of the steepest declines in quality that I've ever witnessed. I would almost guess that this is where, the generally dumbed down direction of Steven Spielberg took over. The movie totally loses focus, continuously defies logic, and abandons nearly all of the many plotlines it touches. The movie could end thirty minutes earlier than it does and almost be acceptable. But it doesn't. There were some things that were good about this film: the acting, ideas introduced in the first half, and, of course, as in the case of all bad summer blockbusters, appearance, yet these features are not nearly enough to suffice for the stupidly incomprehensible plot. I give this movie a 2/10.

You Can Count on Me (2000)

What a surprise!

[9/10 · 30 December 2000]

I had never heard of this movie when I agreed to see it. It only figures that the best movie of the year receives little public attention. This movie embraces realism and does so with perfection. I found myself a little disappointed at the end as nothing was solved but recognize that a purpose of the film is to recognize the way dysfunctional sibling relationships cycle. With that disappointment, the movie is still exceptionally touching and rewarding. Acting performances were superb of course with one the most realistic script I've ever witnessed. In my opinion, there are several deserved Oscars here. 9/10 (and I don't give good scores easily!)

Hercules (1997)

Disney's funniest

[8/10 · 12 December 2000]

I'm shocked to see this movie with a rating below 7. As a big Disney fan, I'll go out on a limb and say this is one Disney's top 5. There isn't a Disney movie out there with wit as sharp as this one's with much of it probably lost on the audience guessing by the rating given to this movie.

"Meg" definitely emerges as my all-time favorite female Disney role. Breaking from tradition, her character is not all that lady-like in her biting wit and sarcasm, but it works, serving to make the movie funny and her character lovable despite working with questionable motives.

The set-up and plot is typical for the movie but the script, animation, and music are most original AND good. IF I had to register a complaint, I would say that it's perpetual humor kept the movie from being emotionally wrenching. However, this movie remains one of the most entertaining I've seen. 8.5/10

Snow Falling on Cedars (1999)

Cinematic masterpiece to someone who rarely pays attention to cinematography

[9/10 · 13 October 2000]

This film,in short, is for someone who likes to pay attention to their movies and become absorbed in their characters....i.e. if you have a short attention span you won't like it so stick to your Jim Carrey. I, for one, became emotionally caught up in Ethan Hawke's character. Never before have I seen such an ideal projection of a character's emotions as this one, whose emotional state is torn between bitterness and the desire to do the right thing. This projection is a product of perfectly filmed flashbacks inserted at appropriate moments...much like the scene on Silence of the Lambs in which Clarice has a flashback of her childhood and father after a particularly traumatizing session with Hannibal, except this movie takes this approach consistently throughout the plot, taking you on a emotional roller coaster.

Hollow Man (2000)

I can't believe I paid to see this

[2/10 · 15 August 2000]

I went gambling the weekend I went to see this film. All one hundred and ten of my dollars went to the cassino on Friday and 5 to Hollow Man on Saturday. If I could do one of those 2 nights over, I would have chosen saturday. That's how bad this movie was. When I left the theatre, I was ready to kill myself due to my pounding headache and contribution to the creation of these films, if you can call them that. If Kevin Bacon or Elizabeth Shue is reading this, I demand a letter of apology for suckering me into tolerating this terribly-written, illogical, and awfully-acted excuse for a movie hiding behind unpleasantly fast camerawork and excruciatingly loud sound effects by making so many good movies prior to this one.

Elizabeth (1998)

Not a history lesson, but a good story

[7/10 · 6 August 2000]

I think everyone can agree that the filming of the movie is beautiful. Acting performances, although overrated, are solid as well. As for the story....you're mistaken if you're looking for a history lesson, at least an -accurate- history lesson. However, I don't think that is the purpose of this movie. The story of this movie is about the transformation of a free-spirited girl into cold and ruthless yet capable monarch. So, in that sense, it is more a history of Queen Elizabeth's emotional state and development and tells a solid tale. 7/10.

Hamlet (2000)

Interesting version...worth seeing

[7/10 · 17 July 2000]

This Hamlet really has its very good points and very bad points. I'll start with the good. Ethan Hawke and Julia Stiles were great in their roles as Hamlet and Ophelia. Better yet, I love how this movie paid attention to and portrayed their relation. The development of Ophelia, combined with Stiles' acting, in this movie is the best I've seen. Ethan Hawke is a wonderful brooder, an essential trait to play Hamlet. In addition, I like how they interpreted some of the scenes. For instance, after Hamlet kills Polonius and is berating Gertrude, he finishes the dialogue from the scene in a phone call. Other recognitions: The ghost is well-played and appears at appropriate, albeit not necessarily scripted, times. The abandonment of the English accent is welcome and is of great assistance in trying to following Shakespeare's script. And the incorporation of modern times w/ a play written for a setting of the 16th(?) century is well-done, although it is a little overdone.

As for my complaints, there really is too much script that is cut. First and foremost, although I recognize the need to avoid a trying, 5 hour sleep session of a movie, attempting to squeeze Hamlet into 111 minutes is impossible without butchering some of the play....I mean, geez, just go ahead and make the movie 3 hours before you cut too many important scenes. It seems as if everyone has to have either a 5-hour or 2-hour version. There's a happy medium there, use it. If they wouldn't have cut so much, I would have loved this movie. Second, I believe Bill Murray was badly miscast as Polonius. He failed miserably to portray Polonius as the laughable oaf that he is. Third, advertisements were about to make me puke. One minute the ghost is there, the next, you're focused on nothing but a Pepsi One vending machine. Hamlet gives his To-be-or-not-to-be speech with nothing but Blockbuster videos in the backround(although it was in the "Action" section which was a nice touch), how inapprapriate is that blatant advertising. I missed the entire speech cause I was so ticked about the backround. Admittedly, these ads might be placed to emphasize the consumerism of our society, but please, it's still way out of place, destroying the mood for their prospective scenes. And finally, the final swordfight scene was unconvincing. Perhaps the modern setting fails at this point, but couldn't they do better than a fencing match. How intense is that?!

I've been critical, but overall I think this movie is an extremely original take on "Hamlet" and is a must see for any Shakespeare fan. 7/10.

Ringmaster (1998)

"Ringmaster" = lots of laughs

[7/10 · 2 January 1999]

Personally, I disdain The Jerry Springer Show, however, I found "Ringmaster" to be the funniest movie I've seen this year. The never-ending satire of Jerry Springer "guests" starting in the opening scene keeps you laughing throughout the movie. Despite a brief scene in which Jerry Springer makes a feeble attempt at justifying his existence, I definitely recommend this movie for sheer entertainment value.

You've Got Mail (1998)

Not "Sleepless in Seattle"

[6/10 · 2 January 1999]

Although a vaguely entertaining movie, "You've Got Mail" is not equivalent to its sister movie, "Sleepless in Seattle," due to plot predictability and the resulting impatience with this movie.

The Prince of Egypt (1998)

Prince of Egypt is decent but not great

[5/10 · 2 January 1999]

Although the animation was spectacular, the story line lost a lot in Dreamworks' interpretation. The development of relations between Moses and Rameses was a welcome improvement, but overall the plot was inferior to the original "Ten Commandments." Not only did "The Prince of Egypt" offer a mediocre plot, but children's appeal was also lagging far below the standards set by Disney. The animation is really the only good reason to see this movie.

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966)

Leone proves his superiority in this movie.

[10/10 · 31 December 1998]

"The Good, the Bad, & the Ugly" is the best Western ever. The only one comparable is "Once Upon a Time in the West" which is also directed by Leone. If you don't like traditional Westerns, that doesn't mean you will dislike either one of these classics. Leone's style is definitely superior to the tired cowboy and Indian movies starring the likes of the slovenly John Wayne.