The Sentinel

Posted on April 21, 2006 at 5:39 pm

B
Lowest Recommended Age: Middle School
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for some intense action violence and a scene of sensuality.
Profanity: Brief strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs: Drinking
Violence/ Scariness: A lot of peril and violence, shooting, characters injured and killed
Diversity Issues: Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters: 2006
Date Released to DVD: 2006
Amazon.com ASIN: B00023P4UQ

What this movie gets right is the dry, cynical, slightly gallows-ish humor of people who spend their lives on constant alert, knowing that 999 out of a thousand of the “suspicious” activities they check out will be nothing. They are the guys in the corner of the picture in the paper during the President’s speech. When everyone is looking at him, they are looking at them, deciding whether the man over there is reaching for a cell phone or something more dangerous. For years at a time, they watch to make sure perameters are secure and routes are clear. They are always alert and always ready to die to save the President and his family. The script may be thin, but the performers don’t seem to notice, plowing ahead with the same dogged, somewhat humorless determination real-life agents bring to the job.


Pete Garrison (Michael Douglas) took a bullet when someone tried to kill President Reagan. He’s still on the job, not enough of a rule-follower to be promoted to a management position, but trusted enough to be assigned to guard the President (David Rasche) and the First Lady (Kim Basinger).


Garrison gets evidence from an informant that there may be a traitor within the Secret Service. To make the investigation even more difficult, Garrison is having an affair with the First Lady and his former best friend David Breckendridge (Kiefer Sutherland), the chief investigator now despises him, believing Garrison caused the end of his marriage by having an affair with his wife. Can Garrison protect the First Lady and his informant while finding the mole before he can put the President at risk?


It’s a pretty solid thriller, not worth rushing out to see but worth a matinee or video rental. The transfer from book to screen is uneven. The script does not always show instead of telling — or assuming — what we need to know, especially when it comes to the relationship between Garrison and the First Lady (or between the First Lady and the President), Garrison and Breckendridge, and Breckendrige and rookie Jill Marin (“Desperate Housewives'” Eva Longoria). The characters are underwritten but the stars’ natural charisma holds our attention and keeps us on their side, the action scenes are crisply filmed, and the location shots provide an authentic feel.

Parents should know that this film has a great deal of peril and violence, with a lot of shooting. Characters are wounded and killed. There is blood, but the injuries are less graphic than some other PG-13’s. It includes a non-explicit sexual situation and references to adultery. Characters drink alcohol and use some strong language.


Families who see this movie should talk about the Secret Service and how its training and duties differ from other law enforcement agencies. Did Garrison violate his duty or his oath?


Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy Clint Eastwood’s portrayal of a Secret Service agent in In the Line of Fire. They will also enjoy the superb miniseries Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy, about a mole within Great Britain’s spy agency, based on the real-life case of traitors Philby, Burgess, and McLean.

Related Tags:

 

Action/Adventure Crime Drama Movies -- format Thriller

Lucky Number Slevin

Posted on April 2, 2006 at 12:15 pm

B
Lowest Recommended Age: Mature High Schooler
MPAA Rating: Rated R for strong violence, sexuality and language.
Profanity: Very strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs: Drinking, smoking, references to drugs
Violence/ Scariness: Extremely intense and graphic peril and violence, many characters killed
Diversity Issues: Diverse characters, some homophobic comments
Date Released to Theaters: 2006
Date Released to DVD: 2006
Amazon.com ASIN: B000FKO5QK

Slevin (Josh Harnett) is not having a good week. He lost his job and his girlfriend. He was mugged and his wallet and suitcase were stolen. He decided to visit a friend, who seems to have disappeared. But the door was unlocked, so he lets himelf in and takes a shower.

A pretty girl named Lindsay (Lucy Liu) from across the hall comes over while he is still wearing nothing but a towel. Some very nasty types arrive, convinced that he is the missing friend, who owes them a lot of money. They have a boss who wants to talk to him about it right away, still wearing the towel.


Slevin has landed in the middle of a war between two crime kingpins, The Rabbi (Ben Kingsley) and The Boss (Morgan Freeman). They each live in huge glass towers, facing each other. And they both believe Slevin is the man who owes them money and he gets caught in the middle of their efforts to destroy each other.


Slevin seems to take all of this in stride, never getting ruffled and tossing off wisecracks as people keep threatening him with the most violent and painful consequences for failing to take them seriously. He explains to Lindsay that he has a condition that keeps him from getting scared. But there are a few things he does not tell her that make for complications — and quite a body count.


There’s more style than substance here, but the style takes us pretty far, with some wicked wisecracks, some nicely twisty plot turns, and some very twisted characters. Harnett and Bruce Willis coolly underplay in contrast to Freeman and Kingsley, enjoying themselves with a bit of grand guignol. They achieve an immediate rhythm that has us on their side. The violence is gruesome, literal overkill, and as a result the effort to tie it all together at the end just doesn’t work. But the scenes with Liu and Hartnett have real sparkle — though she is tiny and he is very large, the two seem just right together that we want it to, and that’s close enough.

Parents should know that this movie is filled with adult material that is not appropriate for children or teenagers and for many adults. It has constant extreme and graphic violence with many characters injured and killed, including a child’s parents. Characters use constant extremely strong and profane language. There are sexual references and situations. Characters are criminals, involved in drug dealing and murder for hire. A gay character is the subject of some homophobic comments. Diverse characters are all equally vile, but a strength of the movie is the inter-racial romance.


Families who see this movie should talk about the different characters’ ideas about justice and where they came from.


Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy The Usual Suspects.

Related Tags:

 

Crime Drama Movies -- format Thriller

Basic Instinct 2

Posted on March 29, 2006 at 12:33 pm

F-
Lowest Recommended Age: Mature High Schooler
MPAA Rating: Rated R for strong sexuality, nudity, violence, language and some drug content.
Profanity: Extremely crude, vulgar, and profane language
Alcohol/ Drugs: Drinking, smoking, drug use
Violence/ Scariness: Intense peril and graphic violence, characters murdered
Diversity Issues: None
Date Released to Theaters: 2006
Date Released to DVD: 2006
Amazon.com ASIN: B000FS9UKI

Someone should tell Sharon Stone that you can’t step in the same river twice. Or you can’t go home again. Or that for every Godfather II there are a hundred Breakin’ 2: Electric Boogaloos.


Anything to stop another big, boring mess like this one.


A bit of credit to director Michael Caton-Jones, who knows how to shoot sleeky, sexy architecture, even if his idea of symbolism is to have the office of his psychiatrist leading man in London’s striking, if often jeered-at “gherkin” building. And even if he makes the sets more lively than the actors. Indeed, when one character is supposed to become catatonic, it’s almost impossible to tell the difference.


Stone returns as bad girl Catherine Davis Tramell a “risk addict” whose sensational novels are inspired by her even more sensational life. Before the credit sequence has ended, we see her having sex with a drugged-out partner while driving a car over 100 miles an hour. The car crashes into the Thames, and the man, a well-known soccer star, is killed. Dr. Michael Glass (his name is this movie’s idea of subtlety) (David Morrisey) is brought in to determine whether Tramell is culpable for his death.


Then a bunch more people get killed in scenes that are more static than scary and there are some sex scenes that are more clinical than sultry.


And there is a lot of dialogue with a chasm so yawning between its intention (provocative) and its reality (see previous reference to yawning) that it starts to sound like the adults in Charlie Brown cartoons: “Waughghgh Waughghg Waughghgh”


They may think that if they surround her with people who have English accents it will all seem less shlocky. No such luck.


Marlene Dietrich was once supposed to have complained to her cameraman that he was not making her look as good as he had a decade earlier. “But Miss Dietrich,” he is said to have assured her gallantly, “I was ten years younger then.”


Sharon Stone was fourteen years younger when she made the first Basic Instinct. And so were we. This creates two sets of problems.


First, she can’t surprise us any more. Both actress and character were new to us in 1992; now that famous dress, chair, cigarette, and leg-cross are an icon. At the time, it was all new. She pushed the boundaries. But those boundaries have been shoved another couple of football fields since then, and Stone and her director and screenwriter have not managed the delicate task of finding that precise spot between provocative and gross.


Second, instead of rethinking the character, Stone tries to go back to where she was and it just doesn’t work. If Tramell had actually survived another fourteen years of sex, drugs, and lots of people turning up dead wherever she went, she would be affected by that. Stone’s astonishing, assured performance in the original movie was a model of careful calibration of the power of her sexuality and daring. But the sexual power of a 48-year-old is different from the sexual power of a 34-year-old. Stone, whose portrayal of mature sexiness was breathtaking in last year’s Broken Flowers, is so over-the-top here that Tramell appears to be channeling Cruella De Vil. Or maybe Carol Burnett vamping as “Nora Desmond.” “Time is a weapon,” one character says in this movie. In this case, a lethal one.


Parents should know that this movie has just about every kind of material that is inappropriate for younger viewers or sensitive viewers of any age, with extremely strong, crude, and profane language, drinking, smoking, drug use, intense peril and graphic violence, murders, and general bad behavior in all categories.


Families who see this movie should ask why anyone would be “addicted” to risk. How are we supposed to feel about Catherine at the end of this movie? What is a “masked psychotic” and is there one in this story?


Families who enjoy this movie should see the original. They might also enjoy The Jagged Edge, Sea of Love, Final Analysis, Whispers in the Dark, and Dressed to Kill.

Related Tags:

 

Crime Drama Movies -- format Mystery Thriller

Inside Man

Posted on March 21, 2006 at 11:47 am

A-
Lowest Recommended Age: High School
MPAA Rating: Rated R for language and some violent images.
Profanity: Very strong language including racial epithets
Alcohol/ Drugs: None
Violence/ Scariness: Tense and scary scenes, gunfire, characters injured and shot
Diversity Issues: Diverse characters, references to racism
Date Released to Theaters: 2006
Date Released to DVD: 2006
Amazon.com ASIN: B000GFLKF8

Spike Lee’s brilliant direction and a clever and surprising script from first-timer Russell Gewirtz provide an ideal setting for four of the most watchable actors in the business in a heist film that transcends and tweaks its genre. It has brains, heart, and a sizzling fireball of sheer star power, and it is a dazzling tour de force.


Dalton Russell (Clive Owen) tells us his story and then we see it unfold from the beginning, with little forward glimpses of post-robber interviews by detectives Frazier (Denzel Washington) and Mitchell (Chiwetel Ejiofor). Four people enter a bank dressed as painters. They take out the security cameras with powerful lights and then tell everyone to lie down. They are there to rob the bank and all of the employees and customers are hostages.


Even though he is dealing with his own problems at the office, including a matter of some missing money that may be a frame-up by an angry drug dealer, Frazier is sent to negotiate with the robbers. The police captain (Willem Dafoe) secures the area. And the chairman of the board of the bank (Christopher Plummer) makes his first call to a mysterious woman named White (Jodie Foster), as silkily menacing when asking a favor, proposing a bribe, or making a threat. Indeed, there seems to be no difference between the three. It seems that the chairman has some very important items in a safe deposit box in the bank that is being robbed. Those contents must be protected or destroyed and he must be assured of compete discretion. So she will have to find a way to negotiate with the robber, too.


Lee drives the film through the twists and turns of the plot as though it was a European sportscar. When he shoots his own scripts, it is easy to forget what a superb director he is because the stories are so provocative they distract from his skill in telling the story. But in this film, every choice of shot, every point of view, every edit serves the story and Lee’s superb control of tone, pacing, and setting are almost another character in the film. And so is the city. Lee’s obvious affection for the city’s structures and people is evident throughout, and many of its brightest moments come from the wide range of characters who are vividly realized even in brief appearances.


Denzel Washington may be the greatest movie star of our time. There is no one who can match him for sheer star power and charisma, and no one who comes close to the way he is as in control of that power in service of the story and the character. His Frazier is a man who takes his time in the midst of chaos to calm a witness, to ask a beat cop about a past experience, to pay attention to every detail and make them part of the narrative and part of the unraveling of the mystery. In their fourth film together, Lee shows once again that he knows how to use Washington’s confidence and natural charm to pull us into the story and the small moments as meaningful as the guns and all those piles of cash.

Clive Owen, who has to do most of his acting behind a mask, has a steely resolve, but in scenes with Washington and with a child who is one of the hostages, he shows self-assured wit that is completely engaging. Washington, Owen, and Ejiofor play off each other as though they are tossing off jazz riffs — it seems effortless and improvised but it all fits together like a jigsaw puzzle with no missing pieces. Only Foster disappoints, waggling her head as an attempt to show gravitas. And maybe the way it all comes together is a little too cute. There are a couple of “wait a minute….” thoughts on the way to the parking lot. Overall, though, it is the most satisying film of the year so far, by far.

Some people will complain that Lee has become an “inside man,” trading his tough, highly individual, fully engaged films about big issues for a genre piece. I don’t agree. What he has done here is show that he knows how to make a mainstream film that works on many levels, one of them being sheer entertainment. If that’s “inside,” so what? Let him take the money and the clout and do something else next time.


Parents should know that this movie has very strong and crude language, including racial epithets and sexual references. There is some violence, including shooting and apparent killing. A strength of the movie is its portrayal of intelligent and capable diverse characters who are honest about bigotry but do their best to work together.


Families who see this movie should talk about how Frazier, Russell, White, the mayor, and Case decide what their priorities are. Who makes the biggest compromises? What will happen next?

Families who enjoy this film will also enjoy other heist movie classics, like $, Die Hard 3, the original Thomas Crown Affair, The Great Train Robbery, The Taking of Pelham 123, Dog Day Afternoon, and the underrated Bill Murray comedy Quick Change.

Related Tags:

 

Crime Drama Movies -- format Thriller

Find Me Guilty

Posted on March 15, 2006 at 11:56 am

B-
Lowest Recommended Age: High School
MPAA Rating: Rated R for strong language and some violence.
Profanity: Very strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs: References to alcohol and drugs and drug dealing
Violence/ Scariness: Shooting, references to mob killings
Diversity Issues: Stereotypes of Italians questioned in the movie
Date Released to Theaters: 2006
Date Released to DVD: 2006
Amazon.com ASIN: B000FFJ826

Director Sidney Lumet revisits the themes of two of his most memorable films in this movie, but with less success. Like Dog Day Afternoon, it is a true story with colorful characters and both comic and tragic overtones. Like 12 Angry Men it is a story of the way justice is — and is not — served by our judicial system. Like both of those films, Lumet convincingly creates the New York setting. Most of the film is set in the courtroom and the grandeur of its aspirations and the grit of its experiences is evocatively portrayed. But an uncertain point of view leaves the story and characters less clear and the resolution unsatisfying.


It is the story of the longest criminal trial in U.S. history, with charges against 20 alleged members of the Lucchese crime family led by Newark, New Jersey mob boss Anthony Accetturo. It took the government two years to present its endlessly complicated case. In the midst of testimony about a tangled web of alleged criminal actions involving gambling, drugs, theft, and murder, one of the defendants attracted the most attention. He was Giacomo “Fat Jack” DiNorscio (Vin Diesel, unrecognizable but for his gravelly voice under a wig and some extra weight). And while the other defendants each had his own lawyer, DiNorsico represented himself, a source of intense frustration for the prosecutor and the judge but welcome comic relief for the jury. “I’m a gagster, not a gangster,” he told them. And they laughed.


The prosecutor was dumbfounded and furious. He could not understand how a jury could be sympathetic to a group of people who not only stole from just about everyone but now and again, actually killed people who got in their way.


And you know, that’s the problem. He’s right. The trial was a circus. It was a mistake to put all of those defendants, each with is own lawyer, into the same case. In the midst of the numbingly complex details, the jury appears to develop some strange offshoot of the Stockholm Syndrome, identifying not with the prosecutors but with the defendants. For all their alleged crimes, they seemed more authentic and relatable than the prosecuting attorneys.


But we are not the jury, tied up with this crowd of “gagsters” for two years. And DiNorsico is not an endearing shlub like Al Pacino’s Sonny in Dog Day Afternoon, holding up a bank to get a sex change operation for his boyfriend. These are guys who stole much more for reasons that were far less romantic.


Lumet does a much better job evoking the time and place than he does making us sympathetic to DiNorsico. All of the performances are excellent, especially Peter Dinklage, superb as counsel for one of the other defendants, and Annabella Sciorra, blazingly hostile in one brief scene as DiNorsico’s ex-wife. Diesel shows us DiNorsico’s Runyonesque charm and his strong, if oftem misplaced, sense of loyalty, but we never feel the sympathy Lumet clearly thinks he deserves. At the end of the movie, we feel, instead, like the jury, that we have spent too much time and understood too little.

Parents should know that this movie concerns the trial of a group of men charged with serious crimes ranging from drug dealing to gambling and murder. Characters use very strong language and there are references to violence and drug use. A character tries to kill another with a gun, shooting him several times. Characters complain about ethnic stereotypes but it can be argued that the film also perpetuates those stereotypes.


Families who see this movie should talk about why the jury found Jackie appealing — and why director Lumet found his story appealing. How did Lumet make clear his own feelings about Jackie?


Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy Goodfellas and Lumet’s 12 Angry Men and Dog Day Afternoon. Those who want to learn more about the real case should read The Boys from New Jersey.

Related Tags:

 

Comedy Crime Drama Movies -- format
THE MOVIE MOM® is a registered trademark of Nell Minow. Use of the mark without express consent from Nell Minow constitutes trademark infringement and unfair competition in violation of federal and state laws. All material © Nell Minow 1995-2024, all rights reserved, and no use or republication is permitted without explicit permission. This site hosts Nell Minow’s Movie Mom® archive, with material that originally appeared on Yahoo! Movies, Beliefnet, and other sources. Much of her new material can be found at Rogerebert.com, Huffington Post, and WheretoWatch. Her books include The Movie Mom’s Guide to Family Movies and 101 Must-See Movie Moments, and she can be heard each week on radio stations across the country.

Website Designed by Max LaZebnik