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:

16 Blocks

Posted on February 28, 2006 at 12:32 pm

B+

Lowest Recommended Age:	Middle School
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG-13 for violence, intense sequences of action, and some strong language.
Profanity:	Brief strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Character abuses alcohol
Violence/ Scariness:	Intense peril and violence, tense scenes, many characters shot and injured or killed
Diversity Issues:	Diverse characters
Date Released to Theaters:	2006
Date Released to DVD:	2006
Amazon.com ASIN:	B000FFL2G6

When a cop at a crime scene needs someone to stay with the bodies until the detectives arrive, he asks “who don’t we need?” That would be tired, slow, Jack Mosley (Bruce Willis). As soon as the other cops leave, he limps into the kitchen and takes a bottle of booze out of the cabinet, then sits on the sofa, pours himself a drink, and waits until he can go.

Back at the station, he is about to sign out for the day when his lieutenant assigns him one more job. A prisoner has to testify before a grand jury 16 blocks away before 10:00, and it is now Jack’s responsibilty to deliver him.

So Jack puts Eddie (Mos Def) in the back of a squad car. On the way to the courthouse, he stops at a liquor store, leaving Eddie in the car. Two men try to kill Eddie.

It turns out that a lot of people will do everything they can to keep Eddie from testifying. And that powerful people were counting on Jack to “do what he always does.” Does that mean “mess up” or “go along?”

This movie is 2/3 video game, as Jack and Eddie find dangerous surprises around every corner and in a variety of settings, including the obligatory Chinatown scene. Bang, duck, bang, duck, bang, shoot back. But the other third makes it work — that’s the sure direction of a well-constructed script by Richard Donner, balancing tension, thrills, and a few well-placed laughs, with sharp, clever performances by Willis, Def, and David Morse as Jack’s former partner.

Willis is always underestimated as an actor. It’s easy to do because he never seems to be trying very hard. But that just shows how good he is. In the middle of an action movie he gives a subtle, complex, and nimble performance that increases the tension, never distracting from it. Mos Def gives depth and appeal to a character who has two functions in the script: contrast with Jack’s burn-out and McGuffin prop to be shot at and fought over. Eddie’s non-stop commentary could have quickly become annoying with a less skillful performer. But Def makes the rhythms of Eddie’s speech a counterpoint to the script’s ticking clock. The moment when he has to make a big decision is beautifully played. This 16 block journey is one audiences will enjoy being along for the ride.

Parents should know that this movie has non-stop action and peril with many tense situations and a lot of violence (mostly shooting). Many characters are injured and some are killed. A character abuses alcohol. Characters use brief strong language and there are some mild sexual references.

Families who see this movie should talk about whether and when people can change. Why did Jack decide to protect Eddie? Why did Eddie decide to help Jack? Why is Eddie’s riddle important?

Families who enjoy this movie will also enjoy the best in this genre, Midnight Run (non-stop very strong language), Speed, and Willis’ Die Hard 3.

Madea’s Family Reunion

Posted on February 25, 2006 at 12:39 pm

B+

Lowest Recommended Age:	High School
MPAA Rating:	Rated PG-13 for mature thematic material, domestic violence, sex and drug references.
Profanity:	Some strong and crude language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Drinking, references to drug abuse
Violence/ Scariness:	Domestic abuse, spanking, hitting
Diversity Issues:	A strength of the movie is the positive portrayal of minority and religious characters
Date Released to Theaters:	2006
Date Released to DVD:	2006
Amazon.com ASIN:	B000F9SO0O

As the Borg say on “Star Trek,” “Resistance is futile.” Don’t even try to get in the way of Madea, that pistol-packing, Bible-thumping, larger than life powerhouse and force for good creation of Tyler Perry, who also plays the part. Perry is something of a larger-than-life powerhouse himself, this time not just writing the film, playing Madea, her brother Joe, and her nephew Brian, and composing some of the music but directing as well.

You can’t judge this movie with the same standards you would apply to the usual multiplex fodder with its neat categories and linear construction. This happy mash-up of romance, drama, low comedy and high drama works because it is all tied together by Perry’s open-hearted conviction. The sincerity of his commitment is the throughline that keeps the audience connected to the story and the characters.

In addition, the crazy-quilt shifts in tone and genre are well suited to a story of a large extended family where at any given moment characters are facing a broad variety of financial, spiritual, moral, psychological, and work-related challenges, even the dreaded math problems that Madea refers to as “Al Jarreau.” She might not know the word “algebra,” but if there is an extended family member who has a problem with it and — this is the important part — is ready to be helped, Madea will find some way and some one who can give what is needed.

The person in need of some help with homework is a young girl who comes to live with Madea when a judge gives her the choice of becoming the girl’s foster mother or going to jail for violation of her parole. Many movies would make this the center focus of the story with a series of heartwarming incidents showing us the growing respect and affection between them, but this movie doesn’t have time. Medea tells the girl (the marvelous Keke Palmer) to shape up, smacking her on the butt, stands up for her with a bully on the school bus (by hitting him upside the head), promises that homework help, and that’s it.

Madea’s niece (Lisa Arrindell Anderson as Vanessa) has moved back in with her, bringing her two children. She has given her life to God and does not want to get involved with a man. But gorgeous bus driver/painter Frank (Boris Kodjoe) is also a committed Christian and loving parent. She is drawn to him, but can she trust herself? Can she let herself trust him?

Vanessa’s half-sister Lisa (Rochelle Aytes) is engaged to a wealthy banker (Blair Underwood) who beats her. Her mother Victoria (Lynn Whitfield, channeling “Dynesty-era” Joan Collins) tells her to do whatever it takes to keep him happy.

Through all of this Madea is there to knock down those who are above themselves and lift up those who don’t ask or expect the best for themselves. Her brother Joe (also played by Perry) is there to provide vulgar humor. But the heart of the story is the relationship between Lisa and Vanessa and their mother. Perry shows us that Victoria is a victim as well as a predator but does not let that excuse her behavior. Cecily Tyson and Maya Angelou appear as family matriarchs at the reunion, standing in front of a shack that family members once lived in as slaves and then as property owners and telling the group that now is the time to begin to act with responsibility, dignity, and integrity. Madea is Perry’s creation, but it is Tyson and Angelou who deliver his real message.

Parents should know that the movie has some mature themes, including child sexual abuse, adultery, out of wedlock children, and domestic violence. There are references to prostitution and drug addiction. Madea advocates corporal punishment. She does not hesitate to whack a child or an adult. The movie also has some crude humor including potty jokes and vulgar references to sex. Strengths of the movie include the portrayal of strong, devoted, responsible, and loving minority characters, positive portrayal of religious conviction as a sustaining force in the lives of some characters, and an explicit commitment by a dating couple to remain chaste until marriage.

Families who see this movie should talk about how Madea always finds a way to help those who are willing to accept it.

Families who enjoy this film will enjoy Diary of a Mad Black Woman and the Tyler Perry collection. They might also like to try to see Perry perform in person in one of his plays.

Related Tags:

Comedy Drama Movies -- format Romance

Freedomland

Posted on February 17, 2006 at 2:17 pm

C+

Lowest Recommended Age:	High School
MPAA Rating:	Rated R for language and some violent content.
Profanity:	Very strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs:	Drug references
Violence/ Scariness:	Intense peril and violence
Diversity Issues:	A theme of the movie
Date Released to Theaters:	2006
Date Released to DVD:	2006
Amazon.com ASIN:	B000FEBZ0A

This movie’s inability to live up to its potential is nearly as epic as its misleading title. In other hands, “Freedomland” might have played a jazz-like riff of personal loss and moving vignettes against the 4/4 beat of racial injustice and a community searching for peace. As it is the metronome pace clicks between black and white simplifications; further marred by jarring monologues and an out of place score.

The performances are fine and there are individual moments of insight and power, especially a monologue by “The Sopranos'” Edie Falco as the mother of a missing child. And it deserves credit for its willingness to take on issues of race and poverty and personal responsibility that most studio movies use only for shock value if they address them at all. But the uncertain transfer from novel to screenplay is ultimately so off-key that moments intended to be touching elicited laughter from the audience in the theater.

When single-mom Brenda Martin (Julianne Moore), pale as a moonbeam, wanders in a daze to a community emergency room. Her bloodied hands and story of being carjacked by a young black man in a hooded sweatshirt bring her to the attention of the police and in particular to good cop, Lorenzo Council (Samuel L. Jackson). Brenda is not easy in her role as accuser.

She drifts in and out of focus as she struggles with evident shock and uncertainty about being the center of attention. Lorenzo gently tries lead her into a place where she can help the investigation, though he is not sure he trusts her. But he wants to find her son and as tensions build he wants to end the mounting frustration of the nearby projects, locked-down until someone confesses to the crime.

Brenda is unusual because she lives in the white community but works in the projects, where her son is the only white child in the classroom. She does not feel at home in either community. Her family made her feel incompetent. Some of the people in the projects think of her kindly, but as racial tensions mount, she is quickly assigned to the enemy camp.

Both the neighboring black and communities are policed by heavy-handed cops. One of them is Brenda’s brother Danny (Ron Eldard), furious and frustrated and with no compunctions about abandoning the rules to find out what is going on. He and some of he other white cops seem happy to provoke and then beat the young black men suspected of a range of tenuous offences.

Brenda, a pre-school assistant who works with the kids of the projects, is both in and out of the community just as Lorenzo is neither one place nor another in his role as cop and self-styled father-figure. Both Moore and Jackson turn in fine performances although they cannot surmount the awkwardness of their dialogue or the artificiality of their scripted actions. Ultimately it feels like one of those “ripped from the headline” “Law and Order” episodes that provide faux insights into superficial renditions of stories that are ripped-off from the headlines instead of being based on the reality.

The firm, steady presence of Karen Collucci (Falco), a leader of a volunteer group that looks for lost children gives a glimpse of what an interesting movie this could have been if it had not faltered under director Joe Roth’s self-conscious ambitions, as admirable as those ambitions are. The title refers to an abandoned juvenile facility Karen brings Brenda to so they can look for her son, its name an ironic reminder of the absence of freedom all of the characters face.

The jarring notes that these actors are asked to play distract the ear from the bittersweet melody this movie could have been and its conclusion is awkward and disappointingly unsupported.

Parents should know that this movie deals with mature themes and issues including racial injustice, parental neglect, spousal abuse, child endangerment, accusations based on race, police brutality, and race riots ignited by mutual distrust. There are references to the sexuality of a lonely woman, an oblique reference to rape, discussion of infidelity and to an inter-racial affair. Characters use strong language and frequent expletives, including the n-word. A character refers to a drug addiction, to using drugs and another is arrested for possession. There is near-constant peril as a community builds toward rioting and as cops try to beat out confessions. A character discusses losing her child and another is visibly wrecked by the death of her child.

Families who see this movie might wish to discuss the relationship between Lorenzo and his son and how it highlights his relationships with others. Also, several characters describe the source of their actions as something that comes from beyond them, such as Lorenzo’s religious faith, what is the driver of their actions and how do they make sense of their choices? Lorenzo and Karen resspond to tragedies and devastating failures by finding a way to help others. Is there a time that approach worked for you or someone you know?

Families that enjoy this movie might want to see other movies that wrestle with racial issues and police involvement in community crimes such as Crash. They also might wish to see Clockers or The Wanderers, also based on books by Richard Price.

Thanks to guest critic AME.

Final Destination 3

Posted on February 14, 2006 at 3:22 pm

Lowest Recommended Age:	High School
MPAA Rating:	Rated R for strong horror violence/gore, language and some nudity.
Profanity:	Extremely frequent, strong expletives and graphic name-calling
Alcohol/ Drugs:	None
Violence/ Scariness:	If you have a line in this movie, then the chances are good you are going to die a graphic, bloody death, near constant peril, pigeons killed
Diversity Issues:	Stereotypes
Date Released to Theaters:	2006
Date Released to DVD:	2006
Amazon.com ASIN:	B000FC2HS6

It’s like deja vu, says the main character, only of something I haven’t done yet.

Wow, get out of my head, Wendy! We are barely minutes into “Final Destination 3” and already we, the audience, are sharing her feeling. We have been here before, too. Instead, it was called “Final Destination” and then “Final Destination 2”.

If you have not had the pleasure of the prior “FDs”, there really is no reason to start now.

However, if you have seen either of the first two in the series and are looking for more, then you know exactly what is in store for you. Attractive young things narrowly avert a fatal accident due to someone’s premonition -– thanks, Wendy! — and then they spend the duration of the movie being killed off in graphic, squelchy deaths. This time around, lives are ended with props including nail guns, tanning beds, falling objects, weight-training equipment, and, yes, that initial roller-coaster debacle.

Finally, for the real FD connoisseur, 3 is more in the spirit of the original than 2, as director James Wong has opted to place back the fig-leaf of plot and character development that 2 ignored for the sake of more elaborately drawn-out gore. Is it a worthy trade-off? Most of the audience seemed not to care a whit about the characters despite many scenes of Wendy’s tear-stained cheeks.

Since nobody appears to be putting the “final” in “Final Destination”, maybe the director of FD 4 will skip dialogue all together and use the money saved to stage even lengthier scenes of decapitations and dismemberment. “FD4: Attractive Co-Ed Mimes in Danger”, Wendy, doesn’t that just give you deja vu all over again?

Parents should know that these movies are thin excuses to demonstrate random, cartoon-like violence and extremely gory special effects. There is near constant peril and almost every character with a spoken line ends up brutally killed in a range of creative accidents. The stereotypically shallow girls are burnt to death on malfunctioning tanning beds, a lecherous guy has his head partially pureed by a fan, someone is peppered by nails to the head, and the list goes on. A character shoots pigeons with a nail gun, several people die in an explicit premonition about a roller coaster accident, and there are very few carnage-free scenes. One character is more concerned with being embarrassed in death and refers to particularly graphic form of impalement. Add in the nudity, the near constant expletives, some “friendly” name-calling with graphic profanity, and this movie is rendered inappropriate for sensitive viewers of any age.

Families might want to talk about desensitization and what is shocking about these movies, if anything. They also might want to talk about how different characters react to their impending demise and how laughing at death might help some people feel power over the inevitable. Finally, the repeated references to feeling a loss of control might provoke an interesting discussion about how people often fear what they cannot control.

Families that like this movie might want to see the others in the series, or they might wish to use the time to discuss safety protocols for almost any activity imaginable.

Thanks to guest critic AME.