BEFORE: Another morning shoveling snow, after our eighteenth (or so) blizzard this winter. New Yorkers do NOT know what to do with the stuff - our neighbors have this idea that they HAVE to clear their entire driveway and house area right away, so they dump the snow into the street, then the plow comes by and pushes their snow to a place where it blocks our driveway.
I got in some trouble last year when I chewed out a man down the street for doing that - it's retarded, the plow just got done moving the snow OUT of the street - but he called the cops on me, falsely stating that I had identified myself as a police officer - so I promised my wife I'd leave people shoveling incorrectly alone.
But yesterday SHE saw our neighbor across the street pushing snow into the street, and she must have given him an earful, because when I woke up on Thursday morning, I saw him digging out our driveway, and he was half done already! I briefly considered letting him finish, but then I realized I wouldn't be able to leave the house and go to work - so I had to get myself dressed, and get out there with my own shovel to relieve him.
THE PLOT: A young lawyer defends a black man accused of murdering two men who raped his 10-year-old daughter, sparking a rebirth of the KKK.
AFTER: This is another movie that can't really decide what it wants to be - a crime story, a legal drama, throw some flirtatious romance in there for the ladies, and hey, Southern people are funny when they're drunk, so we've got some comedic elements in there. Jeez, pick a horse and stick with it! But I think the overall combination worked much better in this film than in last night's effort.
The original crime is terrible, but so is the murder of those criminals - yet no one ever brings up the legal point that "two wrongs don't make a right". Seems to me that's where the prosecution's case should START, rather than completely ignoring the crime that set the whole thing in motion. Also, every one seems to split along racial lines - most of the white people (who aren't top-billed movie stars) support the prosecution, and all of the black townspeople - well, their minds seem to already be made up the other way.
NITPICK POINT #1: Is it really a good idea to go out drinking the night before the biggest trial of one's legal career?
NITPICK POINT #2: When the Klan attack the courthouse, it causes a big commotion, which one assumes that the jury is aware of. Doesn't that influence the jury? Wouldn't any lawyer worth his stones be able to file for an immediate mistrial, or at least get the much-needed change of venue?
NITPICK POINT #3: Speaking of the Klan - much like the pilots in "Top Gun", they have headgear for a reason - in this case, to hide their identity. Sure, it's very dramatic when they remove the hoods, and it sure helps the home audience keep track of who's who, but in the context of the scene, it makes zero sense.
NITPICK POINT #4: So Sandra Bullock's character is attractive, willing to work for free, and has a superhuman ability to remember legal precedents? Really? Why not just have her shoot lasers from her eyes, it seems just about as likely.
Still, a powerful film. (Mostly) well put-together. But it did make Cracked.com's list of "The 5 Most Wildly Illegal Court Rulings in Movie History" - check it out if you don't mind spoilers, or if you've already seen the film.
Starring Matthew McConaughey (last seen in "We Are Marshall"), Samuel L. Jackson (last seen in "Soul Men"), Kevin Spacey (last seen in "Fred Claus"), Oliver Platt (last seen in "Year One"), Charles S. Dutton (last seen in "Fame" remake), Donald Sutherland (last seen in "Fallen"), Kiefer Sutherland (umm...last heard in "Monsters vs. Aliens"?), Ashley Judd (last seen in "Heat"), Chris Cooper (last seen in "The Bourne Supremacy") and Patrick McGoohan as the unfortunately-named Judge Noose. Oh, and one of my fave character actors, M. Emmet Walsh (last seen in "Chairman of the Board"), in an uncredited role.
RATING: 7 out of 10 "expert" witnesses
No comments:
Post a Comment