The Chamber

Year 3, Day 29 - 1/29/11 - Movie #759

BEFORE: Another day housebound, which enabled me to catch up on last week's TV shows, and even squeeze in a game of Monopoly - my wife usually wins due to her uncanny ability to buy one property of every color, and even though she usually mortgages herself up to her eyeballs, her "build fast" strategy usually takes me down. I try to play her way, but I just can't do it - I need to have a money cushion before I develop my real estate. Tonight I somehow managed to hang on with just Boardwalk, Park Place and 3 railroads - she would have won if she hadn't landed on both Park Place AND Boardwalk in successive turns. Thanks, snake eyes!

THE PLOT: A young man fresh out of law school tries to win a reprieve for his racist grandfather, who is on death row.

AFTER: I didn't realize that this was based on a John Grisham novel, or I might have watched it next to "A Time To Kill" (Hmm...Grisham films absent from my list seem to be "The Pelican Brief", "The Client", "The Rainmaker", and "Runaway Jury" - but I'll never finish if I keep adding films)

Gene Hackman carries over from "Mississippi Burning", as does the Klan, and the state of Mississippi. Hackman plays an unremorseful, uncooperative racist Klansman, who's on trial for setting deadly explosions, and has spent years waiting for execution. But he's also unwilling to participate in his own defense, which suggests that he might be covering up for someone else, and afraid of the consequences if his sentence doesn't get carried out.

Chris O'Donnell plays the young attorney/grandson who digs into the family history, when he's not filing creative motions to try and get a stay of execution. At the same time, he tries to break through his grandfather's rough exterior, to determine if any part of him is worth saving.

The problem for me is, it would be easier to root for their efforts if the grandfather were any kind of sympathetic character, but he's not. And the suggestion is made that even if he's proven innocent of this crime, he's probably guilty of another one - so what's the point?

NITPICK POINT: If a lawyer obtains information illegally, he shouldn't be allowed to make it part of his case. But, as we've seen, a court case that's played strictly by the books doesn't make for great cinema - it's the sneaking around in county record rooms that adds a bit of intrigue.

As for the ending, I won't talk about it - except to say that according to the message boards, the ending of the movie was quite different from the ending of the novel. Make of that what you will.

Also starring Faye Dunaway (last seen in "Three Days of the Condor"), Robert Prosky (last seen in "Rudy"), Lela Rochon (last seen in "The Meteor Man"), Bo Jackson (yes, the athlete), and Jane Kaczmarek (last seen in "Pleasantville").

RATING: 5 out of 10 prison jumpsuits

Mississippi Burning

Year 3, Day 28 - 1/28/11 - Movie #758

BEFORE: "A Time to Kill" was set in Mississippi, so I figured, as long as I'm in the neighborhood... In addition to the location, the KKK carries over from last night's film (there's a sentence I never thought I'd be typing).

THE PLOT: Two FBI agents with wildly different styles arrive in Mississippi to investigate the disappearance of some civil rights activists.

AFTER: It's worth noting that it hasn't been that long since there were separate lunch counters and drinking fountains in the South...within 50 years, segregation was still a common practice.

It's interesting here to watch two federal agents, with completely different tactics, leading an investigation in a Southern town. And it's frustrating to watch the lead agent's tactics fail again and again, stirring up more and more trouble in the town, before they switch things up and begin a slightly underhanded, but eventually more productive method.

Starring Gene Hackman (last seen in "French Connection II"), Willem Dafoe (last seen in "Born on the Fourth of July"), Frances McDormand, Brad Dourif (last seen in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"), Michael Rooker (last seen in "The Dark Half"), Stephen Tobolowsky (last seen in "Thelma & Louise"), R. Lee Ermey (last seen in "The Siege of Firebase Gloria"), and Kevin Dunn (last seen in "Lions for Lambs").

RATING: 6 out of 10 rowboats

A Time to Kill

Year 3, Day 27 - 1/27/11 - Movie #757

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

Absence of Malice

Year 3, Day 26 - 1/26/11 - Movie #756

BEFORE: I forgot to mention that the Oscar nominations were announced the other day - my boss' animated short was in contention, but didn't get a nomination. So, my dream of being mentioned in an Oscar acceptance speech got deferred once again. Tonight's film DID get a nomination for its star, Paul Newman (last seen in "Road to Perdition"), and he's also the recipient of Birthday SHOUT-out #7 - he would have been 86 today.

THE PLOT: Frustrated in his attempt to solve a murder of a union head, a prosecutor leaks a false story that the son of a dead mob boss is a target of the investigation, hoping that he will tell them something for protection.

AFTER: Hmm, I thought this was more of a courtroom drama, I think maybe I confused it with "The Verdict". But as in last night's film, we see the damage that can be done by a murder investigation, or in this case, just the implication of one in a newspaper article. A man's business and his friend's reputation are destroyed, and he hasn't even been arrested for anything.

Then things seem to spiral out of control, with charges of libel, bribery, and improper wire-tapping, and still none of it brings anyone any closer to finding out what happened to the missing mobster! The problem is, it's all extremely boring.

Turns out there was something sort of like a trial near the end - I guess it was more of an inquiry, as Wilford Brimley's character shows up to find out who's playing who. And in the center of the scandals is an improper romance between the reporter and the target of the investigation - getting a little too close with your research, hmm?

So, this is a film that didn't know what it wanted to be - love story, crime film, or twisty legal drama. And you can't really be all those things at once. Did I mention it was boring?

Also starring Sally Field (last seen in "Soapdish"), Bob Balaban (last seen in "Capote"), Melinda Dillon (last seen in "The Prince of Tides", but more famous as the mother from "A Christmas Story")

RATING: 3 out of 10 printing presses

Before and After

Year 3, Day 25 - 1/25/11 - Movie #755

BEFORE: I met my friend Amy, in from Texas, for drinks tonight, and a game of trivia broke out in the bar we were in, so we stuck around - and we won! The prize turned out to be...more drinks! So I'm a little tipsy as I watch my film tonight...

From a film with one "Star Wars" actor, Harrison Ford, to a film with another, Liam Neeson (last seen in "Taken") - though this film was made before his appearance as Qui-Gon Jinn in Episode 1.

THE PLOT: Two parents deal with the effects when their son is accused of murdering his girlfriend.

AFTER: Last night's film raised the question - how should a person react when their spouse is accused of murder? And tonight's film raises similar points, as a regular couple (an artist and a doctor) deal with a murder charge against their son.

At first the son is nowhere to be found, so we see the early stages of the police investigation, and the two very different approaches that the parents take - one wants to cooperate with the police, the other demands a search warrant. This becomes a constant theme throughout the film - one wants the truth to be told, the other one points out (quite correctly) that the burden of proof is on the prosecution, the state has to prove its case.

When their son finally turns up, he won't talk - but is he hiding his guilt, or just being a moody teen?

This turned into a rather complex little family drama - and a pretty thorough examination of how a crime, or an accusation of one, can split a family apart. It was interesting to see the different legal strategies employed by the family and their lawyer, and what the consequences of each one turned out to be.

But on the IMDB message boards regarding this film, I read about a HUGE plothole - without giving anything away, the story shows (in flashback) the kid's car completely stuck in the snow, and then after the incident, it's back in the parents' driveway (as seen at the start of the film). How did he get the car free from the snow? It had to take some careful planning, and that contradicts the supposed emotional state of panic associated with fleeing from an accident. So now I have to cast doubt upon his whole version of things - and it's a little shocking that no one asked this simple question when presented with his story.

As I've seen many times on "Law & Order", if a murder charge won't stick, there are many other options open to the prosecution - in addition to involuntary manslaughter, there's reckless endangerment, leaving the scene of a crime. The film does address the consequences of tampering with evidence, though - another point carrying over from last night's film.

Also starring Meryl Streep (last seen in "Doubt"), Edward Furlong (last seen in "Animal Factory"), Alfred Molina (last seen in "Chocolat"), John Heard (last seen in "My Fellow Americans"), Ann Magnuson (last seen in "Clear and Present Danger"), and our old pal, character actor Daniel Von Bargen (last seen in "Rising Sun") - as the town sheriff, of course.

RATING: 5 out of 10 postcards

Presumed Innocent

Year 3, Day 24 - 1/24/11 - Movie #754

BEFORE: My legal chain is starting up just as I'm also starting on the current TV season - so I'm watching the first episodes of "Law & Order: SVU" and "CSI" from September 2010, which dovetails pretty nicely. Tonight Harrison Ford (last seen in "Patriot Games") stands accused of murder - say it ain't so, Han Solo!

THE PLOT: When the woman deputy prosecutor R.K. Sabich had an affair with is murdered the prosecutor asks him to lead the investigation. When Sabich digs too deeply he finds himself framed for the murder.

AFTER: This is a legal thriller that for the most part, failed to thrill. Most of the actors seemed to be mumbling or sleepwalking through their lines, as if they didn't care what they were doing. And if they don't care, why should I? Someone's being framed for killing his girlfriend, and he barely shows any emotion at all? He might be a prosecuting attorney, but is he really that jaded?

Lots of judicial misconduct to go around tonight, including tampering with evidence, misplacing evidence (which might be worse...), bribery, blackmail, a frame-job, and hey, let's not forget the murder at the heart of everything - if the D.A. didn't kill his girlfriend, then who did? And if your boss asks you to lead the investigation into your lover's death, that's what's called a conflict of interest. All you have to say is, "I've got a personal connection to the case." You don't even have to say what it is - but it needs to be said, and then you're off the case.

Once again, a film starts at the "most interesting" part - the discovery of the body, in this case - and then there are extended flashback sequences detailing her casework and the affair. Would starting at the beginning really have hurt the story? Or would it just have revealed it as not so interesting?

Another problem here is that Ford's character can't switch off his prosecuting instincts - he talks about the crime as if he HAD committed it, which he's only doing as a theoretical exercise to get inside the heads of his prosecutors. But to the casual viewing audience, that looks the same as if he were really admitting it!

There's a great reminder here just how quickly modern forensic techniques have evolved - this film was released in 1990, and DNA identification seems to be still mostly theoretical. They can only match someone here by blood-type, which is about a 1-in-10 prospect at best. Pretty shaky as evidence goes. Oh, but carpet fiber matching technology is all the rage, even though tons of houses have the same carpeting...

I credit the film for an "aha!" moment that I never saw coming - but there are some leaps in logic near the end that fail to make sense. And the closing narration states that "it's a practical impossibility to charge two people with the same crime." Umm, no it's not, they do it on "Law & Order" all the time - when one man is proven innocent, they just arrest someone else. Someone should have researched how double jeopardy works (and not just that the dollar values on the board are doubled). What you meant to say is, it's impossible to charge one person for the same crime twice. And that doesn't even apply here...

Another Nitpick Point: Ask yourself - if your spouse were accused of murder, not convicted, just accused - would you be able to sleep next to him or her every night? I think some people might have a problem with that.

Also starring Brian Dennehy (last seen in "Cocoon: The Return"), Bonnie Bedelia, Raul Julia (last seen in "The Rookie"), Paul Winfield, Greta Scacchi, John Spencer (last seen in "The Negotiator"), Bradley Whitford (last seen in "A Perfect World"), Jesse Bradford (nice hat trick - THREE future cast members of "The West Wing"), and character actors Joe Grifasi (last seen in "Ironweed") and Tom Mardirosian ("Busmalis The Mole" from "Oz").

RATING: 4 out of 10 objections - sustained!

12 Angry Men

Year 3, Day 23 - 1/23/11 - Movie #753

BEFORE: From one murder trial to another, and from a Best Picture Winner (2002) to a Best Picture nominee (1957). It was up against "Witness for the Prosecution", so perhaps it split the legal-thriller vote, allowing "The Bridge On the River Kwai" to win.

THE PLOT: A dissenting juror in a murder trial slowly manages to convince the others that the case is not as obviously clear as it seemed in court.

AFTER: This film deals with a deadlocked jury - a plot which later became the 2nd most common sitcom plot in the 1970's, right after "getting locked in the bank vault/meat locker/elevator" and before "the cast goes on a cruise/Hawaiian vacation". But this is the original, not a knock-off.

Plus it's universal - we all have to serve on jury duty, right? Except women - note the title "12 Angry MEN". Fun fact - in 1957 women were (apparently) considered too fragile to serve on a murder case. No, this is an all testosterone affair - as 12 men sit in a jury room and vote on the guilt or innocence of a boy accused of killing his father.

Henry Fonda plays the lone stand-out - but as he expresses his doubts about the case, he starts to point out some inconsistencies. And as some of the other jurors start to have doubts, the room erupts in a sort of class warfare. Rich vs. poor, old vs. young, citizen vs. immigrant, even bigot vs. umm...non-bigot. And one guy who wants to vote with the group just so he can make the Yankees game.

The fact that the jury members have (reasonable?) doubts is significant - however, they're charged with rendering a verdict on only the evidence that was presented in the case. What they end up doing in the jury room is bringing a lot of their own ideas and concepts into the mix, testing some theories of their own invention, and even bringing in a piece of external evidence that wasn't presented at trial - so unfortunately that seems to be against the spirit of the jury system.

But, the point was made that the accused boy's lawyer barely seemed interested in the case, and didn't seem to be mounting much of a defense. So the jury was really doing the work of the defense attorney - we could assume that a better lawyer would have brought up some of the same points that, in this case, were reasoned out by the jury.

Still, it's a brilliant peek into the psyches of 12 individuals, and a look at how people think, as part of a group mentality. The U.S. legal system relies on mostly random individuals, and it's interesting to ponder the way this causes the system to work (or fail). I've pulled jury duty twice in New York, and both times the jury was dismissed - once due to a settlement, and once due to a mistrial. So I've never had to vote on a verdict. (Thank God...)

But I will be sequestered watching more legal-based films for the next week and a half...

Also starring Martin Balsam (last seen in "Tora! Tora! Tora!"), Jack Klugman (last seen in "Dear God"), Jack Warden (last seen in "Chairman of the Board"), E.G. Marshall (also last seen in "Tora! Tora! Tora!"), Lee J. Cobb (last seen in "On the Waterfront"), and Ed Begley Sr. Also John Fiedler, later known as the voice of Piglet in "Winnie the Pooh" cartoons, and as recurring patient Mr. Peterson on "The Bob Newhart Show".

RATING: 7 out of 10 secret ballots