The War of the Roses

Year 3, Day 36 - 2/5/11 - Movie #766

BEFORE: When I got divorced back in 1996, my soon-to-be-ex and I used a mediator, instead of battling divorce attorneys. Essentially, we had one lawyer instead of two, and we got to work out the terms of our settlement ourselves. We were presented with a checklist, reminding us about the items that might need dividing up - furs, artwork, cars, a boat - which made us laugh since we had none of those things. I don't think that divorce lawyers are used to seeing people cracking jokes during the process. Anyway, I had written her a check for half of our bank balance, and over the next two years I had to reimburse her for half of what we'd paid into our Brooklyn condo, and that was it. Pretty amicable - so that's my experience going into watching this film.

THE PLOT: A married couple try everything to get each other to leave the house in a vicious divorce battle.

AFTER: Fortunately for me, my first wife and I had something of a verbal agreement, after watching married friends almost break up, that the person who wanted to leave the marriage should also be the one to physically leave the house - and that's the way it shook down. She wanted to leave, so I got to stay in the property. So my take on this film is that the spouse who wanted out should have packed their bags. Instead neither one here is willing to leave the property.

They made most legal points like this ambiguous here - one spouse found the house, the other paid for it. This seemed like a bit of a screenwriting cheat, so that we in the audience wouldn't favor one side over the other. But the resulting ambiguous story ends up suffering for it.

What's also ambiguous is WHY they can't get along - it was really a poor set-up, with little explanation as to how they could genuinely care for each other at one point, and then be at each other's throats - what, exactly, changed? So the husband could be a bit of an a-hole, and occasionally he would interrupt his wife or not pay attention to her - is that grounds for divorce? I'm not sure that the level of contention we see was justified, unless I missed something.

I found them both at fault - but it's worth noting that it was their love of material possessions that turned them into real monsters, not a genuine hatred for each other. Still, this fictional couple gives divorce a bad name. Oddly enough, I didn't find much humor in watching rich people destroy their possessions and try to kill each other. I guess I'm not as sadistic as I thought.

Also, I've got zero sympathy for anyone who hurts an animal, or pretends to hurt an animal. And I don't find it funny when a film includes a joke about someone hurting an animal. I'm not an activist about it, but it's definitely not in good taste.

NITPICK POINT #1: There are a lot of inconsistencies throughout the film - most notably, Mr. Rose's lawyer tells him to establish residency and fight for the house, but in their next meeting, he says "Give up the house." Huh? Why the change in legal strategy? Or was he speaking one time as a lawyer, and another as a friend?

NITPICK POINT #2: Each spouse commits at least a dozen counts of domestic violence - and no one ever calls the police? Why didn't either one of them file charges against the other? A police report would have been useful in the divorce case.

NITPICK POINT #3: The couple's cat and dog are seen living together, presumably peacefully, for years - why did they suddenly stop getting along and chase each other around? Again, poor set-up.

NITPICK POINT #4: The lawyer played by Danny DeVito (last seen in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest") hadn't smoked a cigarette in 13 years - so why did he have a lighter handy?

NITPICK POINT #5: The framing device made no sense - DeVito's character tells the story of the Roses to convince his client to go home and work things out and NOT file for a divorce - then how does he stay in business as a divorce lawyer?

Starring Michael Douglas (last seen in "The In-Laws"), Kathleen Turner (last seen in "Prizzi's Honor"), Sean Astin (last seen in "Rudy"), and Dan Castellaneta (last seen in "Superhero Movie")

RATING: 4 out of 10 Staffordshire hounds

Kramer vs. Kramer

Year 3, Day 35 - 2/4/11 - Movie #765

BEFORE: Another legal case - this time a divorce hearing. Normally I'd be transitioning into love stories or romantic comedies for February, but the problem is, I used up most of the happy relationship movies over the past two years, so this year's films may seem a bit darker. Divorce, infidelity, and that's just for starters - other relationship problems no doubt lie ahead in this month's movies. I'm programming only about a month ahead, March is just a rough sketch right now - who knows, by then I could be in rehab, dealing with my addiction to Icy Hot (it has been a rather rough winter, shoveling is NOT good for my bum shoulder).

THE PLOT: A just divorced man must learn to care for his son on his own, and then must fight in court to keep custody of him.

AFTER: My apologies to Meryl Streep (last seen in "Before and After"), who really deserves the type of three-week marathon I devoted to Robert DeNiro - instead she's been popping up all over the countdown. I'll try to corral whichever of her films are left for a Streep-centric chain in June. I think this is her 8th appearance here, with at least 6 of her films left on the list.

I picked this up during TCM's "31 Days of Oscar" programming last February, which so far this year hasn't supplied me with many films (Thank God...)

Of course, this was Streep's first Oscar-winning film (2 wins and an astonishing 16 nominations so far) and the film also won Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Director - jeez, even the kid got a nomination for Best Supporting Actor, so who am I to argue? The kid certainly gives a better performance than most child actors - just this week both "Jagged Edge" AND "Legal Eagles" featured divorced characters with kids, and those kids really had zero screen charisma. (Joseph Gordon-Levitt fared better in "The Juror", however)

Beyond the custody battle, this film is mostly a lot of connected vignettes from the life of a divorced man - putting his wife's photos into storage, learning how to make breakfast for his son, trying to balance fatherhood with his career at an advertising agency. All these little things add up to something that rings very true. IMDB tells me that Dustin Hoffman (last seen in "Marathon Man") had recently been through a divorce at the time this was filmed, and ended up contributing a number of ideas that made it into the final cut. Makes sense.

I work in a job where I keep track of the comings and goings of advertising agency personnel, and they do move around a lot (sometimes by choice, sometimes not). So the movie gets that right, but it's not possible to work a 9-to-whenever job in advertising and still pick your son up after school. School lets out at 3 pm, as I seem to recall - how did Mr. Kramer manage to be there? My parents both worked, so I usually went to my grandparents' house after school when I was that young. The film did show him having difficulties juggling his career with domestic chores, but as a NYC professional, wouldn't it have made more sense for him to hire a nanny?

A lot of people probably point to this film as some kind of turning point in the 1970's, since it features a woman going off to find herself (psst...you're RIGHT THERE!), unsatisfied with the normal wife/mother roles, and a man taking on traditionally female child-rearing duties. So feminism, baby-boomers getting divorced, encapsulating the zeitgeist, blah blah blah. I just think that it tells a great tale of individuals affected by divorce, and found something universal in their story.

Also starring Justin Henry, Jane Alexander (last seen in "Terminator: Salvation"), JoBeth Williams (last seen in "Stir Crazy") and George Coe (last seen in "Funny People").

RATING: 7 out of 10 pieces of French toast

Legal Eagles

Year 3, Day 34 - 2/3/11 - Movie #764

BEFORE: My chain of legal films comes to a close tonight (sort of, I'll explain tomorrow...) as I transition into relationship dramas. This one I think is a little bit of both.

THE PLOT: District Attorney Tom Logan is set for higher office, at least until he becomes involved with defense lawyer Laura Kelly and her unpredictable client.

AFTER: I wish this movie had spent more time on the court scenes, those were some of the best, watching Robert Redford (last seen in "Lions for Lambs") charming the jury. The rest of the movie, outside of court, involves some kind of art fraud, arson and bad performance art. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Again, we've got lawyers illegally breaking and entering to obtain the evidence they need. It looks great on film, but anything found should be inadmissible in court. And again we've got a lawyer sleeping with a client, like in last night's film.

But, we know that the two lawyer characters are a better love match, because they both suffer from insomnia - and they stay up late in their separate apartments, watching the same classic film. From a script-writing point of view, this is what's called "cheating". No, don't bother developing their personalities or showing them becoming more comfortable with each other, just use a simple montage to show how much they have in common. Anyway, she raids the fridge while he tap-dances and rides a bike around his apartment - so it would never work out, if they got together she'd eventually weigh 400 pounds, and he'd be killed by his downstairs neighbor for making too much noise.

NITPICK POINT: How did Redford's character know to grab the case with the valuable art? He wasn't there when it was found. I'm just sayin'.

It's sort of sad when someone puts three one-dimensional characters in a film, and thinks that together they're going to add up to one three-dimensional storyline. I say "Nay Nay." It's also sad when the highlight of the film is the little-heard Rod Stewart song that plays over the closing credits.

Also starring Debra Winger (last seen in "Terms of Endearment"), Daryl Hannah (last seen in "Crazy People"), Brian Dennehy (last seen in "Presumed Innocent"), Terence Stamp (last seen in "Valkyrie"), David Clennon (last seen in "Man Trouble"), with cameos from Christine Baranski (last seen in "Chicago"), Roscoe Lee Browne (last seen in "Dear God"), and Brian Doyle-Murray (last seen in "Jury Duty").

RATING: 4 out of 10 pieces of toast

Jagged Edge

Year 3, Day 33 - 2/2/11 - Movie #763

BEFORE: We had an ice storm in New York this morning - and I'm not going to watch the film with that name for another week and a half. Some weather reports called it a "wintry mix", which I didn't mind because I don't have to shovel a wintry mix. Tonight's film is a mix as well, as I transition out of my legal films and into my relationship dramas - this one's a bit of both, I think.

THE PLOT: San Francisco heiress Page Forrester is brutally murdered in her remote beach house. Her husband Jack is devastated by the crime but soon finds himself accused of her murder. He hires lawyer Teddy Barnes to defend him, which leads to a certain chemistry between them.

AFTER: Again, I'm not a lawyer - but I think the first thing they teach you on day one of law school is "Don't sleep with your client." And if not, well, maybe they should.

A lawyer also shouldn't let the result of a previous case color her actions in a current case, but that seems to be the situation here. Attorney Teddy Barnes, played by Glenn Close (last seen in "Air Force One"), has a grudge against her old D.A. boss, so of course she ends up facing him in a murder trial. And she's still sore over him withholding evidence in a previous case - but hey, at least she knows all of his tricks, right?

This movie actually did a good job of muddying the waters about the accused - is he a stone-cold killer who's manipulative, but charming? Or is he a charming, but manipulative man who's been falsely accused? Well, it kept me guessing anyway.

Also starring Jeff Bridges (last seen in "The Fabulous Baker Boys"), Peter Coyote (last seen in "Outrageous Fortune"), Robert Loggia (last seen in "Prizzi's Honor"), Lance Henriksen (last seen in "Damien: Omen II"), and a brief pre-Star Trek appearance of Michael "Worf" Dorn as a polygraph expert.

RATING: 5 out of 10 Denver omelettes

Jury Duty

Year 3, Day 32 - 2/1/11 - Movie #762

BEFORE: After all the murder trials, class-action suits, and mob intimidation, maybe a goofy comedy is called for. And it gives me birthday SHOUT-out #9 to Pauly Shore, born 2/1/68, who I met at Comic-Con last year.

THE PLOT: When jobless Tommy Collins discovers that sequestered jurors earn free room and board as well as $5-a-day, he gets himself assigned to a jury in a murder trial. Once there, he does everything he can to prolong the trial and deliberations and make the sequestration more comfortable for himself.

AFTER: This is another spin on the "12 Angry Men" formula, with one man disagreeing with 11 others on a jury - but in this case, the holdout is motivated by the prospect of free meals and free hotel - he even gets the idea to do so from watching the Henry Fonda film itself. Come on, you didn't expect a Pauly Shore character to have an original thought, did you?

And it's unfortunate that this vehicle was wasted on Da Weasel - I think it could have been funnier with say, Pee-Wee Herman serving on a jury. Or even Adam Sandler, or well, pretty much anyone would be better in the title role. Funny, though - in the early hours of Groundhog Day I was finishing a film with a Weasel...

And points off for ripping off the ending of "Strange Brew" - you can spoof "12 Angry Men", "And Justice For All" and even "Speed", but leave my favorite movies alone. More points off for making me view Pauly Shore as a male stripper, and also dressed up as a woman.

Also starring Tia Carrere (last seen in "Rising Sun"), Stanley Tucci (last seen in "Road to Perdition"), Brian Doyle-Murray (last seen in "Christmas Vacation"), cameos from Shelley Winters (last seen in "The Poseidon Adventure"), Abe Vigoda, and Andrew Dice Clay, and character actors Jack McGee (last seen in "Miracle on 34th Street"), Richard Edson, Richard Riehle (last seen in "Lethal Weapon 4").

RATING: 2 out of 10 styrofoam cups

The Juror

Year 3, Day 31 - 1/31/11 - Movie #761

BEFORE: The last film of January - I know I said I'd take it easy here in Year 3, but I stayed on track, and looking back, that was a pretty solid month.

THE PLOT: When Annie Laird is selected as a juror in a big Mafia trial, she is forced by someone known as "The Teacher" to persuade the other jurors to vote "not guilty".

AFTER: Damn, I was hoping for another tight legal thriller, but instead this was a warmed-over second-rate mob film. The trial should have been the most interesting part, but they just didn't spend enough time on it. There was even a part that referenced "12 Angry Men", since the main character had to try and persuade almost all of the other jurors to change their votes.

But then, after the trial, the film went off the rails. After the main conflict was resolved, the writer had to manufacture another one - so the mob hitman becomes obsessed with the attractive juror, and can't let her go. Right... Talk about painting yourself into a corner.

The last half hour was one of the more non-sensical, completely illogical film sequences I've ever seen. What a waste of time.

Starring Demi Moore, Alec Baldwin (last seen in "Great Balls of Fire!"), Anne Heche (last seen in "Donnie Brasco"), a pre-Sopranos James Gandolfini (last seen in "Fallen"), Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Lindsay Crouse (last seen in "Being Human").

RATING: 3 out of 10 plane tickets

Class Action

Year 3, Day 30 - 1/30/11 - Movie #760

BEFORE: I'm getting out of Mississippi (it's quite dangerous down there, from what I've seen...) and heading to San Francisco. Still a few more legal-themed films to go - Gene Hackman carries over from last night, and gets birthday SHOUT-out #8. Happy 81st, Gene!

THE PLOT: Jeb Ward is an attorney who specializes in David vs. Goliath cases. He finds a client who is suing an auto company over a safety problem, and then he finds that the defense atorney will be his estranged daughter.

AFTER: Again, I'm not an expert on the law - most everything I know I've gleaned from movies and "Law & Order" episodes. But what this film got right is the often complex relationship between a father and a daughter. Together, these two have more issues than a newsstand - and over the course of the film they attempt to resolve some of them, but sometimes the attempts end up forcing them further apart. What also rang true was the fact that the daughter, like a lot of people (myself included), had spent some time in her 20's distancing herself from her parents, and then later finding out, like a lot of people do, that inevitably they ARE like their parents, and that's not necessarily a terrible thing.

At first it seems like an obvious conflict of interest (and a somewhat contrived plotline) to have a father and daughter facing off in court. But if they're not getting along, well then, no problem.

NITPICK POINT #1: A woman who wants to be taken seriously as an attorney, and succeed at a law firm on her own merits, probably shouldn't be sleeping with her boss. She could be the best lawyer in the firm, but it will still look improper for her to get promoted.

NITPICK POINT #2: It's a common mistake (and movie plot point) that a legal team has to share all evidence with the opposing side. Not exactly - I think they only have to share evidence that they intend to introduce in court. So when Maggie learns about a key piece of evidence that would help the other side, I believe all she needs to do is to not mention it - the opposition can't ask to see it if it's never introduced.

But FINALLY a film shows some attorneys paying a price for ethics violations. That's been a rare thing indeed in this week's movies. I just wish the film had been a little more exciting.

Also starring Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio (last seen in "The Perfect Storm"), Laurence Fishburne (last seen in "What's Love Got to Do With It"), Donald Moffat, Jonathan Silverman, and Fred Dalton Thompson (last seen in "In the Line of Fire").

RATING: 5 out of 10 crash tests