Thursday, June 23, 2005

Tom's APRIL Movie Reviews (coming a little late)

I'm tough on them this month.

LIFE AS A HOUSE (2001) – I wanted to like this Kevin Kline film. Mary Steenburgen, Kristen Scott Thomas, Hayden Christianson, and even Scott Bakula rounded out the decent cast. But that doggone script got in the way of a good film. The first signs of a wreck happen early when Kline gets fired and smashes the work he’s done through the years. He walks out onto the sidewalk and passes out. It’s terminal cancer. So why not spend the last remaining months building a house with my estranged son? Irwin Winkler has some pretty good Producing screen credits and he should stick to that line of work, because as a director he ain’t all that.

ANCHORMAN (2004) – I liked OLD SCHOOL despite being ready not to. I fully expected to like this and was disappointed. Will Ferrell is only funny in an uncomfortable way which doesn’t work for me. Guys like Vince Vaughn and Luke Wilson carried OLD SCHOOL and their brief cameos here can’t pick up the slack.

+LAST DAYS OF CHASENS (1997) – Interesting documentary about the famous eatery where Ron proposed to Nancy. We get to know the staff, many of which have been there for 30+ years. Stars make a brief appearance and the history of the place is revealed. A good example of how an unscripted film can be brought together in tiny pieces successfully in unpredictable ways.
MAGIC CHRISTIAN (1970) Peter Sellers is funny. Ringo too a little bit. There are some funny moments like Sellers in the train car buying a hotdog from the vendor on the platform at 30MPH. The downside is that I saw it only a week ago and I remember little else.

13 GOING ON 30 (2004) – I didn’t pick this one, but it’s not bad for the genre. A female update of the Tom Hanks BIG concept. You don’t need to see it, but it will pass the time.

CLOSER (2004) – Told in an interesting way, but not interesting in and of itself. I liked it a good for a while. Mike Nichols seemed to have cast it well. I just didn’t buy the last ¼ of it. The question of jealousy and unfaithfulness seemed to be better handled in THE SECRET LIVES OF DENTISTS.

+GARDEN STATE (2004) – This is one of the best movies of 2004. I found it to be a modern day combination of THE GRADUATE and HAROLD AND MAUDE with its wayward protagonist and ballad soundtrack. It was funny enough to be a comedy and sweet enough to be a date film. And yet it was nothing like those WHEN HARRY MET SALLY ripoffs we've seen in the last 15 years.

I HEART HUCKABEES (2004) – I can respect an idea taken to the limit and this has a particularly witty screenplay, but I was easily distracted away from it. I think it was a combination of too many characters or maybe just too much Jude Law lately. He's in everything.

NAPOLEON DYNAMITE (2004) – The character is funny enough and his uncle is even a little funnier, but the movie doesn’t have much to say or do. The Pedro character was funny in a Wes Anderson sort of way. It was very Anderson like in general, but I was struggling to stay awake for the big dance at the end.

Friday, June 17, 2005

MOVIES FROM TOM

I've been writing reviews and not posting. Here is what I saw in March.

+TOUCHING THE VOID (2003)
– The story of two mountain climbers that run into trouble and how they deal with it. The story is quite compelling and the cinematography is also brilliant. It’s somewhat controversial in that it’s part documentary and part drama. Does that make it a docudrama?

+CHARLEY VARRICK (1973)
– Another early Walter Mathau film that’s quite entertaining. It doesn’t hurt that it’s directed by the under-rated Don Siegel right at the height of his creative powers. Mathau plays Varrick, a cunning bank robber that attempts to steal a few thousand dollars from a soft rural bank, but accidently steals a couple of hundred thousand dollars in mob money in the process of being laundered. Mathau knows immediately what it means and is worried to death. His partner Andy Robinson (The villain from Dirty Harry) won’t listen to Mathau and really over plays the part. Still it’s an overall entertaining movie and a chance to see the underrated Mathau play another solid role.

GO TIGERS (2001)
– A decent documentary about the Massillon High School football program. The filmmakers portray Massillon as the most storied high school team in the country. They even show parts of a 1950s era documentary called “TOCHDOWN TOWN” about Massillon’s love for the game. Even by 1950, Massillon had already won 10 State Championships in the sport. The school is in the heart of Canton Ohio, home of the Pro Football Hall of Fame. The famous Paul Brown went to Massillon as did the recent pro bowl player Chris Spielman. Even soap opera actor David Cannary played football as Massillon. The story in the documentary is how Massillon 4-6 the previous year will rebound. Also weighing on everyone’s minds is whether the city can pass a levy for more school revenue. It’s obvious the school is spending all their money on football and without the levy they’ll fire teachers rather than skimp on pigskin. We also get to know a few of the Massillon players and the DVD gives us an update on their lives this many years later.

+SIDEWAYS (2004)
– Alexander Payne of ELECTION and ABOUT SCHMIDT fame hits the mark again. Two buddies living out a weeklong bachelor party gets the tone of real life in a way most movies do not. I’ve heard complaints that the movie talks about wine too much and that might be true for people who don’t like wine, but I think the screenwriter does a good job of using wine to underscore their lives. Giammati was the victim of Eastwood’s legend and didn’t get a nomination. That will probably be remedied in his next performance.

BADLANDS (1973)
– Terrance Mallick’s debut film contains much of the style we saw again in the 1998 film, THIN RED LINE. Martin Sheen plays this James Dean look-a-like killer who has a lot of charisma. Cissy Spacek plays the jailbait sidekick. I can see how this move was controversial and how Mallick proved he was a major talent (some might say wasted talent), but since we’ve seen this kind of material played out any number of ways since, the style is the main interest here. I’d recommend it for history and some really well done visuals, but it left me kind of hollow. Maybe that was the point.

THE TERMINAL (2004) – Tom Hanks is well cast as the foreigner in limbo between countries. Catherine Zeta Jones is fetching although seeming a bit overused lately. The story guides along for a good hour, but since conflict is the essence of drama, Spielberg and the screenwriter make a cartoon villain out of the usually reliable Stanley Tucci, after introducing him as a much more complex and interesting character. Tucci’s motivations seem petty and suspect and it’s that central conflict that is supposed to explain the second half of the movie. Skip it unless you like to hear Tom Hanks do accents.

STRAW DOGS (1971) – is much like Badlands in that it’s a violent film in the early 1970s that found controversy. Dustin Hoffman is plays an American living in rural Great Britain with his English wife. Hoffman is a mathematician trying to be productive on sabbatical while his sexy wife is getting bored with his inattention. Although the violence is hinted at early on, the film is into the second half before you see any real ugliness. Anyone schooled on modern films won’t find this terribly worse than what their use to. Still, it has the Peckinpah style that makes you root for more bloodshed. If you like comely English blondes you’ll enjoy Susan George. I won’t see it again, but I’m happy I saw it once.

DeLovely (2004)
– I often forget what a good actor Kevin Kline is and after seeing EMPEROR’S CLUB I decided to see his take on Cole Porter. I’ve always enjoyed porter witty tunes like ANYTHING GOES and deeper ones like I’VE GOT YOU UNDER MY SKIN. Kline is decent enough as Porter, but the movie is annoying for being gimmicky and slow-moving.

Friday, June 10, 2005

IN MEMPHIS WITH SIR SAUNDERS

I tagged along with Steve for two days as he met with lawyers and ultimately testified before federal court as an expert witness in the sentencing phase of a University of Alabama football booster.

The actual trial was over in February and it involved a Memphis areas businessman, Logan Young, who was approached to help convince a low income family to send their star athlete to 'Bama to play pigskin. A good way to convince them is to present large coarse bank notes, and Logan will now go to jail for the pleasure.

The worst kept secret in sports is the fact that college athletes are paid under the table to play. It's no longer a matter of whether they'll get money to play, but who gets to be the token example every now and then when someone has to be caught. As long as the NCAA makes periodic suspensions and Johnny Law makes the occasional arrest, we who watch college sports are to think that everything is clean again.

The defendant, Logan Young, is the latest token. The charges against the poor guy include racketeering which I think is a good example of how dangerous vague laws can be. Legislation intended to end such things as organized crime can easily be manipulated to go after, in this case, an overzealous fan. The Feds case boils down to this: a poor student athlete was a victim of adults that exchanged money in order for him sign with a certain football program. He was called a slave by the prosecution. No slave in this history of this union was victimized with this kind of payoff. The best they can figure, this kid and his family got a minimum of $60,000.

Logan is also charged with bribing a public official. It’s a stretch, but since the coach of Alabama works for the state of Alabama and since that University accepts money from the federal government, Logan is just as corrupt at Don Corleone.

Anyway, that's over. He's guilty. We're ready to bring the guillotine. Wait. Logan Young has Kidney problems and needs a transplant. Steve is called as a defense witness to describe the bureaucratic nightmare in getting an inmate a transplanted organ.

It began with smooth waters as the defense witness asked Steve to explain the procedures. Having roomed with Steve for two years he would frequently share funny stories about how the federal government operates. Just listening to the chain of command is enough to convince you that inmates would better use their time constructing their own coffins.

The prosecution began piping in with objections. Steve is just a psychologist, what does he know about medical procedures? Ah, but Steve knows the bureaucracy as well as anyone and a number of his psych inmates also needed medical help. He was involved with both. The prosecutor hammered home the fact that Steve wasn't a medical doctor and that he had never known anyone trying to get a kidney transplant from a federal prison. The prosecutor then shared with the court that only one person had ever gotten a kidney transplant in federal prison. The point was to prove that Steve didn't know anyone who had, but it really proved Steve's point that it would be impossible to get.

The prosecution's next witness, a nurse who works as a regional medical director with the federal prisons would tell us that so many people are on the list for these transplants that someday soon we'll have a whole hell of a lot of examples of kidney transplants. I think they were trying to show that a system is in place to help all of these people, but Steve's advance testimony that the bureaucratic machine would ruin those plans hurt the prosecutions argument. Add that to the prosecutor stating that only one such transplant has ever happened, and wala, you put enough doubt into the judge’s mind that such procedures really happen. You have a lot of people waiting on one side and only one completion on the other.

The prosecutor spent most of his time with the nurse establishing him as the real expert. The nurse is a regional health director with 17 years of bureau experience and his testimony was making Steve look like a guy outside of his field of knowledge. Steve was sitting next to me at this time and he would whisper when the guy had it wrong. I felt bad for Steve like he couldn't do anything to defend himself.

It was 3:30pm by now and we were expecting to catch the 5:30 back to Orlando when at recess the defense attorney asked Steve to stick around for a possible rebuttal.

After the recess, the defense attorney got up there and tied the nurse into knots. Steve had brought along with him a bunch of policies straight from the bureau's website. Those policies not only contradicted the prosecutions star witness, but made him look less than an expert. It only took a couple of questions until you realized that the nurse didn't even know the written policies. With not too much work, the defense lawyer had built Steve back into an expert and turned the nurse into a guy licking his wounds in the back row. Steve felt bad for this nurse because bureau people don't even get paid to testify in court whereas Steve was doing it as a freelance job. The nurse was less than hospitable when Steve approached him later. The lesson is that it's easier to be charitable when you turn out to be the credible witness.

Steve never got back on the stand, but we stayed and heard a number of character witness tell us that Logan was a generous guy and nonviolent. He has a lot of ties to the community and isn't a danger to flee.

At some point Steve turned and said, "There goes the plane."
I said, "Who cares. This is more fun."

When it looked like the judge would finally decide the sentence, the oldest of the defense lawyers, an ex-prosecutor that indicted G Gordon Liddy, got out a copy of the Memphis paper and used the words of another defendant to postpone the sentencing. He made the argument that quotes attributed to the ex-high school coach, Lynn Lang, contradict the case made by the prosecution against Logan Young. So now the whole circus begins again on Monday with Lang summonsed to court.

At 6:30pm or so Sir Saunders and I were bunny hopping it over to the Memphis airport in the rain with a car to return off site and no idea whether or not a later flight even existed. Steve was unsure of his performance. The defese lawyer said. "Well you told the truth you couldn't do any more than that."

I was right there and understood the lawyer to mean that the prosecutor had done the best he could to discredit Steve by pointing out Steve's status as a psychologist and not a physician. Steve couldn't pretend to be a doctor. He had to be honest.

It was Steve’s first time as an expert witness and he really needed more feedback from the attorney, but it was obvious that the attorney was already three pages later trying to make his next point about a different subject.

I was particularly impressed with two things that Steve did on the stand. The first was Steve had never had an inmate who needed a kidney transplant, but Steve did have a number of inmates that needed medical procedures that were identical in process to asking for a kidney transplant. The defense lawyer never directly asked this question and from the audience I kept waiting for it to be asked. Finally Steve, who was thinking the same thing, got the information in through the backdoor. Second, I thought the prosecution was harsher with Steve than any other witness we saw. He really talked down to him and tried to belittle his experience. It was obvious that the prosecution was afriad of him. Steve really kept his composure. I’m sure he felt rattled, but he kept the kind of confidence he needed to be credible.

Steve’s most important contribution wasn’t his testimony but a greater understanding of bureau policy and procedure. Steve handed the defense a packet of policy papers the day before and that packet allowed the defense to contradict the nurse as any kind of expert on policy. The audience wouldn’t have known, but the psychologist with half as much time in the bureau knew more about the workings of medical procedure than someone who works as a regional medical director.

We were lucky enough to get another flight and still make our connection in Atlanta. I hope this poor Logan Young gets his kidney and the government gets off his back. If poor kids want money to play football in college I’m not sure why the government thinks they need to step in and keep it from happening. When liberals complain that the war in Iraq is keeping the government from doing their real job here at home, is this what they want, more prosecutions related to college athletics?

The government as a mechanism grows without thought to productivity. One result of such growth is the need to do something proactive about the real or perceived injustices of life. Soon the quest for correcting grand wrongs reaches the margins of inequity until some day people are prosecuted simply for wanting a better defensive lineman at their alma matter. The lesson is that anything can be made illegal if enough people are offended by it, but do we really prosper as a nation that spends its time getting into everyone else's business?

A judge, his staff, a team of federal prosecutors, court reporters, bailiffs, defense attorneys and private citizens will gather again on Monday, spending a bunch of tax payer money to decide whether or not an ardent football fan will be allowed to get his new kidney. Is the taxpayer served by this circus? Isn’t the real problem with budget deficits and high tax rates related right back to how the government is willing to waste taxpayer money on non-violent state-created criminals?

Logan Young didn’t bribe a public official in order to get the government to do his bidding. That’s the point of such a law. You don’t want private citizens buying the strength of the government so that they can break the law with impunity. Logan just wanted a winning season. If he were to die in prison for such a desire, will our country be well served?