Chef

So you know what's all the rage these days? Go figure, but it's....FOOD!!! I mean that statement semi-seriously though. From the ever-expanding and ever-popular Food Network with shows like Diners, Drive-Ins and Dives and Chopped to the Travel Channel with its reliance on food-based shows, FOOD...IS...EVERYWHERE. Cooking reality shows are even popping up on network TV. In other words, strike while the iron is hot. Here's 2014's Chef.

A chef with quite the following, quite the reputation in the culinary community, Carl Casper (Jon Favreau) has a solid job at a highly respected restaurant in Los Angeles. When he hears word that a respected food critic who backed him with a glowing review years ago is coming to the restaurant, Carl plans a unique, innovative menu that differs from the everyday menu. That's the plan at least. The owner insists otherwise, the critics rips apart the blase food, and Carl gets fired when he explodes at the critic a few days later, an explosion that goes viral. Now with no job and no money, Carl must figure out what's next for him. That viral video has all but doomed any jobs he could get, but his ex-wife (Sofia Vergara) brings up an idea she's brought up before only to get shot down. What if Carl got back to basics and opened up a food truck? The respected chef wants nothing to do with it at first but he also doesn't have a ton of other options...

More and more, I've found my mood is impacting my movie-going experience more than I thought. Now, a good movie is a good movie, but this very likable family comedy/drama hit all the right notes for me. Favreau wrote, directed and starred in this flick from last year that capitalizes on all the food buzz wherever you turn, assembling a familiar but always enjoyable screenplay, an impressive cast, and a feel-good story that's just missing too often when it comes to flicks hitting theaters every week. It isn't an instant classic, but I watched Chef and something resonated with me. Hopefully it does with you too, regardless of your feelings about food and eating.

I've always liked Jon Favreau dating back to his guest starring days on Friends to his directing the Iron Man flicks and a whole bunch of stuff in between. His Carl Casper character is definitely an interesting one, a once rising chef who's kinda leveled off through no fault of his own. A middle-aged man having a midlife crisis is nothing new in basically any form of film, television and literature, but like the film as a whole, there's an energy Favreau brings to the part. He's not perfect, trying to balance his career while still being a good father to his 10-year old son, Percy (a very impressive Emjay Anthony), who wants nothing more than to hang out with his dad. Sure, it can be a tad sugary sweet at times, but if you like the characters and are rooting for them, does it matter? Credit to Favreau though, keeping a lot of plates -- writing, directing, starring -- spinning and doing it well.

As for Favreau off-screen, his co-stars and fellow actors must like the guy. He put together quite the cast of big name stars, many of them agreeing to take a smaller part, extended cameos. But first, the bigger parts, the most essential ones. I loved John Leguizamo as Martin, Carl's longtime friend, fellow chef and a rising star in his own right. I've always been a Leguizamo fan but he just looks to be having a lot of fun and it shows throughout. Vergara too is excellent in toned down role from what we see on ABC's Modern Family. As Carl's ex-wife, she avoids any shrill ex stereotypes (thankfully), Vergara doing a fine job in the part.

Also look for Bobby Cannavale as Tony, Carl's sous chef, Scarlett Johansson as the restaurant hostess and quasi-girlfriend, Dustin Hoffman as the stuck in his ways restaurant owner, Oliver Platt as the food critic with a way with a dig, Amy Sedaris as an agent/publicist trying to help Carl, and an actor named Robert Downey Jr. as a possible business partner for Carl with a link to his past.

This isn't an out and out comedy. It's a family drama with a lot of laughs. I genuinely laughed out loud far more than I thought I would. 'Chef' has some fun early as Carl is introduced to the world of Twitter through Percy, through all sorts of social media that can be good and bad. That all adds a nice dimension to the story in its second half as Carl and Percy with some help from Martin open up a food truck in Miami and road trip it across America back to Los Angeles. It's cool to see a pleasant, nice, funny and very enjoyable movie that features a fun Latino and Cuban-themed soundtrack. Definitely one worth picking up. Just beware. I don't recommend watching this movie on an empty stomach. It's a delicious flick.

Chef (2014): *** 1/2 /****

Outbreak

Released way back in 2011, Steven Soderbergh's Contagion was one of the best movies I saw in 2012. A seemingly unstoppable virus is tearing its way across the world. Can it be stopped? Smart, well-written, well-acted and stylish, it was a great movie. Released 16 years earlier, 1995's Outbreak deals with a very similar story and formula. Where does it stand in comparison?

A longtime disease specialist/virologist working for the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USARMIID), Sam Daniels (Dustin Hoffman) and his team have been sent to Zaire to deal with a new disease that wiped out an entire village. What they find is terrifying, a virus that replicates quickly, claiming victims within a 24-hour period. Daniels' crew manages to contain the disease within the village, taking samples and clearing out before the disease can spread. Just days later though, a patient in a hospital in Boston has the symptoms similar to the disease. Then there's another in California, and then a whole town. How did the disease spread so quickly? Can it be stopped before it wipes out thousands and maybe millions? Daniels and his team go to work, but there may be more at work within the government than they know trying to stop them.

From director Wolfgang Petersen, 'Outbreak' is a good example of a modern disaster film that doesn't have to resort to gimmicks to be good. When disaster films were at their most popular in the late 1970s and early 1980s, they became cliched quickly, trying to one-up each other one after another. That's not really an issue here, a pretty smart script laying out a situation that could really happen. Viruses and diseases are constantly evolving. Can the medical field and the government stay ahead of those evolutions? 'Outbreak' blends that intelligent premise with an all-star cast and lets things take off. For the most part, I liked it....for awhile. That's for a little later though. For now, here's some positives.

In much the same way I enjoyed Contagion, 'Outbreak' is at its best in dealing with the social implications involved here. We see how the USARMIID and the CDC respond, trying to react as quickly as possible. We see the government planning ahead for all possible contingency plans, however dark they may be. Petersen's got an eye for it, covering a ton of ideas and scenarios in relatively quick fashion. While there's a lot of characters and situations, it doesn't feel rushed. The disease spreads quickly, the virus jumping and developing quickly. It's all cut together at a lightning-pace, bouncing among all the different affected parties. Things take a turn for the dark when a California town is a breakout point, patients piling up at an alarming rate. The USARMIID, CDC, military and government descend on the town, other advances being made to track down the source. How did this disease spread? Those are the coolest moments, a frightening premise to think about in our current world.

Now for that all-star cast!!! It's interesting watching Dustin Hoffman do just about anything on-screen, and he's a great lead here. Unfortunately some of his character background is dealing with his recently divorced wife, Robby (Rene Russo), who's taken a job at the CDC. Oh, divorce drama! Still, Hoffman and Russo have a good chemistry. Rounding out Daniels' team are Kevin Spacey as Casey, the smart-ass, highly intelligent assistant who's worked for years with Daniels, and Cuba Gooding Jr. as Salt, a new recruit with an army and medical background but no field experience. Representing the government/military higher-ups, Morgan Freeman and Donald Sutherland play highly-ranked officers who know more than they're letting on (courtesy of a 1967 flashback to open the film we see). Also look for Patrick Dempsey as an unknowing spreader of the disease, a cool, quick and essential subplot to the story.

And there it is. A good, creepy, entertaining story that could have been based in some sort of reality. And then there's the last 45 minutes. Hoffman's Daniels becomes a superhero, Gooding Jr. his intrepid sidekick, the duo traveling all over California, Sutherland's evil general in hot pursuit, and all against the clock. There's helicopter chases, a trap for a cute, disease-ridden monkey, an evil general obsessed with something, taking over a TV news broadcast, a helicopter with an endless supply of fuel, and a big old shift in tone that goes from serious and dramatic to goofy and campy. The movie is still good, but the last third is pretty rough. We're not sure who makes it, and it all is resolved rather quickly in a flash. Could have been great in the end, but it's okay instead.

Outbreak (1995): ** 1/2 /****

Hook

Let's face it. Who among us actually wanted to grow up? It's just more fun being a kid. Less responsibilities, no obligations, and basically? Do what you want. That's part of the long-lasting charm of the Peter Pan character, a mischievous boy who never grows up, causing mischief and enjoying himself wherever he goes. What if Peter did grow up though, forgetting about what he used to be? So goes 1991's Hook.

A ruthless businessman who can scoop up struggling businesses effortlessly, Peter Banning (Robin Williams) takes his wife and kids, Jack (Charlie Korsmo) and Maggie (Amber Scott), to visit his grandmother, Wendy (Maggie Smith), in London. Obsessed with a merger, Peter has lost touch with his family, and one night, they're mysteriously taken from Wendy's home, an ominous note from a JAS Hook left on their bedroom door. It defies a 'Peter Pan' to come back to Neverland and rescue his children. Peter has no idea what to make of it until Maggie reveals a secret; Peter is in fact Peter Pan all grown up, his "childhood" lost since forgotten when he chose to grow up. How can he get his kids back? By embracing who he used to be, visiting Neverland and tangling with the nasty Captain Hook (Dustin Hoffman). 

As a literary character, Peter Pan first appeared in author J.M. Barrie's 1902 book The Little White Bird. Peter would appear in several other Barrie books and since then has become an instantly recognizable literary character from books and plays to stage plays and feature films, even the iconic Disney classic from 1953. It is a character most kids are aware of at least a little, and there is a charm to the boy who refuses to grow up. A story delving into a 'what if?' about said character is an interesting, unique idea. Peter decided to grow up when he fell in love with his future wife, Moira (Caroline Goodall).  And what if a full-grown Peter doesn't remember his past life as the infamous Peter Pan? Well, away we go.

I watched the movie and enjoyed it only to get a rather large surprise as the credits rolled. Directed by.....Steven Spielberg?!? I couldn't and didn't believe it. Not one of Spielberg's best films, Hook is nonetheless a good film. What struck me most was the distinct look of the film, giving an appearance of almost being based on a stage. The sets are all clearly indoors -- especially the outdoor ones on Neverland and on Hook's ship -- but they're busy, cluttered and claustrophobic. There's always lots of action and movement around, filling the screen to the point it looks like it may burst. John Williams' score is okay if not particularly memorable, never rising above the action on-screen.

What I liked most though was the casting, almost from top to bottom. Who better than to play wild man-child Peter Pan than ultra-goofy Robin Williams? He brings the character to life; a business suit executive who can't be bothered with anything fun. Then, he starts to remember what he used to be and watch out! Let the fireworks ensue. Hoffman is a scene-stealer as Capt. Hook, the infamous pirate leader with a hook for a hand after a crocodile bit his hand off. Julia Roberts plays Tinkerbell, the tiniest of fairies who guides Peter on his rediscovery of who he is. Bob Hoskins too is very good as Smee, Hook's right hand man. Of Peter's Lost Boys, the ones that stand out the most are Dante Brasco as Rufio, the new leader of the Boys, and Raushan Hammond as Thud Butt, the rather....round, jovial Lost Boy. Even look for singer Phil Collins in a small part and Gwyneth Paltrow as a young Wendy in a flashback.  

Far from perfect, the movie does have its flaws. At 144 minutes, it's far too long. Here's my issue. The movie never really slows down from its London intro to the majority of the time being spent on Neverland. It isn't really the pacing's fault, but the movie feels incredibly long at times. Some scenes go on for too long without knowing where to cut it off. As well, the use of some computer generated images looks dated now some 20-plus years later. Hard to criticize it too much, but it's certainly noticeable. Still, it's an entertaining story with an iconic character, an interesting visual look, and a deep cast.

Hook <---trailer (1991): ** 1/2 /****

Family Business

When I think of director Sidney Lumet, I think of any number of movies, many of them classics. 12 Angry Men, Network, Fail-Safe, Dog Day Afternoon. But once you get past those well-known classics, I can't say I'm too familiar with Lumet's 40-some other movies. Stumbled across one at Netflix that sounded intriguing, 1989's Family Business.

Just a few months away from getting his Masters, Adam McMullen (Matthew Broderick) decides he doesn't like where his life is heading and drops out. Instead of finishing out school, he stumbles across a plan -- a heist -- that could net him $1 million dollars. He needs help though and seeks out his grandfather, Jessie (Sean Connery), a lifelong crook, to join him in the job. Never one to go the easy route, Jessie agrees, approaching his son and Adam's father, Vito (Dustin Hoffman), to join in. Vito has done his best to make sure Adam doesn't go down this route, but with intentions of protecting his son, agrees to help out on the seemingly easy, flawless robbery.

Every director has their hits and misses, the classics, the bombs and those that fall somewhere in between. Judging solely by IMDB ratings (and those are unquestionable, right?), Lumet doesn't have any real bomb, just an awful stinker. He just has weaker efforts, and from the ratings/votes and my initial thoughts, this is one of his weaker efforts. That's not to say it is a bad movie, just not as good as some of his other movies I've seen. A lot of his touches are there, especially a character-heavy story that allows the actors to really delve into backgrounds and relationships. It is dialogue heavy -- not a bad thing with Connery, Hoffman and Broderick around -- and isn't particularly flashy. Meat and potatoes kind of camera work, the focus clearly on the actors and their talents.

In terms of comparing it to a more well-known (or at least more recent/familiar) film, all you have to do is look at Lumet's recent films, 2007's Before the Devil Knows You're Dead. It is similar in its story matter, family members involved in a heist. And if heist movies have taught us anything, it's that nothing....NOTHING...will go even somewhat as planned. Seeing crooks/thieves turn on each other is one thing, but what about when your partners in crime are your family members? What would a grandfather do when his son or grandson are in trouble or vice versa? Are you more prone to risk everything because it's your flesh and blood under the gun? I love heist movies -- always have, always will -- but in 'Family' Lumet adds that family element that gives the story a unique edge. It becomes more emotional and more effective.

Most of my reasoning for checking 'Family' out was the casting. My first thought was that Connery and Hoffman were odd choices to play father and son (there's only 7 years age difference), but once you get past the fact they look nothing alike, it's not a deal-breaker. The three generation heist crew is a cool little plot device, young Adam looking up to his crook of a grandfather while holding resentment for his father for giving him everything he ever needed. The performances are uniformly good, allowing me at least to look past the names and see the characters. Connery is the flashiest, and he doesn't disappoint, a long-time crook encouraging his grandson to do what he wants, not what he's been told to do. Hoffman is the most effective, a father torn by his own past that he gave up, accepting a vastly different life than the one he figured. Broderick is solid as Adam, the least likable of the three. It's hard to get behind the character, who comes across as a spoiled brat. The dynamic among the three -- physical appearances aside -- is what works so well.

All of that laid out, I didn't love the movie. I think it struggles to find a right balance between comedy and drama. It never out and out tries to be a laugh out loud comedy, but the tone is all over the place. Some attempts at comedy -- two gags during the heist -- work well, but it does a complete 180 degree turn afterward and hits you with the heavy drama. All the dialogue does get a little much as the 113-minute movie starts to lag in the second half right when it should be picking up steam. I can't put my finger on it. 'Family' is missing that one element that would bring it all together. It is still a solid, very watchable movie, but not one I feel the need to revisit anytime soon.

Family Business <---trailer (1989): ** 1/2 /****

Confidence

For every actor/actress you swear you see in every other movie ever released, there are those who are a little bit more picky with the roles they take.  For today, that's Edward Burns, star of a major movie like Saving Private Ryan but typically in smaller, independent movies that barely make a dent in theaters. Limiting his roles on-screen in front of the camera, Burns also writes, produces and directs behind the camera.  So with the few movies he has done, you've got to take advantage when the opportunity presents itself, like 2003's Confidence.

The timing of watching movies just seems too spooky sometimes.  Two days ago I reviewed 1973's Charley Varrick, a story about a small-time crook who knocks off a bank holding mob money. What's Confidence about? A team of con men who pull a successful con only to find out their mark is giving them mob money. Still, that's the only huge similarity in this overlooked, very stylish, sometimes needlessly confusing con job flick.  It bombed in theaters upon its release in 2003 and has receded into that sea of box office bombs.  It isn't anything different from so many other similar movies, but with an impressive cast from top to bottom it's hard to let this one slip by.

New in Los Angeles, Jake Vig (Burns) and his team of con men, Gordo (Paul Giamatti) and Miles (Brian Van Holt), run a successful con on a mid-level businessman that nets them $150,000. Bad news though, the money is linked to a crime boss known as the King (Dustin Hoffman), and the man wants his money back.  Instead of leaving town and going on the run, Jake and his crew decide to go to work for King, pulling another con job on a target of his choosing. Their target is a crooked banker with money laundering ties who has a past with King, but now Jake must figure some way to get to the impossible target. With a beautiful pickpocket, Lily (Rachel Weisz), joining his crew, he goes to work.  But when things start to come together, Jake finds out that an old nemesis of his, government agent Gunther Butan (Andy Garcia), is closing in on the team.

Directed by James Foley, Confidence is nothing new when it comes to the last con, the last heist, the specialists working together genre. It's well-made, polished, and stylish to a point.  The problem is that it's very aware that it's polished and stylish in its execution.  It tries too hard to be a cool movie at times. The script is well-written -- even if there are some unexplained plot elements -- but relies heavily on the use of the word 'fuck' just for the sake of saying it.  None of this is to say I disliked the movie, but instead it's just something I noticed.  The best examples of successful movies like this just are cool. They don't need to try, and at times this is that movie that so desperately wants you to like it that it gets caught up in itself instead of just being a good movie.

As is so often the case with movies with some major flaws, a solid cast can be a saving grace even if the materiel isn't up to par. Burns is a surprisingly good choice to play Jake Vig, this very smooth, quick on his feet con man who can pull a job off because he's 20 steps ahead of you. He can lie, manipulate and steal like nobody's business, and you won't even know you've been had when he's done. Weisz is one of the best actresses around in Hollywood today so it's fun to see her do more of a commercial, mainstream role. Her looks never hurt either as she pulls off a great femme fatale part that film noirs would have been jealous of. Garcia is criminally underused but does his best with an underwritten part while Giamatti and Van Holt look to be having a lot of fun in parts that don't require them to do much. Also worth mentioning are Donal Logue and Luis Guzman as two LAPD cops on Jake's payroll, John Carroll Lynch as the new con's mark/target, Franky G as Lupus, King's henchman, and Morris Chestnut as a gunman looking for answers.

From the time he burst into movies in the late 1960s, Dustin Hoffman was a star. Now in 2011 or here in 2003, he's an icon, one of the great actors in the history of Hollywood.  Here as the King, he's playing a role that is mostly a glorified cameo that requires him to show up for three or four scenes all told.  He gets to ham it up playing this crime boss who we're not quite sure what he's involved in.  Hoffman plays so perfectly off of co-stars like Burns and Weisz that he raises their scenes up a level on his own.  His King is a frantic, hyper and ADHD, and a lot of fun to watch.

It is a movie about a con so you know a twist is coming in the finale. This is where the movie tries too hard attempting to pull the wool over the audience's eyes.  It's revealed so quickly all the twists and turns are wasted. The best reveals are the ones that lay out every little thing so we know what happened too.  Confidence gets so wrapped up in trying to trick us too that even after going back and watching the ending again, I'm still not sure exactly what was going on. The movie itself is entertaining and never boring.  But at just 97 minutes, there is way too much going on. Nothing is allowed to breathe and develop, meaning actors like Garcia and Giamatti are wasted in parts where they'd usually shine.  It is still a solid movie that's worth a watch, but don't expect a classic.

Confidence <---trailer (2003): ***/****

Papillon

When it comes to my favorite movie stars/actors, three come to mind in no particular order, John Wayne, Steve McQueen and Clint Eastwood.  I go through phases where I watch five or six of their movies really quickly, and I can always go back to these movies on repeated viewings.  At some point I realized it's somewhat odd my three selections because as big a star as all of them were, the trio all dealt with a similar criticism over their careers and in the case of Wayne and McQueen, even after their deaths.  Through their movies, critics claim they always played a variation on themselves, or in simpler terms, they weren't acting. They were just being themselves.

I think it's a ridiculous claim for all three stars, especially McQueen.  When I've talked to people who think he wasn't much of an actor -- more of a presence than anything -- the first movie I usually bring up is 1973's Papillon (with The Sand Pebbles close behind). Based on the real-life exploits of Henri Charriere, the deeply brooding, incredibly dark movie gives McQueen a chance to get deep into his own personal demons in a performance that you can't take your eyes off of. There are extended scenes and sequences that could serve as an example of how to dominate a movie doing very little at all.  It is by no means an easy movie to sit through, one that makes you incredibly uncomfortable at times, but one worth watching.

Convicted in a French court for the murder of a pimp, Frenchman Henri Charriere (McQueen) is sentenced to life in prison in the French Guiana prison system in South America, a notorious system where diseases, horrific conditions, sadistic guards, and a short life expectancy await him. Aboard the ship bound for the prison, Henri -- known as Papillon because of the butterfly tattoo on his chest -- meets Louis Dega (Dustin Hoffman), a fellow Frenchman and an infamous forger responsible for thousands of families losing their life savings. For a price, Papillon offers to serve as Dega's bodyguard because the little forger is a target for his money.  The two form an unlikely friendship as they near French Guiana, but no matter what awaits them, Papillon -- still claiming his innocence -- has no intention of staying long. Escape is on his mind, and no matter what the system does to him, he intends to make it out.

Charriere's autobiography is an extremely difficult book to read (I've tried twice and gotten no further than 100 pages) so formerly blacklisted screenwriter Dalton Trumbo has his work cut out for him. With a movie that clocks in at 151 minutes, his screenplay gets a chance to breathe.  It is still at times a frustrating movie because not everything is spelled out for us as viewers.  There are jumps in story, characters drift in and out, and over a decade has to be covered in the two and a half hours.  But it's all part of the package here with a finished movie that leaves you wanting more.  It is an eerily beautiful movie through all its depictions of what the human body and mind can survive when pushed to its absolute limit.

Up to this point in his career, McQueen had made a name for himself by playing the loner, the rebel, the anti-hero so it isn't a stretch for him to play a convicted murderer desperately trying to escape prison.  But that's too simplistic a description because this performance is so much more.  Charriere is a French safecracker who acquired a reputation in the Paris underworld as a man who could be trusted.  As he prepares for this new phase in his life though, he not only looks ahead in preparation for awaits him but what he's leaving behind.  Two quick dream sequences -- incredibly moody, unsettling scenes -- show a man who regrets how he got to this point, including one perfect line reading when a court says he's been found guilty of a wasted life.  Watch it HERE. McQueen's face drops, knowing the statement is true, and says softly 'Guilty.'

While his whole performance is worth watching and recommending over and over again, one specific scene comes to mind.  Captured after a failed escape attempt, Papillon is sentenced to two years in solitary confinement.  Watch part of it HERE. From 5:25 on, watch a true actor do his job as good as humanly possible.  In a cell about four feet across and eight feet long, there is nothing to distract from McQueen in the scene. This is a man at his absolute lowest who just won't give up, won't stop trying to survive when it would be so much easier to just lie down and stop. We're watching a man slowly losing his mind, slowly disintegrating right in front of us, and it is tragic to witness it.  As good as McQueen was in The Sand Pebbles, I don't know if he was ever stronger than he was right there in that solitary cell in Papillon.

So McQueen's great, and that's it, right?  Not so fast.  In a role that could have been easy for him to get tossed aside, Dustin Hoffman delivers a subtle, very moving part as Louis Dega, the smallish in stature but incredibly intelligent forger who becomes friends with Papillon.  Hoffman was on his way to being one of Hollywood's strongest, most gifted actors, and this part is definitely one that allows him to show off his many talents.  As for the rest of the cast, Don Gordon, Anthony Zerbe, Woodrow Parfrey, and Robert Deman all impress too with smaller parts. I also have to mention Jerry Goldsmith's musical score, especially the main theme (listen HERE), one of the composer's all-time best scores.

Papillon <---trailer (1973): ****/****

   

Runaway Jury

So you check the mail, and that dreaded letter appears, the one you fear finding...JURY SUMMONS!!!  Ah, the benefits of a democracy where accused crooks get to be tried by a jury of their peers.  Too bad about being on the jury though.  You get to meet all sorts of new idiots, get paid very little, and in general, are taken away from your everyday life.  That is unless you're on a jury in the movies.  There you get to meet Henry Fonda, save the world, and deal with all sorts of intrigue and deception behind the scenes of the courtroom trial, like 2003's Runaway Jury.

That description of course minimalizes the movie and the duty of being a jury member.  Based on a novel from courtroom master John Grisham, this 2003 thriller benefits from a very strong, very deep cast that turns in worthy performances from top to bottom.  The main idea of the novel/movie is one that should make you chuckle.  Someone actually wants to serve on a jury.  As for their motivations, I can't give everything away here.

After two years of pretrial, a court case is finally going to trial.  A lawyer, husband and father (an uncredited Dylan McDermott) is gunned down in his office along with 10 other employees.  The man's wife is suing the guns distributor with a famed prosecutor from New Orleans, Wendell Rohr (Dustin Hoffman), agreeing to take the case.  The arms companies understand that if this case is lost, they stand to lose possibly billions of dollars, and hire a specialist to make sure the verdict goes their way.  His name is Rankin Finch (Gene Hackman), and he specializes in blackmail and deception to get the right jury candidates on the jury and then use them to his advantage.  One juror, Nick Easter (John Cusack), isn't going to go along so easy though.  With help from his girlfriend Marlee (Rachel Weisz), Nick plans to blackmail Finch into paying for him to sway the jury.  Of course, the offer stands for Rohr too so whoever comes through with the $10 million gets his jury.

As I reviewed several weeks ago with Primal Fear, courtroom dramas translate incredibly well from play, novel, and TV to the big screen.  It's a setting that is naturally full of tension and nerves so when you throw a halfway decent script into a mix with a very deep cast, it can be hard to mess that formula up.  In a nice twist though, the courtroom drama is secondary here with the behind the scenes situation ending up being far more interesting.  Cusack's character starts off as this clueless dolt, and then you realize he's the one duping us all along.  But with girlfriend Marlee, are they looking for a huge payout or do they have ulterior motives with their actions?

That's where I was a little disappointed with this Gary Fleder-directed courtroom drama; the ending.  Easter and Marlee clearly know what they're doing and more than hold their own in these confrontations with the always-intimidating Gene Hackman.  You're honestly not sure of their intentions for much of the movie, but it's apparent they are not just in it for the money.  When their true motivations are revealed in the last 10 minutes, everything fits together nicely that can be wrapped up with a nice bow.  But there is something missing, and for me, the finale limps to the finish.  I won't call it sappy, but it certainly tries to pull at the heart strings.  It is not necessarily a bad ending, but not the one I envisioned.

Complain about whatever you'd like from this movie, but the casting is basically off-limits.  And with so many names, characters drift in and out, but almost each one is given their chance to shine.  The jury includes chameleon-like Cliff Curtis as an ex-Marine, Jennifer Beals, Nora Dunn, an uncredited Luis Guzman, and several other recognizable faces.  In the courtroom, Bruce McGill plays Judge Harkin, Bruce Davison plays defense lawyer Durwood Cable (doesn't he just sound bad?), and Jeremy Piven is a jury specialist working with Hoffman, and Stanley Anderson as the face of the guns distributors.  As two of the four main leads, Cusack and Weisz work well together, Weisz especially standing out from the crowd with her performance.

What really stuck with me though was the performances from Hoffman and Hackman, two of the biggest stars to come out of the late 1960s and then the 1970s.  Before this 2003 drama, the two had never worked together so it's a treat to see them in the same movie.  The problem though? Originally they weren't even supposed to have a scene together.  Problem solved when a quick rewrite had the two in a confrontation in a courthouse restroom that echoes De Niro and Pacino talking in Heat (the DVD special features discuss this in detail).  It's a scene full of great dialogue and a camera that never really stops moving, pushing the frenetic conversation to an even more anxious level.  Their performances on the whole stand out from the rest of the movie, but their scene together -- almost 7 minutes long -- is a big reason to watch this movie.

So overall a flawed courtroom drama, but one that is definitely worth looking into.  The story is set in New Orleans, and while location shooting doesn't always jive well with typically inside courtroom dramas, Fleder does show off the city when given the chance.  Above everything else -- including an ending that didn't blow me away -- the cast is the main reason to watch this one.

Runaway Jury <----trailer (2003): ***/****         

Kramer vs. Kramer

After the huge success of The Graduate, Dustin Hoffman put together a string of movies that are among the best that came out of the 1970s, movies like All the President's Men, Marathon Man, Papillon, Straw Dogs, and Little Big Man. But his best part from the decade came in 1979 in a performance that won him his first Academy Award as a single dad in Kramer vs. Kramer.

Coming home with great news from work, he's been given the biggest account the company holds, Ted Kramer (Hoffman) bursts through the door to tell his wife only to almost miss his wife's news. Joanna (Meryl Streep) has had enough of their marriage, doesn't think she's a good mother to 7-year old Billy (Justin Henry), and generally is in a bad place. She tells a completely baffled Ted that she's leaving him and Billy.

So with no way to stop her, Ted now becomes a single dad who has to raise his son, keep the apartment going, and also hold down a job where he's been given huge responsibilities. But after some early struggles, Ted and Billy get into a rhythm. They get up, eat breakfast together, and then Ted walks him to school each morning. At night, he picks him up at school and they do homework, play, read together. After almost 18 months of their new life, a problem arises, Joanna is back and wants custody of her boy. A custody battle ensues where all the dirty laundry comes out in the wash.

Should Joanna be given custody solely because she's the boy's mother even though she abandoned Billy? Or should Ted be given the benefit of the doubt since he's cared for Billy on his own for the last year and a half? The custody battle in court is a difficult section of the movie to watch because neither parent truly wants to rip the other one to shreds on the stand, but at the same time they both know it's what needs to happen if they hope to get custody of Billy. The decision the judge settles on doesn't make sense at all, but with the ending, everyone comes to their senses. And thank God for it, because I would have been pissed if the decision had stuck.

As two of their generations best actors, Hoffman and Streep both won Oscars for their performances. Streep disappears for much of the movie after she leaves her family so it's Hoffman's movie to carry. He doesn't disappoint, transforming into a father who knows every little thing about his son after only being partially involved in the boy's life for several years because of the work his job entails. Two scenes illustrate this change in a criminally simple fashion. The morning after Joanna leaves Ted scrambles to make Billy some french toast for breakfast. Without the gory details, let's say it doesn't go smoothly. Flash to 18 months later where Ted and Billy have it down to an art, the breakfast is made smooth with no incidents. It's a great way to illustrate the change the father and son have gone through.

While Hoffman and Streep were both nominated and won Oscars for their performances, 8-year old Justin Henry was only nominated for his part. Nowadays where child actors range from god awful to 'keep an eye on them in the future,' Henry is one of the most natural kids in a movie I've come across. He acts like a kid, talks like a kid, and comes across as completely believable. His interactions with Hoffman especially, Streep too though, bring the movie up a notch because I believed they were a family. Too bad he didn't win the Oscar because he fully deserved it.

As a mother torn about what to do with her life, Streep is only around for half the movie but leaves a lasting impression. She's trying to get her life in order at the cost of abandoning her son. Her decision to return shows Joanna realizes she made a mistake, but is too late for her? Here's her testimony at the custody hearing, SPOILERS. Out of the supporting cast, Jane Alexander has a good part as Margaret, a single mom who lives one floor down from the Kramers in their apartment building. She was Joanna's friend but becomes Ted's best friend after his wife leaves, the two bonding through their similar backgrounds.

Made in 1979, the movie has the look of a documentary. No crazy shots, no in your face filming, director Robert Benton just points the camera at the story and let's them go. As a viewer, you feel like a fly on the wall watching the Kramer family interact. It's a movie that almost swept its way through the Oscars, and for good reason. Kramer vs. Kramer can be a heartbreaking story but one with an ending that fits so perfectly.