Hour of the Gun

One of the seminal moments in American history, especially in the 19th Century, the gunfight at the O.K. Corral is synonymous with the wild, wild west. It was a gunfight that only lasted 15 or 20 seconds, but the men involved would became famous because of their actions. What about after the gunfight though? What happened next? That is a story that is far less well-known, but it gets a fascinating examination in a mostly forgotten 1967 western, Hour of the Gun.

It's October 26, 1881 in the Arizona silver boom-town of Tombstone. Deputy Marshal Wyatt Earp (James Garner), his two brothers, and their friend Doc Holliday (Jason Robards), are heading for a fight after a long-running, long-simmering feud with Ike Clanton (Robert Ryan) and his gang of gunmen, bandits and rustlers. A gunfight ensues with three men -- all outlaws -- killed while Wyatt's brothers are wounded. The fight does nothing to end the feud, only adding fuel to the fire. The immediate response begins in a courtroom as Wyatt, Doc and the Earp brothers are brought up on charges for their actions that led to the gunfight and then for outright murder. This won't be resolved with words though. Too much has passed between the two sides with too many deaths for it to be fixed so easily. Wyatt and Doc live by the gun as does Ike Clanton. Let the bullets fly and those who get caught in the way...so be it.

From the first time I saw 1993's Tombstone, I was fascinated not just by the gunfight at the OK Corral but what happened after it. Unless I'm missing a flick, this is the first western to dive in headfirst to the aftermath. An unofficial sequel from his film 10 years earlier, Gunfight at the OK Corral, director John Sturges turns in a dark, moody, character-driven angle of the story. There's gunplay but not a ton. The story condenses months and months of history into a tightly-packed 105-minutes but one that doesn't feel too rushed. It's a daunting extended stretch to handle but Sturges and writer Edward Anhalt do a pretty solid job condensing and tweaking and twisting here to make it more manageable.

Two years later, Sam Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch would kick open the door for the western, effectively starting the genre on a path that proved to be its doom. The spaghetti westerns started it, Peckinpah continued and the revisionist westerns of the 1970's finished it off. Where's 'Hour' fit? Somewhere in between. It isn't a revisionist western. It's just a straightforward, mostly honest, not heroic interpretation of the real-life events. There aren't heroes, just less unlikable individuals. Case in point is Garner's Wyatt, not the crisp, clean, honest lawman he's often portrayed as. Here, he's a hypocrite, blinded with rage and almost completely driven by it. Towns are run by the rich, everything depends on power and money, and that power depends on backstabbing, back-shooting and all sorts of underhanded dealings. This ain't no good guys in white hats vs. bad guys in black hats. A precursor of the things to come in the western genre.

In film or on television, James Garner has a reputation as a likable presence, a sympathetic hero so....it's awesome to see him take these darker roles, like 1970's A Man Called Sledge. As we've learned, Wyatt Earp wasn't necessarily the heroic, noble lawman he's often portrayed as. 'Hour' delves right into that concept. Here, he's a revenge-seeking murderer hiding behind a marshal's badge and a warrant for arrest. It's a fascinating character and not necessarily sympathetic. Garner doesn't disappoint with this darker role. Just wish he had done more roles like this!

The key relationship in all the Earp/Tombstone movies though is between Wyatt Earp, the law officer, and Doc Holliday, the gambling dentist slowly dying of tuberculosis. All Holliday performances pale in comparison to Val Kilmer in 1993's Tombstone, but Robards is pretty damn good and belongs in close second with Dennis Quaid in the otherwise painful Wyatt Earp. Robards does what he always does. He quietly steals all his scenes to the point you don't even realize he's doing it. His chemistry with Garner is impeccable, a friendship with more of an edge than we're used to seeing. Their arguments become heated to the point of lashing out violently. Through it all though, there's an unspoken bond between them, two loners, two outsiders who have found the unlikeliest of friends. Two excellent leading performances.

Beyond Ryan, 'Hour' is light on star power, but that's not a bad thing. Ryan's Ike Clanton is probably the most exaggerated part here with the movie Clanton not resembling the actual historical Clanton. Still, it's Robert Ryan in sneering, condescending villain mode, and that ain't a bad thing. Wyatt's misfit posse includes Monte Markham, William Windom and Lonny Chapman. Their targets include Michael Tolan, Robert Philips, Steve Inhat and a very young Jon Voight. Too many familiar faces from film and television to mention, but also look for Albert Salmi, Karl Swenson and Bill Fletcher among many others.

I can't quite put my finger on it, but I liked 'Hour' much more on this second viewing than the first (it had been at six or seven years). It isn't an easy western to watch, and doesn't do much to pull you in in any sort of obvious fashion. That said, there's just something about it. Filmed in Mexico with cinematographer Lucien Ballard (one of the all-time greats), the movie looks stunning. Throw in one of Jerry Goldsmith's more underrated scores and it all adds up. Listen to the score HERE. It's a familiar story by now, that of Wyatt Earp and the OK Corral, but this adult western holds together quite well. Highly recommended.

Hour of the Gun (1967): ***/****

Glory Road

As long as there are sports, I think there will always be unique, entertaining and well-told films about sports. The natural drama and tension translate well to the big screen, and all the better when the stories are true to history. Going for some timely reviews with the Final Four and National Championship game around the corner, but here goes with 2006's Glory Road.

A high school girls basketball coach, Don Haskins (Josh Lucas) is hired by Texas Western, a small Division I school in El Paso, to lead the men's basketball team. With virtually no budget, no facilities and no history to speak of as a program, Haskins has to think outside the box as he tries to assemble a team that can win some games. Not surprisingly, many highly touted/ranked players are interested in playing for the little school so Haskins starts to recruit African American athletes who are getting no interest from other DI schools. Just about everyone at the university bristles at the very thought, but Haskins doesn't care much what others think of him or his program. He gets the athletes to come out and play, but the odds are stacked against him. In the mid 1960s when black athletes were still a rarity in basketball, Haskins has seven black players on his roster.

From director James Gartner, 'Glory' is the true story of the 1965-1966 Texas Western men's basketball team that ultimately won the National Championship, defeating powerhouse Kentucky in the championship game. Read more about the team HERE.That in itself isn't hugely appealing, is it? Nah, it's how they did it. Utilizing an entirely black lineup, coach Don Haskin's team defeated an entirely white Kentucky team coached by coaching legend (and known racists) Adolph Rupp. Spoilers? Eh, sorry, I figured if you made into the third paragraph of a sports review, you knew the history. My bad. It was a strategy, a season, and ultimately, a game that changed the face and direction of college basketball. It revolutionized how the game was played, something that still has quite an impact on basketball today in 2013.

Telling the story from the angle of the players and coaches, 'Glory' follows Haskins' hiring through his recruitment, preseason, season and ultimately the NCAA tournament. Clocking in at 110 minutes (hold the credits), it tackles quite the large topic, racism (even civil rights on a bigger level) in a rather turbulent time in American history. Black players dealt with death threats, racist chants and "cheers," any number of horrific things. At times, 'Glory' goes down the heavy-handed route to show us the prejudices they faced. It gets almost tiring to the point it's exhausting as the season develops. Is this how it happened in real-life during the season? Unfortunately, yes, very much so. Racism -- small scale or a bigger scale -- is horrific, but watching it doesn't always make for an enjoyable story. Interesting? Yes, but uncomfortable to the point it takes away from the enjoyment.

Playing real historical figures -- real figures who are still alive at that -- can be a daunting task, but the performances here are solid. As Hall of Fame coach Don Haskins, Lucas makes the most of a familiar part; the coach trying to get his players to gel and be the best they can. Emily Deschanel is solid as Don's wife, Mary, dealing with the prejudice/racism on the home front. Evan Jones plays Don's nerdy assistant, Moe, while Red West is a scene-stealer as Ross Moore, a longtime basketball and strength coach with the weathered face and years of knowledge. And in a small part, Jon Voight is solid as legendary Kentucky coach Adolph Rupp.   

And then there's the players, both good and bad. The movie runs under two hours and has a lot of characters to deal with. Texas Western's team includes Bobby Joe Hill (Derek Luke), a skilled guard out of Detroit, David Lattin (Schin A.S. Kerr), a bullish, skilled forward from Houston, Orstin Artis (Alphonso McAuley), a Gary, Indiana YMCA kid with flash but not fundamentals, Harry Flournoy (Mehcad Brooks), a strong-willed all-around player from Gary, Willie Worsley (Sam Jones III), a fiery little guard from Brooklyn, Willie Cager (Damaine Radcliff), an energetic, skilled worker from Brooklyn, and Nevil Shed (Al Shearer), a gifted player from Brooklyn without the toughness. The white players on the team are generally kept in the background, Austin Nichols and James Olivard being the most visible. With so many characters, they come across at times like cardboard cutouts. They're given issues to deal with -- distracting girlfriends, toughness, work ethic, health issues, overly emotional -- in an effort to humanize them.

There's something missing here in 'Glory' that prevents it from being a classic that I can't put my finger on. The history is generally portrayed accurately with some artistic license taken on how the games are portrayed. The movie scores are vastly different from some of the real-life games. Yeah yeah, I get it, drama over accuracy. As well, the basketball scenes feel rushed and much more like a 2006 style than a 1966 style. If I'm wrong so be it, but I don't think there was a lot of alley-oop dunks or off the backboard passes for throwdowns. Still, it's a good underdog story overall. If it doesn't rise to classic status, so be it.

Glory Road (2006): ***/****

Varsity Blues

So everyone loves football, right? Professional, college, high school, Pee-Wee, it doesn't matter, fans love their pigskin. How about little towns dotted across America that live and die with their high school football teams? I'm looking at you, Texas, but there are obviously others. How about a guilty pleasure look at a small Texas town like that. Yep, it's a lousy movie, but I remember it fondly, 1999's Varsity Blues.

In the Texas town of West Canaan, coach Bud Kilmer (Jon Voight) reigns above all else. In his 30-plus years on the sidelines of the West Canaan High School football team, Kilmer has won 22 district championships and two state championships to the point he is a local hero that can do no wrong. Gunning for his 23rd district title, Kilmer seems to have the perfect team to pull it off, especially with Florida State-bound quarterback Lance Harper (Paul Walker) at the helm. But with his team rolling and the end of the season in sight, Lance goes down a horrific knee injury, forcing backup quarterback Johnny 'Mox' Moxon (James Van Der Beek) to step in at QB. Mox doesn't think much of Kilmer's bullying, manipulative ways and buckles at any sort of authority. How will the season come to an end? Can coach and backup quarterback figure something out in time?

When this movie from director Brian Robbins came out in 1999, I was the ripe old age of 14. I was a freshman in high school, and although I didn't see it in theaters, I clearly remember watching it on VHS/DVD when it came out. Is it a good movie? Hell no, it's the definition of a guilty pleasure. For me, there's a bit of nostalgia in it now some 14 years later. It plays like one big cliche -- one piled on top of each other -- but it is entertaining throughout. From MTV Films, it is a sports movie aimed clearly at teenagers. We get lots of crazy high school shenanigans from football game on Friday nights to postgame drinking parties, the immaculately cool QB, the slutty head cheerleader, the misused black running back, the crazy receiver, and the general goofiness of high school. It's not a great script, resorting back to cliches, the genre conventions of the sports/underdog movie.

So go figure then.........but I like the movie just the same. The shame is there's some real potential for a legitimately good movie. I call that movie 2004's Friday Night Lights, the true story of the Odessa-Permian football team during the 1988 season. Where 'Night' delivers, 'Varsity' almost gets there. In telling the story of a small town that lives and dies each week with its football team, we get some spooky, realistic glimpses of a town bordering on crazy. Voight chews the scenery like nobody's business (and does it well), ruling West Canaan with an iron fist because...........well, because he wins football games. The town shuts down for Friday night games, the players are heroes around town, fathers who used to play for Kilmer now live vicariously through their sons, and the weight of a town rests on their shoulders. It's all a little too much in execution, lacking a little thing called subtlety, but the potential is there for the picking.

Rewatching this movie for the first time in years, I came away with a new opinion on 'Varsity.' I've never been a huge fan of Van Der Beek -- I avoided Dawson's Creek like the plague for years -- but his leading part as very intelligent but very rebellious backup QB Johnny Moxon is one of the most unlikable lead characters I can think of in a movie. I guess we're supposed to be rooting for him, but he comes across as this pseudo-intellectual, preppy doofus who wants out of West Canaan. He's overly confident to the point of being cocky, and I was never really in his corner. Thrust into the starting QB position, it seems fair that any high schooler would embrace the spotlight. Sound fair? Yep, but star QB or maligned backup, I never actually liked the character..........so it's got that going for it. His scenes with girlfriend, Jules (Amy Smart), also provides some low-quality, painful after school special-esque scenes.

Thankfully, the rest of the cast picks up the slack. They're all ultra-cliched parts that could be cardboard cutouts from other sports movies, but what are you expecting from an MTV Films football flick? Walker shows that in 2013, he has significantly improved as an actor since 1999. The other players include Billy Bob (Ron Lester), the morbidly obese but fun-loving booze machine offensive lineman with concussions, Wendell (Eliel Swinton), the talented running back who Kilmer doesn't let score because he's black, and Tweeder (Scott Caan), the boozing, sex-obsessed, goofy, crazy screw-up and star wide receiver. Also look for Ali Larter as the slutty cheerleader (and her infamous whip cream bikini), Thomas F. Duffy as Mox's football-obsessed father, and Tonie Perensky as Miss Davis, the sex ed teacher with a secret. 

If I didn't know better -- and that's highly debatable -- I'd say looking back on the review that I'm not much of a fan the classic film that is Varsity Blues. That isn't true of course. Yes, the football scenes are laughable with some awfully dumb decisions made. It's easy to look past that though. We need an excuse to have a slow-motion football scene set to Foo Fighter's My Hero. Stupid? Yes. Awesome? FOO FIGHTERS! SLOW MOTION!  It's all ridiculous, capping with an expertly well-written 'Where does everyone end up?' narration. That's sarcasm by the way. It's an awful movie, but a fun one.

Varsity Blues (1999): ** 1/2 /****

Return to Lonesome Dove

Based off a novel by author Larry McMurtry (one of my all-time favorite books) in 1985 and turned into a wildly successful TV miniseries in 1989, Lonesome Dove is one of the all-time greats. Great characters, story, scope and scale, it has few rivals in the canon of miniseries. Some four years later in 1993 an unofficial sequel, Return to Lonesome Dove, was released, one McMurtry supposedly hated to the point he altered his official sequel like he was thumbing his nose. Oh, this should be good.

Having completed his mission for his friend, Gus, back in Texas, former Texas Ranger Woodrow Call (Jon Voight) undertakes another daring, almost impossible task. With his cattle ranch back in Montana focusing on the cattle herd, Call intends to drive a herd of mustangs north, breeding the horses with the best animal stock he can find. With help from another former Texas Ranger, Gideon Walker (William Petersen), and a veteran cowboy, Isom Pickett (Louis Gossett Jr.), Call readies a herd. Back in Montana at the Hat Creek ranch, Newt Dobbs (Rick Schroder) is doing his best to keep the ranch going. When he receives a telegram from Call, he heads south to meet with Clara Allen (Barbara Hershey) at her ranch. What awaits them all will not come easy as rustlers, outlaws, range wars and even good old-fashioned greed rear their ugly head.

First off, this 1993 sequel isn't Lonesome Dove. No miniseries could replicate the original's success on basically every single level. To be fair, the original didn't need a sequel of any sort, but here we sit. McMurtry wrote an official sequel to Lonesome Dove the same year as this TV follow-up, Streets of Laredo, that was apparently the author's less than pleased response to this miniseries. He hated it and ended up writing a book that seemed needlessly hateful, even spiteful, in wiping out characters, making some characters make ridiculous jumps that were based in no reality whatsoever. I read the book (and watched that miniseries) because I loved the characters. It was a disappointing, unnecessary follow-up. Did McMurtry think this 1993 series was just a chance for some easy money for a studio and TV? Maybe, but you know what else? It works in a big way.

Let me say it again. This isn't Lonesome Dove. What is it then? Fans of the 1989 miniseries shouldn't be disappointed. I came away very impressed and ended up loving it. It is a well-written, well-acted story that picks up logically where the story left off. My biggest concern was 'What's the point?' The characters didn't necessarily need more resolution. My worries were unfounded. Director Mike Robe and script writer John Wilder -- for lack of a better description -- do the characters right. They do the story right. It has it all; action, romance, sweep and scale to boot. While it's a personal story that succeeds because we like the characters, it's also a big, sweeping story about the taming of the west. It wasn't easy, and people died in the process (good and bad people alike). A couple different things aid the success here. 'Return' was filmed in Montana and Texas, and it is a beautiful miniseries to watch from beginning to end. The biggest thing though is composer Ken Thorne "tweaking" of the score from the original by Basil Poledouris. That music is like another character being transitioned from one miniseries to the next. Listen to a sample of the music HERE.

The actor with the biggest shoes to fill here is without question Jon Voight, replacing Tommy Lee Jones in a career-best performance as Woodrow Call. This is a tremendously layered character, one who can be infuriating to watch one second, and the next you can't help but feel for him. Strong, resolute, and living by a personal code of honor, Call expects others to do the same....and is typically disappointed by them. I was suspicious of the Voight casting, and early on, I wasn't a huge fan. But as the movie goes along, I grew to like the performance more and more. I came away vastly impressed with what Voight was able to do, making the character his own. Replacing Angelica Houston, Hershey too does an admirable job as Clara Allen, the tough as nails horse trader living near Ogallala, Nebraska who has to deal with all sorts of history with Woodrow. Two pairs of big shoes to fill, but both actors fill them admirably.

I thought the best thing going for this miniseries though was the return of Rick Schroeder to play young cowboy Newt Dobbs. A boy growing into manhood in 'LD,' he is a man now, but trying to learn and figure out what kind of man he really is. With the taming of the west, it's a great character to see these changes in as everything around him changes. We're seeing him grow up in front of us. His main subplot involves a rival cattle rancher in Montana, Gregor Dunnigan (Oliver Reed), who becomes a father figure of sorts to him. There's a Shakespearean/mythological edge to the relationship with Gregor's young wife, Ferris (Reese Witherspoon), seeing something she likes in young Newt. Also returning from the original are Chris Cooper as July Johnson, former sheriff now working at Clara's ranch, and Tim Scott as Pea Eye Parker, a former ranger who's long worked with Call and the Hat Creek outfit. Scott is given far more screentime and is a scene-stealer every minute he's in front of the camera. Other returnees include Barry Tubb, William Sanderson and David Carpenter as Jasper, Lippy and Needle, three more Hat Creek cowboys.

If there is an issue with this miniseries, it's that there are a lot of different storylines covered in four episodes. Yes, they criss-cross here and there, but there are a lot of characters and stories to be dealt with. You're going to love some more than others. I certainly did, although I liked them all. My favorite beyond Newt's story was the focus on the mustang herd being driven north from Texas. Playing a character similar to Robert Duvall's Gus, Petersen is a breath of fresh air as Gideon Walker, my favorite new character to the story. Gossett Jr. is underused but still very good as Isom with CCH Pounder as his wife, Sarah, along for the drive with their two children. The cowboys include mostly Mexican vaqueros led by Agostina Vega (Nia Peeples), a young Mexican woman looking for something from Call. Also look for Dennis Haysbert as one nasty villain, Cherokee Jackson, a half-breed outlaw who keeps crossing the herd's trail. Reginald T. Dorsey also a cool if small part as Isaac, Isom's brother leading the mustangs north.

Because the story does have so much going on, the 5 hour and 45-minute running time never really lags. That doesn't mean that some parts aren't better than others. Not surprisingly, the best is saved for the finale. It is an incredibly moving finale, including one absolutely gut-wrenching scene between Voight's Call and Schroder's Newt. It's the scene you wanted to see at the end of Lonesome Dove only to have it never come to fruition. As is though, this is a nearly perfect ending. It's a great capper to a great miniseries, a worthy addition to a great series in general.

Return to Lonesome Dove (1993): *** 1/2 /****

Mission: Impossible

Counting down the days to the fourth M:I movie, dubbed Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol, and thought it was as good a time as any to look back on the movie that started this highly successful franchise, 1996's Mission: Impossible. An espionage thriller with top-notch action, it's still the best of the M:I movies....for now. Let's see how Ghost Protocol goes, but the fourth entry has its work cut out for it.

Leading an operation in Prague, MIF agent Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) sees his team ambushed and murdered during the mission. Meeting a supervisor in the bloody aftermath, Hunt realizes he's been set up, made to look like a treacherous mole who's been working against MIF for years. Now he must find out who set him up. With the only surviving member of his team, Claire (Emmanuelle Beart), and two similarly disavowed MIF agents, Luther Stickell (Ving Rhames) and Kreiger (Jean Reno), Hunt goes on the offensive. He seeks out the actual mole by going through his only link, a black market arms dealer, Max (Vanessa Redgrave), who wants one thing and is willing to pay heavily for it; a list of all undercover MIF agents worldwide. Now Ethan has to decide how far he wants to go to prove his innocence.

I'm not particularly proud of that plot synopsis, but I think it's the best I'm going to do. It took me two or three viewings to even understand the plot in the late 90s, and that's about all the information I can give without revealing too much. What do you need to take away from that plot? Ethan Hunt needs to do some impossible things to set up a meeting with the traitor who set him up. That's the movie in a nutshell. An actual understanding of that story would be unnecessary. It's good, old fashioned secret agent fun. Go along with it, and if you're like me, at some point the story will click into place.

This is Tom Cruise at his best. The man is a legitimately good actor, but he seems most at ease in these types of movies; popcorn movies with great characters, greater action and ludicrous action sequences that let him show off his physical ability. Like he would do four years later in M:I2, Cruise does most if not all of his stunts here. He's intense, believable and because this is a secret agent requirement....he's impeccably cool. It doesn't hurt to have some fellow bad-asses around, especially Ving Rhames as Luther Stickell, computer hacker to top all hackers, and Jean Reno as Kreiger, a livewire who is as unpredictable as the missions they're on.

A good action movie -- espionage or just straight crazy ridiculous shootouts and hand to hand combat -- needs one thing to be memorable; set pieces that rise above the movie. Mission: Impossible has three, dominating much of the movie's 110-minute running time. Let's start at the beginning. The first 30 minutes is the botched mission in Prague, setting a tone where nothing will be predictable (okay, maybe a little, more on that later). Ethan's team (including uncredited parts for Emilio Estevez and Kristin Scott Thomas) is wiped out in one of the great shocking openings ever. It's just different. You figure we're watching a team of agents we'll get to see, and then BAM! They're all dead. One of my favorite movie openings ever.

That's just for starters though. Mid-movie, Ethan and Co. infiltrate CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia in a sequence that all action directors should watch and analyze. Dropping into an impregnable vault that is virtually inaccessible with sensors for heat, sound and movement, Ethan must steal the NOC list, the names and locations of every MIF agent worldwide. An extended sequence with little dialogue, it is the definition of tension, the type of mission where the tiniest thing could ruin it all. And the ending? A chase through the subway under the English Channel with a helicopter strapped to the speeding train? Ethan battling it out on top? EPIC. One, two and three very memorable set pieces when just one would have made it worthwhile.

Some twists late in the movie aren't exactly surprising if you're paying attention, but the reveal of the treacherous mole is handled so well via flashback you shouldn't be disappointed. Rounding out the cast is Jon Voight as Phelps, Ethan's long-time mentor and team leader, and the always creepy Henry Czerny as Kittridge, the CIA agent gunning for Ethan. What else to mention? Action-driving music from Danny Elfman, including the always fun M:I theme, listen HERE. Director Brian De Palma has a real winner here, a great start to a great franchise. I don't want to spoil much, but starting HERE Youtube offers nine different key clips. Can Ghost Protocol be out now?!?

Mission: Impossible <---trailer (1996): *** 1/2 /****

The Rainmaker (1997)

The name John Grisham is synonymous with courtroom dramas and legal thrillers. There is A Time to Kill, The Firm, Runaway Jury, Pelican Brief, The Rainmaker and The Client to name a few. I've only read one Grisham novel -- A Painted House, his departure from the courtroom ironically enough -- but his stories translate well to film. There is a natural drama to courtroom proceedings that just works well, especially with 1997's The Rainmaker, a drama that isn't flashy or showy, just a well-made, polished story.

The different elements that are all over the place here somehow find a way to click and gel together. Some of that can no doubt be chalked up to Grisham's familiarity and ease with his story and characters which smooth out any number of rough patches. The director here is Francis Ford Coppola, he of The Godfather series, who I wouldn't picture in a courtroom story. Rising star Matt Damon is aided by a pitch-perfect supporting cast with Elmer Bernstein providing a somewhat odd, blues/jazz mix for his soundtrack. It isn't a great movie, and maybe it isn't even a very good movie, but it is GOOD from the get-go.

Fresh out of law school in Memphis, Rudy Baylor (Damon) takes a job with ambulance chasing lawyer Bruiser Stone (Mickey Rourke) while he waits to pass the Bar exam. Working with insurance agent and attempted lawyer, Deck Shifflet (Danny DeVito), Rudy sees the writing on the wall and knows Bruiser is about to get taken down by the FBI. With Deck, he starts his own small firm. Their only case comes from a lower classic family, the Blacks, including mother Dot (Mary Kay Place) and son, Donny Ray (Johnny Whitworth), who is dying of leukemia. The Blacks' insurance company is denying their claim, but Rudy takes on the case -- his first -- in hopes of bringing the suffering family some peace. He's forced to learn on the fly, especially with his opponent, Leo Drummond (Jon Voight), an experienced, smart, tricky and veteran lawyer looking to take him to pieces.

So we can all agree lawyers suck, right? Okay, that's harsh. Maybe only like 96% of them. Movies have a chance and a way of humanizing them, especially here in the eyes of young, inexperienced lawyer Rudy. You need an underdog in a story like this, and Damon's Rudy supplies it in spades. While intelligent and book smart, he doesn't necessarily know the ins and outs of being a lawyer, the courtroom basics an experienced lawyer would take for granted. Damon's narration is at its best in its simplicity, a young man questioning the system he so wants to be a part of. For all the good it is intended to do, the judicial system is flawed in countless ways, something Rudy finds out quickly. It isn't just right and wrong anymore. It's about winning and losing plain and simple with plenty of money on the line. Innocent and even a little naive, Damon does a great job with this character, a sign of the acting ability we've come to appreciate in the years since.

How good is the cast here? Danny Glover plays the judge trying the case, a civil rights supporter and opponent of big business, and the man isn't even credited. DANNY GLOVER! DeVito gets a showier part -- if a background one -- as Deck, the almost-lawyer who still has a slimy veneer to him even when you can't help but like him and his nose for getting in and out of trouble. Voight is perfect as Leo Drummond, the snake oil lawyer who knows every trick in the business. Place, Whitworth and Red West give the movies its heart as the Black family, their scenes touching and heartbreaking as the story develops. Not enough for you? There's also Rourke, Virginia Madsen as a key witness, Dean Stockwell as an old school judge, Teresa Wright as Rudy's client and landlady, Roy Scheider as a CEO who could make or break the case, and even country singer Randy Travis in a great bit part as a potential juror. Good enough for you?

I liked this movie, but as I write this review I'm struggling to come up with reasons why. Thanks to shows like Law and Order and its countless spin-offs, the courtroom drama is far from original anymore. It seems stupid to be critical of a movie released almost 15 years ago for things that have happened since, but there it is. This Coppola-directed courtroom drama is the equivalent of comfort food. You have a good sense of what's going on, the semi-twists that will eventually be revealed, and in the end...well, let's not go there.  The movie and story are in their comfort zone in the court scenes with an easygoing sense of where they want to go and what they want to accomplish. Damon and Voight play off each other nicely with Glover and DeVito making their impact known as needed. The out-of-court scenes tend to meander a bit, but the movie always rights itself when needed.

The only real complaint I have for the movie, and the one part I genuinely didn't like was a subplot with Damon's Rudy and a client of his, Kelly (Claire Danes), a young wife married to an abusive husband (Andrew Shue). Rudy instantly develops feelings for her, wanting to save her from almost certain doom at the hands of her husband. In an effort to develop Rudy more as a character (unnecessary if you ask me), I felt like the story went down an easy path that Grisham is just better than. The story doesn't dwell too long on these scenes, but the damage is done early. Not a deal breaker, but it does bring the movie down a notch or two.

I'm struggling here. I don't know what else to say. I liked this movie if I didn't love it. Not bad at all, but it never reaches that level of courtroom drama classic. Solid if not so flashy directing from Coppola, and an all-star cast that does not disappoint, but it's just missing something overall. Still worth checking out though.

The Rainmaker <---trailer (1997): ***/****

Uprising

Thanks to Andrzej Wajda's World War II trilogy -- especially 1957's Kanal -- I feel like I've got a better grasp of the Warsaw Ghetto and the Warsaw uprising of 1944. Watch enough WWII movies and read enough books about the war and you're going to hear about the Warsaw Ghetto because of the immensity of the place and the thousands of people who lived there.  But it is a part of history and WWII that so often gets lost in the background, overshadowed by major campaigns and important players in the war. Part of that you can chalk up to a story that in its historical accuracy is not going to appeal to the masses.

The Polish take on the Ghetto is one thing, but in a bigger picture Holocaust movies are going to find success in niches among audience members. An NBC TV miniseries originally shown in 2011, Uprising is one of the few ventures into the true story of the Warsaw Ghetto and the subsequent uprising in 1944 as the Polish Jews rebelled against their German occupiers. Like so many war stories, there will be no happy ending, and that's part of the appeal to me. It's honest, it's depressing, and it tells a story that couldn't be faked.  There are historical inaccuracies, generalizations made for the sake of time and simplicity, but the heart of the story works, and that's the most important thing.

It's 1939 and Adolf Hitler's Germany army sweeps across Poland, forcing a surrender within a month. In Warsaw, over 350,000 Polish Jews are forced to move into a ghetto where they are kept apart from the city at large in a walled-off portion of the city under German guard. Among the thousands of Jews is Mordechai Anielewicz (Hank Azaria), a musician and teacher, and Antek (David Schwimmer), an intellectual and long-time friend of Mordechai. The months turn into years and both men -- among thousands of other people -- grow tired of their German occupiers while the head of the Jewish council, Adam Czerniakow (Donald Sutherland), struggles to fight for the rights of the Jews. A Jewish resistance mounts in the city to fight off the German soldiers, but the German high command sends an officer, General Jurgen Stoop (Jon Voight), into Warsaw to wipe out the rebellion to a man.

Generally historically accurate with a few detours here and there toward poetic license, Uprising at its best gets the heart and message right. The Polish Jews were not alone in their efforts as is shown, receiving help from outside forces into the Polish underground.  The point of the story though was to show the bravery, the courage, and the persistence shown by the Polish Jews in the face of almost certain defeat.  Heavily outnumbered, under-supplied and fighting a losing battle, the resistance fought on for over 40 days before finally being overrun and ultimately defeated.  Courage is one thing, but maintaining that courage when staring death in the face takes it to a whole other level.  They fought on when they could have abandoned the cause. Thousands paid for that decision with their lives, digging their heels in and fighting back.

The TV miniseries isn't as popular as it was in the late 1970s and 1980s, but it is still that great middle ground between an hour-long TV show and a feature film.  A positive you can always take away is the ability to assemble strong casts for more speaking roles than you might see in a typical movie. Uprising may not have the star quality, but the cast turns in solid, all-around performances. Azaria and Schwimmer are the leads, stepping up to the plate as the resistance leaders.  Among the other resistance fighters are Leelee Sobieski as a young woman, the last surviving member of her family, Stephen Moyer as Kazik, the jokester, fighter and ladies man to go with Sadie Frost, Radha Mitchell, Eric Lively, Alexandra Holden, John Ales, and Andy Nyman as a Jewish police officer working with the resistance. Sutherland and Voight have parts that are cameos more than major parts with Cary Elwes playing a German filmmaker making a documentary about the Ghetto.

With the exception of the premium cable channels, TV can be censored within an inch of its life. My worry going in to this miniseries was exactly that, a story of a part of the Holocaust that would be as vanilla and boring as humanly possible.  No worries here because this miniseries did not pull any punches.  The story is dark, filthy and cynical. The firefights back and forth are bloody and surprisingly graphic for a show aired on national TV. Not just blood for the sake of blood either, the battles are moving. You see the characters develop and change over the course of years. At times, the portrayals are a little much, making the Poles the saintly individuals with no flaws and the Germans as the sadistic, irredeemable pigs. It's a little stereotypical, but the portrayal of the Germans wasn't too far-fetched. It doesn't feel like a miniseries though, and that's always a good thing.

Clocking in at just under three hours, director Jon Avnet manages to cram five years worth of story into 177 minutes. For the most part, he does a good job balancing it out, spending a half hour or so establishing everything and then quickly jumping right into the resistance effort and eventually the Warsaw Uprising.  The pacing is good, always moving along and always entertaining. There are only a few instances where things feel rushed, but one of them ends up being a major flaw. The explanation is going to have some major SPOILERS though so be forewarned.

The uprising eventually turns toward the Germans as the resistance is eventually overwhelmed. Azaria's Mordechai and the remaining members of his company are cornered in an underground bunker while others narrowly escape into the ruined streets above. Sobieski's Tosia leads an escape while the others await the German attack. The only problem? We don't see it...at all.  There's not even a flashback of the attack, a quick montage, a couple shots of their dead bodies much less the actual attack. Azaria is the main character yet he's dispatched off-screen with no explanation. Was the movie running too long? Was something cut? He deserved better, and it seems like a missed effort. As a tribute to the character and the resistance, I feel like as a viewer we needed to see these valiant freedom fighters in their last ditch effort.

It's nothing by any means that derails the movie, just a complaint. The ending is a downer, but with a touch of an uplifting note.  As heavy as the casualties were on both sides in the uprising, there were Polish Jew survivors, just not many. Not always spot-on in terms of accuracy, Uprising still manages to get the message across, the spirit of the Polish resistance.  An underrated, well-handled miniseries dealing with one of history's generally forgotten tragic chapters.

Uprising <---Youtube clips (2001): ***/****

The Odessa File

Even knowing that they are true, it can be hard to comprehend the actions committed by the German SS in World War II involving the Holocaust, the concentration camps, and in general, war crimes on an epically large scale. Literally millions of people died at their hands in hopes of creating a master race of Aryans, and no matter what was said, they knew they were doing something wrong. As the war turned and a German defeat became inevitable, many of the highest ranking SS officers made preparations for new lives, leaving their old, highly checkered pasts behind them. What did they do with their new lives? Author Frederick Forsyth went into the topic with a 1972 novel that two years later was turned into a feature length film, 1974's The Odessa File.

I'm a huge fan of movies (if you hadn't figured that out), and an equally big fan of any sort of reading. I think one of the great treats is reading a book/novel, and then finding out that it was turned into a movie, especially a book you enjoyed a lot. You wonder how will it translate? Will it live up to expectations? What changes were made?  Does the visual in your head while you read match the screen version? Unfortunately in the examples I can think of, the film rarely lives up to the novel.  Just too much has to be sacrificed, and the movie suffers because of it. That was my biggest complaint with The Odessa File, and one odd example of bad casting.

A young German freelance journalist, Peter Miller (Jon Voight) stumbles into the diary of a concentration camp survivor at the camp at Riga. Living in 1963 Germany, Miller has seen the horrors of the war brushed out of the public view too often and is horrified at what he reads about Riga's commandant, dubbed 'the Butcher, Eduard Roschmann (Maximilian Schell). Convinced there's a story in the diary, Miller begins to investigate, seeing if he can find any trace of the long since disappeared SS officer. He begins to find clues that point to Roschmann still being very much alive, but has he dug himself into a hole? Someone seems very interested in keeping Roschmann's identity safe, and the life of one journalist isn't enough to stop them.

Like the other Forsyth novels I've read -- Day of the Jackal and The Dogs of War -- I very much enjoyed The Odessa File. It's the kind of low-key thriller that picks up momentum and intensity along the way, building to something you can't quite put your finger on.  When the reveal/surprise does come, it doesn't disappoint either. The premise is great, a well-organized and well-funded group protecting the identities of former SS officers and soldiers in a worldwide network that boggles the mind. Stumbling into this, Miller is almost immediately in over his head, and it is his head on the chopping block if something goes wrong.  Director Ronald Neame certainly has his work cut out for him because Forsyth's style isn't always movie-friendly, but he makes a go at it.

As an author, Forsyth is obsessed (in a good way) with the details, the little things that make a story feel authentic. That doesn't always work in a movie where the details are the first to go.  Even at 130 minutes, 'Odessa' is both a little long and too short.  What's there isn't always very interesting, and what was cut out could probably have done a good job of fleshing the movie out some.  Instead, there's little sense of urgency or fear. An organization of former Nazis is hunting you down, and this is the best you can do in terms of making an audience feel uncomfortable? Because of the cuts to the story, Voight's Miller hops around too much with too many things going unexplained.  I read the book just a week before watching the movie, and at times felt lost.

When reading a book, my head just naturally starts imagining what certain characters look like.  That's typically one of my biggest problems with film versions; the stars never match up with the image in my head. So goes Jon Voight as German freelance journalist Peter Miller in a case of miscasting.  I'm not a huge fan of Voight to begin with, but he just wasn't the right choice to play this character. Physically, he doesn't look anything like the book's protagonist, and his attempt at a German accent is just bad.  Worst of all though, he turns an interesting character into a bland one. Schell as Roschmann doesn't have a big part, but he certainly makes it memorable in his brief but effective scenes. Also look out for Derek Jacobi as an Odessa forger, Mary Tamm as Sigrid, Peter's girlfriend, and Shmuel Rodensky as famed Nazi hunter Simon Weisenthal among many others in an ensemble cast.

Both the novel and the movie claim that the story is based in the truth with a real-life ODESSA organization helping former Nazis and SS create new lives for themselves (certain names and places changed obviously). The novel's ending (including a great twist delivered by Miller) is appropriate and authentic to the real-life and fictional characters if not exactly a happy ending. The movie rewrites history somewhat in an ending that disappointed me, mostly because it ties everything up nicely when the effort just wasn't needed. The film version on the whole makes some odd choices, handicapping an otherwise interesting set-up and premise. Not horrible at all, but stick with the book.

The Odessa File <---trailer (1974): **/****

National Treasure: Book of Secrets

Ah, the sequel, where movie studios go for what they hope is a sure thing with audiences. But with a few exceptions, like Empire Strikes Back and Godfather II, the sequels are never on par with the originals which are often enough classics in their own rights. Now I won't go as far as saying the first National Treasure movie is a classic, but it sure was entertaining. So 3 years after the original, NT: Book of Secrets came was released to even bigger business.

Looking at successful sequels, the key has to be doing just enough new stuff while keeping the spirit and casting of the original intact. 'Secrets' tries to improve on a lot of things while still dealing with a historical subject as Benjamin Franklin Gates (Nicolas Cage) once again tries to unravel a mystery that could lead to a supposedly mythological treasure. Along with Cage, all of the cast from the original is back, something that's always nice to see. And why wouldn't they come back? It's a sure thing in terms of the $, but for whatever reason, actors/actresses always want to branch out from successful franchises.

As for the additions, director Jon Turteltaub follows the Bourne movie formula, when you have a new character, cast one of the best actors available in Hollywood. So here we get Academy Award winner Helen Mirren, Academy Award nominated Ed Harris, and always reliable Bruce Greenwood joining an already impressive cast and blending in seamlessly. These are the types of roles that will never add any awards to the trophy cases, but instead the roles that the actors are clearly having fun with. It's the type of thing that shows so clearly on-screen and helps bring the movie up a notch.

Several years since the original discovery of a huge historical treasure, Benjamin Franklin Gates (Cage) is on the touring circuit talking about his ancestor, Thomas Gates, and his involvement with the Lincoln assassination and his chance meeting with John Wilkes Booth. But at one presentation, Mitch Wilkinson (Harris) presents a missing page from Booth's diary claiming that Thomas was the architect of the assassination plot. So teaming up with sidekick Riley Poole (Justin Bartha), his dad Patrick (Jon Voight), and ex-girlfriend Abigail (Diane Kruger), Benjamin goes about proving his great-grandfather's innocence.

The trail once again takes them all over the world with pit stops in Paris, London (including sneaking into the Queen's study at Buckingham Palace), George Washington's home at Mount Vernon, Washington D.C. and even Mount Rushmore. Benjamin figures the only way to prove Thomas' innocence is to find the treasure he kept from falling into Confederate hands, but some key evidence could be in the 'book of secrets,' a book passed down from President to President with essential info, things like Area 51, the Kennedy assassination, and Watergate. Hot on their trail, FBI agent Sadusky (an underused Harvey Keitel) gets involved, especially when Ben's plan involves kidnapping the President (Greenwood) at a party.

Much like the first movie, 'Secrets' moves along at a break-neck pace that never allows you to slow down and comprehend how ridiculous the whole thing is. This time around, Benjamin does seem to figure out the clues a little quicker, a little bit more outlandishly, which can be annoying and a little too coincidental for me, but not enough to take away from the enjoyment of the story.

Wearing an odd-looking toupee or some sort of hair extension, Cage reprises his role as treasure hunter Gates. Over-the-top and scenery chewing, he's at his best, including a scene in Buckingham Palace where he must make a scene to attract the attention of security. Bartha is perfect again as Riley, now trying to step out of Benjamin's shadow with his own book. Kruger unfortunately has been made into a whiny movie girlfriend, but her character is still a good fit because she counters Ben so well. Voight gets some very funny lines with Mirren as his estranged wife. The two veteran actors give a sense of history between their characters without saying much at all. As the villain, Harris isn't at his best, but come on, it's Ed Harris. He's awesome even if he was just reading a telephone book.

Comparing 'Secrets' to the original is where the problems come up. Not major problems but certainly enough to be noticed. At times, the story just feels like a rehash as we get clue, Benjamin figuring out clue, chase scene, and then finding another clue. Of course, that's not a bad thing because the first movie worked so well with that formula, but it's not great either. So it's not enough to force me to give a negative review, but at least enough to bring it down a notch, just a little notch. Still a movie that's worth seeing if for nothing else so that you're ready for National Treasure 3, due out in 2011.

National Treasure 2: Book of Secrets <----trailer (2007): ** 1/2 /****

National Treasure

Following the huge mega enormous success of Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code, it wasn't long before any number of similar adventure stories with a historical edge were on the market, in books, on TV and of course at the movies. Some were clearly rush jobs to capitalize on the success, but others were done right and benefited from it, like 2004's National Treasure.

With a very similar style to Da Vinci Code, National Treasure is a never slow down, rocket paced adventure story with a historical background. When comparing movies, 'Treasure' is light years ahead of the movie version of Da Vinci Code which just took itself too seriously. The Disney-backed movie doesn't have to worry about that with over the top, ridiculous action and bad guys that never seem that scary.

Of course any movie with Nicolas Cage in the lead automatically gives a movie a bit of the tongue in cheek feel to the proceedings. How couldn't it with the actor's great delivery of cheesy one-liners and a constant need for Cage to run at some point during the movie? No two ways about it, these are the roles Cage is perfect for. He's not so much acting as playing himself, or at least what I like to think he's like in real life.

Cage plays Benjamin Franklin Gates who as a pre-teen is told by his grandfather (Christopher Plummer, perfect in a one-scene cameo) about a treasure dating back to ancient times that's been involved and moved through history over the last several thousand years. First, it was the Egyptians, then the Knights Templar in the Crusades and then the Freemasons once the treasure apparently reached the U.S. The Gates family has spent almost 200 years searching for this mythical treasure, and Benjamin, now an experienced treasure hunter, seems to be getting closer to it.

Following a clue to the Arctic Circle with millionaire and all-around questionably moral millionaire Ian Howe (Sean Bean), Ben finds another clue that says the map to the treasure is on the back of the Declaration of Independence. After a falling out with explosions of course, it's a race between Ben and his sidekick Riley (Justin Bartha) against Ian and his henchmen as to who can get steal the Declaration first. The movie from there on out is basically one big chase with elements of a heist movie thrown in for good measure.

The chase takes Ben and Riley to Washington DC, Philadelphia, New York and a couple hidden locations in those cities that I won't spoil here. Trying to steal the Declaration, they also pick up a 3rd member, Dr. Abigail Chase (Diane Kruger), a fellow history geek working as a supervisor at the National Archives, and a 4th, Ben's dad (Jon Voight) That's part of the fun though, instead of just an exciting chase movie, you get an exciting chase movie with history which is fun to see even if it's not historically true.

Director Jon Turtletaub filmed in all those cities at locations like the Archives, the Lincoln Memorial, Independence Hall, and even a chase below New York City. Could I tell you half of what the clues were? Nope, I don't even remember them. The story moves so fast it's hard to keep up. Keep this in mind, Cage is the good guy and Bean is the bad guy. And dddddone.

Because it is a fun Disney action movie, you have to know there's a happy ending. Even the FBI agent, Sadusky (Harvey Keitel), tracking them down is a pretty amiable guy. Bean is good as the semi-menacing villain meant to look meaner than his character actually is. As I said before, Cage is pitch perfect, Bartha gets all the good one-liners as the smart ass sidekick, and Kruger looks good in a part that doesn't require her to do much more. Voight similarly looks to be having a ball with his fun supporting role.

Here's another review that might sound negative, and it definitely qualifies as a guilty pleasure, but it's a non-stop thrill ride that's a lot of fun. Shut the old brain off for 2 hours and enjoy. The actors seem to be having as much fun on-screen as we're supposed to be watching it, and that always helps. Good old-fashioned action/adventure with some cool historical elements added into the mix.

National Treasure <----trailer (2004): ***/****

Pride and Glory

A movie doesn't have to be groundbreaking to be good. Sometimes its nice to see a movie that doesn't do anything new, but sticks to what the genre is known for so in a way it's like comfort food. Last year Pride and Glory hit theaters and bombed at the box office, barely making $20 million. Part of that had to be chalked up to its been-there, done-that storyline that's been done to death in cop movies. Despite having a great cast, the movie doesn't really do anything special.

Four cops are dead, and the NYPD has few leads to work with. Detective Ray Tierney (Edward Norton) has been out of the field for almost two years and is asked by his dad (Jon Voight), another cop, to lead the investigation into the four deaths. Always a good cop who had come under fire for his questionable handling of a case, Tierney begins to look into the case and doesn't like what he sees. All the evidence points to dirty cops being involved, and making it worse, his brother Francis (Noah Emmerich) and brother-in-law Jimmy (Colin Farrell) look to be involved.

What should Ray do? Stay true/loyal to his family and that bond or to the oath he took as a cop to uphold the law? People from all sides are telling him what to do as tensions in NY rise when more dead bodies keep showing up. The main problem here is that nothing is new. Pride and Glory doesn't put a new spin on the old good cop vs. bad cop routine or even try to. The story is a good one, and the actors pull off their parts well, but the whole time I felt like I was watching a movie I'd seen before.

All of that said, it's disappointing because the cast is good, especially the leads. Ed Norton is one of my favorite actors around, and his role as a tortured cop trying to right certain wrongs he did in the past is the highlight of the movie. You might not think of Norton as the typical, tough guy cop but he plays the part well. Another of my favorites, Farrell, is average as Jimmy Egan, the cop with the fiery temper who's apparently involved with some low-level drug dealers. It's not his best performance if only because we know so little about what drives him or what pushes him.

Jon Voight similarly has little to do as the Tierney family patriarch, a veteran cop just trying to hold his tight-knit family together. Noah Emmerich is right behind Norton as the movie's best part as Francis Jr., the precinct commander who has turned a blind eye to Egan and his crew's antics but only because they got the job done. Jr knew they were crossing the line, but not to what extent. It's this part of the movie that works best, whether it be Norton or Emmerich. It's hard for them to believe that someone they know so well and love could be capable of the things they see.

The movie has its issues, but if you enjoy procedural cop movies I'd give this a try. It's not great and it's not bad either. Pride and Glory just rests in that middle section that doesn't leave much of an impression on you and drifts away rather quickly. Rent it but don't buy it.