Parkland

How quick time flies. Fifty years ago today, November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas as he drove in a motorcade through the downtown area, sniper Lee Harvey Oswald doing the shooting. It was and still is a tragic moment in American history, one explored in pop culture with books like Stephen King's 11/22/63 and films like JFK and Executive Action. Add another flick to the list, 2013's Parkland.

To describe the plot here would more than defeat the purpose. With a little build-up to the actual assassination on that November morning, we're shown the actual shooting Dealey Plaza, mostly from the people that see it. We never see President Kennedy get shot, never see Lee Harvey Oswald shoot him. This isn't a movie about Kennedy, instead it is how the President's death sends ripples throughout Dallas, including the hospital, law enforcement, Kennedy's staff, the witnesses, the FBI, how they all responded to it and handled the assassination. The story follows the immediate aftermath and the subsequent days, mostly from the perspective of Parkland Hospital, where Kennedy died less than an hour after being shot. Plot? Not really, it's more a lot of characters in an episodic story that packs a whole lot of stuff into its 94-minute running time.

From director/writer Peter Landesman, 'Parkland' had a $10 million budget and was given little to no theatrical release, making about $600,000 in theaters. Why did it struggle so mightily? I'm not really sure. I liked it a lot. With a short running time, it is slightly schizophrenic in terms of storytelling. It is basically on the go non-stop. We meet countless individuals -- from known individuals like Oswald, Jackie Kennedy and LBJ -- to lesser known but very real people, the hospital staff, the FBI, the witnesses, all affected by the assassination that rocked the nation. I liked that Landesman's film gives an almost fly on the wall look at the history that we've all heard about, all knew it happened, but to actually see it, it's interesting, startling and unsettling, like we're a witness to history.

Maybe that's why it struggled getting much of a theatrical release, why it couldn't get much of a positive word of mouth. Beyond being a turning point, a defining moment in American history, the Kennedy assassination is one of the first spawns of a real conspiracy theory. Was Lee Harvey Oswald alone in his attempt? Were there other shooters? Was the government involved? Was there a massive cover-up in the wake of the assassination? So for all you conspiracy theorists out there....this may not be the movie for you. 'Parkland' isn't interested in a single tidbit of that 'what if?' aspect. In general, it doesn't take a stance about much. It shows rather than tells what happened. We see it as it happened, nothing else. If you're looking for a comprehensive, analytical investigation of the Kennedy assassination, this isn't it. Instead, it's a well-told, interesting, informative look at a part of history that we've never seen before as a viewer.

To tell the countless stories, Landesman assembles quite the cast to fill out the countless speaking parts here, all those involved and effected by Kennedy's death. The Parkland Hospital medical staff includes Marcia Gay Harden, Zac Efron , Colin Hanks, Rory Cochrane and Jackie Earle Haley appearing briefly as the hospital priest. James Badge Dale plays Oswald's brother, Robert, surprised as anyone at his brother's actions, Jacki Weaver playing their delusional mother, Marguerite, Jeremy Strong giving a strong portrayal of Lee. Billy Bob Thornton and Tom Welling play Secret Service agents pursuing all leads, especially the film of the assassination shot by Abe Zapruder (Paul Giamatti). Ron Livingston and David Harbour have good parts as the FBI field agents working in Dallas who make a startling revelation about Oswald. Not necessarily huge stars, but one really solid actor after another.

I liked this movie, simple as that. The style is simple and straightforward, blending archival footage from the Kennedy's trip through Texas that eventually ended in Dallas with footage shot for this film. It is eerie and uncomfortable watching the archived footage, knowing in the matter of an hour or two President Kennedy would be dead. The sense of doom hanging over that footage is unreal and beyond uncomfortable to watch. The whole movie is, and it'd be hard not to be difficult to watch. Exactly 50 years later, it's still hard to believe this tragic event actually happened. This film had little to no buzz upon its release, but Parkland is definitely worth catching up with.

Parkland (2013): ***/****

The Maiden Heist

Originally intended for a theatrical release, 2009's The Maiden Heist had no such luck. Its studio went bankrupt before it could actually be released and never saw the light of day in theaters. Thankfully, it eventually found an audience (however small) on DVD. The end result? An enjoyable, pretty harmless comedy caper aided by a very talented cast.

Working as a security guard for a Boston art museum, Roger (Christopher Walken) has a bit of an obsession. He loves, loves a painting titled The Lonely Maiden, a picture of a woman looking off into the distance on a sandy beach. Now though, he's got a problem. Many pieces from the museum have been sold to another museum in Denmark, including The Lonely Maiden. Roger can't bear to imagine life without it, but he's not alone. Two other security guards, Charles (Morgan Freeman) and George (William H. Macy), similarly have fallen hard for two other pieces of art and don't want to see them go. What to do then? These three men who have always lived on the straight and narrow decide there's only one thing to do....steal the paintings for themselves. Can these three amateur crooks pull off the job?

This is a movie that's best watched on a rainy weekend afternoon when there's nothing better to do. It's funny but it isn't hilarious. It's goofy but not stupid...thankfully. The story takes some odd jumps in sequence that reflect a quasi-cheap feeling, making me think 'Heist' was a straight-to-DVD flick at first. It's apparent from the start how things will go. These three middle-aged to older men are all a little nuts, all a lot obsessed with paintings that strike them right down to their cores. How could three amateur crooks pull off the job? In the real world, no chance in hell. But it's a movie! In other words, you know they'll get away with it, overcoming all sorts of goofiness, misunderstandings, and general wackiness. Just sit back and enjoy. You won't strain yourself.

There's got to be a reason to see this flick though, and that's the cast. Surprising, huh? It would be very hard to put Walken, Freeman and Macy together in a movie and for it to not be worthwhile even a little. Walken is Walken, that kinda offbeat, schizo acting style highlighted by his especially unique speech patterns. Macy hams it up as George, the former Marine and veteran of the Grenada campaign. His art obsession? A sculpture of a nude Greek warrior. George strips down naked and poses next to it. Creepy? A little, but it's oddly funny. Middle-aged guy nudity played for a laugh too with some Macy butt scenes. I know, what Hollywood has been craving all these years! The best part is Freeman as Charles, a gay (I think?) security guard who can paint/draw/scribble his favorite painting with his eyes closed. It's his mannerisms, his speech, they all add up to some really funny lines and scenes as the trio of amateur crooks work together to pull off the job.

It is a heist movie -- however tame -- and that ends up being the best part of the movie. The build-up and intro takes about 45 minutes, and then we're off to the heist. The trio decides to pull the job during the move, replacing the originals with forgeries. Naturally, not everything goes as expected or planned, one thing after another coming up to throw them off their plan. There is a good twist late, but it doesn't come as a huge surprise by any means.

The laughs are there too, especially the opening scene as Walken's Roger daydreams about defending his painting from a heavily-armed team of mercenaries. Watch it HERE. A running gag about signing off a walky-talky with 'Roger...Roger' is funny if used too much, and a hypothetical walk-through of the museum (Charles constructs a scale version with a chess set and cereal boxes) produces some laughs. There's some odd moments too, like Breckin Meyer's one-scene appearance as a starving artist (maybe 90 seconds all told), and Marcia Gay Harden as Roger's shrill wife who wants a Florida vacation and accidentally threatens the heist. Pretty forgettable but still enjoyable enough. Worth a watch if nothing else, just don't expect a classic.

The Maiden Heist (2009): ** 1/2 /****

Miller's Crossing

Quirky, darkly funny, extremely violent, all trademarks of the films of the Coen brothers, Joel and Ethan. You basically know what you're getting yourself into when you head into a Coen brothers film. While I've liked all their movies -- some more than others -- I've noticed a recurring trend. The movies? They're entertaining and technically? Pretty much perfect. But they often keep you at arm's length, forcing you to watch a story develop without having a huge interest or personal investment in the characters. Win-lose? That was my first thought on 1990's Miller's Crossing.

It's the Prohibition and in an unnamed city, Irish gangster Leo (Albert Finney) rules with an iron fist, his right-hand man, Tom Reagan (Gabriel Byrne), at his side. Leo's power is hanging in the balance though, Tom seeing that things can change with the snap of a finger. The hard-drinking, gambling Tom is caught in the middle and not helping matters by sleeping with Verna (Marcia Gay Harden), Leo's girl. While Leo tries to hold onto his power, an Italian gangster, Johnny Caspar (Jon Polito), is moving quickly to step into what he hopes will be a power void. Able to think things through easily, Tom concocts a plan to get out cleanly, but with so much on the line, nothing is going to be easy, and it's going to come at a bloody price.

In his 1990 review, Roger Ebert pointed out that 'Crossing' is the best of two worlds; a gangster pic with a film noir setting. At its best, it succeeds because of that. Made on a relatively small budget, it wreaks of authenticity (I mean that in the positive sense by the way) from the 1920s period authentic suits and hats to the classic cars to the weaponry. It feels like we've been dropped into a 1920s city about to be torn apart by a mob war. The look of the movie is incredible, dark colors and backgrounds, shadows everywhere hiding things as needed only to reveal secrets suddenly and shockingly. The heavily Irish-themed score  (listen HERE) from Carter Burwell is hit or miss, but when it works, it really works. I get it. 'Crossing' is a great movie to watch and revel in, enjoying it for all the elements that help make a movie a classic.

Yeah, that's right. Here comes the curveball. Why then do I feel so apathetic to the movie? It was a good movie, but it is missing that special something. The cast -- more on that later -- is immensely talented, the script full of witty banter, surprising, startling violence, and a twisting, turning story that only comes together late. But many reviews I read simply said "You should like this movie if not love it." Not many actually say why so in my head? I'm thinking people like this movie simply because they're told to. Yes, I know there's more to it than that. It's a cold movie, one that I enjoyed but didn't jump into head first. I wasn't particularly interested in any of the characters so as the story threw twists and turns at me, I wasn't surprised, shocked or even that interested. I hear reviewers say "It gets better on repeated viewings." To me, that sounds like a huge cop-out.

Now just because the characters aren't likable doesn't mean the performances aren't worth mentioning. A self-identified 'son of a bitch,' Byrne's Tom is the perfect anti-hero. He's a lead character who is nearly impossible to read, much less completely figure him out. I especially liked the brotherly, even father-son relationship, between Byrne and Finney's Leo. It's the longtime partner and the veteran crime boss, both very talented in their unique fields. Polito is a surprising scene-stealer as Caspar, the Italian (eye-talian according to the Irish) gangster caught up in a developing mob war, and Harden is an out of left field but dead-on pick for Verna, the femme fatale. John Turturro is appropriately slimy as Bernie, Verna's conniving brother, J.E. Freeman as Dane, Caspar's enforcer of sorts, Steve Buscemi as the weaselly Mink, and Mike Starr and Al Mancini as Caspar's on-the-street enforcers. Frances McDormand (the Mrs. Joel Coen) also has a small part as the Mayor's secretary.

Many of the usual Coen brothers touches are there. The violence isn't graphic, but it certainly jumps off the screen. A hit attempt gone wrong on Finney's Leo is a gem, the experienced Irish gangster blazing away with a stolen tommy gun, seemingly never reloading despite firing hundreds of rounds. The sound and visual is indescribable in this extended scene. For the most part, the touches are a little off though. Attempts at that very dark, even sinister, humor felt incredibly out of place and even forced at other times. Other scenes are just plain weird, like Caspar slapping his son for telling him what he had for lunch or a schlub boxer screaming like a little girl while someone else gets beaten. The story is pointed and knows where it wants to go so these outlandish attempts at the dark humor fell short for me.

I'll give credit where it's due though. Emotionally investing? Maybe not, but 'Crossing' is definitely an interesting movie. Many parts felt like the script was trying to tell us something, deliver a profound message. Symbolism is everywhere, leading many fans/viewers to make all sorts of crazy conclusions, many of them oddly related to whether all the male characters were gay. Tom's hat comes to take on a deeper meaning, but what exactly? I can't say I even have the vaguest notion. Maybe this is a movie that would drastically improve with repeat viewings, but while I moderately enjoyed it the first time, I don't see myself revisiting it very soon. I feel like I've been writing this a lot lately, but here it is again. Lots of potential, didn't quite live up to it for me.

Miller's Crossing <---trailer (1990): ** 1/2 /****