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): ***/****

The Expendables

For several years, the Hollywood rumor mill turned out rumors and reports one after another about an epic action movie meant to be a throwback to the mindless, popcorn entertainment of the 1980s. It was supposed to reunite basically every great action star in a movie that would blow the cast away from every other movie out of the water. No one was going to stop this behemoth, and it would be a modern classic to rival all action movies. So what happened? Names were attached and let go, things change, but by 2010, the movie was finished and released. What movie? The Expendables.

Director and star Sylvester Stallone has been a fan favorite among audiences since he made Rocky Balboa a household name, and criticize him for whatever you want, the man knows what audiences want to see. The Expendables is a prime example, an action-heavy story with cool settings, cooler characters, some impressive hand to hand combat, and in general a sense, an awareness of how cool the whole thing is. So while I liked this movie, I can't help but feel disappointed in some ways.  It is entertaining. It is a lot of fun. But even a couple days later, something was missing that I just can't put my finger on. Still, the action is solid, and the cast impressive no matter how many bigger names dropped out.

After pulling off a successful hostage rescue on the high seas, veteran mercenary and very talented Barney Ross (Stallone) is approached by a shady, mysterious operator, Church (Bruce Willis), with a new proposition for Barney and his team. The mission is dangerous and maybe even suicidal, but the pay-off will be huge. Barney and his team must sneak onto a small South American island and assassinate the brutal dictator who has taken over with his small army.  The odds are impossibly stacked against them as Barney's Expendables will have to take on a small army of soldiers and security. But as they scout out the mission, Barney finds out there's more going on than is being told to them. A former CIA agent (Eric Roberts) is pulling the strings on the island. What have they gotten themselves into? Do they accept the mission, risking almost certain death?

From the first time I heard about this movie a few years back, I was psyched. A men-on-a-mission movie with a cast jam-packed with action stars of the past decades? Count me in. Joining Stallone's team are right-hand man and throwing knife master Lee Christmas (Jason Statham), martial arts expert Yin Yang (Jet Li), rough and ready brawler Toll Road (MMA fighter Randy Couture), and muscle-headed, shotgun-wielding Caesar (Terry Crews). As cool as this group is though, beyond Stallone and Statham, the other three are wasted. They're introduced, disappear, and then reappear at the end for the last suicidal mission. Helping the cause is that Stallone and Statham are perfectly cast alongside each other, throwing one-liners left and right, bitching and moaning like an old married couple. So it's good and bad with the chance for more there.

What's disappointing more than the lack of screen-time for the other three are the actors who weren't cast. Now were these names ever seriously attached to the project? Who knows, but in pre-production when all the rumors were being leaked, names like Chuck Norris, Willis, Steven Seagal, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Arnold Schwarzenegger were all mentioned.  One by one, they seemed to drop out, Willis and the Governator eventually taking small cameo parts. I don't even know how it all would have worked, but I would have loved to see the attempt. It's hard to judge a movie based on what could have been, but this movie was in the news so much, it's nearly impossible not to think of the potential here.

Making this movie, Stallone promised action, action, and more action.  You get it here, and he wasn't kidding. I didn't time this or anything, but I'd wager no more than five minutes goes by in between action sequences.  Gun fights, vicious hand to hand combat, aerial attacks (Statham in badass mode there), car chases, gigantic explosions, The Expendables has it all. My question, and I'll pause here...is it too much action? It's non-stop fun, no question about that. But it gets repetitive. How many times can you see Statham throw a knife into someone's throat/chest? The hand to hand scenes also have a case of Jason Bourne editing, sequences cut so quickly it's hard to keep up. A showdown between quick, agile Li vs. big, brawling Dolph Lundgren should have been epic, but you can barely see what's going on. For the most part, it's all good. But when it's bad, the action trends toward that horrific editing that ruins what you're actually seeing.

I get it. I understand the appeal of those mindless action movies. They're great. No thinking required, just enjoy.  But at 103 minutes (and take away 7 or 8 more for the end credits), the movie is just too short. It feels rushed like Stallone did not know what to do in between action scenes. With this good of a cast, explore the background more of these mercenaries, and hell, even the bad guys. Oh, stereotypical evil, scorned CIA agent gone rogue? Why, what else? How'd this team get together? Even better, some quick scenes explore the mindset of these hired killers. Are they fated to die horrifically in combat? Can anything save them? What drives them to do this, the adrenaline rush, or are they just good at it? I'm not talking a deep, involved look at the mind of a mercenary that sacrifices the action. I'm just looking for a good mix of both, still clocking in at around 2 hours. Is that too much to ask?

Even with all the names mentioned above, that's about half of all the names worth mentioning.  Mickey Rourke is underused but still is a scene-stealer as Tool, a former member of the team and now their contact who hooks them up with assignments. Roberts is Roberts as evil CIA agent, a part he plays to smarmy, slimy perfection. Former wrestler Steve Austin is Roberts' main henchman, looking tough and growling as necessary. Willis and Schwarzenegger are wasted completely, but it's a cool, one-scene appearance. Giselle Itie is the ridiculously gorgeous eye candy, the Expendables' link on the island.

So as I read back over this, I'm seeing how negative this review sounds.  There are flaws here, big flaws you could drive a truck through. But for all my complaints, I can't think of one good reason not to watch this movie. If you like action and some dark humor, you are going to like this movie. Stallone and Statham were the main reasons, but The Expendables is just too fun to pass up. Besides, you don't want to be behind when the rumored sequel comes out in a couple years.

The Expendables <---trailer (2010): ***/****

Iron Man 2

The Empire Strikes Back, The Godfather 2, The Dark Knight, Temple of Doom, all sequels and 2nd in a trilogy that's better than the original.  Okay, not Temple of Doom, but the others still count. Is that the expectation though or the exceptions to the rule? In the age of milking a franchise cash cow for everything it's worth, the biggest blockbusters of the last 10-15 years have been sequels, often of superhero movies.  One that surprised several years back with its popularity and success at the box office was Iron Man, but unfortunately 2010's Iron Man 2 just can't live up to the raised expectations.

When it comes to superhero movies, I fall somewhere in between.  Yes, I like them, but I didn't grow up reading comic books by the hundreds, and I especially don't know the superhero universes where everything has already been set in stone so that a franchise must follow it to the letter.  The problem with any successful franchise though is what to do after the first big success.  You can't just duplicate the first movie. You have to do everything bigger and better.  Director and supporting player Jon Favreau follows that idea by throwing everything into a script that never decides what to focus on and suffers because of it.  Too much going on, too many characters, lack of any development with those characters, and surprisingly enough for a summer blockbuster, not enough action.

Six months since revealing that he is in fact Iron Man, Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) has basically wiped out any sort of worldwide conflict. In doing so though he has the U.S. government and the Department of Defense on his tail to give up the Iron Man so that it can be a controlled commodity instead of one man's all-powerful weapon.  That's the least of Tony's problems though as the use of the Iron Man outfit is slowly killing him with possibly a year to live.  He turns over control of Stark Industries to secretary and girlfriend Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) and starts to live things up. It's hard to be the best though and rival weapons contractor Justin Hammer (Sam Rockwell) is using the talents of a pissed off Russian physicist Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) to create his own deadlier version of the Iron Man.

Now regardless of how this cast was utilized or underutilized, I can say that without a doubt this is one of the best casts ever put together for a summer blockbuster.  Downer Jr. again cements himself as one of Hollywood's best actors here playing cocky, narcissistic, downright arrogant Tony Stark who somehow is still lovable.  Paltrow isn't used as well here as the first one and seems like more of an afterthought than anything.  Indie star Rockwell and rejuvenated Rourke are great choices to play the villains even though they're both underused, especially a scene-stealing Rourke.  Then don't forget Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury of S.H.I.E.L.D, Don Cheadle stepping in for Terrence Howard as Colonel Rhodes (an upgrade from the 1st movie), and Scarlett Johansson as Natalie Rushman (Black Widow, member of Shield).

Can you have too much of a good thing though?  That cast is downright impressive, but other than Downey Jr. none of them are given a ton to do.  They're introduced into the storyline, fade out, and then reappear later as needed.  And from someone who is definitely looking forward to The Avengers movie, that whole subplot feels like it's being shoved down our throats as viewers.  But that's the problem with the whole movie for me.  There is a ton going on, and then nothing at all at the same time.  For almost 90 minutes, nothing happens other than Tony moping around.  Favreau has all these great elements and can't peg down what he wants to do with it.  The first Iron Man certainly had some slower moving segments too, but here they're just more noticeable.  At 124 minutes, this is a movie that could have been cut by 15 or 20 minutes and been a sleeker, more compact finished product.

Now to counter 90 minutes of basically nothingness, everything is thrown in the last 30 minutes, by far the best part of the movie and one of the better finales in an action movie around.  Stark and Rhodes -- both outfitted in Iron Man outfits -- go toe-to-toe with Ivan's army of drone Iron Men in an epic showdown that never overdoes it with the CGI.  It is an action scene where everything is visible and never moves too fast, keeping you interested even knowing we're watching computerized robots beat the crap out of each other.  Add in Johansson in a skintight leather outfit (to be fair, every movie needs that) kicking ass against endless nameless security guards, and you've got quite a finale.

I can't put my finger on it, but something was missing from this sequel.  It lacks a certain energy the first one had and never truly finds it's footing.  It tries to one-up the original while sticking to its origins but can't find that all-important middle ground.  Downey Jr again is solid, Cheadle is an upgrade, Johansson is beyond gorgeous as the eye candy, Rourke and Rockwell are above average talents, and the action-packed finale is a whopper.  But for whatever reason, it doesn't add up.  Worth watching, but I was disappointed here.

Iron Man 2 <---trailer (2010): ** 1/2 /****

Heaven's Gate

After winning Best Picture and Best Director for 1978's The Deer Hunter, Michael Cimino spent the next two years working on his next project.  It was an epic that would debunk many of the myths about the west in the latter half of the 1800s that many people took as an absolute truth.  Titled Heaven's Gate, it infamously became known as the movie that derailed Cimino's career and destroyed United Artists in the process.  The production did create one of my all-time favorite lines when the studio wanted to know how far behind schedule Cimino was on the sixth day of filming.  The answer?  'We're five days behind schedule.'

Released in 1980, Heaven's Gate has its fair share of similarities with The Deer Hunter.  How to put this nicely?  Cimino loved a very natural style (i.e.: slow, very slow) with stories that were in no rush getting to their destination.  And if they didn't get to that destination?  No worries.  Working with cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond, Cimino creates a beautiful movie that completely utilizes the beauty of Montana.  But at a cost because the story is thrown by the wayside.  Long, lllllllong scenes of a rider approaching a cabin in a mountain valley drag on. For me, it got to the point where I got sick of looking at nature.  Just tell the damn story! 

After visiting St. Louis, Wyoming marshal Jim Averill (Kris Kristofferson) returns home to find a conflict brewing. The wealthy landowners/cattle barons are fed up with the poor farmers and settlers -- most of them immigrants trying to start a life -- who keep stealing their cattle and destroying the land.  One man, Nate Champion (Christopher Walken), serves as their enforcer, killing anyone believed of stealing cattle. At first, Jim doesn't seem interested in the problem.  He tries to convince his girlfriend Ella (Isabelle Huppert), the local owner of a brothel, to leave with him, but she refuses.  Champion is also interested in Ella, leaving her conflicted as what to do.  Her problem is solved when the landowners (led by an evil Sam Waterston) go the government for help and a list is circulated of 125 farmers who will be killed.  A small army of gunmen descend on the county ready to wipe out anyone who stands in their way.

This is now the longest movie I've ever seen at 219 minutes, replacing The Seven Samurai, and at times it felt longer.  God forbid, there's rumors of a 5-hour version out there somewhere.  It's easier to judge this movie in two segments; pre and post intermission.  Pre-intermission is awful and a painful experience.  Two scenes rival Deer Hunter's wedding scene, a Harvard graduation in 1870 that serves no purpose, and a dance scene that goes on and on.  Cimino is one of the most self-indulgent directors I've come across, seemingly wanting to show off what a great director he was. His budget was around $11 million, but it went $30 million beyond that.  Apparently, he shot almost 200 hours of footage.  He clearly went all out to show the reality of the developing west whether it be sets or costumes, but its almost overkill by the 2nd hour or so.

These scenes could have served a purpose in a shorter way, but instead they bring the already stagnant story to a halt.  That's the whole movie too, long, extended shots that don't do anything other than look good.  I'm curious about the 149-minute version because in a condensed form, the movie might be worth watching.  On the other hand, I have little interest in seeing this one again.

The one slight saving grace of the movie is post-intermission when Waterston's army of gunfighters goes on the hunt.  Parts are still too slow, but this nameless, faceless villain is a great choice.  Walken's Champion has a change of heart when he sees the tactics being used and goes out in a blaze of glory.  The farmers/settlers finally decide to do something and in a bloody battle take on the gunfighters.  Both sides take heavy casualties, but we know nothing about these people.  In several scenes, these foreign settlers yell at each other at meetings and then the battle comes along and they get blown away.  It's a remarkably well-done sequence (start HERE with SPOILERS of course) but on an emotional level does nothing, and isn't that the point of an epic scene like that?  To make any sort of emotional connection with the viewer, but that's this movie in a nutshell.

Filling out his cast, Cimino assembles an incredible list of actors including the already mentioned Kristofferson, Walken, Waterston, and Huppert.  There's also Jeff Bridges, Mickey Rourke, John Hurt, Brad Dourif, Geoffrey Lewis, Joseph Cotten, and Terry O'Quinn.  But with all that talent assembled, Walken and Huppert are the only ones to really distinguish themselves.  Kristofferson mumbles his way through all his lines, Hurt is required to be drunk, Rourke and Lewis show up, get introduced and are killed, and Cotten has a one-scene cameo.  I'll add Bridges to the list, he's solid as a saloon owner working with the farmers.  It seems like such a waste to bring all these talented actors together and then not give them much development.

I think I gave this movie a pretty fair shot from the start.  But my objections from The Deer Hunter rolled over to Heaven's Gate.  There are just too many plotholes you could drive an 18-wheeler through that are never resolved.  Like how/why did Kristofferson move west, apparently leaving a wife behind?  It's confusing at times, boring at other times, and generally a mess of a movie.  Tons of potential, TONS, but it just isn't a very good movie. 

Heaven's Gate <----trailer (1980): * 1/2 /****