A Few Good Men (Reviewed by Ben)

There are more than a few good actors in A Few Good Men . And yet the all-star cast is only one of the film’s redeeming qualities. There is a complex storyline and, although it deals with tough subjects, this Rob Reiner courtroom picture is just fun to watch.

The storyline kicks off when naval officer and lawyer Daniel Kafee (Tom Cruise) is given the frustrating case of two Marine cadets charged with the murder of their fellow soldier, William Santiago, who had requested a transfer off their base on Guantanamo Bay.

Unfortunately for the lazy lawyer, while he and his longtime friend and fellow lawyer Jack Ross (Kevin Bacon) think the case is open-and-shut (plead guilty for involuntary manslaughter) both clients (James Marshall and Wolfgang Bodison) refuse to do so.  For they want to go through with a trial in order to accuse their superior officer Lt. Kendrick (Kiefer Sutherland) of ordering a “Code Red” (an order to assault a fellow cadet issued by a superior).

Kaffee goes through with this destined-to-fail court trial along with faithful friend Sam Weinburg (Kevin Pollak) and the much-more-focused lawyer JoAnne Galloway (Demi Moore) as the team for the defense, while Jack Ross is the attorney for the prosecution.

In providing this defense, Kaffee takes just about every risk in the book, and throughout the trial he grows from the laid-back Lieutenant who would rather play baseball than win a case, to a serious lawyer who breaks down witness after witness and proves that the two cadets acted on an order from their sergeant, with none of them knowing that toxins on the rag they used to gag Santiago would kill him.  

As Kaffee matures, he becomes more and more passionate about proving that Kendrick and his superior, Col. Nathan Jessup (Jack Nicholson), a very serious marine colonel with a sadistic manner, are to blame for ordered the Code Red on Santiago and then trying to cover their tracks., A main character growing dramatically in pursuit of justice can be a cliché, but A Few Good Men does this cliché impressively, something else that makes the film fun to watch.

Even people who haven’t seen the movie are probably familiar with the final confrontation between Cruise’s Kaffee and Nicholson’s unforgettable Jessup (nominated for a best supporting actor Oscar), most specifically for Nicholson’s line “you can’t handle the truth!” Though the film features many great scenes (including the drunken Kaffee ranting about how the team is destined to lose or the two accused soldiers refusing to plead guilty due to their duty as marines) the five minutes of dialogue where Kaffee tugs the truth out of the straight-toothed, red-faced Colonel is the highlight of the film. The intensity when Jessup breaks under the heavy pressure, and not only loudly confesses to ordering the Code Red, but attempts to jump out of the witness booth and strangle Kaffee, cursing the day he was born, contrasts so heavily with his seemingly authoritative persona that the scene borders on comedy.

While I love the story, cast and screenplay, I must say that the movie didn’t take any risks, for better or for worse. They used a cast full of stars, an unoriginal premise and plot points that you could find in many other movies. While this playing-it-safe method paid off, making A Few Good Men enjoyable to watch, a less-clichéd story can be found in just about any other courtroom drama.

As for the acting, someone must have called up every single big-name actor in Hollywood and said ‘hey, come be in this movie.’ From Cruise’s likable attorney, to the cold, condescending Kendrick (Sutherland) to Kaffee’s fellow lawyer (Moore), Reiner made it more than clear that he wanted nothing less than the best actors in his film.  But it’s Nicholson, one of the most acclaimed actors of all time, who dominates the screen whenever he’s on it.

With a gun-in-mouth suicide, a violent opening sequence, and pretty heavy swearing, this film earned an R rating.  However, I think that for any teen who loves movies should see this film (whenever their parents see fit).

Dad Replies: A toned-down version of the film (sans cuss words) plays on cable every few hours, so no one of any age should have to miss what I agree is a taught and enjoyable courtroom drama with a military twist (one that ignited the JAG jag and other imitators).  I agree with Ben that the all-star cast delivered the goods, although most of the other big names (Bacon, Sutherland, Moore) kind of faded into the background whenever Cruise and/or Nicholson were on the screen.  Like My Cousin Vinny, this film is less a “who-done-it” than a “can-he-prove-it” court battle, which gives the final confrontation between Cruise and Nicholson its dramatic punch, even for those who have seen the scene repeated and imitated endless times.

My Cousin Vinny (Reviewed by Dad)

My Cousin Vinny’s “R” rating kept us from sharing this favorite with the boys until now, even though – having just recently gotten around to a family screening – the only thing that might make the film objectionable is ripe language (no sex, no violence).

Actually, that’s not quite true since the storyline is kicked off with a murder. Specifically, the clerk at a local quickie-mart in rural Alabama is bumped off during a robbery, and blame falls on a pair of New York college kids (played by Ralph Macchio and Mitchell Whitfield) who had just stopped by the shop during a cross-country drive in their mint-green GM convertible.

After being arrested and accidentally confessing to a crime (albeit, not the homicide they are accused of), Macchio decides to call home for rescue and is alerted that his cousin Vinny – a newly minted attorney – is on the way.

If the two accused boys were fish out of water, they have nothing on Vinny Gambini (Joe Pesci) and his leather-clad fiancé Mona Lisa Vito (Marisa Tomei in an Oscar winning performance) who roll into town completely unready for the local culture or courts.

This becomes apparent when the judge presiding over the case (played by the incomparable Fred Gwynne, sans monster makeup) repeatedly scolds Attorney Gambini for his informal attire, inability to comprehend (much less follow) procedure, and frequent curse-laden outbursts – some of which land Pesci in the same jail as his clients for contempt of court.

But after a slow start, Vinny finally gets the chance to shine as he demolishes one witness after another with a mix of goomba and chutzpah anyone who has ever traveled through Brooklyn will find immediately recognizable.  The prosecution eventually decides to fall back on evidence supplied by an FBI expert in automobile-related forensics, much to their dismay when Vinny’s fiancé is forced to take the stand.

As much as I continue to enjoy this picture (now through my children’s eyes), in retrospect it does seem as though the script was written backwards from a few (admittedly show-stopping) courtroom scenes. That said, every scene in which Pesci and Tomei interact is pure magic, more than making up for the implausibility of the key conceit in this high-concept comedy (would a law school graduate, even a totally green one, really have never heard of “discovery?”).

The fantastic nature of such a scenario may explain why I found that aforementioned R-rated language so jarring.  For the multiple F-bombs dropped by the leads placed them squarely in the vulgarity-laden tough-guy genre that have become Pesci’s trademark in films like Goodfellas and Casino, not in the semi-fantasy world of this much gentler storyline.  

So, I don’t know.  Ben – what do you think?

Ben Replies: Regardless of plot holes and ridiculous moments, Vinny is undeniably hilarious. Everything about this film has you laughing at every turn. The film is perfectly cast, especially the leather-clad duo of Vinny and Mona and the script is perfectly riotous. How can even the stiffest fellow not bust a gut when Pesci’s character brings the cooking time of grits to question on the stand? As a courtroom drama, however, this flick is only alright. A scene involving the identification of tire tracks was incredibly clever (and probably scored Tomei’s her Oscar).  But if the goal was to make A Few Good Men with an incredible underdog winning his first case, that case was kind of open and shut and, without the comedy, could be criticized for being boring.  So all in all, I agree with your thoughts on the film.

Sweeney Todd (reviewed by Ben)

There were more liquid ounces of fake blood used in Tim Burton’s Sweeney Todd (subtitled The Demon Barber of Fleet Street) than lines spoken (or sung). Despite that, even gore lovers will think the cannibal/barber movie over the top, the film itself was somewhat underwhelming. Movie musicals are always a risky thing, and in the case of this film adaptation of Sondheim’s play, the risk did not pay off.

This is the somewhat confusing story of Benjamin Barker (Johnny Depp), who was once an innocent barber who was arrested and robbed of his family by the malicious Judge Turpin (Alan Rickman).  He later returns to London to seek justice under the name of Sweeney Todd, a much less innocent and much less forgiving barber, ready to kill Turpin with a handy barber’s razor.

He befriends the longtime Fleet street resident Ms. Lovett (Helena Bonham Carter) and discovers his daughter to be the ward of his enemy, Judge Turpin. His innocent work disguised as a haircuttery leads him to less innocent murder.  And because he works just as hard on business as justice, he merges with Ms. Lovett’s pie shop where she uses the human meat of his barbershop’s customers in her very popular meat pies.

It’s a happy life, and yet he is plagued with the desire to find and kill the judge who still has his daughter. This leads to desperate measures which leads to the downfall of all the residents of Fleet Street.

All in all, a decent setup and the oddly heartwarming music is among Sondheim’s finest. The film does have it’s moments and we can even relate to several characters, especially since the acting is not half bad, especially Depp’s.

However the story was over-complicated and the excessive blood was distracting from the already complex plotline, not to mention the work of the talented songwriter of better-scripted musicals like West Side Story, Into The Woods and A Funny Thing Happened On the Way to the Forum. The film Sweeney Todd sometimes seemed like a lame excuse to have a wild bloodbath, rather than treat Sondheim’s work with care.

Apart from the star-studded cast, I’d give credit to the film’s casting director for reuniting the cast of Harry Potter (Rickman, Timothy Spade, Helena Bonham Carter) and Tom Hooper’s just as over-the-top Les Miserables (Sacha Baron Cohen and Bohnam Carter). It was also fun to see the vocally talented Johnny Depp and the very talented child star Ed Sanders (as the barber/pie shop's kitchen-hand, Toby).  For a film that is not very well put together, the acting of many (especially Depp) is superb.

I would say that this bloodbath musical is alright, but mostly because of the acting and singing performances and the wonderful score. The extremely gory scenes as well as the extremely complex story bring down mine (and many other people’s) opinion of the Tim Burton film.

Dad replies: Count me as one of those people Ben just mentioned as not having a great opinion of Tim Burton’s take on Sondheim’s murderous stage musical.  I agree that there were lots of interesting things going on in the film, and the director did key into the irony of having such a violent story play out against songs with whimsical tunes with bloody lyrics.  But the in-your-face images of slashed throats spouting gore, not to mention hands and feet spewing out of a meat grinder (and onto people’s plates) numbed me to artistic subtly.  As Ben mentioned, the cast was a treat (metaphorically speaking, of course) and the original material certainly worked on stage.  So blame for this mishap has to be placed at the feet of Burton who decided to go over the top, rather than find the middle ground the material required.

Dark Knight (reviewed by Dad)

Having seen nearly all Batman movies on opening week since Michael Keaton first donned the cowl in 1989, this repeat viewing of Dark Knight (the second installment of the Chris Nolan series starring Christian Bale as the Caped Crusader) reminded me of everything I love and hate about the Batman film franchises.

On the plus side, you’ve got the greatest villain characterization since Jack Nicholson went whiteface in the aforementioned 1989 Batman with another Joker – this one played by Heath Ledger (right before his sad and early death in 2008).  Ledger’s Joker is the edgiest villain in any superhero film ever, a grisly, scarred clown who destroys not for money or power but for the sheer joy of bringing anarchy to Gotham, a city that still sports 30-million inhabitants despite frequent visits by mass murderers itching to burn the place to the ground.

Apparently Gotham’s mobsters are on the ropes, pressed on one side by a certain black-caped vigilante and on the other by a new “incorruptible” District Attorney, Harvey Dent (played by Aaron Eckhart).  And so they say “Yes” to the Joker, who promises to solve all their problems, despite misgivings about allying themselves with a murderous nutcase.

Long-time comics fans knew before the first frame was shot that District Attorney Dent was destined to become the psychopathic Two Face, another Batman rogue, one who makes decisions regarding who will live and who will die based on the flip of a scarred coin.

In an earlier, more innocent era, Two Face was just another themed criminal whose duality calling-card primarily manifest as “two-ish” crimes (like stealing twin diamonds and making his escape on a bi-plane).  But that was another Millennium, which means today the villainous Dent is left flipping a coin in order to determine if he will plug a child (the son of Commissioner Gordon, played stalwartly yet again by Gary Oldman).

Another thing I like about the Nolan Batman oeuvre comes from the hero’s mature sidekicks played once more by Michael Caine (as Alfred) and Morgan Freeman (as Lucius Fox, the Wayne Enterprises exec who provides the Batman with his military-level armament).

But getting back to Harvey “Two-Face” Dent, the introduction of a second villain represents an element that plays a role in many a Batman stinkeroo: too many bad guys.  It was one thing when Adam West faced off against his entire rogues gallery in the 1966 TV-series cinema spin off.  But Poison Ivy (Uma Thurman), Mr. Freeze (Arnold Schwarzenegger) and Bane (who cares) squaring off against Batman (George Clooney), Robin (Chris O’Donnell) and Batgirl (Alicia Silverstone) in the 1997 Batman and Robin definitely proved that more was much, much less.

Dark Knight’s doubling up on the bad guys wasn’t as much of a misfire as that, but the extra baddie in this picture definitely lessened the impact of Ledger’s signature Joker and blurred the real duality driving the Batman mythos: that of Batman and the Joker as mirror images of one another.  And why does so much of the drama in this of the next picture (Dark Knight Rises) hinge on maintaining the heroic myth of the incorruptible Harvey Dent?

In any superhero pick, you come to expect a storyline driven by the need to set up the next action scene.  But the most skillful of these (such as the first Superman, Spiderman, Iron Man and Avengers pictures) manage to create enough drama (as well as humor and romance) to make you forget that fact.  Not so Dark Knight where I kept wondering why the characters were doing what they were doing, other than to get everyone where they needed to be for the next big fight.

All that said, Dark Knight is definitely not one of those “I’m going to hate this picture just as much when I watch it ten times on cable” pictures.  Watching it with Ben made me remember what I liked about the picture much more than what I disliked.  So keep ‘em coming guys!  I’ll keep buying tickets (this time for both myself and the boys).

Ben Replies: I’ll start with what you said about this film going with the “Sinister Six” approach, like Batman and Robin or Spiderman 3 (where Thomas Haydyn Church, James Franco and Topher Grace teamed up against our webbed friend). I would say this is not a fair comparison. These films were made for the purpose of making the superheroes look unbeatable, and the Dark Knight is trying to do the opposite. The film brings ideas about humanity to the table in a way no film of this sort has ever done before, and brings out the man in Batman much more than Clooney’s attempt did.

On the point of Harvey Dent, I couldn’t agree more about the storyline being forced. And as for Ledger’s incredible performance, I was just as shocked by the merciless clown. I do however believe that the drama that led up to the action was there, even if it was not as skillfully done as the rest of the film.  

A final thing you may have forgot was that even though the cast was made up of all-stars (Freeman, Oldman, Bale, Ghyllenhal, Eckhart and of course the Brokeback Mountain star who was acting so much his makeup was sweating off) there were so many characters, everyone except for the clown and possibly Dent were uncomfortably underdeveloped, including “The Bat” himself.

Dark Knight (reviewed by Dad)

Having seen nearly all Batman movies on opening week since Michael Keaton first donned the cowl in 1989, this repeat viewing of Dark Knight (the second installment of the Chris Nolan series starring Christian Bale as the Caped Crusader) reminded me of everything I love and hate about the Batman film franchises.

On the plus side, you’ve got the greatest villain characterization since Jack Nicholson went whiteface in the aforementioned 1989 Batman with another Joker – this one played by Heath Ledger (right before his sad and early death in 2008).  Ledger’s Joker is the edgiest villain in any superhero film ever, a grisly, scarred clown who destroys not for money or power but for the sheer joy of bringing anarchy to Gotham, a city that still sports 30-million inhabitants despite frequent visits by mass murderers itching to burn the place to the ground.

Apparently Gotham’s mobsters are on the ropes, pressed on one side by a certain black-caped vigilante and on the other by a new “incorruptible” District Attorney, Harvey Dent (played by Aaron Eckhart).  And so they say “Yes” to the Joker, who promises to solve all their problems, despite misgivings about allying themselves with a murderous nutcase.

Long-time comics fans knew before the first frame was shot that District Attorney Dent was destined to become the psychopathic Two Face, another Batman rogue, one who makes decisions regarding who will live and who will die based on the flip of a scarred coin.

In an earlier, more innocent era, Two Face was just another themed criminal whose duality calling-card primarily manifest as “two-ish” crimes (like stealing twin diamonds and making his escape on a bi-plane).  But that was another Millennium, which means today the villainous Dent is left flipping a coin in order to determine if he will plug a child (the son of Commissioner Gordon, played stalwartly yet again by Gary Oldman).

Another thing I like about the Nolan Batman oeuvre comes from the hero’s mature sidekicks played once more by Michael Caine (as Alfred) and Morgan Freeman (as Lucius Fox, the Wayne Enterprises exec who provides the Batman with his military-level armament).

But getting back to Harvey “Two-Face” Dent, the introduction of a second villain represents an element that plays a role in many a Batman stinkeroo: too many bad guys.  It was one thing when Adam West faced off against his entire rogues gallery in the 1966 TV-series cinema spin off.  But Poison Ivy (Uma Thurman), Mr. Freeze (Arnold Schwarzenegger) and Bane (who cares) squaring off against Batman (George Clooney), Robin (Chris O’Donnell) and Batgirl (Alicia Silverstone) in the 1997 Batman and Robin definitely proved that more was much, much less.

Dark Knight’s doubling up on the bad guys wasn’t as much of a misfire as that, but the extra baddie in this picture definitely lessened the impact of Ledger’s signature Joker and blurred the real duality driving the Batman mythos: that of Batman and the Joker as mirror images of one another.  And why does so much of the drama in this of the next picture (Dark Knight Rises) hinge on maintaining the heroic myth of the incorruptible Harvey Dent?

In any superhero pick, you come to expect a storyline driven by the need to set up the next action scene.  But the most skillful of these (such as the first Superman, Spiderman, Iron Man and Avengers pictures) manage to create enough drama (as well as humor and romance) to make you forget that fact.  Not so Dark Knight where I kept wondering why the characters were doing what they were doing, other than to get everyone where they needed to be for the next big fight.

All that said, Dark Knight is definitely not one of those “I’m going to hate this picture just as much when I watch it ten times on cable” pictures.  Watching it with Ben made me remember what I liked about the picture much more than what I disliked.  So keep ‘em coming guys!  I’ll keep buying tickets (this time for both myself and the boys).

Ben Replies: I’ll start with what you said about this film going with the “Sinister Six” approach, like Batman and Robin or Spiderman 3 (where Thomas Haydyn Church, James Franco and Topher Grace teamed up against our webbed friend). I would say this is not a fair comparison. These films were made for the purpose of making the superheroes look unbeatable, and the Dark Knight is trying to do the opposite. The film brings ideas about humanity to the table in a way no film of this sort has ever done before, and brings out the man in Batman much more than Clooney’s attempt did.

On the point of Harvey Dent, I couldn’t agree more about the storyline being forced. And as for Ledger’s incredible performance, I was just as shocked by the merciless clown. I do however believe that the drama that led up to the action was there, even if it was not as skillfully done as the rest of the film.  

A final thing you may have forgot was that even though the cast was made up of all-stars (Freeman, Oldman, Bale, Ghyllenhal, Eckhart and of course the Brokeback Mountain star who was acting so much his makeup was sweating off) there were so many characters, everyone except for the clown and possibly Dent were uncomfortably underdeveloped, including “The Bat” himself.