2022 - May
Harper (1966) 3.5/4
The General's Daughter (1999) 3/4
The Lincoln Lawyer (2011) 3/4
The Young Poisoner's Handbook (1995) 3/4
Murder by Decree (1979) 3/4
Twilight (1998) 2/4
Blood Work (2002) 2/4
A Study in Terror (1965) 2/4
The Raven (2012) 2/4
Absolute Power (1997) 1.5/4
Bear Island (1979) 1.5/4
The Drowning Pool (1975) 1.5/4
The Jigsaw Man (1983) 1/4
The General's Daughter (1999) 3/4
The Lincoln Lawyer (2011) 3/4
The Young Poisoner's Handbook (1995) 3/4
Murder by Decree (1979) 3/4
Twilight (1998) 2/4
Blood Work (2002) 2/4
A Study in Terror (1965) 2/4
The Raven (2012) 2/4
Absolute Power (1997) 1.5/4
Bear Island (1979) 1.5/4
The Drowning Pool (1975) 1.5/4
The Jigsaw Man (1983) 1/4
List activity
30 views
• 0 this weekCreate a new list
List your movie, TV & celebrity picks.
13 titles
- DirectorJames HillStarsJohn NevilleDonald HoustonJohn FraserSherlock Holmes and Dr. John H. Watson join the hunt for the notorious serial killer, Jack the Ripper.01-05-2022
Sherlock Holmes Meets Jack the Ripper boasts the poster for "A Study in Terror", a low-budget British chiller notable only for the fact that it was the first to stumble on that seemingly obvious idea. That the tagline became the title for pretty much every foreign release the film has ever had seems only to support that notion. Now, let's look underneath the tagline at the body of the actual US poster. It features a green-tinted Sherlock Holmes pointing a revolver at the audience resembling Adam West's Batman more than Arthur Conan Doyle's thoughtful detective. Below him is a woman, her face distorted by a blood-curdling scream, her red lipstick the only deviation from the green-blue colour palette. Overlaid on this picture are comic book style dialogue bubbles with exclamations such as POW! BIFF! AIEEE! and CRUNCH! written in them. It is a very good indication of the kind of movie "A Study in Terror" is.
Despite the tagline, this is very much a Sherlock Holmes movie as opposed to a Jack the Ripper one. It lacks the traditional grisliness and goriness of a Ripper-feature, the fog-laden back alleys of Victorian London in which thick, bright red blood is the only thing that stands out on the grey cobblestones. No, Jack the Ripper here is used very sparingly, to the point where it feels like he was superimposed onto a run-of-the-mill whodunnit for marketing reasons. His horrifying methods of butchery are not copied here, neither shown nor mentioned. Dates are not inferred and famous suspects do not show up. Only the names of his victims and his much-maligned stomping ground serve to remind us what we are watching.
The film is, then, a fairly rote detective story in which Sherlock Holmes (John Neville) and his faithful sidekick Dr Watson (Donald Houston) ploddingly follow the breadcrumb trail to the identity of the killer in an ending that will without a doubt be disappointing to anyone approaching this film as a connoisseur of the Ripper mythos. It is a fairly unimaginative romp through all the standard Sherlock cliches. We get the deerstalker, the violin-playing, the brilliant disguises. There are dangerous experiments performed in Baker Street much to the chagrin of the bewildered Dr Watson.
The characterizations of the two characters are similarly stereotypical. John Neville makes for a decent Holmes but is never given any material that would stretch his acting talents. His role mostly consists of making stupefying deductions, a gift which this film makes resemble a cheap party trick. Otherwise, he is pretty much featureless, defined only by his iconic costume.
I must admit that I didn't like this film's take on Dr Watson, a character Donald Houston plays like a gormless tag-along. He is very much written as nothing more than Holmes' straight-man, reduced to saying things like "however did you solve that, Holmes" and reacting to everything his friend does with a boyish kind of gosh-gollying. What Houston gives us here can be best described as a pantomime Watson. A comic figure resembling that played by Nigel Bruce but without any of the charm or the assertiveness.
In general, "A Study in Terror" assembles an excellent cast to play poorly underwritten characters. The usually excellent Anthony Quayle doesn't seem to know whether his character is supposed to be a fire-and-brimstone preacher or a generous do-gooder. A young Judi Dench shows up in a highly forgettable role as the love interest for the handsome but entirely superficial John Fraser. Robert Morley is an entertaining Mycroft Holmes but does nothing outside of his usual schtick. Another luminary from the Sherlock Holmes canon, Inspector Lestrade is also in the film but has nothing to do. Luckily, he is played by Frank Finlay who is such a memorable screen presence that he manages to make much of a very small role.
The characterization of Jack the Ripper's victims is downright insulting. In fact, Whitechapel itself in this film is portrayed more like a kind of Hollywood pollyanna for the poor than the slum it was. Instead of a seedy lair of indecency populated by the unfortunate and the dissolute, here we get to see a clean and well-lit place where chirpy cockney prostitutes hop down cobblestone streets and engage in jolly flirting with smiling customers. What nonsense! Annie Chapman is played by Barbara Windsor, for god's sake!
"A Study in Terror" has a brilliant premise but its execution leaves a lot to be desired for. Instead of opting for a moody Gothic atmosphere or even giving the film a slick Gialloesque sheen, director James Hill opts for a kind of ITC entertainment style that ultimately proves ineffective. With a shallow script that's nothing more than a rote retread of every Holmesian cliche in the book, "A Study in Terror" is a definite disappointment.
2/4 - DirectorBob ClarkStarsChristopher PlummerJames MasonDavid HemmingsSherlock Holmes investigates the murders commited by Jack the Ripper and discovers a conspiracy to protect the killer.01-05-2022
A decade-and-a-half after "A Study in Terror" proved to be a disappointment, Bob Clark directed "Murder by Decree", the film that finally does justice to the brilliant premise of Sherlock Holmes investigating the Jack the Ripper killings. Well, almost does it justice. It comes on the heels of such works as Stephen Knight's "Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution", the book that first speculated on the connections between Jack the Ripper and the Freemasons and the 1973 mini-series "Jack the Ripper" which reinvigorated interest in the century-old murders. Surprisingly, however, "Murder by Decree" is not a sensationalistic cinematic exploitation of the murders. It is a well-researched, thoughtful movie that cleverly weaves fiction with reality without compromising either.
The opening shots immediatly set the scene and let us know that this is not going to be another romp through the cliches like "A Study in Terror". We open on a moody, gloomy shot of a fog-bound London night with a blood red sky enclosing it like some kind of a claustrophobic hell. A figure of a woman, clad in a black dress, runs down a cobblestone street. Chasing her, in ominious slow motion, is a pitch-black carriage emerging from the fog like a shark from the darkness of the ocean.
The meticulous emulation of Victorian London is probably the film's greatest attribute. I am not speaking merely of the atmosphere and the period detail but also the spirit of the times, the squalor, the immorality, the political tensions. A group of Whitechapel merchants come to plead with Sherlock Holmes (Christopher Plummer) to catch the mysterious killer. "If it was the West End, the police would have him shut away by now," urges their spokesperson (Ron Pember), "If it was rich women took his fancy in their palaces, and not poor women forced on the streets." But they are no samaritans and they soon reveal their true motives. You see, The Ripper is scaring people away from Whitechapel and trade's falling off.
Holmes accepts but finds himself an unwelcome intrusion on the unusually guarded police investigation. Even his old friend Inspector Lestrade (Frank Finlay) seems less than friendly which is more than can be said for Sir Charles Warren (Anthony Quayle), the chief of police, who outright threatens to have Holmes arrested for the murders if he doesn't butt out. What are they hiding? And what is the connection between the murders and the feared radicals? The film opens with a terrific scene in which the arrival of the royal family at the opera is met with booing. Dr Watson (James Mason) is apalled and starts a chant of "God save his royal highness". The sense of dissension and political unrest adds much to the overall tension of this picture.
As directed by Bob Clark, the man behind the excellent slasher film "Black Christmas", "Murder by Decree" feels more like a horror film than a whodunnit. Sinister figures in top hats skulk in dark corners while the fog seems to infect every crevice of the city like a virus. There are several memorably creepy scenes and an unexplained air of the supernatural throughout the film. It is a highly unsettling and highly welcome directorial touch.
As a Sherlock Holmes film, it is a distinctly low-key affair. Oh, sure, we get the deerstalker, the pipe, and some clever disguises but overall this Holmes is very far from the cliche. He is wonderfully played by Christopher Plummer who presents a more human, more emotional, more believable man. Nowhere is this better seen than in his relationship with the film's Doctor Watson, played superbly by James Mason. This is one of the few Holmes films in which their relationship feels like a geniune friendship built on mutual love rather than Watson's awe of Holmes' abilities. This Watson is no fool. He is a witty, smart, unquestionably brave man with a fierce loyalty for his friend. He even gets the better of Holmes in several scenes which is unthinkable in your run-of-the-mill Holmesiana.
Where the film does fail, however, is the pacing. At over 2 hours it is at least half-an-hour too long. The script was written by venerable TV writer John Hopkins and it is a talky affair. Especially egregious is the 20-minute epilogue which absolutely kills any momentum the film had left. "Murder by Decree" is a brilliant movie when its characters shut up and let the atmosphere do the talking. The dialogue is a significant problem, however, and very often a stumbling block preventing the film from reaching its full potential. A damn shame!
Otherwise, "Murder by Decree" is a terrific movie. The cinematographer Reginald H. Morris is one of its brightest stars. The film looks a whole lot more expensive than it was which is the highest compliment you can give a DP. It also features a whole host of memorable supporting turns from such actors as David Hemmings, Susan Clark, Anthony Quayle, John Gielgud, Frank Finlay, Genevieve Bujold, and Tedde Moore. Especially good is Donald Sutherland as the haunted psychic Robert Lees in one of the film's eeriest sequences.
3/4 - DirectorBenjamin RossStarsHugh O'ConorAntony SherTobias ArnoldThis film is based on a true story about a British teenager who allegedly poisoned family, friends, and co-workers. Graham is highly intelligent, but completely amoral. He becomes interested in science, especially chemistry, and begins to read avidly. Something of a social misfit, he is fascinated by morbid subjects such as poisons and murder. His family environment is intolerable to him and, in particular, his stepmother torments him. He decides to poison those who annoy him, first with antimony and later with thallium. He smugly thinks himself cleverer than all those around him, but nevertheless he is caught and sentenced to 'rehabilitation' at a psychiatric institution. Once there, he undertakes to deceive the new eminent psychiatrist sent there to 'cure' him, thereby securing his release.02-05-2022
The enticingly titled "The Young Poisoner's Handbook" is a stylish and disturbingly comedic true-crime biopic of Graham Young, an industrious young man with a love of chemistry and a fairly prolific poisoner. The film opens with a depiction of his family life in one of those dour post-War terraced houses. On the surface, Graham is any parent's dream. A well-behaved young lad who proudly announces that his every waking hour is consumed with study. However, as we soon learn, his family and friends are wary of him. He is, simply put, weird. Dressed in a forbidding black suit ("He looks like an undertaker," says Graham's father) he spends his days locked away in his room performing "experiments" with his chemistry set. While his school friends are playing in the yard, he sits in the basement reading books on autopsies and poisons.
But just as much as his family dislikes him, he is not particularly enamoured with them either. While his emotionally unavailable father (Roger Lloyd Pack) is away at work, he spends most of his time annoying his neurotic step-mother (Ruth Sheen) and being annoyed by his nosey sister (Charlotte Coleman). After a lifetime of rejection and an absence of love, is it any surprise then that Graham has no particular feelings for them?
A run-of-the-mill serial killer movie would content itself with making Graham's dislike for his stepmother his reason for poisoning her. But "The Young Poisoner's Handbook" does not see it that way. Instead of the murder being committed as an act of anger, it is shown as a kind of dispassionate experiment. Graham poisons his stepmother slowly, over time, with gradually increasing doses. He keeps meticulous notes of her progress (or rather regress) in a black-leather notebook he keeps in his room. He even keeps a flowchart!
There is no doubt that Graham has a knack for chemistry but the high opinion he holds himself in might just be a tad overinflated. After his stepmother finally succumbs to the effects of thallium, he decides to move on to his father. But if one mysterious death in the family can go unnoticed, two certainly can't, especially if they both exhibit the same conspicuous symptoms. Graham is soon arrested and sent away to a mental asylum.
But this is not the end of our story, merely its beginning. In the asylum, Graham becomes a patient of one Dr Zeigler (Antony Sher), an ambitious psychiatrist with a penchant for dream analysis. Realizing Zeigler can be his ticket out, Graham sets out in faking his recovery. I won't reveal how he pulls it off, but he achieves it through some genuinely devilish means that make for disturbingly compelling viewing.
Once out, Graham wants nothing more than to return to his old poisoning ways but is determined not to get caught again. But how can he pull it off? Fortune smiles at him when the government finds him a job in a camera-lens factory where one of the main chemicals used is his old favourite - thallium.
"The Young Poisoner's Handbook" owes more than a little of its inspiration to "A Clockwork Orange" another story of a too-clever-by-half criminal youth who fakes his rehabilitation only to return to his old ways. There's the carefully chosen medley of classical and pop music; the over-the-top, stylized sense of humour; the use of grotesque to highlight social problems. But Benjamin Ross' film is more than a rip-off. It manages to become a successful homage and a worthy successor through some qualities all of its own.
First off, there's a terrific performance from Hugh O'Conor who does not attempt to make Graham a likeable character but does imbue him with just enough boyish innocence to make his manipulations believable. Also terrific in the film are Antony Sher and Roger Lloyd-Pack, stalwarts of British acting, as well as the late Charlotte Coleman, a startlingly talented young actress who died far, far too early. One of the film's finest sequences is Graham's reunion with his sister after his release from prison. Even though she's all smiles and encouragement, she just cannot relax sitting next to her poisoner brother.
The second quality of the film is the careful balancing act between comedy and drama which director Benjamin Ross excels at. Despite its humorous tone, the film never feels disrespectful to Graham's victims nor does it strike a false chord. It draws its humour from savage social commentary, portraying how a culture of unacceptance can turn a potentially brilliant young man into a heartless killer. Ross is also able to play the audience like a fiddle, turning comedic scenes into heartbreaking moments at the drop of a hat. Even though Graham is never made likeable nor are his crimes excused, it is hard not to feel at least a little sorry for him, especially once you realize that each one of his crimes is preceded by an act of rejection.
3/4 - DirectorTerence YoungStarsMichael CaineLaurence OlivierSusan GeorgeAn MI6 defector has his appearance altered by the K.G.B. and is sent back to Britain to retrieve top-secret documents.02-05-2022
I can pinpoint the exact moment when "The Jigsaw Man", yet another failed attempt to recapture the glory of the 1960s spy movie craze, lost me. It's a training montage sequence in which a pudgy, moustachioed Michael Caine karate chops punching bags while resembling Borat in a red tracksuit. This is our protagonist, ladies and gentlemen! That this sequence occurs about 5 minutes into the movie is enough to let you know that little of value will be found here.
The plot is a tired rehash of Le Carre cliches except without any compelling characters, intriguing mysteries, or much of a story really. Our lead is Philip Kimberley (Michael Caine), a Kim Philby-like Soviet spy who defected to Russia some years ago. But the Soviets want him to go back and retrieve some super-secret papers only he knows the location of. But Kimberley wants a better deal than the Communists are offering and goes to his old friend and head of the British secret service, Admiral Scaith (Laurence Olivier), with a counter offer.
All of this plays out in the film's confusing opening act. The rest of "The Jigsaw Man" is a series of pointless dialogue scenes that don't serve to either further the story or develop the characters. There's no mystery at play here. We already know that Kimberley's playing both sides for his own profit. We also know that Scaith is trying to catch him. A manhunt ensues headed by Scaith's top man Fraser (Robert Powell) but since we already know where Kimberley's hiding there's little intrigue to be had there either.
In fact, it is astonishing just how low-effort this whole picture is. The few exciting things that occur in it are not shown but merely related to us through pages upon pages of stilted dialogue delivered by bored-sounding actors. It is adapted from a novel by Dorothea Bennett. Perhaps in written form, the author was able to dwell into the mind of a traitor like Kimberley. Examine his feelings and loyalties. Examine also the emotions of those he's left behind such as his daughter Penny (Susan George) who plays a minor part in the proceedings. However, as a movie, the material is rote and paper-thin. The script by Jo Eisinger fails to wring any intrigue or drama from the very few actual events that occur in it.
Another problem is that there is no one in this film we can truly call a protagonist. Kimberley is a sleazy, double-dealing traitor. Scaith is an irascible and highly unlikeable old man. Meanwhile, the supposed super-agent Fraser is never shown actually accomplishing anything in the whole film. He just goes from one dialogue scene to the next and always ends up getting the short end of the stick. James Bond, he ain't. Then again, there's no antagonist either. Just a series of boring characters engaging in endless dialogue scenes.
The cast is pretty atrocious as well. Laurence Olivier looks disturbingly infirm and unwell here. Pale and thin and lacking in that intensity that made him famous, he is woefully unconvincing as the head of anything except maybe the pensioners' convention. Robert Powell doesn't seem to have any grasp of what the film is about. Wooden and charmless, he stumbles through each scene as if he's hearing the lines for the first time through an earpiece. Meanwhile, a distinctly Arabic-looking Morteza Kazerouni skulks in bushes pretending to be a Soviet general. Yeah, right! At least Michael Caine appears to be having fun affecting a variety of duff accents while wearing a pornstache.
"The Jigsaw Man" was directed by Terence Young, the man who made "Dr No" and then went on to an ignoble career that included such cinematic atrocities as "Bloodline" and "Inchon". All of his worst traits are on display here. Scenes begin and end without any rhyme or reason. Action is badly and confusingly staged. Dialogue scenes are shot without any invention or dynamism. It's a real hack job.
As a cherry on top of this rotten cake is an ear-scratchingly awful synth score by John Cameron. I was going to say that "The Jigsaw Man" was, unfortunately, an awful man but then again what was I expecting. It's an obviously cheap, unambitious movie, a rotten attempt at a cash-grab directed at fans of John Le Carre and Len Deighton. Compared to those giants this movie's a squashed ant.
1/4 - DirectorDon SharpStarsDonald SutherlandVanessa RedgraveRichard WidmarkOn the remote Norwegian Bear Island, used as a submarine base by the Germans during World War II, U.N. scientist Larsen sends a distress signal using an emergency N.A.T.O. frequency, and is received by scientific vessel Morning Rose.03-05-2022
"Bear Island" is the kind of thriller in which characters act like there's something happening, there's a great threat to their lives and they have to figure out who the villain is, but you, the audience, never get that impression. As our heroes run around the research base on the titular island I kept scratching my head and wondering what exactly were they searching for. Our hero, scientist Frank Lansing (Donald Sutherland) frequently informs us that there's someone out there trying to kill the members of the scientific crew investigating global warming at the lonely, arctic outpost. But for more than the first two-thirds of the film, there's only a single death. A death, by the way, of a person who goes to an area marked "avalanche zone" and gets killed by an avalanche. You don't need to be Hercule Poirot to figure that one out.
The film is based on a potboiler by Alistair MacLean and occasionally such trademark elements as secret Nazi underwater bases, long-forgotten treasure, and a suspected undercover agent of a foreign power show up. But things don't really start happening until more than 70-minutes of the film have passed. Is such a long preamble really necessary? No, it's not. In fact, it is detrimental as by the time people actually started dying I had already stopped following the plot. I was bored out of my mind.
I suppose it could be argued that the filmmakers felt there was a need to establish the numerous characters who inhabit the research station. While that's a noble ambition, it does not work. When the villain is finally revealed I had no idea who they were. In the film's big action set-piece, people kept showing up who I could swear had not appeared before. Unless they were played by an actor I recognise, I couldn't remember a single character.
"Bear Island" is far from a terrible movie. It's set in gorgeous locations, it is well shot by Alan Hume and has several quite adequate action sequences. However, all of the qualities in the world couldn't overcome the fact that its plot is so dull and lacking in any kind of interest or mystery. I've seen it described as "Ten Little Indians" in the Arctic. I wish! I love Agatha Christie and I love snowbound thrillers but this film only bears a passing resemblance to that thriller classic. Instead of building up an engaging mystery, the film has all the characters behave in a suspicious and frequently nonsensical manner. The finale then boils down to one character after another sneaking up on each other with guns and then delivering long speeches.
In standard MacLean fashion, the film features an all-star cast all of whom thoroughly embarrass themselves. I can't remember a movie in which more beloved screen icons delivered such terrible performances. The usually reliable Donald Sutherland is probably the worst offender. I have no idea who thought it would be a good idea to have him deliver all of his lines in a monotonous flatline but his line readings are some of the worst I've ever seen. He makes for a startlingly boring and charmless protagonist.
The characters are supposed to form an international research crew but are played by Anglophonic actors doing cringeworthy accents. Vanessa Redgrave especially grates as her accent travels from Scandinavian to Russian to Brummie often in the same sentence. Meanwhile, Christopher Lee is downright hilarious as the menacing Soviet who spends the entire film skulking around the base carrying a rifle.
The final half-an-hour gives us a series of well-executed action scenes but I was so tuned out and bored by the preceding ninety minutes I couldn't tell you who was chasing whom. The technical execution of "Bear Island" promises a far better movie but the mind-numbingly glacial script and awful performances utterly betray it.
1.5/4 - DirectorJames McTeigueStarsJohn CusackAlice EveLuke EvansWhen a madman begins committing horrific murders inspired by Edgar Allan Poe's works, a young Baltimore detective joins forces with Poe to stop him from making his stories a reality.03-05-2022
On October 3rd, 1849, famous poet and writer of tales of mystery and imagination Edgar Allan Poe was found dying in a Baltimore park. He was rambling, apparently delusional, repeating the name Reynolds. Nothing is known of the last week of his life and the cause of his death remains a mystery. James McTeigue's "The Raven" presents its own version of the last days of Edgar Allan Poe.
Or at least that's the film's gimmick because besides Poe's name and a smattering of his poetry here and there this is a fairly rote serial killer film the kind you could transport to any period and put any kinds of characters in without missing a beat. You see, screenwriters Hannah Shakespeare and Ben Livingston posit that Poe spent his last days working hunting down a copycat killer inspired by his most famous works. Examples include a man tied down to a table and disembowelled by a massive pendulum and a woman found inside a chimney of a locked room.
What ensues is a decently executed but completely familiar serial killer scavenger hunt which tries to pitch its tone somewhere between the stylishness of "From Hell" and the gruesomeness of "Se7en". It doesn't really work on either count. For one, McTeague directs the film with technical aplomb but little originality or flair. As photographed by Danny Ruhlmann, it looks more like an up-market TV series than a distinctive cinematic experience. As far as its gruesomeness goes, the film contains some nicely conceived scenes of gore and murder which are then utterly undercut by poor CGI blood.
The film also fails to capitalize on the fact that its leading man is Edgar Allan Poe. Sure, he spouts an occasional quote from the titular poem but there is nothing particularly distinctive or revealing about the character. He could have equally been Jules Verne or one of the Lumiere Brothers. Just change the quotes.
He is played in this film by John Cusack who bears a passing resemblance to the man and could surely do a decent job playing him in a more serious movie. In this material, however, he feels miscast. The script turns Poe into a quirky braggart, a sorrowful romantic lead, and apparently an ace detective. Such a role demands a uniquely charismatic and naturally quirky actor. I could see Johnny Depp pulling it off with ease or Robert Downey Jr., but Cusack never quite pulls it off. He's especially unconvincing in the love scenes with his 16-year old younger co-star Alice Eve. Not only is the age gap painfully noticeable and inappropriate for the material, but the two also share no chemistry. This is not to disparage Ms Eve's performance. In a rather gruesome film, hers is the only performance that could be described as charming.
The rest of the cast is populated by dependable British and Eastern European character actors. They fit their parts well but struggle with the required Boston accent. While Cusack doesn't even seem to try, everyone else sounds alternatively American, French and Russian. That is, of course, when their natural British accents aren't slipping through. I did like, however, Luke Evans in the thankless part of the hapless police inspector, the Lestrade to Poe's Holmes.
So, "The Raven" is watchable and occasionally quite diverting but is it worth watching? I'm not sure it is. While there's nothing offensive or outright bad in the movie, there's also nothing of particular note. The story is familiar and the screenplay does absolutely nothing to step away from the cliches. The characters are non-existent and merely serve to execute the requirements of the plot. The direction is skilful but plodding, like the work of a good TV director who, by the nature of his job, has to remain invisible and styleless. At best, "The Raven" deserves the dubious distinction of being "alright for a rainy day", but before watching it make sure it is pouring.
2/4 - DirectorClint EastwoodStarsClint EastwoodJeff DanielsAnjelica HustonStill recovering from a heart transplant, retired F.B.I. profiler Terry McCaleb returns to service when his own blood analysis offers clues to the identity of a serial killer.11-05-2022
Following "Unforgiven", where he played an ageing cowboy, Clint Eastwood started a movie trend wherein he'd play all of his old stereotypical parts just with the added twist of having them be crusty old men. For instance, in "Absolute Power" he played an ageing (honourable) thief, in "True Crime" he played an ageing crusading reporter, in "Space Cowboys" he played an ageing astronaut, and in "Million Dollar Baby" he played an ageing boxer. Sandwiched between those, more successful and more fondly remembered movies, lies "Blood Work", a movie best described as Clint Eastwood plays an ageing Dirty Harry.
OK, in fact, he plays Terry McCaleb (Clint Eastwood), an ageing FBI profiler who spends his retirement days hunting the killer of a young woman. What makes her so special? Well, you see, after she died her heart was transplanted into McCaleb. Try not to think of this film as the dramatic remake of "Heart Condition".
As corny as it may sound, I really love this premise. Much like Sean Penn's "The Pledge" it's a great opportunity for an adventurous actor to explore the psychological depths of such a stereotypical character as 'the driven cop'. What connection is developed between the detective and the victim? How far is a man willing to go to satisfy his need for truth? How does a man keep his head clear and focused while his body is crumbling under the physical stress of the investigation?
Pity then, that Eastwood doesn't exploit any of those opportunities. Sure, there's a lot of talk about him looking poorly, having bags under his eyes, and having a "bad colour" to his face. But you wouldn't know any of that from looking at Eastwood who doesn't so much as break a sweat after kicking down doors, shooting down killers, and jumping out of the way of speeding cars. The only clue that he's unwell is that he occasionally touches his chest the way I do when I get heartburn from too many sodas.
Otherwise, Eastwood plays Eastwood without so much as an attempt to disguise his usual mannerisms. There's the angry frown, the gravelly voice which sounds more and more hilarious with every passing film, and the stoic posture that seems awfully unbefitting for a character who has just gotten out of major surgery.
He's also too old for the part. At 72 years old, Eastwood is woefully unconvincing as an FBI agent. Just look at the laughable chase that opens the film in which every time we see McCaleb running we cut to an obvious stunt double. Maybe that's the clue that Clint should be looking for a different kind of role. It doesn't stop him, of course, from engaging in a romance plot with a woman old enough to be his daughter. They have as much chemistry as you'd expect.
The plot itself is intriguing and how could it not be seeing how the film is based on a novel by Michael Connelly, an absolute master of the police procedural. Starting from the young woman who was apparently randomly murdered in a store robbery, McCaleb connects a series of similar deaths into a serial killer pattern. Condensed into a two-hour movie, some of his theories may seem a bit far-fetched but that's par-for-the-thriller-course.
The script, written by Brian Helgeland, does an admirable job of taking us from one clue to the next in the best manner of a film noir. However, a lack of viable suspects proves a stumbling block as it becomes quite obvious who the killer is from the simple fact that there's no one else in the movie who it could be.
I was less enamoured with Eastwood's direction. He is well-known as a "nuts and bolts man" - a very technical, old-fashioned director. That works well with certain kinds of material but Connelly's novel is crying out for a more stylish approach. It really should have been a moody, neo-noirish movie dripping with the atmosphere of an LA heatwave. Compared with some better Connelly adaptations, Eastwood's no-frills direction comes across as stilted and distanced.
There's a lot of good work in "Blood Work". I loved Lennie Niehaus' sizzling jazz score and there's a fine performance from Jeff Daniels bringing some much-needed humour to an otherwise po-faced film. Sadly, the film as a whole never quite comes together and I think the problem is its star and director. Eastwood's performance and his direction both exude a kind of workmanlike reluctance. Like he's making a movie he doesn't want to make. Without a strong lead or stylish direction, this is a thriller that quickly falls into a kind of lethargy that is hard to get out of.
2/4 - DirectorClint EastwoodStarsClint EastwoodGene HackmanEd HarrisCareer thief Luther Whitney (Clint Eastwood) witnesses a horrific crime involving U.S. President Alan Richmond (Gene Hackman).15-05-2022
There's a problem with Luther Whitney (Clint Eastwood), the supposed lead of "Absolute Power" and it's not the fact that he's a master burglar. This problem becomes evident in the film's extended opening sequence and is never satisfactorily resolved. Here's the setup. Luther breaks into a rich man's house. He's busy picking through his finer jewellery when he hears voices coming from downstairs. So he hides in the rich guy's vault which has a two-way mirror for a door. Through that mirror, he watches a man and a woman have a boozy ending to a successful dinner date. Then things turn nasty. The man slaps the woman. She slaps him back. Enraged he starts beating her. She tries to escape. He holds her down. She tries to stab him. Then two secret service men bust through the door and kill the woman.
The problem with Luther Whitney is that he's no hero. He never even tries to help the woman even though he has ample time to do so. He simply hides in his little cubby hole as she's beaten and shot to death. OK, it's an effective and intriguing opening but no matter how hard Clint Eastwood may try, he never managed to make me sympathize with Luther after that. When you introduce your character as a cowardly thief, you'll never manage to make an action hero out of him.
Back to the story. Now Luther Whitney has a problem. He's witnessed a murder and he is the most obvious suspect. What's he to do? He can't turn to the cops. Not only is he a well-known burglar without a chance of being believed but the drunkard he saw beat up the victim was no other than Alan Richmond (Gene Hackman), the President of the United States.
Enter Detective Seth Frank (Ed Harris), a more promising if blander protagonist. He twigs that there's more to the murder than meets the eye. Frank is no fool and he also quickly zeroes in on Luther as the only burglar in Washington good enough to pull off the heist. Is Luther the killer or a material witness? We already know the answer which sadly makes most of the scenes involving Frank feel like nothing more than gears to grind the plot into motion.
Frank is not the only person after Luther. The secret service also wants to catch the thief who gave them the slip on the night of the murder. So they tap Frank's phone and soon enough they're in on the Luther chase too. But Luther is a self-professed master of disguise and from this point on most of the film boils down to the cops and the secret service running around trying to catch Luther while he ponces about wearing an obviously fake moustache.
"Absolute Power" is based on a bestseller by David Baldacci and like most bestsellers, it has a plot that barely hangs together. In order for the film to work, the secret service and the police would have to be run by twelve-year-olds. All one needs to evade capture, "Absolute Power" claims, is a forged passport, a cop uniform and a false moustache. Maybe I would buy that had this film been made in the 1960s but in 1997 all of it seems awfully naive.
Now, I would be willing to give some of "Absolute Power's" more logic-straining moments a pass if it were a fun, action-filled movie a la "Mission Impossible". But it's not. What it is is a sullen, leaden-paced drudge through a paper-thin plot. Clint Eastwood's pacing is notoriously deliberate and it serves only to underline just how dumb Baldacci's story is and how uninteresting the characters are.
I would have loved to have seen a more introspective movie in which Eastwood would play a cowardly and immoral old thief. This is not that movie. Eastwood plays him much as he plays any of his more upstanding and heroic leads. He's charismatic and occasionally even witty but he's never in the least interesting.
On the other side, there's Gene Hackman who is barely given enough space in the movie to make himself known. For whatever reason, he's only in about 20 minutes of this 2-hour picture. The character he plays is decidedly one-dimensional. He's a crook and a drunk. Hackman is a great, great actor but anyone could have played this part. For a much better and more nuanced take on a very similar character check out "No Way Out", a far superior thriller.
A saving grace for "Absolute Power" is a marvellous supporting cast. The film boasts terrific turns from such familiar faces as Laura Linney, E.G. Marshall, Scott Glenn, and Dennis Haysbert. For my money, the most eye-catching performance in the film is given by Judy Davis as the president's high-strung, impish, and devious chief of staff. He's the loose cannon but she's the really dangerous one. The best scene in the film is a bizarre dance scene between her and Hackman. If only more of the film focused on them.
"Absolute Power" has a preposterous premise but one that could have turned into a fun thriller in which a brilliant thief uses his cunning to outwit the secret service. Instead, Eastwood's film is the kind of old-fashioned thriller that gives old-fashioned thrillers a bad name. It's talky, unbearably slow, and unbelievably dumb. After a good opening sequence, it is never either suspenseful or fun. Luther's methods of evading his hunters are disappointingly simple and obvious and the story seems to possess a curious lack of twists. We're told who the bad guys are at the beginning and nothing more is revealed after the first 30 minutes. So why watch the rest then? It's a question I can't answer.
1.5/4 - DirectorSimon WestStarsJohn TravoltaMadeleine StoweJames CromwellWhen the daughter of a well-known and well-respected base commander is murdered, an undercover detective is summoned to look into the matter and finds a slew of cover-ups at West Point.15-05-2022
I love a military thriller. The army makes for a great setting for a mystery. It's like a secret society with its own rules, secret handshakes, and tight brotherhood. "There are three ways to do things," goes a saying, "the right way, the wrong way, and the army way". On a more basic note, the army just looks damn good on film. The sharp uniforms, the choreographed parades, the stiff-upper-lip formality of it all with great tension boiling away under those starched collars.
"The General's Daughter" absolutely nails both of those points. The film is shot by Peter Menzies Jr. and it looks and feels so atmospheric - like a good noirish thriller should. It's set on a lonely military base where hanging green nets sway in the wind and the wet concrete shines after the night's rain. On one such night, a body is discovered - the body of Captain Elisabeth Campbell (Leslie Stefanson) - tied spreadeagle, raped, and strangled. The discovery is made all the more horrific by the fact she's the big man's daughter, the only child of General James Campbell (James Cromwell), beloved by his men, popular with the general public.
Assigned the investigation is Paul Brenner (John Travolta), an army investigator who is not particularly brilliant but gets the job done. He's like a dog after a bone and he'll keep digging until he finds all the skeletons. And ooooh, boy, does this base have 'em! Of course, the army being the army doesn't want him to dig too deep. "Are you a policeman or a soldier," asks the General. "I'm a soldier," answers Brenner but their definitions may differ.
Based on a bestseller by Nelson De Mille, "The General's Daughter" is the kind of thriller that doesn't reinvent the wheel but provides for a smooth ride. It is directed stylishly and steadily by Simon West who gives the film an unusual, nightmarish quality. There are scenes in this film that could be straight out of a horror movie and one flashback sequence that's so spooky, so grandiose it reminded me of the tribalistic chaos of "Apocalypse Now".
The identity of the killer is painfully obvious from the start but the real revelations in the film are more to do with the victim and her relationship with her saintly father than her killer. This is one of the few thrillers which managed to genuinely chill me to the bone. The big reveal is so twisted, so disturbing as to almost feel too heavy for an unambitious genre flick like this.
But "The General's Daughter" keeps afloat. One of the reasons it does is the aforementioned stylishness afforded it by the excellent work from West, Menzies, and composer Carter Burwell who mixes southern blues with the majestic grandeur of the army.
Another reason is the superb cast all of whom bring personality and charisma to their underwritten parts. John Travolta is great as the easygoing Brenner. He has the lightness of touch and the lack of pretentiousness required to make such a character likeable and funny. But I was more impressed by the cast surrounding him playing the imposing military man who are his suspects. Look at the stateliness James Cromwell brings to the General, the swagger of Timothy Hutton's underappreciated military policeman, the moralising of Clarence Williams III as the General's faithful adjutant, snapping like a guard dog at anyone who dares offend his master. A fine performance also comes from James Woods who subdues his usual bravado to play the lowly, unloved career officer who harboured unrequited feelings for the general's daughter. It's a cast to kill for indeed!
With a likeable lead, a head-spinning all-star cast, and top-notch filmmaking, "The General's Daughter" overcomes its thin plotting to become a genuinely exciting and involving murder mystery. The screenplay credited to Christopher Bertolini and William Goldman doesn't manage to overcome some of the basic issues of its source material but it does provide the actors with some sharp, meaningful monologues and several really witty jabs.
But it is the haunting revelations that will stick with you and I hope you can stomach them. That's where the film either grabs your attention or turns you off completely. I was fascinated by the pathology of its characters and their tortured psyche and I greatly enjoyed "The General's Daughter".
3/4 - DirectorRobert BentonStarsPaul NewmanSusan SarandonGene HackmanA retired detective accepts a simple task, unaware that it will tear open old, forgotten, but deadly wounds.15-05-2022
Some movies are as cosy as a pair of old slippers. Just as comfortable and reliable too. The recipe is easy. Cast a few familiar faces, real likeable ones, from years and years ago. Easy-going actors with charm and charisma who look older nowadays but haven't lost that special something that made them shine on the silver screen. The script should be simple, nothing too heavy, god forbid challenging. It should be made up like a best of album, compiled of familiar tunes, lines you can almost hum to. Finally, give it an elegiac tone, an air of gentle reminiscence of the glory years. Make it a romantic look back, a little sad but with the right does of acceptance.
That describes "Twilight" to a T. It's a movie that feels so familiar and is so easily watchable I felt like I'd seen it many times before. Of course, I haven't but I've seen every element that it's made up from.
It's supposed to be a detective story, a noir throwback like Robert Benton's marvellous "The Late Show" just without the edge. Our lead is Paul Newman. He's supposed to be playing a former PI named Harry Ross but we all know he's playing Paul Newman - laid back, witty, with romance in his eyes. Retired after being shot, Ross now works as a kind of handyman for a pair of former movie stars. The dying Jack Ames (Gene Hackman) and his sexpot wife Catherine (Susan Sarandon). Ross' duties involve fixing the washing machine, getting groceries, and running oddjobs.
One such oddjob gets him involved in a murder. While delivering a mysterious package to a mysterious woman, Ross stumbles upon the corpse of an ex-cop who investigated the disappearance of Catherine's first husband. Soon enough bodies are dropping left and right and old friends seem to be involved.
Watching "Twilight" I always knew exactly where it was headed but that was exactly what Robert Benton wanted. The film is written in such a way that the prospective audience doesn't have to strain for a second to follow the plot. Every clue is highlighted, every location change is thoroughly explained and everyone's motivations are made as clear as day. Forget the murky undercurrents of film noir, this is one for the old folks.
Old slippers are damn cosy and you never want to part from them but the thing about slippers is they eventually wear out and before you know it your feet are slipping through the tears. "Twilight" is not quite full of holes but it is as shabby as it's comfortable. It's a wonderfully cast film with a good director at its helm so it's a double shame that it never stretches any of their talents. It's kinda like having Pavarotti over for dinner and having him sing karaoke. A waste.
Besides Newman, Sarandon and Hackman the cast also includes James Garner, a young Reese Whitherspoon, Stockard Channing, Giancarlo Esposito, Liev Schrieber, Margo Martindale, John Spencer, and M. Emmet Walsh. It's a real all-star team but everyone seems to be shuffling in place and playing to their stereotypes. Newman is easy-going and romantic, Hackman is bitter and tough, Sarandon is quirky and sexy. James Garner plays his part as a Rockford revival which is exactly how its written. Even the score sounds like its a recreation of a distant memory from the 1940s. Elmer Bernstein provides all the strings and horns your heart desires in a jazzy, smoldering throwback.
So why doesn't "Twilight" work? Maybe because it's so cosy it becomes complacent. It begins looking like a home video of a friendly reunion between former film stars. It's a genial, warm affair but there's nothing to be learned from it except the fact that we like all of these people. If there's any enjoyment to be gleamed from this film it's because we care about them not the plot they're vaguely enacting.
2/4 - DirectorJack SmightStarsPaul NewmanLauren BacallJulie HarrisCool private investigator Lew Harper is hired by a wealthy California matron to locate her kidnapped husband.17-05-2022
Where is Ralph Samson? He walked out of his private plane one day and simply disappeared. Has he been kidnapped? Has he been murdered? Or is he merely hiding away with one of his mistresses? Who knows? Maybe his chilly wife (Lauren Bacall) or his sexpot daughter (Pamela Tiffin) or the freeloading pilot hanging around them like a fly on a piece of candy (Robert Wagner). Or is there something more sinister going on? Something perhaps connected to a smooth-talking local gangster (Robert Webber) and his alcoholic astrologer wife (Shelley Winters)? And how do a drug-addicted jazz pianist (Julie Harris) and a new-age monk (Strother Martin) fit into the picture?
Lew Harper (Paul Newman) is tasked to find out. He is an easy-going, smart-ass private eye whose back of the head attracts metal like a magnet. With a sore head and the subtlety of a bull in a china shop, Harper slowly but surely untangles this complex web involving adultery, people smuggling, and a whole load of cash.
"Harper" is one of the first screenplays written by William Goldman and it's one of the most colourful and entertaining he's written in a long, highly respectable career. Every single character is given a personality, a quirk, something that makes them stand out. Every scene is a joy to watch, full of quotable dialogue, suspenseful situations, and that unmistakable 60s vibe of good, sexy fun.
I just wish that such a script was in the service of a better story. Based on "The Moving Target" by Ross MacDonald, a venerable legend of the hardboiled genre, this yarn of kidnappers and double-crosses is neither particularly original nor especially intriguing. The villains are easy to spot from the word go and there is very little mystery to keep us engaged. Harper himself does very little actual detecting instead mostly stumbling from one bad guy to the next following a series of strangely obvious clues. MacDonald himself would later claim that it took him several years to fine-tune his writing abilities. I've only ever read one of his novels, the excellent "Galton Case" which is definitely a great improvement over this rather rote and rudimentary plot.
But never mind. "Harper" is not the kind of movie you watch for the plot. It's a vibrant and exciting series of witty vignettes which put our hero into increasingly more ludicrous situations and pit him against some very memorable characters. The cast is, as listed above, top-notch and everyone is finely attuned to the film's easy-going, comedic tone.
Of course, Paul Newman is the star of the show and he keeps the film grounded with that signature charm of his. He is nothing like the Lew Archer of the novels who was kind of a faceless, oblique character, monosyllabic and stoic. Harper, on the other hand, is a detective of the 60s. Laid back, witty, something of a loser, and a magnet for the girls. Newman takes the right approach to this material which could have seemed clumsy and out-of-date had it been played straight without a sense of humour and self-awareness.
"Harper" is a rare hardboiled thriller that doesn't get caught up in eulogising Humphrey Bogart-era film noirs. It goes off and does its own thing. It is a vibrant, funny, exciting picture with a healthy disregard for logic. Everyone in it seems more concerned with having a good time than fulfilling the Raymond Chandler stereotypes. And keeping them reigned in (at least somewhat) is a first-rate script from a young but undoubtedly talented William Goldman.
3.5/4 - DirectorStuart RosenbergStarsPaul NewmanJoanne WoodwardAnthony FranciosaHarper's a big-city PI, who travels to Louisiana to help an old girlfriend who's worried her husband will find out she's been cheating on him.17-05-2022
Paul Newman first played Harper, the wisecracking private eye, in the eponymous 1966 film with a crackling script by William Goldman and about a dozen or so fun-loving guest stars. Why it took them nine years to produce a sequel, I have no idea but by the time "The Drowning Pool" came around a lot had changed for detective movies. The era of New Hollywood and new cynicism had arrived and Roman Polanski's masterpiece "Chinatown", the definitive deconstruction of the hardboiled genre, had just been released. That's why the two films share little besides the title character.
Directed by Stuart Rosenberg, the man behind the dourly humourless "The Laughing Policeman", and photographed by Gordon 'Prince of Darkness' Willis, "The Drowning Pool" tries very hard to capture the atmosphere of "Chinatown" with its morally bankrupt characters, pathological familial relationships, and one hell of a downer ending. But at the same time, this is a sequel to "Harper", so there are still cooky characters, witty one-liners, and a laid-back performance from Newman who seems to be having far more fun starring in the film than I am watching it. The two tones clash heavily and ultimately the film is a muddle. Too goofy to be taken seriously and too bleak to be entertaining.
This confusion infects the plot as well which is so convoluted, disjointed, and uninvolving that I won't even bother to recount it. Suffice to say it begins with a blackmailing plot performed on Harper's ex-girlfriend Iris (Joanne Woodward) and becomes complicated after her domineering mother-in-law (Coral Browne) is found murdered. Right there you have two characters who appear to have come from two different movies. While Woodward plays Iris with all the tragedy and gravitas of a Tennessee Williams play, Coral Browne hams it up as if she'd rather be playing Feydou. I prefer Browne's performance.
A lot of the blame for the confusion (both tonal and narrative) can be laid on the script, a jumbled mess which bears the fingerprints of three separate writers. Walter Hill, Tracy Keenan Wynn, and Lorenzo Semple Jr. I wonder if they ever meet each other. Besides being more confounding than "The Big Sleep", the script is never funny at all. The dialogue is full of double-talking, wisecracking oneupmanship which I suppose was meant to be charming but it is all so hackneyed, so uninventive, and most debilitatingly of all, unfunny, that I was just praying for the noise to end.
Stuart Rosenberg's direction doesn't help either. It can at best be described as pedestrian, lacking in style or pacing. There is no urgency to "The Drowning Pool", no suspense. I kept waiting for the film to grab me, excite me, intrigue me. As I waited, the end credits came up. Even the climactic action scene which gives the picture its name is a curiously slow, lifeless affair. There's no life in this film, just a steady change of frames.
It is a shame really because there is some good work here. Newman is as charming and likeable as ever, proving he could play Harper again with the same dose of humour and self-awareness he had in 1966 if only the script afforded him an opportunity to be funny. Also good is Murray Hamilton as the scenery-chewing oilman. I appreciated his every appearance. Of course, saying that Gordon Willis' photography is beautiful is tautological. He makes even Rosenberg's dull direction occasionally seem moody.
But I didn't like vast swathes of "The Drowning Pool", a meandering and bloated neo-noir that can't decide if it wants to be "Chinatown" or "The Cheap Detective". Besides that central issue, there is also the incomprehensible plot, some truly reprehensible southern accents (Tony Franciosa being the prime offender), and a distracting soundtrack by Michael Small which is comprised of endless repetitions of "Killing Me Softly". Rename it "Killing Me Slowly" and you'd get a fitting theme for this borefest.
1.5/4 - DirectorBrad FurmanStarsMatthew McConaugheyMarisa TomeiRyan PhillippeA lawyer defending a wealthy man begins to believe his client is guilty of more than just one crime.18-05-2022
I've said it before that what a good opening sequence does is let you know what kind of a movie you're in for. If it's a really good opening sequence it hooks you immediately. "The Lincoln Lawyer" has a really, really good opening sequence. It let me know right away this was a movie I'd like. It's a simple, no-frills montage but the shots and the music make it cinematic gold as the titular Lincoln - a beautiful, sleek, black car - drives down the jungle of downtown LA to Bobby Bland's classic "Ain't No Love in the Heart of the City". It strikes the perfect tone for the rest of this stylish thriller.
The laid-back urban blues is in the blood of its hero, Mickey Haller (Matthew McConaughey), a lawyer running as many scams as the criminal he represents. He knows the names of all the court clerks, he has journalists on his payroll, and he is not above inventing a charge or two if it gets him a bigger paycheck at the end of the day. But Mickey's not crooked, merely inventive. In fact, like all heroes of thrillers such as this have to be, he has a very strict moral compass, something that will very much be put to the test during the movie.
His client is Louis Roulet (Ryan Phillippe), the flashy heir to the Windsor real-estate empire, charged with beating up and attempting to rape a prostitute. The kid, of course, claims he didn't do it and Mickey believes him. That is until his investigator, a crusty former cop named Levin (William H. Macy) turns up a connection between Roulet and an old murder Mickey worked on years ago.
Haller's father, a great lawyer himself, apparently once told him that there is no client scarier than an innocent man. After Levin turns up dead, however, Mickey will come to realize this is not quite correct. As the trial moves along, he begins seeing that Roulet is "pure evil" and that there's nothing he can do about it.
"The Lincoln Lawyer" is based on a novel by Michael Connelly, a brilliant crime novelist whose complex plots don't seem to come across as well on screen as they do on the page. The previous cinematic adaptation of a Connelly novel was the anaemic "Blood Work". "The Lincoln Lawyer" is a far, far better film but with an equally nonsensical plot. As adapted by John Romano, the film starts off with an intriguing premise only to slowly lose all of its credibility as Mickey's courtroom gambits become less and less believable. I think even Matlock would baulk at some of the courtroom scenes presented here.
Furthermore, once the plot is finally unravelled (which happens about halfway through this two-hour film) you come to realize there really isn't very much to it at all. It's very old material which the film never gives a new spin on and that's a shame because the film that's constructed around the plot is really quite good.
Directed by Brad Furman and photographed by Lukas Ettlin, "The Lincoln Lawyer" is just washed in style and atmosphere. It has the kind of laid-back coolness that wouldn't be out of place in a film starring Sinatra or Newman or Dean Martin. Well, they're unavailable, but the film stars Matthew McConaughey who is very much in their league. His smooth, witty performance as Mickey Haller carries much of the picture and if you ever needed proof of McConaughey's acting chops, look no further. Whether he's joking around with his pals, grandstanding in court, or harried as he digs through old murder books, he is completely convincing and magnetically engrossing. It is undoubtedly a star turn.
The film surrounds him with other good performances. The supporting cast is full of recognisable faces including Marisa Tomei, Ryan Phillippe, William H. Macy, John Leguizamo, Michael Peña, Bob Gunton, Frances Fisher, Bryan Cranston, and Michaela Conlin. I especially liked Laurence Mason as Earl, the driver of the titular Lincoln which Mickey uses as a sort of a mobile office.
It is a shame that such a good character as Mickey Haller is not presented with a more challenging and more interesting story than the one we get in "The Lincoln Lawyer", but I still very much enjoyed this movie. I loved its style, and the mood it creates, I admired the performances in it and I had a lot of fun seeing McConaughey navigate his way through admittedly familiar material. It's not the best Connelly adaptation (we'll have to wait three more years for the pilot of "Bosch") but it is a wickedly fun thriller that deserved a sequel.
3/4