Mystic River

Lance: Mystic River is one of the only movies on the Mass. Movie Project list that I had seen in the theater before starting this project. It also might just about be the only movie ever produced that I have seen and Scott has not. Scott came into the movie expecting that it would be "a downer." So what do you say, bro? Did Mystic River leave you morose?

Scott: Oh yeah, sure. I've pretty much spent my hours since drinking cheap wine and listening to the Dave Matthews Band while staring out at the specter of the merciless and unchanging ocean. Actually, it wasn't quite that bad in terms of morosity. It was a downer, but it was a well made downer, so that's good at least. I know Sean Penn has been accused in some circles of chewing the scenery like the world's biggest termite, but I didn't think he was too over the top. Maybe once or twice, but nothing terribly egregious. And it's nice to see Tim Robbins bringing his A game to something other than a charity hockey game.

Lance: I would be one of Sean Penn's accusers. I imagine it's hard to practice the way one would react if he found out his daughter had been murdered. But at least in the scene at the park he was over the moon, never mind over the top. (Perhaps it would be only fair to have director Clint Eastwood share the blame. You'll notice in the still from that scene that there are at least 11 uniformed officers holding Penn back. That's an awful lot of blue for one distraught Bostonian. Maybe Penn was told to be emotional enough to need 11 officers to restrain him).

Penn's occasional outbursts notwithstanding, I liked the film quite a bit. While the movie is ostensibly a murder mystery, it's more about three boys from East Boston who grow up to be three very different people, and who are never quite able to get past the kidnapping and molestation of one of them (the character played by Robbins).

The film begins in 1975 as the three boys are playing street hockey and causing a little mischief. A car pulls up and a man posing as police officer convinces Dave to get in the car so the cop can take him home. Once in the car, a second man who is posing as a priest (or who is a priest...here's another case where the knowledge of the Catholic Priest molestation scandals that were uncovered earlier this decade influenced the way I saw the film) flashes a ring and smiles a creepy smile and it's pretty obvious where this is going. The boy suffers through four days of sexual abuse before he's able to escape, his life to be changed forever. The three are thrown together again as Penn's daughter is murdered, Robbins becomes a suspect, and Kevin Bacon is the homicide detective assigned to the case. Even 25 years later, the incident shapes the way the characters relate (or don't relate) to each other.

Scott: I particularly liked the performance from Marcia Gay Harden as the wife of Tim Robbins. Even though I am usually a Laura Linney fan, though, I wasn't super thrilled with her character. She seemed just a little too Lady Macbeth there at the end and she also had the only accent that didn't quite work for me. I did think they did a particularly good job casting the kids for the young versions of each character though.

I don't know, I guess I don't have a heck of a lot to say about this one. It was good. Not great, but good. My quibbles with it were minor -- such as the fact that I thought they ended it at the wrong place (it should have ended with the phone call where Kevin Bacon's character finally talks to his wife). I also didn't think it was a fantastic mystery, though as you said that wasn't the point; it was borderline egregious that they had to resort to obscuring an obvious clue by having both police officers be just plain too stupid to do the most basic detective work on the case (seriously, wouldn't listening to the 911 call be just about the first thing you do on the case?). But overall it was fine I guess. Could have used a little bit of the Carey Treatment to liven it up if you know what I mean, but otherwise solid. Not as boring as Flags of Our Fathers, anyway.

Tags: Sean Penn Kevin Bacon Tim Robbins Clint Eastwood Mystic River 2003

Next Stop Wonderland

Lance: When I was in high school, we had an assembly speaker one day who gave a speech on I can't remember what (OK, there were a lot of assemblies like that). But what I do remember about this particular speech is that it really wasn't a speech at all. It was a 20-minute prelude to nothing. The speaker kept predicating his statements with "what I want to talk about today..." and "before I get into my topic..." and otherwise suggesting that there was something to look forward to, and then the talk was done. That's essentially what Next Stop Wonderland is: 90 minutes of suggesting that the movie is going somewhere, an end scene, and five minutes of credits.

Scott: Yeah, pretty much. In other words, it's like most of our blog entries. Drumroll! You know, I could kind of see what they were going after here. The male and female leads each go through a series of experience and romances and we the viewer keep expecting them to get together, but instead they end up getting together with other people, and doing other things, and just missing each other several times -- almost connecting without actually connecting. The woman basically speaks the premise of the film when she tells a story about how her parents never would have met if not for a random bit of chance, and then gets rebuffed by someone who says that is obviously the hand of fate. We see these people almost meet but not quite meet and then, right at the end, they finally accidentally meet and you're supposed to ask, is this random luck, or is it fate that they finally did get together after these near misses? Of course, what we actually end up asking is, who gives a crap? Also, why not use Philip Seymour Hoffman more? After all, that dude has an Oscar.

Lance: That's a pretty good synopsis from someone who derided the movie before it began as a "Rom Com." (And if you ever use the term Rom Com again you will be beaten.) Of course, it turned out that the film was more com than rom, not that it was that funny. But there were a couple of funny parts. I liked the montage of potential suitors calling to respond to the personal ad the heroine's mother placed on her behalf. That was about it for me. A huge part of the plot surrounds some small time mobster trying to kill a balloon fish at the New England Aquarium. That was supposed to be funny; I thought it was a waste. The male lead (Alan Gelfant) was pretty bland, too, for what that's worth.

And they did use Philip Seymour Hoffman plenty, it's just that the scene that had the potential to be the funniest in the movie--one where Hope Davis's character finally watches a break-up video that Hoffman gave her when he moved out--is cut short because her answering machine goes on the fritz and she ends up fighting with it while Hoffman's video plays in the background.

And I really thought the movie did a poor job of being a "Boston movie." It's like they were trying way way too hard, to the point that the Boston in the movie was more cliche than real. Every time anyone goes out to a bar, they get a Sam Adams. Every character, every bar. We get it, Sam Adams is a Boston beer. But it's use is not compulsory. And a gay male nurse (now there is a shocking break from stereotype...funny how every male nurse in movies is gay, but all the male nurses I know are not) meets his partner on a duck boat tour. Psst, Mr. Director...no one who actually lives in Boston rides the duck boats. Had the movie been made after 2003, I'm sure all of the bar patrons would have put down their Sam Adams, locked arms, and sang "Sweet Caroline" when the Sox game on the TV went to commercial because that's what we supposedly do.

Scott: I do have to say that I have been on a duck boat tour. I don't actually live in Boston, so maybe I don't count, something that is at least true according to local media. I agree with you in terms of how they tried to make it overtly Boston for the national people who otherwise, we can assume, would just give the film blank stares (oh wait, we were doing that anyway. But for a totally different reason). I did like that they used some different Boston locations than the other films we've seen, even if those locations were mainly used for stupid purposes (see: aquarium). I also sort of disagree with you about the male lead, because he seemed like a guy that would actually be a plumber on the North Shore, which I think means the acting was pretty good rather than that he was just a douchey townie. I thought he was much more Boston than the female lead.

But you're right about that gay nurse subplot. That whole thing was done in a very 1990's way that I'm sure seemed subtle at the time but now, post marriage law, seems really After School Special. And the fact that this film not only the female lead be a nurse but also have the male lead get caught up in an Irish mob plot was way too much in terms of Boston cliches. Jeez, Hollywood, we get it -- Boston has a lot of hospitals and Irish mobsters. You don't have to have every single film revolve around that stuff. It's pretty bad when those are the only occupations, even for people in a Rom Com.

Lance: Mickey, Seamus, and Knuckles will be by to break your legs shortly.

Tags: Hope Davis Alan Gelfant Brad Anderson Next Stop Wonderland 1998

The Verdict

Lance: When we put together the catalog of movies for the Mass. Movie Project and The Verdict made the list, I could have sworn I had seen it at some point on my youth. It seems like The Verdict was one of about twelve shows that played on HBO constantly in 1984 when we first got it in our house (the Scott Baio vehicle Zapped! and the comedy show Not Necessarily the News were two of the others) and I must have seen it. But I hadn't.

In The Verdict, Paul Newman is Frank Galvin, a hard-luck alcoholic lawyer who is at the end of his career, or will be if he doesn't get it together enough to try the last case he could get. He's been hired to represent the family of a woman who has been incapacitated by a medical procedure gone bad at a prominent Catholic hospital. The question is will Newman take the Archdiocese's offer to settle out of court, or will he go to trial and risk losing. He goes to trial and finds himself fighting against the best lawyer in Boston, the power and prestige of the Church, and a judge who is sympathetic to both. He also finds himself falling for a mysterious divorcee who comes to town and happens to take an interest in the aging lush.

Scott: That divorcee is played by Charlotte Rampling, who has one of the best names in the history of cinema. It's just so evocative for no apparent reason. "Do you like Rampling?" "I don't know, I've never rampled." Well, one person who has rampled is Newman's character. I quite liked his interaction with Rampling, particularly the scene where she tells him to man up and instead he runs into the bathroom and has a panic attack. It's not necessarily what you would expect from the premise.

That's actually true of much of the film. When you hear it's a legal drama starring Paul Newman, it brings to mind images of big, powerful lawyers and high theatrics on the stand in classic Perry Mason style. That doesn't really happen so much. Instead, it's much more low key, which in turn makes it more interesting and believable.

I was struck, though, by the surface similarities between this and the first film we watched, The Carey Treatment. Both are medical dramas, where the main character is investigating the death of a young woman who died due to complications with pregnancy (well, sort of). Both deal with how the powers that be exert influence to maintain the status quo. But, of course, only one has a deranged James Coburn kidnapping school girls and getting malicious rubdowns in non-existent Irish bathhouses. So in that sense, The Verdict could have been better.

Lance: Well, there is a scene after the first day of testimony where Jack Warden massages Paul Newman's shoulders as they commiserate over a disastrous day in court...I also liked the scene where Newman had a panic attack in Rampling's hotel room. He had another near-panic attack earlier in the movie. I thought little nuances like that really gave the character an added dimension.

I also appreciated another subtlety that may have been lost on someone not from Boston. Galvin goes to South Station to pick up his star witness, a medical expert from New York he was forced to essentially pick out of a phone book and has never met. It turns out that the doctor is black. Galvin tries very hard to mask his horror that he will be putting a black man on the stand. Remember, this is Boston in the early 1980s. It's been less than a decade since the city dealt with busing and the wounds from that hadn't fully healed. Galvin's reaction to the doctor reveals an understanding that some in his jury box will see the doctor through that prism.

Finally, the difference between the way a lawsuit against the Archdiocese of Boston was portrayed in 1982 and the way the lawsuits against the church in the early 2000s went was fascinating.

Scott: Yeah, as we discussed during the film, the media treatment of the case would be almost completely opposite now as it was then. In the film, they have the Globe, Herald and channel 2 all do glowing puff pieces about how great the church was; if the case was going on now, those media outlets would be out for blood.

I have to say, though, that there was one small thing that bothered me about the story. At the end of the film, it ends as though Newman and his clients have just won a huge settlement. Yet, I find it almost impossible to believe that they would be able to collect on it. Newman and Warden earlier discover clear grounds to have this declared a mistrial, but decide not to pursue it. I'm sure that the defendants would be quick to call for a mistrial themselves, if not because of the actions of Rampling's character then because of the way the judge allowed evidence and then retroactively disallowed it. Based on the verbal instructions given it seems hard to understand how the jury could come to the decision they did and if I were the defendants I would immediately protest that he had prejudiced the jury with this evidence. And even if that didn't work, they can always appeal.

More likely, I think, would be am ultimate conclusion of the two sides eventually agreeing to an out of court settlement for a figure between the original offer and the award. After losing the case once the Archdiocese wouldn't want any more bad press form it, but by contesting the case they could at least save some money. Not that I necessarily think the movie should have shown any of this; it would have to be 12 hours long and really boring. But I just didn't think the ending was actually an ending so much as just the place where the film stopped.

Oh, and on another note, I'd also be remiss if I didn't mention the scene where Newman just hauls off and punches Rampling right in the face. That was a bit of a surprise.

Lance: I don't know. I think there would be a huge risk in the defense asking for a mistrial based on the activities of the Rampling character. Sure, they might get a mistrial, but they also might all go to jail and be disbarred. In any event, the point is that Galvin redeems himself on the biggest stage of his life. What happens after that really isn't that important. I was bothered that there was a Boston Herald American in Galvin's apartment and two days later a man in the jury box was reading the same paper (with the same "Cops Stalk Terror Gang" headline). OK, I wasn't bothered, but I noticed it. And I liked the Boston shots--nice to see the city in the dead of winter--even though director Sidney Lumet used the State House steps to stand in for the courthouse.

This is where I could finish with the line "and the verdict is..." but that would be too corny. Let's just say the movie is well worth your consideration.

Tags: Paul Newman Charlotte Rampling Sidney Lumet The Verdict 1982

Be sure to set the DVR

If you are looking to get caught up on the first couple of movies, you're in luck. Turner Classic Movies has scheduled both The Carey Treatment and Mystery Street to air in the next few weeks. So mark your calendars and set the DVR for the following dates:

Tuesday, August 4, 1:30 pm -- The Carey Treatment
Wednesday, September 9, 7:45 am -- Mystery Street

Tags: Mystery Street The Carey Treatment Turner Classic Movies

Blockbuster Schedule Change

Thanks to Blockbuster's inability to provide The Friends of Eddie Coyle in time for this weekend, we are pushing that film out until it becomes available and moving the others up. So we will be reviewing The Verdict this week instead.

Mystery Street

Lance: 1950. A detective with the Barnstable County District Attorney's office, played by Ricardo Montalban, heads to Boston to try to solve a murder. Talk about a stretch...a Latino cop working in Massachusetts in the '50s? Might as well be working on the moon, for as real as that setup is. Yet, it actually works. The question in Mystery Street isn't 'who killed the leading lady?' it's 'how will the cops and the scientists be able to prove it?' Think CSI if Gil Grissom were Latino and was working 60 years ago (OK, don't think that. Montalban is a much more interesting leading man). Add a little bit of Harvard and a few really cool locations (including a Rte. 3 sign that might be the most awesome thing I've seen in a movie--and yes, I'm a geek about that sort of thing), and you've got a movie that was a pleasure to watch.

Scott: At first I was wondering why they decided to use Montalban as the lead, but that was soon answered when it was revealed that the victim was smothered to death with real Corinthian leather. Okay, that didn't happen, nor did Montalban at any point wear a fake rubber bare chest with hugely defined pecs. Despite these massive shortcomings, however, the film was, as Lance said, very entertaining. In light of the fact that Montalban became almost a parody by the time he finished Fantasy Island and is sort of a punchline now, I thought he was actually quite good. I was a little unsure about certain decisions made by the screenwriters (I thought the build-up was unnecessarily long and kind of weird) but for the most part it was well written, which could be assumed by the fact it was nominated for a screenplay Oscar. The CSI stuff in particular was probably quite fresh at the time this was written, even if it seems a bit creepy now (superimposing skulls over women's faces to measure how well the eyesockets lined up is just a bit too Ronnie James Dio for my taste). I particularly liked the fact that even though Montalban's character was shown to be a conscientious, thorough detective, he was also totally wrong about who the killer was to the point of nearly booking the wrong guy's wife too, as an accomplice. It was a nice departure from the usual lead detective as infallible Sherlock Holmes super sleuth.

Lance: Right. To a large extent, the "hero" of the film is the researcher at Harvard who uses all of the newfangled forensics to solve the murder, not Montalban's character. Montalban is a good guy in the sense that he's just open-minded enough to listen to the doctor instead of his gut (although he does have the wrong guy charged and indicted while the investigation is going on).

The writers did a credible job dealing with the topic of the Massachusetts Latino cop. At one point, Montalban mentions that he had been originally hired to work in the Portuguese unit of the District Attorney's office (not sure why that group would need a special unit all to themselves, but there is a large Portuguese community in Southeastern Massachusetts, so at least they got the ethnicity correct). In another scene Montalban is questioning a man as part of the investigation and the interviewee mentions that he is part of a prominent family that has been in Massachusetts for hundreds of years. Montalban replies that his own family has been here for less than a hundred years.

And I liked the CSI stuff; I didn't find it creepy at all. In 1950 they superimposed photos of the skull and possible victims, in 2009 they use a computer to generate the images. I don't think the slideshow was any more creepy than what they do now.

I did have a couple of nits to pick. I thought the subplot of the meddling landlord got in the way. There were real timing issues as well...the opening scene happens "six months ago" according to an on-screen graphic. We later find that the scene took place in late May--which would set the rest of the movie from November on forward--yet the movie is clearly set during the summer time based on the foliage, dress of the characters, etc. Not a bit of snow, ice, or cold to be found. But that's not more than a minor distraction.

Scott: Lance has here spared you, the reader, from the details of the lengthy debate that arose about what "Six Months Ago" was supposed to mean -- whether these events were six months before the other events in the film (the dialogue clearly indicates the opening sequence is actually three months before the opening sequence, not six) or whether the opening sequence is supposed to be six months before the "current day", i.e. when the audience is watching it (which also doesn't make sense based on when the film was released). Either way, the "Six Months Ago" tag at the beginning is a superfluous source of confusion. That, of course, is pretty much the textbook definition of nitpicking, because I doubt there are more than a half dozen people in the world who noticed this when they watched the movie. And fewer that got in an argument about it. I'm also going to stick with my contention that the CSI stuff is creepy. As it happens, I think CSI itself is little more than exploitative, sensationalist murder porn, so in that sense I much preferred the restraint of Mystery Street, even if the title "Mystery Street" didn't actually have a single thing to do with this movie. Overall it was a well done, solid and entertaining film.

Tags: Ricardo Montalban Elsa Lanchester John Sturges Mystery Street 1950