Kramer Vs Kramer review

 Number 540 on the top 1000 films of all time is the legal drama Kramer vs Kramer.

Ted Kramer (Dustin Hoffman,) his wife Joanne (Meryl Streep) and their son Billy (Justin Henry) seem to be the perfect happy family. That is until wife Joanne abruptly says that she is leaving her family meaning Ted has to balance his advertising job and being a single father. Later on, Joanne returns and demands custody of Billy. A vicious battle ensues.

Kramer Vs Kramer explores a number of different themes like fathers' rights, single parenthood and gender roles. There are some who would argue that it portrays the difficulties that single fathers have in raising their family. Others would say that single fathers do exactly the same as single mothers do except they demand a lot more praise for it. The film does well in not taking any particular side but instead leaves the audience to make their own decisions.

At first Ted Kramer seems like a bad father - stressed out at doing well in his new advertising job, he struggles in balancing his new responsibilities as a single father. Meanwhile, Billy hates living with his father and wants nothing more than for his mum to come home. The tensions lead the two to fight a lot. Whether you sympathise with Ted or not depends on what side of the aforementioned debate you land on,  but I think Hoffman did well in making him an objectively understandable, if not sympathetic, character. You understand his irascibility even if you don't agree with it. Hoffman won his first of two acting Oscars for this role and it was well-earned.

Justin Henry was also very good in his debut acting role which went onto land him a Best Supporting Actor nomination. He had a natural chemistry with Hoffman which led to them being able to easily improvise many of the film's most famous scenes together like the ice cream for dinner scene. And just like Ted, while you might not find Billy sympathetic, you at least understand why he is acting the way he does.

Rounding out the cast is Meryl Streep. While she was great, earning the first of her three Acting Oscars, her character of Joanne was the weakest part of the film. Compared to her husband and son, she is quite shallow. The film doesn't take the same time to really delve into her motivations. We get a vague idea that she lost her self-confidence in her marriage. Having found herself again, she decides to take her son back. However, because she is largely absent for most of the film, I didn't find her very believable. Her decision to suddenly return sounded a little contrived like Robert Benton needed a new source of conflict after Ted and Billy reconcile their differences. But Benton went onto win the Best Directing Oscar while the film itself won Best Picture along with the acting wins, so what do I know?

What I do know is that this was a powerful film. It takes a neutral position and never talks down or preaches to its viewer. Instead it leaves them to make their own decision. Who do you think Billy should live with? His mum or his dad? Let me know in the comments below.

Michael Clayton review

 Number 977 on the top 1000 films of all time is the legal thriller 'Michael Clayton.'

Michael Clayton (George Clooney) is the fixer for a prestigious New York law film who is representing the agricultural conglomerate U-North amid a massive scandal. However, when the firm's lead litigator Arthur (Tom Wilkinson) has a massive breakdown, it's up to Michael to clean up the mess. However, he soon discovers his firm is at the centre of a huge cover-up. Sydney Pollack and Tilda Swinton co-star.

Michael Clayton was nominated for no less than seven Oscars including best acting, writing and film. While it wasn't a bad film, it certainly wasn't Oscar-worthy. Nor was it worth a place on this list.

It was an underwhelming affair, replete in dramatic tension, suspense and any concrete detail that would have made it an entertaining thriller. The narrative focusses on U-North as it weathers allegations on whether it knew that its carcinogenic weedkiller would lead to hundreds of deaths. Sounds like a horrific scandal, right?

But the details of this were kept surprisingly vague. It was treated very clinically. Perhaps because we were seeing everything through the eyes of lawyers who were more interested in the legal nitty gritty rather than the actual victims of the scandal. This film was definitely missing a lot of heart.

And while I don't want to diminish any of the immense acting talent on display, I don't think George Clooney or Tom Wilkinson deserved Oscar nods and I don't think Tilda Swinton deserved her Best Supporting Actress win. I don't think I can pin-point an exact moment where I thought, "wow, that's why she won the Oscar." Furthermore, all three of their characters remained very under-developed.

Michael Clayton is a little more than your standard male lead who has an acrimonious relationship with his wife and son. And while Arthur's meltdown catalysed the film, we never really explored the reasons or causes of it. Tilda Swinton's character was similarly under-developed.

I'm really not sure how Michael Clayton made it onto this list. It certainly was not one of the best films of all time. 

Sleepers review

 Number 792 on the top 1000 films of all time is the legal crime-drama Sleepers.

Lorenzo "Shakes" Carcaterra (Joe Perrino,) Tommy Marcano (Jonathan Tucker,) John Riley (Geoffrey Wigdor) and Michael Sullivan (Brad Renfro) are four boys growing up in the Hell's Kitchen neighbourhood of New York. Father Bobby Carillo (Robert De Niro) keeps a watchful eye over them. But when a childish prank goes horribly wrong, the four boys are sentenced to Wilkinson's Home for Boys where they experience horrific abuse by the guards led by Sean Noakes (Kevin Bacon.) Cut thirteen years into the future, the now adult John (Ron Eldard,) Tommy (Billy Crudup,) Shakes (Jason Patric) and Michael (Brad Pitt) swear to take revenge on everybody who did them harm.

Sleepers is very much a story of two halves. We have the lives of the boys before they attend Wilkinson's and their lives afterwards. If anything I preferred the first half. We're given a rich tapestry and a deep insight into life within Hell's Kitchen. There's no doubt that our four protagonists are little shits, but they are still interesting to watch.

And then things go south in the second half. The narrative tension just stops, as we enter a courtroom drama. The contrivance of all four boys all being sent to the same prison aside, the second half was not as neat or tightly focussed, as the first half. *spoilers to follow*

Upon release, John and Tommy become hitmen in the Irish mob. By chance they see Noakes in a bar and they publicly assassinate him. The case goes to court. Michael, now an assistant district attourny, seeing an opportunity to punish the rest of the guards who abused them, takes the prosecution with the intention of botching it. He enlists the alcoholic Dan Snyder ( Dustin Hoffman) to defend John and Tommy.

But the problem lies in how Noakes was killed early on. Noakes was the ringleader. He was the big, bad villain. The other guards were just his cronies. Without him, we're just seeing John and Tommy being persecuted for a revenge kill that the audiences knows they were justified in carrying out. It was dull.

It would have been more interesting seeing Sean Noakes, and the other guards, standing trial for the atrocities they committed. Instead, we were focussing on John and Tommy. And that killed any narrative suspense. The second half felt almost disconnected from the first. It didn't help that Noakes' cronies were little more than names on a page with little characterisation other than being a crony. The one exception was Ralph Ferguson (Terry Kinney) who was the only guard to express any remorse over what he did.

Even though there were some big names in the cast; Robert De Niro, Brad Pitt, Dustin Hoffman have five Oscars between them, I don't think anybody really shone. Brad Pitt and Dustin Hoffman only appear in the second half and De Niro was closer to a supporting character.

Overall, Sleepers was an entertaining if uneven film that went to sleep in its second half.

Primal Fear review

 Number 615 on the top 1000 films of all time is the 1996 legal thriller 'Primal Fear.'

Martin Vail (Richard Gere) is an arrogant Chicago lawyer who is well-known for taking high-profile cases, because of the publicity they generate. That's why he takes the case of Aaron Stampler (Edward Norton) - a simple-minded 19-year-old former altar boy accused of murdering the beloved Archbishop Rushman - head of Chicago's diocese. However, Vail slowly starts to prove that Aaron is innocent. And he has to prove that in court against the prosecution led by former flame Janet Venable (Laura Linney.)

Based on the 1993 book of the same name, Primal Fear was good enough. That is to say that it is as good as legal dramas go. Legal dramas have a tendency to be overlong with too much talking and exposition. By their very nature, not a lot happens outside of a courtroom, so they're not always the most interesting to watch. And if it wasn't for Ed Norton, I don't think I would have found this film very entertaining. This was his feature-film debut and he received widespread praise for it. I may argue that he was better than Gere and Linney.

I don't think either actor was particularly bad in isolation, but I don't think they were great together. I especially didn't like the plotpoint of them having a past relationship. Vail still has feelings for Venable and tries rekindling the relationship, but is constantly rejected. It all seemed very contrived and forced to me. Gere and Linney didn't have the best on-screen chemistry. And it wasn't believable that the two of them used to be romantically involved. True, it was an obvious source of conflict, but I don't think it worked. Their shared past was left too unexplained and enigmatic. 

To Vail, their relationship was something serious, but Venable thought it was a one-night stand that happened to last for six months. Perhaps if their relationship had been left more professional, I would have enjoyed it more. Instead of romantic feelings, one of them could have done something to have professionally screwed over the other. And that would have been a better explanation for Venable's resentment for her former colleague.

And I didn't particularly like Linney's character. This is no fault of the actress, but I think that Janet Venable was overly-cold, harsh and condescending. She's not supposed to be the devil, but the devil's advocate. There were moments where she could have been portrayed sympathetically, but any of these emotional beats fell flat on their face. 

Like I said, if it wasn't for Ed Norton, I think this entire film could have fallen flat on its face. *spoiler alert* It is initially revealed that he is schizophrenic - he has an alternate personality called Roy who surfaces whenever Aaron is felt threatened. Instead of Aaron who always denied killing Archbishop Rushman, it was actually Roy. Roy and Aaron are polar opposites to each other. Aaron is shy, simple-minded and speaks with a stutter. Whereas, Roy is arrogant, violent and a sociopath. They are completely different, but Ed Norton played the double-role with aplomb. He was convincing as both characters.

Ed Norton was very much the saving grace of this film. It fell short of its massive potential. It wasn't bad, but it also wasn't good. 

A Time to Kill review

 Number 969 on the top 1000 films of all time is Joel Schumacher's 1996 legal drama 'A Time to Kill.'

Based on John Grisham's book of the same name, A Time to Kill focusses on the relationship between white Mississippi attorney Jake Brigance (Matthew McConaughey) and his black client Carl Lee Hailey (Samuel L. Jackson.) After Carl Lee's ten-year-old daughter Tonya (Rae'ven Larrymore Kelly) is brutally raped and almost murdered by two racist rednecks Billy Ray Cobb (Nicky Katt) and James Willard (Doug Hutchinson.) Carl Lee takes the law into his own hands and shoots them dead. Brigance decides to defend him. He is aided by his old mentor, the alcoholic Lucien Wilbanks (Donald Sutherland) and law student Ellen Roark (Sandra Bullock.) But Brigance is up against stiff competition as district attorney Rufus Buckley (Kevin Spacey) takes up the case for the Cobb family. Billy Ray's brother - Freddie Lee (Kiefer Sutherland) also resurrects the Mississippi KKK chapter to exact his revenge on Carl Lee.

Joel Schumacher is so well-known for almost killing the Batman movie franchise with the abysmal Batman and Robin, it is easy to forget that he has made other films. A Time to Kill is one of these films. It's just as cheesy as Batman and Robin, but it is a million times better. That is a low bar and it's certainly not perfect, but it's watchable enough.

A lot of that is down to the star-studded cast. To be honest, I don't think McConaughey was anything special. Brigance is your classic, intelligent, handsome clear-cut hero - there's not much more to him than that. But I thought Samuel L. Jackson was great. He's so well known for either action roles or over-the-top, eccentric oddball, it was refreshing to see him in a more human role. He played it well conveying a brilliant vulnerability. Carl Lee is an obviously sympathetic character. His daughter is raped and left for dead. She is attacked because she is black. He only did what any father would do. Is that so wrong? 

According to Spacey, it is. Men must not be allowed to take the law into their own hands. Spacey shone, as he always does, playing a slimy lawyer, who only takes the case to build his own public profile. And he does that Southern drawl so damn well. I couldn't help but be reminded of one of Spacey's most famous roles: President Frank Underwood on House of Cards. Kiether Sutherland was also enjoyable as the villainous Freddie Lee Cobb. Hell-bent on revenge, he starts up the local KKK chapter and terrorises everybody involved in the trial. Granted all the roles I've seen Sutherland in are villains/morally dubious, but he does them well.

The only character I was unsure about was Ellen Roark. An ACLU activist and law student, she helps Brigance pro bono, so to speak. Yet she was such a poorly written character. It seemed like Sandra Bullock was only cast because she was hot and not because of her great acting ability. As she doesn't really have a chance to do much except to riffle through cabinets and have sexual tension between her and Brigance. Perhaps her character is there to tempt Brigance into an extra-marital affair and put a strain between Brigance and his wife. But these ideas never came to fruition. An affair between the two is teased, but Brigance always stops himself before things go too far. But this is never something that makes it home to his family. In fact, rather than Roark, it is the KKK leaving burning crosses outside of Brigance's home that drives a wedge between him and his wife. She and her daughter soon leave for their own safety. And so does any potential for narrative tension.

If the intention was to force some sexual tension then it failed dramatically. And if it wasn't then what was the point of the character? Why would you squander Sandra Bullock's acting ability - she is a best actress Oscar winner? Why would you put two young hot people like Mconaughey and Bullock together if they're not going to get it on? Sure, he might need a paralegal, but why does that have to be somebody like Bullock. He character seemed so contrived. Also Bullock was in her thirties while filming - too old to be playing a law student.

The ending also seemed too contrived and cheesy. Brigance *spoiler alert* convinces the jury of Carl Ray's innocence, but his method is what troubled me. He effectively tugs at heart strings rather than using the law. He asks the jury to close their eyes and to imagine the rape and attempted murder of Tonya. He ends by saying "imagine if she was white." Obviously race is a presiding issue and Tonya suffered a horrific hate crime, but as, Spacey spends much of the trial protesting, it isn't Tonya's rape that is at issue, but Carl Lee's murder of her rapists. During Brigance's impassioned speech, Spacey doesn't object once, nor does Judge tell the jury to strike it from the record. This was all too difficult to believe.

I also found it troubling that Freddie Lee and the other KKK don't face any proper consequences for their actions. Sure, we see them being quietly confronted by the cops, but nothing more. Freddie Lee left a burning cross outside of Brigance's house, he beats his secretary husband's to death, he tries to shoot Brigance and he kidnaps Roark, takes her to the woods, strips her and leaves her tied to a tree. Yet his actions are effectively brushed under the rug. All I needed was the coppers clasping him in irons and reading him his Miranda rights.

Also there was a mysterious man operating through the film. He warns Brigance's family of the burning cross through a shadowy phone call. But was the person's identity ever revealed? Was it the same man who rescued Roark or was that just a stranger?

So yes, this film is cheesy, unrealistic and relegates Bullock to playing little more than a sex object, but I do think it is well worth a watch. Look past the cheese and you'll find an entertaining and gripping thriller. Just a shame that Schumacher followed this up with Batman and Robin.