The Lincoln Lawyer Review

3 Nuts!

Director: Brad Furman

The Lincoln Lawyer is a surprisingly refreshing film.  It’s not anything groundbreaking but it doesn’t try to be. It’s a good courtroom drama, it’s fairly easy to understand, and it’s very engrossing.  The movie is about Mick Haller, played by Mathew McConaughey, a defense attorney who pretty much works out of his old Lincoln Town Car.  His new client is a young real estate millionaire, Louis Roulet, played by Ryan Phillipe, accused of beating a woman. Roulet does not want to go to jail and proclaims his innocence, but Haller begins to uncover the truth and realizes his client may be lying.

The story is not all that original. What I like about it though was it didn’t go over the top and took no shortcuts. The viewer figures out the mystery alongside McConaughey’s character. There are no big twists here, which I was honestly hoping for; however, it still worked out well.

McConaughey is super cool in this film; he is quick witted and knows all the right people.  The movie shines from the performances of its star and the supporting cast which consists of William H. Macy (Mick’s private investigator), Marissa Tomei (his ex-wife), and even Brian Cranston (a detective).  This is not Mick going at it alone; he has a lot of help from his friends.

The Lincoln Lawyer has pretty much everything you could ask for in a courtroom drama. The court scenes are fluid and feel very real.  The process of unraveling the mystery is an engaging endeavor, sprinkled with moments of suspense. McConaughey plays a solid lawyer and really knows how to work the jury. And, at the film’s conclusion loose ends are tied together surprisingly well.

In a peaNut Shell: Although this film is not a breakthrough in its genre, it is still very entertaining.  The entire cast is stellar and keeps you rooting for the Lincoln Lawyer throughout the film.

Limitless Review

                                                      2 1/2 Nuts!

Director: Neil Burger

What would you do if you could access 100% of your brain? This is the question presented in the new action/thriller Limitless, starring Bradley Cooper. Cooper plays Eddie Morra, a struggling writer who can’t seem to get a jumpstart on his next book.  His girlfriend breaks up with him and nothing seems to be working out. Only when he runs into his ex-wife’s brother does his fortune change.  His former brother-in-law gives him a new pill that allows him to access all of his brain power. The pill changes everything.  Eddie writes his book in a matter of days and is then off to bigger and better things. Along this path he meets up with Carl Van Loom, played by Robert DeNiro, a big time investor who serves as a mentor for Morra throughout the movie.

The first half of this movie is stronger than the second half.  It’s a fairly original premise and it turns out to be quite enjoyable watching Eddie put his new found knowledge into application. There is a good amount of mystery surrounding the new drug. How does it work? Why are certain people willing to kill to get it?  The answers to these questions are a little absurd; however, they are consistent with the entire premise of the movie. It was only when I thought back on the movie a few hours after viewing that I began to notice a few loose ends that were not tied up too neatly. Many explanations were quick and unclear.

Despite the movie's shortcomings it was enjoyable throughout. There are a few actions scenes that were pretty good and I found myself feeling anxious during suspenseful scenes, which is a good sign.  The director manipulated the lighting well in the film. When Morra wasn’t on the drug, the world he inhabited was dark and gray; it always seemed to be cloudy outside. However, when he takes the pill, the colors in the world become extremely vibrant and a golden hue is added.

Bradley Cooper turned out to be engaging in the starring role. I was able to take his character very seriously.  I’m glad to see he is taking on serious roles because he is a good actor but hasn’t been given enough good roles to show off his acting abilities

In a peaNut Shell:  I don’t give this a strong recommendation, but it’s still worth seeing or renting.  The premise is fascinating and although the story can be weak at some points, there is a good deal of intrigue that keeps you wanting more. This is not one of those movies that has a message. There is a lot of build up to one, but then it just ends. It’s not perfect, but I found myself enjoying it more than I thought I would.

Battle: Los Angeles Review

                                                           1 Nut

Director: Jonathan Liebesman

Battle Los Angeles is one of those movies you can walk into late and still know exactly what is going on.  Sure it’s good for the tardy ones among us but, it sucks for the majority of the audience.  You can walk in 10 minutes late, 20 minutes late, but I would suggest not walking in at all. 

The film is about Aliens invading Earth; they shoot at us, we shoot back, it’s not very original.  For most of the movie there is no plan, or objective, just Marines going around killing aliens.  Only towards the very end of the film is there any type of objective.  The action scenes are long and tedious and seem to be going nowhere.  

By the 3^rd battle I was getting pretty bored, and with all the massive explosions and gunfire, I shouldn't have been.  It felt too much like a video game, and not enough like a good movie.

Unfortunately that wasn’t the worst part of the film, where the movie really suffered was in its dialogue.  It had some of the cheesiest cliché lines that I have ever heard.  Most of these lines you have heard a hundred times from other war movies.  As much as I didn’t enjoy the action scenes, I truly dreaded the moments when characters opened their mouths to speak.  The acting was subpar to say the least.  This I’m sure had a lot to do with the terrible script, but some actors were also overacting.  Aaron Eckhart is the main character and I didn’t even think he did such a good job. 

The direction is not good.   But this was no surprise as it was directed by Jonathan Liebesman who has done such classics as The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning, and Darkness Falls.  He couldn’t decide whether he wanted to have the camera stay still or move franticly.  What we got was something between the two, which although works for action scenes, is terrible for the dialogue scenes.  I guess it was there to distract us from the mindless dribble that came out of the characters’ mouths.  The editing worked for the battles but was way too fast when people were simply conversing.   The director had a tendency to zoom in on characters faces.  I’m assuming he did this to show their expressions; unfortunately these two dimensional characters had none, so it just looks silly.

In a peaNut shell: The movie takes itself pretty seriously but has no heart.  It lacks a real story and has terrible dialogue making it a movie to miss.  Its two hours too long.

Movies You May Have Missed- 3:10 to Yuma (2007)

3:10 to Yuma is one of those movies that gets better and better each time you see it. Sure there are certain shocking moments that are not as surprising the second time around, but anticipating your favorite scenes can be just as satisfying. This was my third time viewing the film and because I already knew the plot I was able to focus on its more nuanced aspects.  The film looks beautiful, but still manages to keep its authentic western feel. One of the striking things about this film is that all its aspects need not be laid out for us. Instead small clues enable the viewer to understand how and what the characters were feeling.  

Let me set the stage. The movie is about a poor rancher, Dan Evans, played by Christian Bale, who desperately needs money to prevent the railroad company from repossessing his house. Lucky for him Ben Wade, a murdering criminal played by Russell Crowe, needs to be put on the 3:10 to Yuma where he will be tried in court for his actions. Evans agrees to help take him there for 200 dollars. The story is a simple.  However, the film fills up 2 hours without a dragging moment. 

The film was directed by James Mangold, who two years before this film directed Walk the Line, another great movie.  His direction in this is fantastic and makes the film absorbing. This is a remake (the original was made in 1957) and many critics say it is better than the original.

What really stands out more than anything in this movie are Christian Bale’s and Russell Crowe’s performances.  The academy really snubbed them both, as each of their performances were easily Oscar worthy.  Bale manages to have some extremely powerful lines without overacting.  He truly embodies his character. Crowe’s character is a terrific villain; a real killer who at the same time has a strong moral compass.  The interactions between the two characters create the most captivating aspects of the entire film.

In a peaNut Shell:  This is a western and may possibly be a better one than True Grit, which I loved.  It’s hard to compare the two.  For those who don’t much care for westerns give this one a chance, it may surprise you. 

Movies You May Have Missed- Zodiac(2007)

I’m starting a new segment in addition to my normal reviews called Movies you may have missed.  This week I will be discussing Zodiac. The film was made in 2007 starring Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo, and Robert Downey Jr.   Besides its all star cast, it is also directed by David Fincher, the man who brought you The Social Network, Fight Club, and Seven.  Fincher has a solid track record directing great films notwithstanding a few outliers, one being, Alien 3.  Zodiac may not have been The Social Network, but, it was definitely nomination worthy. 

Zodiac is a terrific film.  There is no getting around it, if you like a good mystery/suspense movie go rent this one, and you will not be disappointed.  The movie is about the Zodiac Killer, who during the late 60s and early 70s killed many innocent people in California.  We view the movie from the perspectives of both the local newspaper (The Chronicle) and the San Francisco Police.  No detail is spared. It’s not boring by any means, but nothing is overlooked. We watch the detectives on screen and begin to feel like we are part of the investigation.  The second time I watched this movie I found myself pausing it frequently to discuss what was happening and try and see if I could figure it out. 

The film shifts back and forth between The Chronicle (newspaper) and the SFPD until the last hour or so where Jack Gyllenhaal’s character, who is a cartoonist for the Chronicle, decides he is going crack the case. 

I don’t want to give too much away so I won’t mention more of the plot.  What is worth mentioning is the feel of the movie.  It doesn’t sass anything up, it tells the story just like it is.  There are no gimmicks here, just real detective work.  The film is shot beautifully and the set has a real 70s feel to it.  Fincher does a terrific job creating suspense out of virtually nothing. 

In a peaNut Shell:  This is one hell of a movie.  It’s engaging, suspenseful and incredibly intriguing.  You become as addicted to solving the case as the main characters are.  It’s a long film with a run time of 2 hours and 37 minutes.  It doesn’t fly by, but I honestly didn’t want it to.  Go see this, you won’t be disappointed.