Eye for an Eye

Tags

1990's, Drama, Ed Harris, Eye for an Eye, Joe Mantegna, John Schlesinger, Kiefer Sutherland, Sally Field, Thriller

Film Title

Eye for an Eye

Director

John Schlesinger

Starring

• Sally Field as Karen McCann
• Kiefer Sutherland as Robert Doob
• Ed Harris as Mack McCann
• Joe Mantegna as Detective Joe Denillo

A dramatic thriller, Eye for an Eye starts strong yet quickly goes off course and becomes sub-par. Considering it had potentially thought-provoking material dealing with failed justice and what could happen if we were to contemplate revenge, Eye for an Eye unfortunately lays on the ridiculousness that ultimately undoes it.

Karen McCann has a great husband in Mack, a good job and two daughters in Julie(from her previous marriage) and Megan. Yet her world is turned upside down by savage events that unfold on her youngest daughter’s birthday. Stuck in a horrendous traffic jam, she calls Julie to tell her that she’s going to be late. While on the phone, Julie answers the door to someone who begins attacking the girl, leading to rape and finally her death. Horrified, Karen here’s everything on the phone and is frozen in terror. She then tries to find help, eventually contacting the police. Completely inconsolable when she’s informed of her daughter’s graphic murder, Karen refuses to move on with her life despite the best efforts of her supportive husband to guide her through the unimaginable grief. During this time, one Robert Doob is arrested for the murder of Julie, thanks to the work of Detective Joe Denillo, who is confident that they have a case. Karen thinks this will bring closure as the disgusting Doob will pay for what he did, but she is wrong as it doesn’t turn out that way. Due to a technicality with one piece of evidence, the snarling Doob who it is obvious is the culprit gets off and is now free. This completely shocks Karen and Mack, but most of all Karen who begins to dangerously obsess about Doob. She starts to follow the psychopathic man, detailing his movements and day-to-day activities. Mack, who wants to grieve in his own way and slowly move on, begins to suspect his wife is slipping into obsession, but his actions are futile as his wife won’t listen to him. Meanwhile at the same time, Karen discovers that within the counsel group that she has been attending, there are a few who failed by justice engineer vigilante killings and training. Devastated beyond belief by the cruel murder of her daughter and the inability for anyone to do anything, Karen quietly joins this covert group and begins planning her next move. Yet Doob is still hanging around and is likely to strike again, which firmly makes up Karen’s mind of what she’ll do next. Slowly her rage and disillusion with the legal system completely spill over and she begins to plan killing Doob for all the pain he has caused her. The main question is can Karen really go through with killing him knowing that the consequences could be dire for her if she does?

John Schlesinger may not be at his very best here, but his expertise are competent enough despite how riddled the film is with flaws. Some good tension is generated from his direction, yet even that isn’t enough to make Eye for an Eye a credible movie. Instead of taking a route that could have probed deep questions, Eye for an Eye settles for full on revenge mode as it carries on, without so much as a question of actions or implications. The film may have been a lot better if the issues of vigilantism and the frailty of justice through people’s eyes were presented with significantly more clarity and moral standpoint. Which brings me on to the problematic nature of what Eye for an Eye is trying to be, or in this case doesn’t know what it wants to be. If it was attempting to be a complex thriller posing controversial questions, it doesn’t succeed because a lot of the decisions that the script has the characters make are without thought of repercussion. And when it comes to the scenes of violence and rape there are times when it borders on gratuitous and exploitative. Eye for an Eye just never digs deep enough to bring out the themes it could have explored much better. A rather uninspired score does little to bolster any of the film.

One part of Eye for an Eye that can’t be criticized is the acting, which is one of the few things that keeps you watching despite the problematic source material. In the main role of the vengeful Karen, Sally Field is ideally cast. Always a strong performer in my eyes, Field imbues the film with a lot more emotion than the by the numbers script had and is powerful throughout. Filled with inconsolable rage and deep sadness that won’t be contained, Sally Field does a stellar job in this film that lifts it to watchable level. She deserved a better film to showcase her skills but her performance here is outstanding and emotionally convincing. Kiefer Sutherland is excellent as the utterly repellent murderer/rapist and its a testament to his talents as an actor that the audience feels complete and utter revulsion for him. Providing solid support is the ever dependable Ed Harris whose stoic emotions and firm dedication to his wife are put under threat due to her need for justice. Given little to do but still pretty good is Joe Mantegna as the detective growing concerned about Karen’s actions.

Despite the great cast it boasts, Eye for an Eye is simply a waste of a film that had possibly provocative and serious topics to present maturely and with balance. But instead of that, it can’t provide either dramatic impact or topical discussion on the subject of taking the law into one’s own hands.

Advertisements

Body of Evidence

Tags

1990's, Anne Archer, Body of Evidence, Erotic Thriller, Jürgen Prochnow, Joe Mantegna, Julianne Moore, Madonna, Thriller, Uli Edel, Willem Dafoe

Film Title

Body of Evidence

Director

Uli Edel

Starring

• Madonna as Rebecca Carlson
• Willem Dafoe as Frank Dulaney
• Joe Mantegna as Robert Garrett
• Anne Archer as Joanne Braslow
• Julianne Moore as Sharon Dulaney
• Jürgen Prochnow as Dr Alan Paley

It was meant to be an erotic thriller with an added dash of courtroom drama but from watching the critically derided box office bomb that is Body of Evidence, it becomes abundantly clear that is neither erotic or thrilling. With Madonna in a weak performance and the talents of good actors wasted, Body of Evidence represents what can only be described as a train wreck of a film.

In Portland, Oregon, a wealthy old man by the name of Andrew Marsh has been found dead after suffering a fatal heart attack while restrained to his bed with handcuffs. At the time of death he was watching a home movie and the police believe that the girl in the film, Rebecca Carlson, a beautiful art gallery owner and Andrew’s much younger lover is connected in some way to the death of him. Rebecca is arrested and put on trial, where her adventurous and unusual sex life is brought up as a means for her to kill her elderly lover. Representing her is Frank Dulaney, who tries everything he can to clear Rebecca’s name and counteract everything said by the opposition of Robert Garrett, the ambitious defense attorney on the trial. Garrett believes that Rebecca used her seductive charms and vigorous bedroom activities to murder Andrew, as the man had a debilitating heart condition and was set to leave his young lover $8 million in the event of his death. Yet as the trial goes on, the married Frank becomes increasingly entranced by Rebecca and throws professionalism out the window to pursue a torrid and unusual love affair with his client. Rebecca dominates Frank with her sadomasochistic tendencies in the bedroom and firmly sets herself up as the one in charge in the strange game of pleasure and pain that she plays. But sooner or later, Frank is left questioning whether or not this seductive woman was capable of cold-blooded murder with the use of her more than sensual body and is he really defending as well as sleeping with an avaricious lust murderer?

The whole set up of Body of Evidence just seems so ridiculous and one can’t take it seriously. The film itself tries to be serious in the court room scenes and surprising with attempted red herrings but it just ends up being completely laughable. Director Uli Edel tries to take the material seriously and does give the movie some good visuals such as billowing MTV see through curtains, candles flickering and sinister shadows, but even that can’t save this movie from inevitable disaster. The score manages to give the film some of the eroticism it sorely lacks with twinkling percussion and seductive guitar forming the backbone. Those two points about the visuals and the music are two of the only things that I can think of that can be praised in this weak film. Marketed as an erotic thriller, Body of Evidence falls short in both departments. The sex scenes between Rebecca and Frank are supposed to be eye-opening and titillating, with the femme fatale Rebecca introducing her dark world of pain and pleasure to the wide-eyed Frank, but the scenes( including the use of candle wax, restraints and an unusual encounter in a parking lot) end up feeling boring and not all erotic in the slightest. The writer tries to incorporate thrills into the story and make us guess whether Rebecca is guilty or not, but with the weak script we really don’t end up caring about whether Rebecca committed the crime.

Chief among the problems of Body of Evidence is the decision to cast pop superstar Madonna in the lead role. She’s never going to go down as the best actress in history, but at least in past movies such as Desperately Seeking Susan and A League of Their Own she was watchable enough and wasn’t a complete disaster. Here her delivery of lines is stilted and unconvincing as her character is accused of using her sex life to kill her old lover. Everyone knows that Madonna can be sexy( hell if anyone knows that sex sells, it has to be Madonna), but that is all she brings to the part and nothing else. Willem Dafoe is wasted as Rebecca’s lawyer Frank, who enters into an illicit relationship with her. Joe Mantegna and Anne Archer don’t fare much better in their poorly written roles as district attorney and secretary for the deceased. And Julianne Moore is just wasted here as Frank’s wronged wife and it really is a shame to see one of my favourite actresses having to slum it with this weak film. Even an appearance from Jürgen Prochnow as an unreliable witness in the case can’t bring anything that great to this mess of a movie.

Unconvincing and not remotely as thrilling or sexy as it wanted to be, Body of Evidence is a weak film that seemed destined for the critical drubbing it received and with good reason.

 

 

 

 

The Godfather Part III

Tags

1990's, Al Pacino, Andy Garcia, Crime, Diane Keaton, Eli Wallach, Francis Ford Coppola, Joe Mantegna, Sofia Coppola, Talia Shire, The Godfather Part III, The Godfather Trilogy

Film Title

The Godfather Part III

Director

Francis Ford Coppola

Starring:

• Al Pacino as Michael Corleone
• Diane Keaton as Kay Adams
• Andy Garcia as Vincent Mancini-Corleone
• Talia Shire as Connie Corleone
• Eli Wallach as Don Altobello
• Joe Mantegna as Joey Zasa
• Sofia Coppola as Mary Corleone

The third and final entry into the epic Godfather Saga, Part III is commonly seen as the weakest. It is true that it doesn’t live up to the incredibly high standard of the two films before it, but taken as a film by itself and as the conclusion of the saga it isn’t as bad as some make it out to be.

The year is 1979 , Michael Corleone is ageing and a shadow of his former self. He is haunted by decisions he has made in the past, most prominently ordering the death of his brother Fredo, and has been trying to make family as legit as possible as a way of redemption. But no matter how hard he tries to distance himself from the business, the more it keeps coming back to him. The first instance of this is the presence of Mafia boss Joey Zasa, a cunning, double-crossing man who has a bone to pick with a member of Michael’s family. The family member is Vincent, the illegitimate son of the late Sonny, whose temper and volatile actions are clearly are inherited from his father. Michael takes Vincent under his wing and sees potential in his young nephew to inherit the position as Don. The other instance that pulls Michael back into the crime game, is a deal with the Vatican Bank, that is in actual fact a concealed swindle of Michael’s money. Whilst having to cope with all of these events, the guilt-ridden Michael tries to patch up old wounds with his ex-wife Kay, and is further troubled by Vincent’s relationship with his naive, young daughter Mary.

As I’ve mentioned earlier there are flaws within the last part of Francis Ford Coppola’s film. For one, the plot involving the Vatican Bank Scandal is sometimes to hard to follow and certainly outlandish. Also, although I respect Sofia Coppola as a director, she is unfortunately miscast in the role of Mary, a  fact that many critics pointed out at the time. Sofia Coppola, despite this criticism has established herself as a respected director since this and good for her. Now I’ve spoken about the negatives, I will proceed to the positives.

Al Pacino effectively conveys Michael’s remorse for his past misdeeds and his reluctance to get involved in any further crime. His scene with Diane Keaton as the long-suffering Kay, in which both characters admit that the still care for each other is certainly a touching moment. Admirably supporting him is Andy Garcia, who is frequently electrifying as Vincent, capturing the violent nature of him but showing an undying loyalty and humanity when it comes to protecting his uncle from opposition. Talia Shire is equally as good, showing Connie’s metamorphosis from downtrodden, abused wife to master manipulator and right hand woman to her reluctant older brother. It is Shire’s best performance in the series in my opinion. As always, the music and stunning cinematography are up to an impeccable standard, showing the nostalgic glow of family ties and the savage brutality of the crime lifestyle. All of this builds up to a bullet-ridden and devastating climax to Coppola’s unbeatable trilogy.

This may be one of my most controversial reviews, but I personally think the film, because of the reputation of the other’s has been neglected to the sidelines.