Richard Jewell

First Hit: Outstanding film and portrayal of a man who went through hell because of the FBI and the malfeasance of a newspaper reporter.

I so bought into Richard Jewell’s character as portrayed by Paul Walter Hauser. He was terrific and gave me a real sense of a man who really tried hard to follow the rule of law and be someone people could count on to protect them.

This is based on a true story about Richard Jewell, who was pretty much a loner, lived with his mother Bobi (Kathy Bates), and wanted to be part of the law enforcement community all his life.

When we first engage with Jewell, he’s a supply clerk in a company and we see that he is thoughtful and careful about his work. We are shown this as he overhears a loud, aggressive telephone conversation by Watson Bryant (Sam Rockwell) and a client of the company they work for.

Apologizing for overhearing the conversation (there’s no way he couldn’t hear), he tells Watson to look in a drawer because Jewell has filled it with the pens Watson uses in his work. Also, asking Bryant to open another drawer, it is filled with Snickers candy bars, the snack food Bryant eats when stressed.

Through this interchange, they become acquaintances and chat from time to time. One day Jewell gets a job offer to be a security guard at a local college campus. Jewell’s goodbye to Bryant is very sweet. Bryant, caught off guard, gives him a $100 bill in case he might need anything during the transition between jobs. Jewell is touched, and for him, their friendship is now rock-solid.

At his new job, he has a run-in with some students who are breaking campus rules and he gets fired for this and because he’s overstepping his bounds by stopping cars on the highway near the campus looking for drugs.

These things highlight a couple of things about Jewell. He believes in following the rules, and he can and will step outside the bounds of his authority.

Jewell finally gets a security guard job at AT&T’s events at Centennial Park which are part of the celebrations for the 1996 Atlanta, GA Olympics. His thoughtfulness and kindness are highlighted here, as well. He provides water or Coca Cola to pregnant women so that they do not become dehydrated, and he also supplies the lighting and filming crew in the nearby tower with food or other things they need. He wants to be helpful.

He’s also looking for suspicious items and people. When he discovers a backpack that has been left under a bench where he was sitting, he tells the police. The police team brings in some experts and they realize it is a bomb. While moving the crowd back, the bomb explodes, and two people are killed, and many others are injured.

At first, he’s seen as a hero and is on television. He’s proud of his work, and his mother is especially pleased because her favorite newscaster, Tom Brokaw, spoke glowingly about her son.

FBI Agent Tom Shaw (Jon Hamm) was also stationed at the park and is disappointed that he was stationed there, and even worse, something happened on his watch, and he didn’t prevent it. After interviewing Jewell’s past records and after meeting with the college who fired Jewell, Richard becomes a suspect. What does Jewell do when he realizes the FBI is considering him a suspect? He calls Bryant.

Local newspaper columnist Kathy Scruggs (Olivia Wilde), who only wants to make a name for herself, uses her sexuality towards Shaw to extract this FBI probe about Jewell. She writes an unconfirmed expose front-page article in the newspaper, and in a New York minute, it jumps up to become national headlines.

Now Jewell is seen as the vilified criminal, not the hero, all in a span of about a week.

The film then tells the story of how his friendship with Bryant and the undying support of his mom, and longtime friend Brandon Walker (Mike Pniewski) help him through the onslaught of the rush-to-judgment people – the FBI and Media.

I did find it interesting that this film has come out when both the FBI and the Media are under a public spotlight and scrutiny.

Hauser needs to receive an Oscar nomination for his portrayal of Jewell. He was terrific in bringing this confused, caring man to life. His sincerity, thoughtfulness, and helpfulness (even at the wrong times) are excellently portrayed. Rockwell gives yet another robust and stunning performance as Jewell’s friend and attorney. His sarcasm and pointed jabs at the FBI’s flawed work were excellent. Hamm was good, but it would be nice to see him in a role where drinking and sex are not his only motivation. Wilde was all over the place and enjoyable as Scruggs, who clearly had only one thing on her mind, fame. Bates was terrific as Jewell’s mother. Her demonstration of faith in her son and that he wasn’t who people were making him out to be, was sublime. Nina Arlanda, as Watson Bryant’s office manager and friend, Nadya Light, brought a beautiful blend of humor and persistence to Bryant’s actions. Billy Ray wrote an outstanding screenplay that was crisp and painted each character entirely. Clint Eastwood did an excellent job of directing this story. He is usually efficient in telling stories and here he stepped it up a notch.

Overall: This was a wonderfully entertaining film and brought to life a story I read about some twenty-three years ago.

On the Basis of Sex

First Hit: Outstanding and moving film about one of the most inspirational women in United States history – ever.

In May of 2018, I saw and reviewed the documentary “RBG.” It was an amazing factual film about a woman who changed the course of gender equality in the United States.

In this dramatic version, we have Felicity Jones as Ruth Bader Ginsburg providing some of the drama behind the story of one of the most inspirational women to ever practice law in the United States. Today at 85 years old, and a Supreme Court Justice, she is still trailblazing how we look at the law and its impact on gender equality.

When the dean of Harvard Law School Erwin Griswold (Sam Waterston) invites the women who made it into his school, over for dinner at his home, he asks each of them to share why they deserve to take a man’s place at Harvard’s prestigious law school. It is a defining moment in the film to share with the audience how horribly sexist these institutions were towards women. Ginsburg’s answer is divinely dripping of sarcasm that went over Griswold’s head.

Ruth’s husband Martin (Armie Hammer) is also a law student at Harvard focusing on Tax Law. His support of his wife’s journey in law school is wonderful. Unfortunately, he contracts testicle cancer which he has only a 5% chance of beating, and Ruth, showing support, takes his classes and hers so that her husband doesn’t have to drop out of school while he recovers. Using the notes she took from his classes, she teaches Martin what he needs to know to pass his classes. She’s doing the work of two students as well as caretaker and mother.

Being a couple years behind her husband, he graduates and gets a job in a prestigious New York Cit law firm. This leaves Ruth with having to make a choice, raise their daughter alone and continue with law school at Harvard or moved with her husband and finish her schooling at Columbia. She chooses the later.

The film explores the unfairness of being a woman becoming a lawyer in this mostly man’s world. Additionally, it explores how her daughter Jane (Cailee Spaeny) is being affected by the changing culture of the 1960’s. We see how the dynamics of this culture change helped Ruth see the laws that needed changing and she found ways, with the help of Martin, to make her case to a State Supreme Court and to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Some of the scenes were amazingly poetic. Like when Martin hands a tax issue case to Ruth with the proviso, read this and you’ll see where you can make a difference. She did. I loved when Ruth takes Jane to see famed civil rights attorney Dorothy Kenyon (Kathy Bates) and upon walking back out into the streets, how Jane handles the harassing men and gets Ruth and her a cab. There were also a couple great scenes with Ruth and ACLU lead lawyer Mel Wolf (Justin Theroux). Lastly the scene in which she argues in the State Supreme Court for equal rights of a man was very well done.

For me the downsides of the film were, I would have liked Ruth’s first case in the U.S. Supreme court to be part of this film. Also, I found that Felicity’s accent fluctuations to be slightly problematic. Her voice lacked consistency.

On the upside when Jones gets ready to argue the main case at the State’s Supreme Court, she has Ruth’s look and feel down pat. Lastly, I loved the part where we see Ruth (Jones) climbing the steps to the U.S. Supreme Court and then see the real Ruth.

Felicity was very good as Ruth. Despite the accent variations, she brought a strength and character to Ruth and seemed to match the Ruth in the earlier documentary. Hammer was excellent. I loved his kind, thoughtful, and supportive lightheartedness he brought to this role. Spaeny was outstanding. I thought her portrayal of a young woman caught up in the movements of the 1960’s and also wanting to be respectful of her dynamic parents was sublime. I hope to see her in more films. Theroux was far better than I thought he’d be. My surprise is that he often takes sinister roles her here he shows a funny, smart, supportive side. Bates was sublime as with wizened civil rights lawyer who brings respect and a true grass roots feeling to the film. Waterston was excellent as the self-righteous sexist head of Harvard’s Law school. Daniel Stiepleman wrote a wonderful screenplay. Mimi Leder put the right touch on this film.

Overall: I thoroughly enjoyed this film as the first film of the year to see and review.

Complete Unknown

First Hit:  Although I liked the film, story and the acting, this film is not for everyone.

The opening sequence is a little confusing because it slips focus on the character’s face as it shows a montage of Alice Manning/Jennifer/? (Rachel Weisz) as a hippie botanist, a focused and in charge nurse in a trauma situation, and then as magician’s assistant in China where she drops through a trapdoor.

We get reintroduced to her as Alice Manning a woman who has just come back to the US from doing research deep in the jungles of Tasmania. She makes friends with Clyde (Michael Chernus) at a cafeteria as a way to connect with Clyde’s workmate, Tom (Michael Shannon). As it turns out, Clyde invites her to Tom’s birthday party at Tom’s house.

Alice enthralls the party’s guests with her travels and stories of her past jobs and life. When Tom walks in, there is this sense that he is questioning Alice’s stories and motive. When he goes outside, she follows, and we learn of their previous connection.

The rest of the film, for the most part, is dialogue between these two about her disappearing act. One of the most interesting statements is by Tom, when he says, he’s been working for 10 years to make a difference by writing emails in his job. He’s forever hoping that he’ll make a difference; and that is what his life is all about, hoping. He's afraid of what he'll feel and what he'll do if he actually makes a difference. During their walk they help an elderly woman who’s fallen. Helping Nina (Kathy Bates) home they meet her husband Roger (Danny Glover) and Tom discovers how easy it is to impersonate someone else.

Will Tom join Alice in making up new jobs and lives, or will he stay with the live he has, or is there another path? Regardless of the choices they make, the film suffers from scenes like them walking out to visit the frogs. It seemed extraneous. That, and other scenes, seemed to take away from the intent of the film.

I did like the thought and premise of this film where someone, in this case Alice/Jennifer, could find a way to successfully be a different person over and over again. I was reminded by the Bob Dylan song lines: "like a complete unknown, like a rollin' stone".

Weisz was strong as Alice/Jennifer and I bought her ability to change characters. Shannon was good as the intense man whose life is built on hopes. Bates and Glover were fun in their minor roles. Joshua Marston and Julian Sheppard wrote an interesting script, however it would and will only have a limited audience. Marston directed this and outside a few scenes that seemed unneeded, I liked the premise of the story.

Overall:  This film will have a limited audience but, for some, it will be worth seeing.

Cheri

First Hit: This film dragged and dragged and dragged.

Michelle Pfeiffer plays Lea de Lonval an aging courtesan who, unlike her contemporaries, still has her looks, charm and beguiling sexiness. For some reason, and I don’t know why, she hooks up with the son of one of her peers Madame Peloux (played by Kathy Bates).

The boy, nicknamed Cheri (played by Rupert Friend), is misguided, lazy, and lost. When Cheri is 19 years old, Peloux brings the two together for the benefit of his education. They stay together for 6 years. During this time neither of them outwardly admits their love to each other nor do they share deep intimate thoughts.

Their life together is drinking, eating, and sex. Additionally, Cheri gets his need to be held and nurtured fulfilled. And Lea, she has a young man with whom she controls and doesn't want much more from her than companionship. Who cares? Not me. Nothing in the dialogue made this relationship important or interesting. From the beginning the end was telegraphed.

Towards the end of this tedious film Cheri gets married to a younger woman but, then and only then does he really realize how much in love he is with Lea. The same is true for Lea, she tries other young men, but they aren’t Cheri. They finally admit their love but must part. Again, who cares?

Pfeiffer is beautiful and is the best thing in this film. She doesn’t have to act older or younger than she is and she does this beautifully. Friend is mediocre and brings little charm or reason for his being someone anyone would desire. Bates is totally unbelievable as aged courtesan and is simply mean and controlling for the most part.

Overall: The best line of the film was uttered by Pfeiffer and had something to do with; once you’ve tasted youth, you’ll always go back. But then again, so what.