Recently in True Crime Category

Directed by Sidney Lumet. Starring Vin Diesel, Ron Silver, Annabella Sciorra, Peter Dinklage.Drama/Comedy/Historical. 

Synopsis: The true story of the trial involving reputed mobster Giacomo Norsicio and nineteen other codefendants in the one of the longest criminal trials in U.S. history, with Norsicio representing himself throughout the two year trial.  

As someone who was on both sides of the criminal law as a prosecutor and defense attorney in past years, I often take court room dramas with a grain of salt, it is impossible to accurately recreate the drawn out, often boring courtroom procedure that makes the moments of tension and excitement so memorable in a movie. Most times, the directors really do not even try to create an accurate representation of the actual trial, opting instead for a purely theatrical (meaning "made up") version of actual events. (See North Country)  

Find Me Guilty does not do this, using dialogue from the actual trial of Giacomo (Jack) Norscio and nineteen codefendants in the longest running criminal trial in U.S. federal court history. The film is set in the 1980's and Jack (Vin Diesel) and his codefendants are faced with a multitude of charges under the RICO (Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations) Act. Jack, against the advice of everyone, chooses to represent himself.  

Having seen first hand the results of non-lawyers representing themselves in criminal trials, I expected this film to be a lot of laughs and it was, even moreso than I thought. The bulk of the story takes place inside the courtroom, where Jack jovially, if times crudely, does a wonderful job of getting the jury to empathize and like him. He relies somewhat on the advice of one of the lawyers (Peter Dinklage) for his codefendants, members of the Luchese crime family of New York.

Presiding over the trial is a judge (Ron Silver) with the patience of Job who, nevertheless, tires of Jack's antics in court...but comes to show respect for Jack by the end of the trial. The film moves quickly, smartly focusing on Jack's sincere desire not to implicate any of his fellow codefendants, who he shamelessly refers to as his family, as well as his unbelievable court room sayings. Believe me, you will be laughing very hard at some of the things that come out of Jack's mouth when he is questioning witnesses or interacting with the judge. I know its a cliche, but you wouldn't believe it in a million years unless someone told you it was true.

Diesel is masterful in this movie, easily the best thing I have ever seen him do. He shows a range of character and depth that I hadn't seen in him since his supporting role in Boiler Room, and you will root for him all the way, no matter how much distaste you have for crime in general or the Mafia in particular. Ron Silver was as close to the real thing as a judge in demeanor as I've seen in the movies in a long time, if ever. He reminded me of several judges I stood before and obviously, did the research to give a very accurate portrayal. Peter Dinklage is also a standout as the lead defense lawyer who counsels Jack on the side and, again, gives a realistic portrayal of a criminal attorney, a profession that, except for maybe police officers, is the most inaccurately portrayed profession in cinema.

Annabella Sciorra (The Sopranos) takes her turn as Jack's wife and blows everyone off the screen for the few minutes she is on it. She is gritty, sultry, tough and sweet at the same time, the epitome of what we who are not in organized crime expect such wives to be.

Lumet hit a grand slam with the casting in this one and the story, coupled with next level performances from Diesel, Dinklage, and Sciorra makes this one of the best films, if not the best, of '06.

In my humble opinion. 

Starring Mira Sorvino, Donald Sutherland, Robert Carlyle. Drama. Synopsis: A movie original airing on the Lifetime Network, now on DVD, about the  sale and trafficking of young women, particularly children, for the purposes of sexual favors and sexual slavery. Told against the backdrop of three separate stories woven into one drama that follows a goverment agency on the trail of an international trafficking ring run by a Russian crime boss.

"Human Trafficking" is one of those made for cable movies that tackles a sensitive and serious issue not suitable for family consumption in a way that only a movie can, yet does it without emphasizing or trying to capitalize on the titiallation or gruesome factors in the way that a TV program must.

It is effective and heart wrenching. First, as most would guess but has to be said anyway, this is a movie not a documentary. Having said that, those who were unaware of this issue, or at least its scope, will learn a lot of genuine facts in watching this in the way that you learn from a good, informative documentary.

Mira Sorvino and Donald Sutherland play agents for ICE, the International Customes Enforecement Agency. They are charged with stemming the tide of young girls, some preteens, who are abducted and/or falsely lured to this country, ostensibly to model, be a mail order bride, or some other more innocuous reason, but in reality  for the purpose of forced prostitution.

The film is told with the focus on three young women, one a poor teenage girl from an Eastern European family lured to the U.S. by a phony "modeling" agency, one young woman-also a mother-who was effectively sold into prostitution by her "boyfriend", and the third a preteen American girl who is literally snatched from her parents on the streets of Manila. The film also touches on and reveals the plight of some of the other young women: their various reactions to forced prostitution, in the form of street work, higher class call girls, and/or pornographic movies as well as the means of physical and mental abuse that keeps them relatively docile and subjugated.

Although this is not an easy film to watch-no matter who or where we are, or what our political/religious affiliations might be, I've long been of the opinion that the abuse of children is the one thing that we all agree on as an unspeakable evil without qualification-but it does not get too lurid with showing us the actual sexual abuse of children. It is, however, strongly implied and we do see the mental and physical abuse, with the younger children mostly in the form of denial of adequate food and medical care.

You also get to see the ones who make this possible, the crime lords (played very effectively by Robert Carlyle as a Russian mob figure with an extensive syndicate here in the U.S.), their collaborators, the well meaning but ignorant families that allow their young girls to pursue "jobs" or "careers". One poignant scene shows the child pimps approaching a subsistence farmer, literally living in a nineteenth century type hovel with his wife and several children, and offer him more money than he has probably ever seen for his daughter. You see the look in his-a man who has probably done more manual labor in his life than 10 average Americans combine-  eyes as he now, maybe for the first time, has more than enough to feed and clothe the rest of his family, at the expense of his precious daughter. No, I'm not saying you will feel sorry for him , or that his actions are not disgusting, but it is done in such a way as to make us understand the crushing poverty and hopelessness in some countries-particularly Asian nations and former Eastern European bloc countries-that would make this type of thing not totally uncommon.

You also see the other side of it, US children snatched off the streets and the huge uphill battle that has to be fought to find them in countries where the infrastructure is not nearly aas conducive to finding criminals...particularly when those criminals pay very well.

The buyers of these exploited women and children are shown as well...yes, the stereotypical dirty old men are represented, but you also see the yuppy types at 6 figure mansions, and one particularly disgusting American doctor, who is seeking a little something different on his vacation to the Phillipines.

The heroes are there, too. The mother of the American child who refuses to leave the Phillipines or rest until she has found her daughter, the father of the teen age girl lured from Europe who comes to America with no clue as to find his daughter, but immerses himself in the child sex culture as a enforcer, in hopes that he will cross paths with her, and, of course, the tireless work of the government agents, played wonderfully by Sorvino and Sutherland.

These are fictional accounts, but they are the type of stories and done in such a way as to make it obvious that such things can and do occur. The international scope of the film shows how difficult the problem is, but it also that, like all problems that are human in creation, there is a solution, not just from the government, but from all of us. Any child that we can help-in any way: Little League coaching, den mother, crossing guard, whatever-whether our child or not, is one child that is just a little less likely to fall prey to these perverts. And, for those of us unable to do those kinds of things, just keeping your eyes and ears open, especially in larger cities, can help, or giving any extra $10, $100 or whatever-one time or on a regular basis, it all helps-, to one of the many private organizations that do so much to help exploited children. Anything helps.

Well, the purpose of this blog is not to be preachy, but that is the effect a film like this can have. And, you won't forget it.

Directed by Eric Mandelburg. Drama, Action.

Starring: Thora Birch, Keith Carradine, Brendan Sexton, Dean Winters, Colleen Camp.

SYNOPSIS: DRAMA BASED ON TRUE EVENTS OF A SMART YOUNG WOMAN TURNED PROSTITUTE WHO SEDUCES TWO MEN INTO NAMING HER AS A BENIFICIARY ON THEIR LIFE INSURANCE, WITH BOTH ENDING UP DEAD OF CYANIDE POISINING.

This is a very interesting film, I'll start out by stating clearly. Despite being a true crime aficionado, I will confess to knowing nothing of the murders committed by Barbara Hoffman (Thora Birch) in the late 70's in the Madison, Wisconsin area. Having seen this flick, I'm very eager to do more background research on the events, which I think speaks well of the flick.

Having said that, I must say that this is a difficult film to follow the first time you see it...there is no simple chronological flow to the film. It starts in 1980 (the time of Hoffman's trial) and immediately jumps back to the 1977 (the time the events occurred) and keeps flashing back and forward from there. At times, it is difficult to fully grasp where you are in the story, which is a good one and, in my opinion, very well acted.

Of course, its easy to criticize from the cheap seats without offering an alternative solution and, since I don't want to be "that guy", I will say that I thought the movie would have been just a little easier to follow if it was shot in a straight "start to finish" chronological style or a conventional flashback style. Instead, we have flashbacks within flashbacks, accompanied by cutaways. Not to give too much away, but when one of the main characters meets his end early in the flick, don't despair, because you will see him again often in the ubiquitous flashback scenes.

Now that I'm done with my major complaint about this flick, I'm on to the more positive, and there is a good bit of that.

This is a very good film. Yes, its low budget, but I don't like to get too hung up on that aspect because those of us who love flicks know that the budget often is not the determining factor in whether or not a flick works or not. Here, you have what I've often said is the key to a good flick: 1) an interesting story 2) good acting 3) good direction. That's it. Notice nothing about CGI or SFX, though those things can certainly add to the movie, they don't make it good.

Enough proselytizing, I'm off the soap box. First and foremost, this is true crime, so if you like that sub-genre, you're already half way to becoming a fan of Winter of Frozen Dreams. Second, it is wonderfully shot. Those of us old enough to remember the 70's remember it as a very distinct time in terms of fashion, both clothing and personal, as well as language and, well, it had a special "feel" to it. This flick captures the feel of the 70's without going over the top or flirting with spoofing the era. I guess the best way to say it is I felt like I was watching a story unfold in the late '70's, as opposed to feeling like I was watching a movie that was trying to look like the 70's, and, inevitably, overdoing it with the wide ties, Afros, long hair, platform shoes, disco music blaring from everywhere and bushy sideburns.

Birch is really good here, her character extremely hard to peg and describe. She is both the protagonist and the antagonist, in a way. Will you, kind of, root for her-in a way, or despise her? Will you form the opinion that this former honor student at one of the U.S.'s finest universities couldn't have possibly done the things she was accused of, or will you have no doubt, based on the movie, that she is guilty as sin? Will you understand completely how she was able to seduce her victims or will you wonder just what in the world these men were thinking about?

I predict your answer to these questions just might be: yes to all of the above. Which makes it interesting, at least in my book. My superficial research into the actual Barbara Hoffman would seem to indicate that Birch nailed it.

Keith Carradine (Southern Comfort, Chiefs) is excellent as the hard bitten detective so close to retirement he's half way to Florida, but pauses to solve the riddle no one else even realizes has been posed. Brandon Sexton is also very good in his role as Hoffman's lover & victim (?)...to me he looks very much like a young...Keith Carradine. Also, kudos to Dean Winters (Oz) in his small but important role as Barbara's pimp. For me, the most notable thing with the supporting cast in this movie was a barely recognizable-to me anyway- Colleen Camp (Die Hard 3) as Birch's potential, if slightly looney, mother in law.

Winter of Frozen Dreams is a flick I think you have to give a shot if you like true crime or just a well acted drama. Yes, it has its flaws-just like almost every flick ever made-and the one I talked about earlier makes this the kind of flick I predict you'll have to watch twice to fully appreciate.

The good thing is, this is a flick I also predict you will want to watch again.

                          

Directed by Uli Lommel

Synopsis:A movie allegedly based on the actions of Dennis Rader, the Bind-Torture- Kill serial killer who terrorized Wichita, Kansas beginnng in 1974 and was not apprehended until 30 years later. 

O.k., some of you may know that I have ranted in this blog before about movies that draw us in by promises that they are "based on true events" or tell the "true story" fo some actual event. So, you already know I have a problem with that, especially when the facts changed/made up are easily found out and not in dispute. I don't even like it when the movies are actually good (ex. Cinderella Man, From Hell, JFK) When the movie is horrible, as this travesty is, and it deals with such a horrific set of circumstances with the families of victims and others still alive, its just wrong.

Actually, calling this a "movie" is a little bit like calling the guy who planned your  neighborhood block  party a "statesman ". Its way, way, overstating the case. Actually, that analogy is grossly unfair to the the nice guy around the block who probably had the idea for the block party.

This film isn't just bad when compared to bad real movies, in the way of Mars Attacks or Leonard Part 6, this trash is bad compared with almost anything else you have ever seen on film, including your grandpa's old home movies and your 9 year old daughter's school play. Actually, its not even close to being that good.

What's worse than the horrible editing, bad acting, and ridiculous script, is the fact that the film simply made up things that had nothing to do with the real, disgusting  Dennis Rader, such as the incomprehensible use of animal mutilation, but also used the names of real victims...its such a brazen attempt to profit off of the misery of others, and assumning that our morbid fascination with evil knows no limits or requires no semblance of real art.

O.k., I need to get down off of my soapbox, I've already wasted way more type on this piece of garbage than its worth.

The producers, director, and any store that carries this filth should be ashamed.

Directed by Uli Lommel

SYNOPSIS: A FILM THAT GOES INTO THE SON OF SAM KILLINGS PERPETRATED BY DAVID BERKOWITZ IN NEW YORK IN THE 1970s.

Well, what can I say about this film, or more specifically, about this director that has not already been said? Some of it has, in fact, been said previously on this blog. But, this film, like his previous forays into the genre of true crime (Black Dahlia, BTK Killer) is just, yet again, a shameless attempt to capitalize on a topic that many people have heard of in the form of a poorly scripted, poorly shot, poorly researched and obviously quickly thrown together movie.

And, do you know what the worst part is? This might be one of Uli Lommel's best movies. I'm serious.

First, let me warn anyone who might be a true crime aficionado or have an interest in the Son of Sam killings that this film, in no way, serves as a vehicle to learn more about the case. If you know nothing of the Son of Sam killings committed by David Berkowitz in the summer of '77 and you watch this movie, you still will still know nothing after you're done watching. (I mean this literally, when listening to the commentary on the DVD, it is clear that one of the producers-who at least was animated as opposed to the catatonic Lommel- clearly does not even know Berkowtiz's correct first name. Which isn't a big thing...unless you are making a movie about real events and fully intend to market it on that basis.)

As you might guess, if you know anything of Lommel's "true crime" films, what you see in this movie bears little to no resemblance to anything factual regarding the case. The manner & methods of the killings, locations, etc, nothing of it matches up to the real Berkowitz case nor, in my opinion, does it really try to do so.

When you think of all the low budget and no budget filmmakers out there trying to get their voices heard (o.k., I know that sounds kind of pretentious, but those of you who have read some of my posts no that I don't usually sound pretentious, so can you cut me some slack? Just this one time?), not to mention the actors, sound and effects people who are serious about their craft and do the best they can with or without funding, wishing all the time that their work could see a fraction of the distribution that Lommel's "films" enjoy.

Personally, I think its one of the biggest scams out there, its no accident the movies are named the same as the more mainstream titles which seriously deal (or at least attempt to deal) with the serious subject matter of the true crime film.

I wonder how many people have gone angrily storming back to their video stores, demanding money back because they feel (rightly so, in my opinion) they've been duped into renting/buying something that is intentionally misleading.

It has to be a significant number.

To me, the only people, aside from those who've been duped, who should see a Uli Lommel "true crime" film are those who have heard how bad they are, and just have to see it for themselves.

Or, if they write a movie review blog.

Directed by Michael Feifer. Starring Priscilla Barnes, Kane Hodder, Michael Berryman, Adrienne Frantz, Timothy Oman, Shawn Hoffman, Amy Lyndon. Horror/Drama/Gore/True Crime. Synopsis: Film based loosely on the real life serial killer Ed Gein, who killed, skinned, and cannibalized his victims in rural Wisconsin in the 1940's and '50's.

Its long been said that truth is stranger than fiction. In a lot of cases, such as the movie Ed Gein, truth is also a whole lot more interesting than fiction, too. Or at least, fiction based "loosely" on a true story.

Look, this is not a bad effort, not a bad effort at all. And the flick does not deserve placement in the "Duds" category, but, as much as I would like to, I can't really encourage anyone (not that any of you listen to me anyway...no hard feelings, I don't listen to myself most of the time) to pick up this flick. Good effort, nice intentions, some good actors, fertile story line. Just didn't work.

For those who are not familiar with the story of Ed Gein, he was one of the most vicious, if not prolific, serial killers in U.S. history, coming at a time before the term "serial killer" was in vogue. Over 50 when he was caught in 1957, Gein was a lifelong resident of north central Wisconsin who has an alcoholic father and a domineering mother who probably started him down the path to ruin with her talk about the evils of sex and alleged acts of humiliating her son (one story has it that she poured scalding water on his genitals after catching him engaged in self exploration as a child) Gein was a grave robber, cannibal, and also cut the skins off of his victims, mostly middle aged women) and had some skin suits in his filthy residence. He was tried for only two murders but was thought to have killed many more, including the murder of the mother of one of the deputies in the local sheriff's office.  He was found not guilty by reason of insanity and spent the rest of his life in a mental institution, dying in 1984. His story was part of the inspiration for such horror films as Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Psycho, and the "Buffalo Bill" character in Silence of the Lambs.  

Obviously, there is a lot to work with in this real life horror story. Unfortunately, Ed Gein falls flat because the story is, well, boring. The plot line is spread too thin among the ensemble cast, when the title character himself-or at least some focus on his motivation or morbid life style. Instead, Feifer focuses too much on the deputies involved but does not engage us or make them interesting enough for us.

Kane Hodder (Friday the 13th)  does a good job in his character, but that is part of the problem. This large, physically imposing actor is the opposite of the short, effeminate acting Gein. And, a picture of the real Gein during the opening credits doesn't help in this aspect as you can tell that the real butcher was not physically imposing at all, which adds to his madness and intrigue as well as helps explains how he was probably able to lure his victims to his remote home.

Michael Berryman (The Hills Have Eyes)  makes a brief appearance as Gein's brother, and Priscilla Barnes (The Devil's Rejects) is good but under utilized in her role as the mother of the deputy who falls victim to Gein. There is enough blood to satisfy fans of gore.

One other pet peeve: this film is set in northern Wisconsin in the 1950's, so why does almost the entire cast speak in southern accents and dialect (e.g. "y'all, "honey child")? I'm not trying to be too picky, but these are two distinct regions of the country-both of which I've spent time in-and the sounds are much different. I'm not saying there could not have been a transplanted southerner or two in this rural Wisconsin town, but almost everyone? If Feifer's next film is set in north central Georgia, will the cast be speaking with long "Os", hard consonants, and saying "eh" a lot? Or is it just the "Hollywood" assumption that all rural people everywhere all sound the same?

It's clear from the director's commentary that there was only basic familiarity with the real story by the cast and Feifer. Maybe that is not important to some viewers, but, to me, the whole reason to make a real life story into a movie is that it is interesting or important, so if you don't try to stay true to the real details, what's the point? Unless what you come up with in your "artistic license" product is compelling.

So, I can't recommend it, but if you do give it a chance, keep your expectations kind of low, which just might help you enjoy it more than I did.