Recently in True Crime pg.2 Category

Directed by Damien Chapa. Starring: Damien Chapa, Brienne De Beau, Silvia Suvadova, Tom Bruilhet.Drama/Historical/Biographical. Synopsis: A biopiv of the life of famed Director Roman Polanski focusing on the period(s) of his life when he was child and saw the brutality of the Nazis in Poland, his direction of the controversial movie Rosemary's Baby, the relationship and murder of his wife Sharon Tate at the hands of the Manson family and his arrest and subsequent fleeing from the charge of statutory rape.

I think this is the type of film that a lot of people will really dislike, and other people will like, but the first group will be much larger than the second. O.k., I know that is something that could be said about a lot of flicks, but especially this one.

Why?

Well, first the style ad flow of the movie. The story jumps repeatedly between the seminal points of Roman Polanski's life. As a boy in Poland in 1939 just before and during the Nazi occupation of his homeland; 1966 London, 1969 Hollywood and his preparation to direct Rosemary's Baby , and his actions leading to his arrest for the statutory rape of a 13 year old girl in 1977. The thing is, these scenes are not presented chronologically throughout the film, with jump cuts between the various scenes. I have no problem with doing different things with the chronology of a flm- a la' Tarentino, as long as the continuity does not suffer, but my problem with this flick is that it almost presupposes that you know the major details of the story of Roman Polanski.

Maybe that is a good supposition, after all, would anyone who had no idea who Roman Polanski is or the details of his interesting and controversial life want to rent/buy/watch this movie? I don't know, maybe not.

The story is fascinating enough, so the only ingredient missing is good acting and directing. I think you get it here, particularly from the lead actor and director, Chapa (Menedez: A Killing In Beverly Hills) as Polanski. We get a good idea of the genuis, motivation, and deep moral failings of the man, and the character is made empathetic, if not sympathetic. However, he is not alone as Brienne De Beau more than does justice to her role as Sharon Tate, Polanski's wife and victim of the infamous Manson family murders, and Tom Bruilhet as Anton Lavey, Church of Satan founder and consultant to Polanski steals every scene he is in.

This is a smaller budget film, not an epic, but that is o.k. by me and I think anyone who is interested in the long running saga of this talented and tormented director would probably be doing themselves a favor by picking this one up. But, if you're not familiar with the story(ies), you'd likely be better off watching a documentary on the subject when you get a chance.    

Directed by Gus Van Zant. Starring:Sean Penn, James Franco, Josh Brolin.Historical/Drama Biography. SYNOPSIS: A biopic of the first openly homosexual politician in San Francisco focusing on his personal life and entry into politics in the '70's through his assassination in 1978.

If you're making your own personal list of the best living actors, it is getting harder and harder, if you define "acting" as the ability (or artistic talent) to bring characters to life to the point where you might forget you are watching a movie and feel as if you're viewing the real thing, well....its getting harder and harder to leave Sean Penn (Carlito's Way, Mystic River) off of your short list. Really hard. This is an amazing actor.

Milk is a biopic of the real life San Francisco politician and gay rights activist Harvey Milk, who was the first openly gay politician elected to office-Board of City Supervisors- in California and one of the first in the nation.

The film starts out with Milk in New York and quickly encapsulates his transformation from careful and closeted homosexual businessman (in my day he would have been called a "yuppie") into the quintessential long haired hippie of the '70's to respected middle age politician in one of the most combustible hot spots of the 70s.Its really something when we look back at history. In full disclosure, I'm old enough to remember the times of Harvey Milk, which came on the heels of the Jim Jones tragedy which also was directly tied to San Francisco.

 

I was too young to understand the full impact of the events then and did not become familiar with San Francisco and its unique vibe until years later, but I do think I have a pretty good idea of the feel of the city as well as that late 70's feel and Milk captures it very well.

As for what I thought of Penn in this movie, well, what can you say? Though Messrs. Pacino, DeNiro, Freeman, Washington, Nicholson, Ms. Streep and a couple of others certainly have a claim, we might be looking at the best living actor. The man just transforms onscreen. My knowledge of Harvey Milk is certainly not as much as many other historical and/or political figures, but I have seen more than one documentary on the man. I know this sounds like a cliché, but every so often, you forget you're watching an actor play Harvey Milk and think you're watching Harvey Milk. Penn is that good here.

Lest you think the other actors disappear next to Penn, let me assure you that they do not. Special kudos have to go to James Franco (Flyboys, Annapolis) as Milk's long time lover and Josh Brolin (Planet Terror, W) as Dan White, Milk's fellow council member, political opponent, and ultimately his assasin.

 

To those of you who might be hesitant to give this one a look due to the fact that it might be "pushing" or "encouraging" the homosexual agenda or lifestyle, you needn't fret. And, don't think I'm endorsing the legitimacy of that concern. Personally, I think its silly, but to each his own.

 

Milk is a compelling flick, whether you have familiarity with the story or not, whatever your politics. If you're a fan of great acting, you almost owe it to yourself to see Sean Penn. 

Directed by Albert & Allen Hughes. Starring Johnny Depp, Heather Graham, Robbie Coltrane, Susan Lynch, Ian Holm, Ian Richardson, Jason Fleming, Katrin Cartlidge, Lesley Sharp. Synopsis: A tale of the killings and the search for Jack The Ripper, the most infamous serial killer of al time who was never caught, told from the perspective of the lead detective on the case, Fred Abberline.

 

I have to confess first off to being a "Ripperologist", one who has an interestin true unsolved crime and particularly the most famous unsolved murders of all time. I've read books and done research on the case and I still remember quite clearly that when From Hell opened in the theaters some years ago, I went to the midnight showing after a long day at the office because I could not wait. I now have it on DVD and watched it again for the first time in a couple of years. 

Nothing has changed my opinion.

 

This, in my opinion, is an excellent movie. Now, the first thing to deal with is the premise: a real life unsolved crime that everyone knows is unsolved.On the other hand, so much has been written and dramatic license taken over the century and a quarter since the murders, it was safe to assume that many people watching who had heard of Jack The Ripper would only be vaguely familiar with the details and, of course, everyone directly associated with the case is long deceased.

But, the Hughes brothers do a good job with it anyway. There are many different theories as to who Jack The Ripper was and why he did what he did, which was murder at least 5 women who worked as prostitutes in extremely brutal fashion in London in 1888.

 

The Hughes brothers choose to use one of the more popular and recent theories, one involving the coverup by the Royal Family. This theory first appeared in the 1970s and, in the humble opinion of your blogger as well as most folks who have studied the case, its silly.

But, it does make for great theater-which is no doubt why it was dreamed up-and great theater is what we get here. Johnny Depp (Secret Window) plays Inspector Fred Abberline, the real life detective who was in charge of the investigation. Depp, not surprisingly, is wonderful in the role and unlike some I had no problem with his British accent. Some dramatic license is taken with the life of the real detective, such as making him an opium addict as well as clairvoyant. I didn't particularly care for that, as one thing that bugs is when historical movies change known facts. My opinion is, if the person or event you're making the film about is interesting enough to warrant making a movie  1,10,100, or 1000 years after the fact, why do you need to change any of the facts?  

Of course, there are valid reasons in terms of what you might show in a feature film that is 2 hours long, and I believe that is what was done here, combining another real life figure close to the case into the Abberline character.

Of course, we're talking big budget movie here, so telling the story of the most compelling and well known unsolved crime in history isn't enoufh, we have to have a love interest. I say that somewhat tongue in cheek, but I will say it works well in From Hell, not least because it is written into the plot in the form of part of the answer to the unsloved question of who Jack The Ripper really was. Heather Graham (Boogie Nights) plays Mary Jane Kelley, the last of the known Ripper victims and the object of Abberline's affections. The chemistry between the two is very believable and there is some electicity there as well. We can believe this relationship even though it springs from slightly unbelievable circumstances.

The rest of the cast is more than up to the task of answering the challenge of matching the performances of the two leading actors. Robbie Coltrane kncoks it out of the park as George Godley, Abberline's sidekick. I'll bet you find him the most likeable, empathetic, and funniest of the characters, though the laughs are few in this flick.

The two Ians, Holm and Richardson, are both impressively stately if a little intimidating in their respective roles, as Physician to the Queen and Chief of Police. 

Mary Jane also has gal pals who work the streets with her and just might fall prey to the Ripper. The circle of friends angle, for which there is no historical basis, of these Ripper victims is done very well here, almost family like. Katrin Cartridge plays Annie Chapman, Lesley Sharp is Cattherine Eddowes, and Susan Lynch is Elizabeth Stride. All of them were real life Ripper victims and the actresses bring them to life well and make us emphathize. Especially Lynch, I just think this actress really has something special.

The cinematography and look of the film are excellent, it really looks like you would think London would have looked like at this time in history. There are a couple of shots of blood red skies that are awesome and fit well with the story.

As if a well directed, acted, and filmed movie about an interesting subject was not enough, when you pick this up on DVD you will be treated to extensive special features, including quite a bit on the actual case, so those of you who are interested in the topic will get twice the bang for your buck. 

One of my favorites, no doubt.

        

Directed by David Fincher. Starring Jake Gyllenhaal, Anthony Edwards, Mark Ruffalo, Chloe Sevigny, Brian Cox, Robert Downey Jr., John Carroll Lynch, Phillip Baker Hall. Drama/Historical/True Crime. Synopsis: The story of the investigation into the Zodiac killer- a serial killer who terrorized the San Francisco Bay Area in the late 60's and early 70's and was never positively identified or caught-from the perspective of the lead investigators and newspapermen who were very involved in the case.

Treated myself to this one in the theater for a matinee today and I'm glad I did. Somewhere it was in the back of mind that this had gotten bad reviews, and I can see why it might not be knocking 'em dead at the box office, but this is a quality flick about a subject that will be of a lot of interest to some and maybe not at all to the majority.

The film is based on the still unsolved murders in the S.F. Bay area between 1968 and 1971, which gained notoriety due to the killer's penchant for contacting and taunting the press with his letters and details of his crimes and, also in no small part, from being immortalized in the popular culture. (The antagonist in the 1971 classic Dirty Harry was named Scorpio and clearly based on the Zodiac killings)

This film is made up of ensemble cast, told primarily through the eyes of S.F. Chronicle cartoonist Paul Graysmith (Jake Gyllenhaal Brokeback Mountain) and lead detectives David Toschi (Mark Ruffalo The Last Castle) and  William Armstrong (Anthony Edwards).

The story starts with the first known murder attributed to the Zodiac in July of 1968 and deals with all the following known killings as well as the long time focus on one potential suspect named Arthur Leigh Allen (John Carroll Lynch), who remained a prime suspect until his death in the 1990's.

Director Fincher does a great job of touching on all points of the case: the nervousness of a whole city during the height of the murders; the deep involvement of the press in the case; the actual feel of the early 70's and, of course, the murders themselves.

There are other real life figures portrayed well, here. Columnist Paul Avery (Robert Downey, Jr./Chaplin) is depicted as a brilliant reporter with serious addictions who was directly threatened by the Zodiac. Also, the extremely prolific Brian Cox (Running with Scissors) does a turn as high profile lawyer Melvin Belli.)

Chole Sevigny as Graysmith's wife, Clea Duvall, and John Carroll Lynch also add even more weight to a distinguished cast. (Those of you from the 80's might like to look for Ione Skye in an uncredited cameo role as one of the fortunate to escape and/or survive the Zodiac) The best part of the film is the reluctant cooperation over the years between Graysmith and Toschi. The film depicts Graysmith's growing obsession with the case (he later wrote a best selling book on it and became a true crime author).

Negatives? Well, its a long film, clocking in at over 2 hours. I can't say it felt like it dragged, but I think this film is better suited to DVD, especially if its released with special features that include factual information on the case.

I think Zodiac will appeal mostly, if not exclusively, to those with an interest in the case or an interest in true crime and/or serial killers, like moi. 

And, there is nothing wrong with that. 

 

Directed by Matthew Bright. Starring Michael Reilly Burke, Doti Bliss. True Crime/Historical Synopsis: A biopic of Ted Bundy, one of the most notorious serial killers in U.S. history.

I was genuinely excited to receive this movie on DVD as a gift and deeply regret having to come to such a negative conclusion, but there is really no other alternative. As a movie lover and a true crime buff, I have quite a bit of familiarity with the Bundy case and, especially, enjoyed the made for TV adaption of the mid-80's, "The Deliberate Stranger".

I expected a movie version, updated with current developments (e.g., at the time of the making of the "Deliberate Stranger", Bundy had not been executed, his appeals had not been exhausted, nor had the immense psychological profiling or his eleventh hour shenanigans to save his life-such as his siring of a child while on death row or his conversion to Hinduism or his last minute appeals to exchange information to save his life- been completed) and not restrained on such a macabre subject as this by network TV parameters to be truly compelling, thought provoking, and informative.

Bright's movie, while visually compelling at times, falls far short of the mark and is, at times, inappropriate and tasteless. Other reviewers have indicated that there is poor character development and they are absolutely correct. There is no, absolutely NO, attempt to develop ANY of the characters past their cartoonish roles as set forth by this script and Bright.

Moreover, many of the historical facts of the case are simply misrepresented in this film. Even a casual follower of the Bundy case knows that, incredibly, many of his known 30 victims who have been identified (not all have been), bore a striking resemblance to each other. Generally brunette with long, straight hair parted in the middle; which fit the description of the high society woman Bundy was long infatuated with and even engaged to for a time. (Not to be confused with his OTHER girlfriend at the time of the beginning of his killings, whom is depicted in both movies referenced herein, and in Bright's adaptation is misrepresented and slandered, despite a strong performance from the actress playing her with such a limited script). By contrast, the victims in Bright's adaption are mostly blond and further details of their murders are made up and presented as "fact".

There is no mention or illusion to Bundy's family, especially his mother, whom he beleived to be his sister until early adolescence, nor his self described life long shame at being born out of wedlock. Clearly, well known facts such as these are important to give the viewer, whether familiar with Bundy or not, grounds to answer the most compelling and unanswerable questions: WHY and HOW?

Instead, Bright presents a disjointed tale in which Bundy (played fairly well with limited options by Michael Burke) does not even speak until 20 minutes into the movie, despite being depicted in almost every scene of the movie. We are treated to much more violence than is necessary in showing the horror of this man, and also to many vignettes of him supposedly acting out similar fantasies in lovemaking with his girlfriend. Further, Bright takes the time to provide several scenes referencing Bundy's necrophilia, something that was never confessed to or proven, albeit suspected by the investigators in the case.

For those of you looking for information about this case in addition to being entertained, you will be sadly disappointed. There is almost no reference to time, date, place of this killing nightmare that spanned almost ten years, and absolutely no creative reference to the investigation and/or trial(s) of Bundy. (In the director's commentary on the 'features" portion of the DVD, Bright tells us that he simply "wasn't interested in shooting that stuff") Perhaps to make up for his evidently intentional lack of character development, factual accuracy, and story line, Bright spices in some footage of the real Bundy being led into court and transferred to jail; along with contemporary newscasts and community reaction. This brief snippets tell us more about what happened and compel us to form our own opinions than anything Bright does in the rest of the piece.

Other reviewers have remarked in the apparent attempt at dark humor in this movie. I believe that Bright did attempt this, although for the life of me I cannot find dark humor in the real life story of a man who murdered at least 30 women (investigators and profilers close to the case unanimously believe the actual count is much more and some feel that it could have well been more than 100);physically and emotionally maimed other victims for life, and psychologically shattered some others who knew, in hindsight, that they could have been and/or were intended to be his victim. As such, the ridiculous scene, and others like it, where Bright's Bundy is depicted as a tween sport jacket and bow tie wearing nerd while sitting in 70's style disco's and doing an intentionally poor parody of John Travolta's famous pose from the cover of the album "Saturday Night Live" don't strike me as funny.

There is another montage with some upbeat 70's style disco music (don't get me wrong, I LOVE 70's era tunes...this just wasn't the place)blaring happily while Bright shows us successive scenes of women being dumped into ditches and by the sides of roads as well as a particularly disturbing one with Bundy enjoying a smoke after (presumably) sex with two corpses.

I realize that Bundy was a disgusting, revolting character, and any honest portrayal of him will contain some elements of this. However, Bright focuses solely on the crude parts, which cheat the viewer, in my opinion, of the full chilling effect of this predator who was, although in some respects fraudulently so, a law student, suicide crisis counselor, aide on the campaign to the Governor of Washington, and admired within his community. Mark Harmon's Bundy in the Deliberate Stranger was played with these dimensions in mind, so effectively that, at times, depending on which "Ted" we are seeing, Harmon actually seems to look different. And, most importantly, we are given an indication of HOW so many nice and intelligent women were lured to their demise. Bright's Bundy is a ridiculous and revolting figure, obviously out of place and literally walking up to women on the street and striking them and then carrying their bodies to his VW, in one scene in full view of four people who are walking right by and don't seem to care.

For those who do feel compelled or interested in seeing this movie, don't waste your extra bucks on the DVD version unless you just have to see it in that visually format. There are no additional features other than Bright's appalling director's commentary. This rates special mention due to its revelation about the thought that went into this movie. Bright makes little or no mention of the actors, motivation, or though that went into making this picture. His comments are semi-moronic musings such as "can you believe this guy", "ladies, dump your boyfriend if he is like this", "don't so that Ted", and the like. He misstates on several occasions actual Bundy events and repeats throughout that "hey, this actually happened", even in scenes that require some dramatic license (e.g. conversation between Bundy and a victim who did not survive)

However, the most disturbing parts of the DVD feature are Bright's almost incessant reference to the actresses playing the roles of victims in this movie. Such beauts as "this girl is a wrestler in real life and I wish she would have met Bundy, she'd have kicked his butt" and "I can't remember her name (reference to a blond actress playing a cheerleader uniform wearing victim of Bundy-a victim not based in the facts of the case)...but, she's 'jailbait' and she knows she's 'jailbait'"

The most disgusting is in the commentary during the "interrogation scene" of Bundy (again, we are given no who, what, where, etc.) when the detective is withering Bundy with questions and begins to read a list of names of his victims (again, not factually accurate, at the time of Bundy's initial arrest in Utah, he was a suspect in three unsolved kidnapping of young women,bodies had not been found and one survived and ultimately identify him) containing about 20 names. Bright tells us that "he didn't use the real names of the victims in respect to the families" (what a guy) and then goes on, unbelievably, to tell us that "...the names used are the names of every girl I have slept with since the eighth grade..." and then goes on to tell us when and how on some of the women. Seriously.

There are other false and tasteless treats from his commentary "...people saw this guy, but nobody said anything and nobody cared...", "Bundy easily could have been Governor or a Senator", and "Bundy was a REpublican...I don't mean to slam Republicans, but most serial killers are Repblicans."

As if that is not enough, this movie ends with a succession of four children (?)smiling at the camera and yelling "I am Ted Bundy", the last of which is a cute little girl who says this line while appearing to be holding a dead cat.

Bottom line, stay away from this unless you just like mindless and gratuitous movies that are a succession of unrelated and unexplained shocking scenes like the ones mentioned above and many other beauties such as Bundy masturbating outside of windows and putting lipstick on a decapitated corpse.

If you are interested at all in this subject matter or just curious and don't need to be grossed out while someone who thinks this is a little humorous puts in tasteless scenes to try and make you laugh, skip this and find "The Deliberate Stranger" on VHS or wait until it comes around again on cable.