Tag: sidney lumet


Serpico (1973)
★★★ / ★★★★

Ever since Frank Serpico (Al Pacino) was a child, he has wanted to be a cop. Fresh out of the academy, he is ready to begin his career in New York City, but he quickly discovers that what he envisions does not match the realities of being a cop. It seems that wherever he turns, cops are taking bribes from crooks. Haunted by the corruption being committed by his colleagues, he turns to his superiors (Biff McGuire, Charles White) who promise action but end up ignoring his claims. When his life is threatened by his angry co-workers, Serpico feels he has no choice but to go public.

Based on the book by Peter Mass, I was not won over by “Serpico” right away because it plays upon the hoary template of a good cop going through endless frustrations and anxieties as he tries to battle bad guys in order to set things right. I wondered at the point the picture is trying to get across. Does he strive to set things straight for the good of the common people or are the changes he wishes to see an attempt to match his adulthood realities with his childhood fantasies?

In its early stages, Sidney Lumet’s picture goes on seemingly desultory directions: some scenes are dedicated to Serpico’s experience with crooked cops and others involve Serpico meeting Laurie (Barbara Eda-Young), a woman who just might be the love of his life. This bears mixed results. While the workplace and home life angles are interesting once in a while, they are almost never fascinating at the same time.

The romance did not do much for me; if it were taken out completely, the meat of the film—the conflict occurring in the workplace—would have been much leaner and more focused. A sense of immediacy and calamity within the police force would have been magnified if scenarios of the couple supporting each other and arguing were not there. It is clear that the weaker leg prevents the story from catapulting forward in a more consistent manner.

However, Pacino’s performance is so intense, he demands that we pay attention. Although the protagonist’s definition of what is right or wrong does not waver, there is an arc to the character—divorced from the kinds of facial hair he has at a particular point in time. As we have likely to have seen way too many times, movies with weaker and laughable screenplays would have relied on physical characteristics to create some semblance of an arc—shameless in trying to trick us with a sham journey.

Here, we feel the desperation in Pacino’s eyes and though his way of speaking when no one appears to be willing to listen. What matters most to just about everyone Serpico encounters is the money being accrued in one’s pocket. And when someone chooses to listen, like the well-connected Bob Blair (Tony Roberts) and Inspector Lombardo (Edward Grover), I found myself being very suspicious of them. We take on the way our lead character evaluates a situation.

The screenplay by Waldo Salt and Norman Wexler, which is based on a true story, takes advantage of the idea that, in real life, it is often very difficult, at times almost impossible, to discern between good guys from bad guys. A corrupt person in power might be holding a gold badge or a fancy title next to his last name, but no one can truly know what he or she will be willing to do in order to maintain the status quo or subvert it.

I realized that my suspicion toward well-meaning characters is a testament that I cared about Serpico’s mission even though some of the driving forces behind his motivations are not entirely clear. I wanted to see him get out alive and the venal individuals to get indicted for their crimes.

Running on Empty

Running on Empty (1988)
★★★★ / ★★★★

During the Vietnam War, Annie (Christine Lahti) and Arthur (Judd Hirsch) bombed a military research facility that created napalm. They believed that by the time the bomb had exploded, the facility was empty. However, there was a janitor inside and he ended up blind and paralyzed. Annie and Arthur, with their two-year-old son, Danny, go on the run from the FBI. Sixteen years later, they are still fugitives, now a family of four, and have recently moved to New Jersey with new identities.

Written by Naomi Foner and directed by Sidney Lumet, “Running on Empty” is a coming-of-age film with plenty to say about family and responsibility–responsibility to each other and with oneself. It is an effective drama because the family, whose members genuinely love one another but are constantly on edge unmitigated by their unique situation, is on the verge of a potential separation for the sake a young man’s future.

Danny (River Phoenix) has an aptitude for music. After playing a piece on the piano for his music teacher, Mr. Phillips (Ed Crowley) is so impressed, he books his student an audition in Juilliard. And they want him. But there is a problem. Since the Pope family, known as the Manfields in New Jersey, has moved so often and had to change their names each time, Danny has no school record which is required for his admission.

The film is not blind to its characters’ realities and they are written smart. No judgment is placed on Annie and Arthur either as activists or radicals. They feel bad about the fact that they have ruined a man’s life because of their beliefs but their decision to bomb the research center is not given some sort of pat justification so we can root for them or like them more. Instead, the screenplay focuses on the home and how their bombing continues to change their children’s lives–oftentimes for the worse.

Annie and Arthur struggle to be good parents, taking whatever jobs they can, while keeping in mind that stability is something that they can never provide for their children. As a family, they must adapt quickly with the changes or risk going to jail. Sometimes it is scary, like how Danny and his little brother (Jonas Abry) attempt to evade the FBI in the beginning of the film and meet their parents at a designated spot if they happen to get compromised. And since it is a drama, there is no glamour in people constantly running from the law as, for example, what we expect from an action-thriller. The focus is on the pain in the attachments formed under threat of being broken in a moment’s notice.

A major subplot involves Danny falling for his music teacher’s plucky daughter, Lorna (Martha Plimpton), who has dreams of becoming a writer in New York City. She talks about her hopes for the future, going to college, and everything she is excited to accomplish. Danny listens in silence, head down, knowing that he, as long as he stays with his family, cannot share any of it with her. Nor does he have a chance of forging his own path. There is sadness there because, in a way, he has to choose between his family and his future.

The most moving scene is of Annie meeting her father (Steven Hill) in a French restaurant to ask if he might consider taking Danny so he can have a shot in leading a normal life. They have not seen each other in fourteen years. It is very moving because the reunion works as a foreshadowing in what Annie and Danny might end up having–secret meetings, unable to see each other for a very long time–if her father were to accept.

“Running on Empty” is elegant in construction plot-wise, the way it executes simple scenes, and the manner in which it highlights important yet understated emotions. Notice the scene when Danny and Lorna are at the beach. Lorna’s body tends to stay in one place, but Danny cannot help but lead them forward. With him, there is almost a subconscious discomfort in settling down.


Fail-Safe (1964)
★★★★ / ★★★★



Deathtrap (1982)
★★★ / ★★★★

Sidney Bruhl (Michael Caine) had a dark ideation. Once a successful playwright but now struggling to keep up with his reputation due to his recent flops, he came across a manuscript written by one of his former students named Clifford Anderson (Christopher Reeve). Sidney invited unsuspecting Clifford to visit his home in order to offer some advice to make the play better, murder him, and pass Clifford’s work as his own. Sidney’s wife (Dyan Cannon) had heart problems in the past but she reluctantly went along with her husband’s devious plan. It took a bit of time for me to get into this film. At first I thought the plot didn’t quite know how to move forward. I also had some problems with its tone. Did it want to be funny or thrilling or both? I wondered, could it have its cake and eat it, too? I also found the acting a bit amateurish, especially Cannon. I was aware that the picture was based on a play written by Ira Levin but her acting felt stuck in that medium. I thought she was annoying, whiny and needy–a damsel-in-distress who stuck by her husband for no good reason. However, after about forty minutes, it gained its footing and the material showed me it had intelligence. Very unexpected twists upon twists were abound but what I liked best about it was it felt like a play but it gained enough power to work in a cinematic medium. The tension became so high to the point where the exaggerations almost felt necessary. Caine impressed me because I’m used to watching him play quieter characters that are almost grandfather-like and humble. It was a breath of fresh air to see him so bitter, so angry, so flawed. His character caught my attention because it was the kind of character that valued his reputation more than anything else. He talked of sociopaths which made me wonder if he was projecting his own characteristics onto someone else. Sidney Lumet, the director, astutely used mood as a weapon to surprise the audiences. At times watching the film was like reading a novel. Just when I thought the picture was over because the mood was reaching a serene plateau, it suddenly came to life and delivered shocking punches. In less experienced hands, it might have felt too contrived or forced. Lumet’s direction certainly helped the sudden shifts in mood to feel as natural as possible. “Deathtrap” did not start off with flying colors but it is difficult to deny that it was a sublime murder mystery once it found a connection with its core. Fans of Alfred Hitchcock’s slow but compelling thrillers should eat this one up like candy.

Murder on the Orient Express

Murder on the Orient Express (1974)
★★★ / ★★★★

Based on Agatha Christie’s novel, “Murder on the Orient Express” stars Albert Finney as Hercule Poirot, a Belgian detective with great logic and acumen. In 1930, a little girl was kidnapped and later murdered in cold blood. Five years later, the murderer boarded a train and was later found dead. Since the train was stuck due to weather, the police couldn’t get to the train. It was then up to detective Poirot to figure out who killed the murderer. (I love the irony.) Aboard the train with him and the murderer were twelve other people (Ingrid Bergman, Sean Connery, Vanessa Redgrave, Anthony Perkins, Wendy Hiller, John Gielgud, Jacqueline Bisset, Lauren Bacall, Martin Balsam, Michael York) who came from different backgrounds and had unique personalities. The question is, which one or which ones of them did it? I had a lot of fun with this movie even though I found it quite difficult to keep track of the characters. The dialogue was electric; I loved the way Finney used different tactics of interrogation that matched a character’s type of personality. For the longest time, I had no idea who to suspect but even after the mystery was revealed, I still found myself shocked with who committed the crime. However, I have to say that this movie is not for everyone. Although it is essentially a mystery picture, it is very heavy on the dialogue (the main reason why I loved it) and the whole movie consisted of characters being stuck on a train. The movie also started off pretty slow because it took about thirty minutes to introduce all of the important characters. But I think with a little bit of patience and really paying attention to what was happening, people would find this movie worth their time. “Murder on the Orient Express,” directed by the masterful Sidney Lumet, has a wonderful supporting cast that fascinated me from beginning to end. The big names involved in this project really lived up to their reputation because they were able to inject complexity and dimension to their characters even though they didn’t get much screen time as opposed to, say, when they were asked to carry an entire film. This film had nice twists dispersed throughout so it was never boring once the viewer gets accustomed to its style. For a two-hour film and having more than a dozen crucial characters, the pacing was efficient. I wish there are more modern whodunit films are being released in cinemas these days because I’m just a sucker for them (it probably explains why obsession with board games like “Clue”).

12 Angry Men

12 Angry Men (1957)
★★★★ / ★★★★
