"MURDER AT 1600" (1997) Review

 

"MURDER AT 1600" (1997) Review

Remember the action films from the 1980s and the 1990s? I do. Several days ago, I found myself thinking about them and realizing that the Hollywood industry rarely, if ever, made them anymore. I ended up searching my collection of old DVDs and found my copy of the 1997 action thriller called "MURDER AT 1600".

Directed by Dwight Little and starring Wesley Snipes and Diane Lane, "MURDER AT 1600" begins with the discovery of the dead body of a Presidential secretary named Carla Town inside one of the bathroom stalls at the White House. Much to the Secret Service's surprise, National Security Advisor Alvin Jordan requests that the Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police investigate the murder. The police sends homicide Detective Harlan Regis and Detective Stengel to serve as the investigators. Secret Service Director Nick Spikings assigns Agent Nina Chance to serve as liaison between the Metropolitan Police and the U.S. Secret Service.

The murder inside the White House proves to be the latest scandal to mar President Jack Neil's administration. The President is also dealing with an international crisis in which thirteen American servicemen are being held hostage by the North Korean government. Although President Neil wants to resolve the situation without starting a war, many within his circle and the press wants him to send troops to rescue the hostages. While Neil deals with the crisis, Regis and Stengel's investigation leads to a major suspect - a White House janitor named Cory Allen Luchessi. However, Regis eventually realizes that Luchessi is innocent. He also manages to convince Agent Chance to help him find the real culprit, leading her to finding herself at odds with Spikings and her fellow Secret Service agents.

"MURDER AT 1600" is not some classic Hollywood action movie. It has never been regarded on the same level as the "DIE HARD" franchise or something like "BULLITT". I could see why during my recent re-watch. Like many action films from the late 20th century, "MURDER AT 1600" featured some cliched dialogue. On two separate occasions, a character mentioned details from the John F. Kennedy assassination. Why? What did the homicide of a secretary had to do with the assassination of president? Some people might regard its plot as a bit over-the-top. I mean . . . a Washington D.C. homicide detective investigating a murder committed inside the White House? I doubt very much such a thing would actually happen . . . or be allowed. And like many action films from the 1980s and 1990s, "MURDER AT 1600" has - thankfully - a small share of cheesy dialogue that became popular with the early DIE HARD movies.

I have not seen "MURDER AT 1600" in years. Before I had started this latest re-watch, I had assumed that my positive feelings for this film would change. And you know what? I was wrong. I ended up enjoying "MURDER AT 1600" even more than ever. Despite certain implausible aspects of the movie's narrative, I actually enjoyed the story. Thanks to screenwriters Wayne Beach and David Hodgin's script, "MURDER AT 1600" provided a well-executed combination of a mystery, an action thriller, and political intrigue. Regis's hobby of constructing tabletop miniatures of Civil War battles and sites played a role in the movie's final action sequence. I enjoyed how the film's scandals and political intrigue allowed Regis to comment on the toxic nature of Washington D.C. politics and intrigue. Regis's conflict with the Secret Service provided a character arc for Nina Chance, allowing her to choose between protecting the First Family's secrets on behalf of the agency and doing the right thing. Even the implausible aspects of the movie - Regis's appointment as investigator and mentions of the JFK assassination - ironically ended up serving the plot's political intrigue. Not long after Regis and his partner, Stengel, arrived at the White House, Spikings had expressed the implausibility of two local homicide detectives investigating a murder inside the White House - which is Federal property. As it turned out, Regis's appointment played a substantial role in the movie's political intrigue. And the comments on the JFK assassination served hints to what was really going on. My recent viewing of "MURDER AT 1600" reminded me that Beach and Hodgin's screenplay seemed to feature a great deal of red herrings, along with an interesting bait-and-switch plot point.

Lest we not forget, "MURDER AT 1600" is also an action thriller. And thanks to director Dwight Little, film editors Leslie Jones and Billy Weber, and Shane Cardwell's stunt team; the movie featured some very effective action sequences. But there were at least three action scenes that stood out for me. They include Agent Chance's theft of the murder victim's appointment book from the Secret Service's archives and her flight from the building, along with Regis and Chance's encounter with two assassins at a suspect's Maryland home. But the film's pièce de résistance proved to be the final action sequence that involved the pair and Stengel's infiltration of the White House via a tunnel, another deadly encounter with a government assassin and Regis' attempt to reach the President.

If there is one thing I can say about "MURDER AT 1600", it is a lovely movie to view. Cinematographer Steven Bernstein provided a visual feast of Washington D.C., Maryland and Virginia locations, thanks to his sharp and colorful photography. Christopher Young's score served the movie well with its rich, yet mellow score that emphasized the narrative's political intrigue and murder mystery. Not only did Jones and Weber's editing serve the movie's action scenes very well, but also the movie in general. In fact, I honestly believe "MURDER AT 1600" was a well-paced film - not to fast, but at the same time, it did not drag.

I do not know what to say about the movie's performances. I had earlier stated that the movie had some cheesy dialogue that was prevalent in action movies thirty to forty years ago. I do not believe the dialogue was bad enough to sabotage the performances, thank goodness. But I cannot honestly recall a performance that stood out above the rest. All or most of the performances - aside from one in particular - struck me as pretty solid. More importantly, Wesley Snipes and Diane Lane both did great jobs in carrying the film. Frankly, either one of them could have done the job alone. But they managed to form a pretty damn good screen team. Both Dennis Miller and Diane Baker also gave solid performances, but I felt they had been somewhat underused in "MURDER AT 1600" - especially Baker, whose only lines were part of a speech at a fundraiser scene. And Miller seemed to be used mainly as the occasional comic relief. But that one performance that seemed off-kilter to me came from Charles Rocket, who had portrayed a recently fired government employee threatening to kill himself in the middle of a D.C. thoroughfare. I found his performance a bit over-the-top. Ironically and tragically, Rocket committed suicide some eight years later.

"MURDER AT 1600" has its shares of what I believe to be minor flaws - some contrived plot points and cheesy dialogue. But overall, I believe it is a more-than-solid action film and political thriller. I thought it held up very well after so many years, thanks to Wayne Beach and David Hodgin's screenplay, Dwight Little's direction and a solid cast led by Wesley Snipes and Diane Lane. It also led me to long for a return of the action films of the 1980s and 1990s - something I believe that is sorely needed.

"MURDER AT 1600" (1997) Photo Gallery

 

Below are images from the 1997 action thriller, "MURDER AT 1600". Directed by Dwight Little, the movie starred Wesley Snipes and Diane Lane:

"MURDER AT 1600" (1997) Photo Gallery

"BRIDGE OF SPIES" (2015) Review

"BRIDGE OF SPIES" (2015) Review

Several years ago, I read an article in which Steven Spielberg had expressed a desire to direct a James Bond movie. It has been over a decade since the director had made this comment. And as far as I know, he has only directed two movies that had anything to do with spies - the 2005 movie"MUNICH", which co-starred the current Bond actor, and his latest film, "BRIDGE OF SPIES". 

Like "MUNICH", "BRIDGE OF SPIES" is a spy tale with a strong historical background. Based upon Giles Whittell's 2010 book, "Bridge of Spies: A True Story of the Cold War", the movie centered around the 1960 U-2 Incident and the efforts of attorney James B. Donovan to negotiate the exchange of U-2 pilot Francis Gary Powers for the captured Soviet spy Rudolf Abel - whom Donovan had unsuccessfully defended from charges of espionage against the United States. Although Whittell's book focused upon a larger cast of characters involved in the U-2 incident and the famous spy exchange, the screenwriters - Matt Charman, along with Joel and Ethan Coen - and Spielberg tightened their focus upon Donovan's role in the incident.

It occurred to me that in the past fifteen years, I can only think of five Steven Spielberg-directed movies that I have truly liked. Five out of eleven movies. Hmmmm . . . I do not know if that is good or bad. Fortunately, one of those movies that I managed to embrace was this latest effort, "BRIDGE OF SPIES". I enjoyed it very much. I would not rank it at the same level as "MUNICH" or "LINCOLN". But I thought it was a pretty solid movie for a director of Spielberg's caliber. The latter and the movie's screenwriters made the intelligent choice to focus on one particular person involved in the entire incident - James B. Donovan. If they had attempted to cover every aspect of Whittell's book, Spielberg would have been forced to release this production as a television miniseries.

Yet, "BRIDGE OF SPIES" still managed to cover a great deal of the events surrounding the shooting of Powers' U-2 spy plane and the exchange that followed. This is due to the screenwriters' decision to start the movie with the arrest of Rudolf Abel in 1957. More importantly, the narrative went into details over the arrest, the U.S. decision to put Abel on trial, their choice of Donovan as his attorney and the trial itself. In fact, the movie covered all of this before Powers was even shot down over the Soviet Union. The screenwriters and Spielberg also went out of their way to cover the circumstances of the arrest and incarceration of American graduate student Frederic Pryor, who was vising his East Berlin girlfriend, when he was arrested. And that is because the writers had the good sense to realize - like Whittell before them - that the incidents surrounding the arrests of both Abel and Pryor were just as important as Powers being shot down by the Soviets. 

What I best liked about "BRIDGE OF SPIES" was its ambiguous portrayal of the nations involved in the entire matter - the United States, the Soviet Union and the German Democratic Republic (East Germany). No country was spared. Both the United States and the Soviet Union seemed bent upon not only projecting some image of a wounded nation to the world. Both engaged in sham trials for Abel and Powers that left a bad taste in my mouth. And the movie portrayed East Germany as some petulant child pouting over the fact that neither of the other two countries were taking it seriously. Which would account for that country's vindictive treatment toward Pryor. And neither the U.S. or the Soviets seemed that concerned over Pryor's fate - especially the U.S. Watching the movie finally made me realize how the Cold War now strikes me as irrelevant and a waste of time.

As much as I enjoyed "BRIDGE OF SPIES", the movie seemed to lack a sense of urgency that struck me as odd for this kind of movie. And I have to blame Spielberg. His direction seemed a bit . . . well, a bit too relaxed for a topic about the Cold War at its most dangerous. Many might point out that"BRIDGE OF SPIES" is basically a historic drama in which anyone familiar with the U-2 incident would know how it ends. Yet Both "MUNICH" and"LINCOLN", along with Ron Howard's "APOLLO 13" and Roger Donaldson's 2000 film, "THIRTEEN DAYS", seemed to possess that particular sharp urgency, despite being historic dramas. But for "BRIDGE OF SPIES", Spielberg's direction seemed just a tad too relaxed - with the exception of a few scenes. One last problem I had with "BRIDGE OF SPIES" was the ending. Remember . . . this is Steven Spielberg, a director notorious for dumping a surprising layer of saccharine on an otherwise complex tale. This saccharine was on full display in the movie's finale sequence that featured Donovan's return to the United States . . . especially the scene in which he is riding an El train to his home in the Bronx and his family's discovery of his activities in Eastern Europe. It was enough saccharine to make me heave an exasperated sigh.

Speaking of Donovan's El Train ride back to his neighborhood, there was one aspect of it that I found impressive. I must admit how cinematographer Janusz Kamiński, a longtime collaborator of Spielberg's since the early 1990s, allowed the camera to slowly sweep over Donovan's Bronx neighborhood from an elevated position. I found the view rather rich and detailed. In fact, Kamiński provided a similar sweeping bird eye's view of the Berlin Wall and the two "enclaves" that bordered it. Another aspect of the movie's production values that impressed me were Adam Stockhausen's production designs. I thought he did an outstanding job in re-creating both New York City and Berlin of the late 1950s and early 1960s. And his work was ably assisted by Rena DeAngelo and Bernhard Henrich's set decorations; along with the art direction team of Marco Bittner Rosser, Scott Dougan, Kim Jennings and Anja Müller.

The performances featured in "BRIDGE OF SPIES" struck me as pretty solid. I thought Amy Ryan, Alan Alda, Jesse Plemmons, Michael Gaston, Will Rogers and Austin Stowell did great work. But for my money, the best performances came from lead Tom Hanks, Mark Rylance, Dakin Matthews and Sebastian Koch. Dakin Matthews has always been a favorite character actor of mine. I have always found his performances rather colorful. However, I would have to say that his portrayal of Federal Judge Byers, who seemed exasperated by Donovan's attempt to give Abel a fair trial, struck me as a lot more subtle and effective than many of his past roles. Sebastian Koch gave a very interesting performance as East German attorney Wolfgang Vogel, who seemed intensely determined that his country play a major role in the spy swap and not be cast aside. Superficially, Tom Hanks' role as James Donovan seemed like the typical "boy scout" role he had especially became known for back in the 1990s. And in some ways, it is. But I really enjoyed how the actor conveyed Donovan's increasing disbelief over his country's questionable handling of Abel's trial and his sense that he is a fish-out-of-water in a divided Berlin. However, I feel that the best performance came from Mark Rylance, who gave a deliciously subtle, yet entertaining portrayal of Soviet spy Rudolf Abel. What I liked about Rylance's performance is that he did not portray Abel as some kind of stock KGB agent, but a subtle and intelligent man, who seemed clearly aware of the more unpleasant side of both American and Soviet justice.

I might as well be frank. I do not think I would ever regard "BRIDGE OF SPIES" as one of Steven Spielberg's best movies. I thought the movie lacked a sense of urgency and sharpness that nearly robbed the film of any suspension . . . despite it being a historical drama. But, I still believe it was a first-rate film. I also thought that Spielberg and the movie's screenwriters did a great job in conveying as many details as possible regarding the U-2 incident and what led to it. The movie also featured a first-rate cast led by the always incomparable Tom Hanks. Overall, "BRIDGE OF SPIES" proved that Spielberg has yet to lose his touch.

"BRIDGE OF SPIES" (2015) Photo Gallery

Below are images from "BRIDGE OF SPIES", the 2015 account of the 1960 U-2 Incident. Directed by Steven Spielberg, the movie starred Tom Hanks: 



"BRIDGE OF SPIES" (2015) Photo Gallery

"TOWER HEIST" (2011) Review

"TOWER HEIST" (2011) Review

Six years ago, Eddie Murphy had an idea about him and a group of comedians starring in a movie about a group planning to rob Trump Tower. The script developed and changed into an "OCEAN'S ELEVEN"-style caper, leading Murphy to leave the project. When director Brett Ratner continued to develop the idea into the movie's present story, Murphy eventually rejoined the production.

"TOWER HEIST" told the story about three employees of an exclusive apartment building called The Tower, who lose their pensions in the Ponzi scheme of a Wall Street businessman, who also lives in the building. The group enlist the aid of criminal, a bankrupt businessman that also lives in the building, and another building employee to break into the businessman's apartment and steal back their money, while avoiding the FBI Agent in charge of his case.

One of my favorite types of movies has always been the heist comedy. This is why I am a fan of such movies like "LOCK, STOCK AND TWO SMOKING BARRELS", "A FISH CALLED WANDA" and the "OCEAN'S ELEVEN" series. I do not know if I would place "TOWER HEIST" on the same level as the previously mentioned films. I would not regard it as one of the best heist films I have ever seen, or even one of the best comedies. But I cannot deny that I found it entertaining.

I must admit that I did not believe Ben Stiller and Eddie Murphy would ever generate a strong screen chemistry. But in a rather odd way, they seemed to click. I suppose this was due to the fact that Stiller's more subdued performance perfectly balanced Murphy's more extroverted one. And they had solid support from the likes of Casey Affleck, Téa Leoni, Alan Alda, Michael Peña, Matthew Broderick and Gabourey Sidibe. I was especially impressed by Alda's insidious performance as the scheming businessman Arthur Shaw and Sidibe's portrayal of the sharp-tongued maid Odessa, whose savy proved to be the group's godsend on at least two occasions.

Another aspect of "TOWER HEIST" that I admired was the movie's script written by Ted Griffin and Jeff Nathanson. It was not the most spectacular story I have seen on the movie screen. I had a problem with the movie's last five or ten minutes. I would reveal what I found troubling about the ending. But if I did, I would give away the story. I suspect Griffin and Nathanson ended it this way to put a little bite in the movie's ending. It just did not work for me.

However, I did enjoy most of the story. I also liked that one of the main aspects that injected a good deal of suspense into the story was the possibility of one or more of the robbers betraying the others - especially in the case of both Murphy and Affleck's characters. This is something that is usually common in a heist drama. But I have yet to see such a thing in a comedy, until I saw "TOWER HEIST".

In the end, "TOWER HEIST" proved to be a solid and entertaining comedy with a slightly weak ending. The movie was also blessed with a first-rate cast led by Ben Stiller and Eddie Murphy. And director Brett Ratner did a good job in utilizing both the story and the cast to make a pretty solid film.

"TOWER HEIST" (2011) Photo Gallery

Below are images from the new comedy called "TOWER HEIST". Directed by Brett Ratner, the movie stars Ben Stiller, Eddie Murphy and Alan Alda:


"TOWER HEIST" (2011) Photo Gallery