"BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE" (2016) Review

"BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE" (2016) Review

Following on the heels of the success of 2013's "MAN OF STEEL", I had expected the Warner Brothers Studios to follow up with another movie about Superman, starring Henry Cavill. To my surprise, the studio had announced another movie featuring Superman, only the comic book character would be sharing top billing with another from the pages of D.C. Comics. 

Warner Brothers surprised me with the announcement that their next comic book movie would feature Superman aka Clark Kent co-starring with none other than Batman aka millionaire Bruce Wayne. And the latter would be portrayed by Ben Affleck. Needless to say, I was not pleased by this announcement. I saw it as a personal insult to Cavill, who had really impressed me as the Man of Steel. And I felt that Warner Brothers could have given Affleck his own stand-alone film about the Caped Crusader, before rushing into some attempt to rush into a "Justice League of America" situation, similar to the one featuring the Avengers for Marvel Films and the Disney Studios. About a week before "BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE" was due to be released in movie theaters, I read a series of reviews that literally bashed the film. Now, I have never been a major fan of director Zack Synder in the past. And I was pleased that he did not go overboard with the angst factor in "MAN OF STEEL" as he has done with his previous films. But after reading so many negative reviews . . . well, I did not expect to like this movie. However, I had to see it just to satisfy my curiousity.

"BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE" began during the last events of "MAN OF STEEL". It began with billionaire Bruce Wayne aka Batman arrival in Metropolis to assist Wayne Enterprises employees caught up with the city's citizens in the destruction caused by Superman's battle against fellow Kryptonian General Zod. Unfortunately for Bruce, one of his top executives is killed and the legs of another employee named Wallace Keefe are permanently damaged from falling debris. Due to these events, Bruce begins to view Superman as a destructive threat to Earth and desires to find a way to bring down the Man of Steel. Nearly two years later, Daily Planet reporter Lois Lane is visiting a North African country to interview a political figure believed to be a terrorist. However, her interview is cut short when the men who had accompanied her kill the terrorist's men and many local villagers. Superman aka Clark Kent manages to rescue her from the terrorist, but Lois ends up feeling very disturbed by the event. But she is not the only one. Many people, including a Kentucky senator named June Finch blame Superman for the incident and like Bruce, begin to view him as a threat. Many are unaware that Metropolis' top billionaire, Lex Luthor, was behind the incident in Northern Africa. Like Bruce, he began to view Superman as a threat . . . but to his own plans and his sense of worth. Unlike Bruce, he commences upon a plan to exploit the distrust of Senator Finch and others to bring down Superman and other meta-humans of whom he has become aware.

When I first learned that Warner Brothers had decided to follow up "MAN OF STEEL" with a movie in which Superman was to share top billing with Batman, I was not thrilled. In fact, I had hoped they would do a second Superman movie. And while the movie was being shot, I was more than determined not to like this film. Reading the movie's negative reviews made me believe that disliking it would come very easy to me. And then . . . lo and behold! I ended up leaving the theater with a positive view about the film.

Mind you, "BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE" was not perfect in my eyes. I had two problems with it - one major and the other minor. My minor problem with "BATMAN V. SUPERMAN" has a lot to do with my virulent dislike of Snyder's 2009 movie,"THE WATCHMEN". The director utilized a device that he had carried over from the 2009 movie - namely the use of graffiti in some scenes. I thought he had overused it in "THE WATCHMEN" and continued to do so in this film. And the graffiti only brought back unpleasant memories of the 2009 film. 

My major complaint against "BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE" has to do with the relationship between Batman and Lex Luthor. In one scene during the film's last half hour, Luthor revealed to Clark that he had created situations not only to slowly direct public opinion against the latter, but also Bruce Wayne, whom he knew to be Batman. Luthor figured that Batman would go after the Man of Steel and the latter would eventually kill the former. I must admit that I found this very confusing, considering that the movie never hinted that Luthor was interested in killing Bruce in the movie's first half. In fact, the Luthor Corp. files that Bruce had uploaded and Diana Prince aka Wonder Woman had stolen did not even contain any information on Batman. I had assumed that Luthor only became interested in killing Batman . . . after the latter had stolen the Kryptonite his people had discovered in the Indian Ocean and destroyed a LexCorp lab. And the movie that I had seen in a theater seemed to verify my assumption. Like I said . . .confusing!

So . . . what did I like about "BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE"? Well, the story. Okay, I really enjoyed it. I liked the fact that the movie eventually promised what its title had hinted . . . a conflict between Superman and Batman that eventually led to the promise of the Justice League of America. And screenwriters Chris Terrio and David S. Goyer presented this development with a very emotional and complex tale. What I found particularly interesting is that nearly everything in this tale is a direct result of the events from "MAN OF STEEL". This was especially the case for both Bruce Wayne and Lex Luthor's hostility toward Superman. In fact, Luthor used the dead body of General Zod (courtesy of the U.S. government) to not only study Kryptonian physiology, but also create the monster Doomsday, which would prove to be a threat in the movie's final action sequence.

The movie also featured some excellent emotional development for the main characters. Again, this seemed to be the case for Clark Kent's growing despair from the public and the government's reactions to the events in Northern Africa; his disapproval toward Batman's more violent vigilante activities; the latter's anger towards the events from "MAN OF STEEL" and the heady mixture of paranoia and ego that drove Lex Luthor to investigate other meta-humans and plot against Superman.

For a movie heavy on action, it featured some interesting dramatic moments. My favorites included Clark's clashes with Daily Planeteditor-in-chief Perry White over investigating Batman's activities in Gotham City; the first meeting between Clark, Bruce and Diana Prince at a party held by Luthor in Metropolis; Bruce's lingering anger over what happened in "MAN OF STEEL"; Luthor's clashes with Senator Finch over his plans to deal with Superman; Clark's conversations with his adoptive mother Martha Kent about his activities as Superman and with the ghost of his adoptive father, Jonathan Kent; Lois Lane confrontation with Luthor before the final action began; and also, Diana and Bruce's comments on the public's fickle attitude toward Superman. The movie also featured further development of the relationship between Clark and Lois, which culminated in a very charming and sexy moment in a bathtub. I thought Sndyer handled these scenes very well, which is not surprising. He has always managed to get great performances from his actors . . . even in his movies that I dislike. 

However, first and foremost, "BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE" is a comic book hero film . . . an action-adventure film. And Snyder was certainly in his element as a director. This especially seemed to be the case in those scenes that featured Lois and Superman's adventures in northern Africa, Bruce's dreams about leading a group of rebels against Superman, Batman's attempt to steal the kryptonite from Luthor, his rescue of Martha from Luthor's henchmen, and the attempt to rescue both Metropolis and Gotham from Luthor's newly created monster, Doomsday. 

However, one half of the movie's title is called "BATMAN V. SUPERMAN". Many movie fans and critics had dismissed the idea of an effective battle between the Man of Steel and the Caped Crusader. So did I. After all, Batman was not really a meta-human - someone with super abilities - merely a highly trained costumed crime fighter. The movie made me realize that many of us had forgotten that Bruce Wayne also had brains. Through his investigation of a Russian weapon-trafficker named Anatoli Knyazev, he learned that Luthor was not only investigating meta-humans, but had found a possible weapon against Superman. Kryptonite. By creating weapons from the kryptonite he had stolen from Luthor Corp. and a powered exoskeleton suit, Batman was able to put up a good fight against the Man of Steel. And surprisingly, their battle proved to be very effective to me . . . even if many still believe otherwise.

The other half of the movie's title was "DAWN OF JUSTICE", which hinted the beginning of the Justice League of America aka the Super Friends. I found it interesting that Bruce Wayne and Lex Luthor's reactions to the events from "MAN OF STEEL" not only led to their fear of Superman and attempts to find a way to destroy the latter, but also to hints of the forthcoming creation of the Justice League of America. It all centered around Luthor's investigation of other meta-humans and the files Bruce and Diana had found within Luthor Corp.'s computer mainframe. The file not only contained information and video clips on Diana's past as Wonder Woman during World War I, but also on Barry Allen aka the Flash, Arthur Curry aka Aquaman and Victor Stone aka Cyborg. But it was that one scene in which Superman, Wonder Woman and Batman finally decided to form a team to battle the monster Doomsday . . . 



. . . that led to memories of the old ABC animated series, "SUPER FRIENDS" and its theme song going through my mind. It was a wonderful moment for me.

There was one aspect of "BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE" that left a heavy imprint on my mind was the fickleness of human nature. We humans are a fickle, controlling and very selfish specie. Snyder and screenwriters Terrio and Goyer really did an excellent job in portraying those aspects of our nature through the character of Superman. I found it interesting that many viewed Superman as a savior or angel. This was apparent in the statues raised in his honor and this almost selfish demand that he serve as their savior and nothing else. I can recall one moment in which victims of a flood had left the symbol on his costume painted on their roof to attract his attention. On the other hand, there were many others viewed him as a real threat against humanity . . . even after he had saved them from General Zod's plans in "MAN OF STEEL". Both Bruce and Senator Finch blamed Superman for the destruction that had occurred in Metropolis nearly two years ago, conveniently forgetting that it was Zod's arrival on Earth that had led to that destruction. I came away with the feeling that people like Bruce, Senator Finch and Wayne Enterprises employee Wallace Keefe used Superman as a scapegoat, since the latter ended up being the last Kryptonian left standing. I do not find this surprising for using others as scapegoats is a very human thing to do. After the Congress bombing, even those who had seen Superman as a savior began to think otherwise. They did not come to this conclusion via any investigation on their parts. Superman was the last person standing and ergo, became "Suspect Number One" . . . just as he had become following Zod's death. No wonder Clark had fallen into despair and walked away for a while. And no wonder Diana had such contempt toward the public's renewed good opinion of Superman following the battle against Doomsday. 

I have been talking about the plot so much that I forgot about other aspects of "BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE" - namely its technical and artistic effects. I might as well start with Patrick Tatopoulos' production design. Tatopoulos did not have to create an alien world or a setting from the past. But I was impressed by his duel designs for not only the cities of Metropolis and Gotham, but also the northern African town at the movie's beginning, Washington D.C. and the damage caused by Doomsday in the two fictional cities. He had ample support from the art direction and visual effects teams. I was surprised that Zack Snyder did not use Larry Fong as cinematographer for "MAN OF STEEL". Because the latter had worked with Snyder on both "300" and "THE WATCHMEN". In a way, Fong's style, which struck me as sleek, rich in color and slightly dark, reminded me of Wally Pfister's work for many of Christopher Nolan's films. I have noticed that a good of Han Zimmer's movie scores have seemed a little heavy-handed lately. And it certainly seemed to be the case for "BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE". But there were moments when that heavy-handedness seemed to mesh rather well with certain scenes, especially during those that hinted the future Justice League of America and the battle against Doomsday.

Ben Affleck became the eighth actor to portray Bruce Wayne aka Batman on screen (television or movie) and the public had not reacted well to the news of his casting. I found this astounding, considering that Affleck is a first-rate actor, who had previous experience portraying a costume hero when he played Matt Murdock aka Daredevil in the 2003 movie about the character. Affleck did an excellent job in portraying the paranoid aspects of Wayne's nature in a very intense and at times, slightly scary manner. Henry Cavill was equally effective in his continuing portrayal of Clark Kent aka Superman. The loneliness that seemed to mark his performance in "MAN OF STEEL" seemed to have been replaced by satisfaction in Clark's relationship with Lois Lane, intense determination to investigate Batman's activities and frustration with Perry White's unwillingness to allow him to embark on that investigation. My favorite scene with Cavill involved Clark's quarrel with Perry about investigating Batman. And my favorite Cavill moment was the "What the fuck is wrong with you?" expression he gave Luthor when the latter introduced him to the Doomsday monster. But following the Congress bombing, that old despair and loneliness returned in full force. When I first heard about this movie, I thought Amy Adams' role would be reduced from what it was in "MAN OF STEEL". Thankfully, my fears were abated, for not only did Lois continue to play a major role in this DC Comics universe, she also played a major role in exposing Luthor's plans and eliminating Batman's anger toward Superman. Being the consummate actress that she is, Adams did a superb job in conveying not only Lois' emotional vulnerability regarding Clark and what happened in northern Africa, but also her intelligence and determination to discover the truth. 

The movie also featured an exceptional performance from Jesse Eisenberg as main villain, Lex Luthor. Not only was his movie exceptional, but also rather surprising. It was not that I thought him incapable of portraying a villain, but I just could not see him as Lex Luthor. I was wrong. He gave a fantastic performance. It seemed both subtle and overly dramatic at the same time . . . in a good way. He made Luthor seem very eccentric . . . again, in a good way. Diane Lane returned to portray Clark's adoptive mother, Martha Kent. Her portrayal of Martha struck me as rather unusual. In other comic book hero movies, maternal types like Martha tend to give speeches to the main hero in order to motivate them in serving the public. What I liked about Lane's Martha is that she was more concerned about Clark's well being and happiness than him fulfilling some destiny as a hero or savior. It may seem selfish, but it also seemed very real to me. 

Gal Gadot became the first actress to portray Diana Prince aka Wonder Woman in a very long time. Ever since Lynda Carter ended her run with the ABC/CBS series in 1979, Hollywood seemed reluctant to bring the Amazonian Princess back to the screen. Thankfully, Warner Brothers, Snyder and Nolan ended that dry run by hiring Gadot for the role. And she was perfect . . . spot on. I never thought another actress could do justice to the role - except for Marvel alumni Jamie Alexander from "THOR". But Gadot was perfect and I look forward to seeing her solo movie. Jeremy Irons, to my utmost surprise, became DC Comics' new Alfred Pennyworth. His portrayal seemed so different from past performances - a little less of a servant and more of a companion for Bruce. More importantly, I really enjoyed the sardonic wit that Irons had infused into the character. But he was not the only one. Laurence Fishburne returned as Clark and Lois' boss, Daily Planet editor-in-chief Perry White. In "MAN OF STEEL", Fishburne had infused a touch of dry wit into his portrayal. In this movie, that wit was in full force and even more sharper - especially in the actor's scenes with Cavill. I really enjoyed his presence in this film. The movie also featured some excellent supporting performances from the likes of Holly Hunter, who gave a wonderfully sarcastic speech to Luthor in her portrayal of Senator June Finch; Harry Lennix, who returned as former General now Secretary Calvin Swanwick; Scoot McNairy, who portrayed Wallace Keefe, the Wayne Enterprises employee who had been crippled during Superman's battle with General Zod; and Kevin Costner, who returned with a poignant performance as the ghostly figure of Clark's adoptive father, Jonathan Kent.

To this day, I am flabbergasted by the media's negative campaign against "BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE". I do not understand it . . . period. I could have understood if the movie had drawn some criticism. But this unrelenting criticism struck me as unreal . . . especially after I had seen the film. But you know what? I realize that I should not care. I saw the movie twice and I enjoyed what I had seen. Yes, "BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE" (what a mouthful!) had some flaws. What movie does not? But overall, I was very pleased by this film. I like to think that I understood what director Zack Snyder, along with screenwriters Chris Terrio and David S. Goyer were trying to say. And I enjoyed the performances of the cast led by Ben Affleck and Henry Cavill very much. More importantly, I am glad that the cinematic version of the Justice League of America has finally commenced. Regardless of the opinions of others, "BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE" more than satisfied me. It has become my favorite movie of 2016 and one of my favorite superhero movies of all time.

"THE FIRM" (1993) Review

"THE FIRM" (1993) Review

To this day, I am surprised that film critics and historians have not looked back on the 1990s as the "Age of Grisham". I am referring to attorney-novelist, John Grisham, who wrote many bestsellers - especially his legal thrillers that were released between 1989 and 2000. In fact, the decade also saw several adaptations of Grisham's bestsellers - including 1993's"THE FIRM". 

Based upon Grisham's 1991 novel, "THE FIRM" told the story of a recent Harvard Law graduate named Mitchell "Mitch" McDeere, who is seduced with perks that include a new house and car by Bendini, Lambert & Locke to join its small and prestigious law firm in Memphis. He is there to specialize in accounting and tax law. After he and his wife, Abigail "Abby" move to Memphis, Mitch acquires a mentor named Avery Tolar, one of the firm's senior partners, to teach him the firm's professional culture, which includes complete loyalty, strict confidentiality, and a willingness to charge exceptional fees for their services. However, the recent deaths of two BL&L attorneys in the Cayman Islands and an encounter with a pair of F.B.I. agents named Wayne Tarrance and Thomas Ritchie lead Mitch to seek advice from his convict brother Ray and the latter's friend, a Little Rock private detective named Eddie Lomax. Unfortunately, Lomax's murder at the hands of the firm's thugs, his one-night stand with a strange woman during his trip to the Caymans with Avery, and the FBI's revelation that BL&L is a front for laundering money for a Chicago mob family makes Mitch feel that he has no choice but to cooperate with the FBI - even if it meant being disbarred.

To this day, I regret that I had never seen "THE FIRM" at a movie theater. Come to think of it, I have only seen one Grisham movie adaptation in the theaters - 1994's "THE CLIENT". Do not get me wrong. I enjoyed "THE CLIENT". But if I had to choose between that and "THE FIRM" to see at a movie theater, I would choose the latter. "THE FIRM" is a first-rate legal thriller that was released during the summer of 1993. Which I found unusual, considering it is not the type of movie that is usually released during that particular season. Perhaps that was the reason why I had ignored it when it was first released. Dummy me.

What can I say about "THE FIRM"? It is a well written mixture of legal, romantic and criminal drama, along with some well-paced tension. The movie even featured action scenes that kept me on my toes. Foremost of all, "THE FIRM" is about the corruption . . . or attempted corruption of one Mitchell McDeere. He must have seen like the perfect candidate in the eyes of Bendini, Lambert & Locke's senior partners. Mitch was among the top five graduates in his class. He pretty much made his ambition clear during his job interview near the film's beginning. And I noticed during his and wife Abby's initial trip to Memphis, he literally seemed thrilled by the attention given to him by the firm's employees . . . along with the high salary they were willing to pay him. Knowing that he came from a working-class background, it seemed obvious that one of the senior partners, Oliver Lambert, knew how to manipulate Mitch by utilizing a "We're more of a family" speech during this trip. And after he had revealed his first encounter with the FBI, during seminar trip to Washington D.C., the firm went out of its way to ensure that Mitch would be fully corrupted and trapped by setting him up with a prostitute during his trip to the Cayman Islands with his mentor, Avery Tolar.

But you know . . . the firm could not have corrupted Mitch on its own. Its partners had helped . . . from Mitch himself. There is nothing wrong with ambition. But it seemed obvious that Mitch was so hindered by his insecurity over his working-class background that he made it almost easy for the firm to corrupt him. I noticed during his and Abby's initial trip to Memphis, Mitch became so caught up in the idea of being part of the Bendini, Lambert & Locke "family" (which included a new house and car) that he tuned out Abby's observations about the rigid nature of the firm's employment standards. Even worse, Mitch's class insecurities led to that fight with Abby before his trip to the Caymans and into the arms of that prostitute. The firm may have arranged his encounter with her, but Mitch made the choice to cheat on Abby that night. His encounter with F.B.I. Director F. Denton Voyles in Washington D.C. finally opened Mitch's eyes to the true and corrupt nature of the firm . . . along with his own precarious situation. 

Although the F.B.I. led Mitch to finally see the light, I must admit that I found their idea of what constituted justice rather alarming. In the agency's fervent attempt to bring down Bendini, Lambert & Locke, Director Voyles and Agent Tarrance had no qualms about coercing Mitch into cooperating with them. They offered him two choices - steal and expose the firm's files . . . or eventually face prosecution with the firm's other attorneys and partners. I other words, the F.B.I. gave Mitch the options of disbarment or prison. And both would spell the end of his brief career as an attorney. The Little Rock private detective, Eddie Lomax, had been right to warn Mitch that the F.B.I. could not care less about him, despite the fact that Mitch knew nothing about the firm's criminal ties. I am sorry, but this is not my idea of justice.

"THE FIRM" had made changes to John Grisham's original plot. In the movie, Mitch received a Mercedes-Benz, instead of a BMW for joining the firm. In the novel, Avery Tolar was Avery Tolleson and in the latter, he was not portrayed with any sympathy . . . just another villain like the other partners. Mitch had confessed to Abby about his one night of infidelity in the movie. No such thing happened in the novel. There were other differences between the movie and the novel. But the biggest one proved to be the ending. Many Grisham fans have expressed displeasure at the decision of director Sydney Pollack and screenwriters David Rabe, Robert Towne and David Rayfiel to change Mitch and Abby's fates. The novel ended with Mitch scamming $10 million from the firm and finally turning over their files to the F.B.I. This act led him, Abby and his brother Ray to make their escape to the Caribbean, continuously sailing from one end of the Caribbean to the other in fear for their lives. Pollack and the screenwriters decided to change this by having Mitch come up with a way to get the firm's attorneys prosecuted (thanks to a disgruntled client) by exposing its systematic overbilling scheme. This would bring down the firm, force the Morolto Brothers to find another firm willing to accept them as clients in time to avoid charges for non-lodgment of tax returns. Due to Mitch's new scheme, he is able to retain his law license, maintain his life in Boston and save his marriage. 

How do I feel about the ending? I loved it. I much preferred it over Grisham's ending. I found it original and very clever. Bendini, Lambert & Locke still ended up destroyed, thanks to Mitch's exposure of its overbilling scheme. I also enjoyed the fact that Mitch not only managed to get $750,000 from the F.B.I. for Ray to enjoy, but also force the agency to work in bringing down the firm. When Mitch had his final confrontations with both the Morolto brothers inside their hotel room and Agent Tarrance, I could not help but express my pleasure of this turnout with a wide smile.

There were other aspects of the "THE FIRM"'s plot that I really enjoyed. The movie also proved to be a real thriller. This was especially apparent in scenes that featured Mitch's attempts to evade the firm's murderous goons; along with Abby and the late Eddie Lomax's secretary, Tammy Hemphill's attempts to distract the pleasure seeking Avery and copy the firm's more important files in the Caymans. But the movie also featured some outstanding dramatic scenes. The ones that usually came to mind are F.B.I. Director Voyles' revelation of the firm's true nature; Mitch and Avery's meeting with one of the latter's clients in the Caymans; Mitch reveals the firm's true nature to Abby; Eddie Lomax's confrontation with two of the firm's goons; Mitch and Abby's confrontation over his brief affair in the Caymans; Mitch's meeting with with Morolto brothers (which I found very satisfying) and the McDeeres' reconciliation near the movie's end. 

But it is not just the plot and especially its ending that gave me pleasure. I thought John Seale's photography for the movie was top notch. I was especially impressed by his photography in Memphis, Tennessee; Washington, D.C.; and the Cayman Islands. I also thought Fredric and Wiliams Steinkamp's editing was impressive, as well. I was especially impressed with their work in one minor and one major sequence - Mitch's revelation about the firm's true nature to Abby and Mitch being chased all over downtown Memphis by the firm's goons. But if there is one technical aspect about the"THE FIRM" that really impressed me, it was Dave Grusin's score. I thought it was outstanding. It is one of the few scores that seemed to blend perfectly with a movie's plot and setting. Grusin earned an Academy Award nomination for his work, but lost to John Williams' score for "SCHINDLER'S LIST". A part of me wishes that Grusin and Williams had shared that Best Original Score Oscar . . . or Grusin had walked away with the award.

"THE FIRM" also had the good luck to possess a superb cast. All of the performers went far and beyond to give first-class performances. Some of the supporting performances that I found memorable came from Tobin Bell and Dean Norris, who portrayed two of the firm's hitmen; Terry Kinney as Lamar Quinn, one of the firm's younger attorneys; Barbara Garrick as Lamar's wife, Kay; Jerry Hardin as Royce McKnight, one of the firm's senior partners; Sullivan Walker, who portrayed a Cayman scuba diving businessman and one of Mitch's allies; talent agent/promoter Jerry Weintraub as questionable businessman Sonny Capps; Karina Lombard, who portrayed the young prostitute that seduces Mitch; Lou Walker as Mitch's disgruntled client Frank Mulholland; and Margo Martindale as Mitch's secretary Nina Huff.

The movie also featured some really memorable performances from the likes of Hal Holbrook, who gave a subtle performance as the firm's soft-spoken senior partner, Oliver Lambert; Ed Harris, who I thought was entertaining as the rambunctious F.B.I. Agent Wayne Tarrance; Steven Hill, who struck me as rather intimidating as the F.B.I. Director F. Denton Voyles; a very entertaining Gary Busey as Little Rock private detective Eddie Lomax; David Strathairn, who skillfully projected a mixture of charm and borderline despair in his portrayal of Ray McDeere, Mitch's convict brother; and Wilford Brimley, whose portrayal of Bill Devasher, the firm's leading thug, struck me as a very interesting mixture of homespun wisdom and insidious thuggery. Of course, there was Holly Hunter, who gave a very charismatic and Oscar nominated performance as Tammy Hemphill, Eddie's secretary and Mitch's ally. 

However, for me, the heart and soul of "THE FIRM" were its three leads - Tom Cruise, Jeanne Tripplehorn and Gene Hackman. Well, the movie's real lead was Cruise, who gave a mesmerizing performance as Mitch McDeere, the young attorney, who found himself at the center of a struggle between the F.B.I. and Bendini, Lambert & Locke. I almost found myself saying that Cruise's performance was an early sign of his long-lasting fame as an actor . . . until I remembered that he had already been successful for a decade by the time he starred in "THE FIRM". For an actor that was barely thirty at the time, he more than held his own with a group of older and very talented actors. He also did a great job in carrying the movie on his shoulders. I must be honest . . . I have not seen Jeanne Tripplehorn in many movies. In fact, I have only seen her in less than four. But I was very impressed by her quiet, yet strong and elegant performance as Abby McDeere, Mitch's well-born wife who was the first to sense something odd about the firm. What I especially liked about Tripplehorn's performance is that she was not merely reduced to be Cruise's side ornament. She portrayed Abby as a fully realized character with her own character arc. If I had to give an award for the best performance in "THE FIRM", I would hand it over to Gene Hackman, who portrayed Mitch's alcoholic mentor and one of the firm's senior partners, Avery Tolar. I am surprised that Hackman was never given an Oscar nomination for his performance, for he truly deserved it. I thought he was excellent as the sardonic Avery, who used wit and an easy-going manner to hide a world-weary demeanor and corruption that had more or less crushed his spirit. It was a very fascinating performance to watch.

One would notice that I have yet to say one thing negative about "THE FIRM". Well, I do have one complaint. Ironically, that complaint centered around the film's performances. Wait . . . did I not just praise nearly all of the performances to the sky? Yes, I did. And the cast was fantastic. But . . . there were moments in the film in which most of the major cast members have this penchant of making mind-blowing comments with an offhand casualness that struck me as forced. False. And if most of the cast were making this mistake, I have only one person to blame . . . director Sydney Pollack. I really wish he had not clung to this forced casual style of acting. I usually find it in a Steven Spielberg movie and quite frankly, I do not like it. I have never liked it in any of the Spielberg movies I have seen . . . and I did not like it in this film.

Aside from that one complaint, I found "THE FIRM" very satisfying. Who am I kidding? I love "THE FIRM". It is my favorite adaptation of a Grisham novel. It is also one of my favorite movies from the 1990s and after two decades, it has managed to hold up very well. And one has to thank John Grisham's excellent novel; David Rabe, Robert Towne and David Rayfiel's adaptation; and a superb cast led by the always talented Tom Cruise.

"BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE" (2016) Photo Gallery

Below are images from "BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE", the new sequel to the 2013 movie, "MAN OF STEEL". Directed by Zack Snyder, the movie stars Ben Affleck and Henry Cavill as Bruce Wayne aka Batman and Clark Kent aka Superman: 


"BATMAN V. SUPERMAN: DAWN OF JUSTICE" (2016) Photo Gallery

"THE FIRM" (1993) Photo Gallery

Below are images from "THE FIRM", the 1993 adaptation of John Grisham's 1991 novel. Directed by Sydney Pollack, the movie starred Tom Cruise: 


"THE FIRM" (1993) Photo Gallery