Reptile plus Short Takes on some other cinematic topics

I Suspect an Abundance of Suspects

Review and Comments by Ken Burke

I invite you to join me on a regular basis to see how my responses to current cinematic offerings compare to the critical establishment, which I’ll refer to as either the CCAL (Collective Critics at Large) if they’re supportive or the OCCU (Often Cranky Critics Universe) when they go negative.  However, due to COVID concerns I’m mostly addressing streaming options with limited visits to theaters, where I don’t think I’ve missed much anyway, but better options are on the horizon.  (Note: Anything in bold blue below [some may look near purple] is a link to something more in the review.)

My reviews’ premise: “You can’t please everyone, so you got to please yourself.”

(from "Garden Party" by Rick Nelson and the Stone Canyon Band, 1972 album of the same name)

 Before I start delving into my newest cinematic commentary, I know you don’t turn to a movie-review-blog for political opinions (although that doesn’t keep me from making the occasional jab at Donald Trump, especially as some of his Georgia co-defendants keep turning on him, along with his ex-lawyer, Michael Cohen, in his NY charges), nor do I want to start any debate here on what’s currently happening in Israel and Gaza or Ukraine, but no matter how you might feel about what’s going on in those troubled regions at present you might want to make a donation (or 2, or 3) to help the embattled civilians in those conflicts, so I’ll pass along charities I’ve just donated to in case you might want to do the same (or choose other places where you can send your aid).  I went with the Red Cross on behalf of Israel, Doctors Without Borders for the Palestinians in Gaza (not the Hamas terrorists), and Amnesty International for Ukraine (nothing for Russia, as I have no sympathy for Putin’s uncalled-for-invasion).  Those concerns aside, I'm onward to this week’s review.

                Reptile (Grant Singer)   rated R   136 min.

Here’s the trailer:

        (Use the full screen button in the image’s lower right to enlarge its size; 

        activate the same button or use “esc” keyboard key to return to normal.)

If you can abide plot spoilers read on, but this blog’s intended for those who’ve seen the film or want to save some $ (as well as recognizing those readers like me who just aren’t that tech-savvy).  To help any of you who want to learn more details yet avoid these all-important plot-reveals I’ll identify any give-away sentences/sentence-clusters with colors plus arrows: 

⇒The first and last words will be noted with arrows and red.⇐ OK, now continue on if you prefer.

What Happens: In Scarsborough, Maine we find realtors Will Grady (Justin Timberlake) and his partner/girlfriend Summer Elswick (Matilda Lutz), whom (we later learn) he says he intended to propose to once her divorce is finalized from Sam Gifford (Karl Glusman), although these lovers are at odds with each other in this opening scene.  Later, at night, Will gets puzzling texts from Summer so he goes to the lavish house we previously saw them in, finds her dead from multiple stab wounds.  This gruesome murder brings an investigation from police detective Tom Nichols (Benicio Del Toro) and his partner, Dan Cleary (Ato Essandoh); when they’re shown at a party to honor Tom’s wife's (Judy [Alicia Silverstone]) uncle, Captain Robert Allen (Eric Bogosian), we also meet Police Chief Marty Graeber (Mike Pniewski) and pushy cop-detective Wally Finn (Domenick Lombardozzi).  Later, we get the not-fully-clarified-info that Tom had problems at his previous job in Philadelphia because his partner was involved with drugs, ambiguous implications Tom might be tainted too although none of his behaviors indicate such.  Tom questions Will who argues he couldn’t be the killer because he truly loved Summer; instead, he throws suspicion on troubled Eli Phillips (Michael  Carmen Pitt), who holds a grudge against Will and his mother, Camille Grady (Frances Fisher), because Will’s father’s real estate company, years ago, involuntarily bought the Phillips’ farm, which had been in their family since the 1930s, leading to Eli’s father’s suicide.  Eli claims Will killed Summer, but the only evidence the cops have is some inconclusive video footage of a car near the house on murder-day which Cleary says is a 1990 Buick LeSabre but Judy correctly identifies it as a Chrysler Imperial, yet Tom and Dan can find no trace of such a car.  To further complicate things, it’s seems Summer was also raped, with DNA evidence traced to her almost-ex, Sam, but then we get info from Summer’s friend, Renee (Sky Ferreira), Summer was still having sex with Sam on the sly.

 When Tom and Dan go to arrest Sam, he grabs Dan’s gun, tries to escape, but is shot dead by Tom, so Dan’s considered to be Summer’s killer (Tom’s not so sure), Tom’s going to be recommended for the Medal of Valor for saving Dan from harm.  The complications continue as Eli comes to Tom’s house but is held at gunpoint by Judy until Tom arrives home.  Eli’s arrested for the intrusion but manages to give Tom a flashdrive with what he says is evidence of an illegal scheme by Will and Camille to plant drugs in houses allowing the properties to be seized by the police, then sold at a great bargain to the Gradys under a shell company, White Fish, also connected to Wally’s private security company; Summer became aware of this, says Eli; she was going to report it to the DEA so she was killed.  ⇒Then, at a birthday party for Capt. Allen, Tom finds a Chrysler Imperial with a new paint job in Allen’s garage, confronts him about all this, agrees to meet with him the next day for an explanation.  Tom tells what he knows to Chief Graeber so they go together to Allen’s home, but Marty excuses himself to the bathroom.  Allen pleads with Tom to get out, then he’s shot dead (by either Marty or Wally [he’s there too], as they’re all in on the scam).  Marty tries to kill Tom, although he manages to terminate both Marty and Wally, then he reports all this to the FBI (as he doesn’t trust any of the local police), with one of the final shots showing them arresting Will because Wally was the one who initially attacked Summer (it was his car hidden in Allen’s garage), although she wasn’t dead yet when Will showed up that night so he finished her off, surely showing his story about wanting to marry her was just a red herring to put the cops off of his trail.⇐  The actual ending shot is much more peaceful, though; happens in Tom’s renovated kitchen where he’s delighted to see the successful installation of a faucet that responds to hand movements (like those Clapper lamps of days gone by, still available from many sources today if you’re interested in this interactive-device).

So What? The first thing you might want to know about this convoluted-but-intriguing-film is what the title refers to.  I couldn’t come up with an answer, turned to director/co-screenwriter (with Benjamin Brewer, del Toro)  Grant Singer: “ ‘In the movie, characters are introduced as one thing and revealed to be something else,’ Singer continues. ‘There’s a shedding of skin that occurs, and it felt like an appropriate metaphor for the film. Some of the most unethical people in the film can be very likable in moments.’ Like anything with cold blood, these reptiles can be perfectly warm under the right circumstances.“  (The article with this quote's informative but has Spoilers; if it was useful, also consider this recap video [10:20; ads interrupt at 3:16, 8:00] which is like my summary above but illustrated throughout—obviously, Spoilers here too—yet doesn’t really get too much into explaining the ending.)  The next thing you might want to know if you’ve seen some of the many negative reviews this film's received (see the next section of this review), is why should you consider watching it when the critical community (although, not me as part of that) is so uniformly-dismissive?

 Ultimately, you’ll have to decide that one for yourself, but I find this film to be an enjoyable watch of a murder mystery where there are enough viable suspects as perpetrators to keep it mysteriously-interesting.  (Not that I’m all that good at determining the guilty party in stories like this before the climactic-revelation, as evidenced by my wonderful wife, Nina, and I watching a weekly dose of revisits to the old PBS series, Midsomer Murders, where someone’s usually killed within the first few minutes, then almost-too-many-characters are introduced for me to successfully keep up with so when I try to predict who the killer is I’m usually wrong, but the show’s still fun.)  I’ll also say the acting—especially by Del Toro—in Reptile is well-done, as is the cinematography and the pacing, so you always have something going on to keep your interest.  Some might say a bit too much going on regarding the initial 3 suspects where possible-guilt seems to shift among them quickly (although in retrospect, we’re given what we need to know at about the middle of the running time, yet it’s not clear we should believe it, only adding a bit to the plot’s complexity).  Once the film is done, you could easily say there are at least 3 other suspects who supposedly are Tom’s working buddies (one’s even an in-law), maybe 4 given hints about Dan being dirty, but that’s only speculation.  Maybe I’m just used to this complexity from my steady-diet of Midsomer Murders, but ultimately I found Reptile to be quite enjoyable in its twists and turns, think many of you would respond similarly.

Bottom Line Final Comments: An increasingly-standard-ploy of distributors is opening their product in a limited number of domestic (U.S.-Canada) theaters so as to comply with later awards-consideration-mandates; Reptile had such a limited release on September 22, 2023 but made its more-intended-debut on Netflix streaming a week later.  Because Netflix doesn’t report receipts from these short-term-theatrical-screenings I have no idea how much it made at the box-office (nor does it still seem to be playing, at least in my San Francisco Bay Area), but given the competition in the weeks since it’s been out its only chance might have been when it opened as the top domestic option then was The Nun II (Michael Chaves)—in its 3^rd week, pulling in only $8.5 million—after which it had to contend with the debuts of PAW Patrol: The Mighty Movie (Cal Brunker, 9/29/23) opened with $22.8 million, The Exorcist: Believer (David Gordon Green, 10/6/23) with $26.5 million, Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour (Sam Wrench, 10/13/23) with $92.8 million, and Killers of the Flower Moon (Martin Scorsese, 10/20/23) with $23 million (also last weekend Taylor Swift … continued to rule the domestic market: $31 million more), so whatever notice Reptile gets likely comes from streaming—if it gets noticed, as the OCCU offers scant support: Rotten Tomatoes positive reviews a paltry 44%, Metacritic average score (slightly higher for a change) at 52%.

 I clearly liked it better than that—as does Richard Roeper of the Chicago Sun-Times: “Filmmaking is such a collaborative process we hesitate to say any individual, even the lead, carries a movie, but that’s exactly what Benicio Del Toro does as a world-weary detective in the seedy and lurid cop-noir ‘Reptile’: He carries this sometimes convoluted and derivative thriller into three-star territory [of 4] with an absolutely mesmerizing and authentic performance that conjures up memories of past anti-hero greats such as Bogart and Mitchum, Robert Ryan and Sterling Hayden. It’s authentic, grounded, stunning work. [¶] Even when the material is the stuff of B-movie guilty pleasure.“—but the majority opinion of most critics is well-expressed by Natalia Winkelman of The New York Times: “The trouble with ‘Reptile’ is that this impressive moment-to-moment control does not extend to the contours of the broader story, which the writers overstuff with clumsy twists and contrived devices. Once the film gets around to revealing the culprit, we have already lost interest, enervated in the face of a movie that, like an overeager snake, bites off far more than it can swallow.”  No hope there!

 So, if you’re a Netflix subscriber you can watch Reptile for free; if not, you could get a 1-month-sign-up for $6.99 (with ads) or $15.49 (without ads) which also gives you 30 days of access to everything else on their platform (no matter to me, Two Guys gets no kickback for subscriptions).  Over these next couple of weeks I’ll continue looking for streaming options for you while waiting for crowds to ease off at my neighborhood theaters so I can see and review Killers of the Flower Moon with minimum-COVID-paranoia; in the meantime, here for your aural pleasure is my choice for a Musical Metaphor to wrap up these comments on Reptile, Bob Dylan’s “Knockin’ on Heaven’s Door” (on the 1973 soundtrack album for Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid [Sam Peckinpah]) at https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=rm9coqlk8fY (as a bonus, here’s how it’s used in Pat Garrett ...), an easy choice because it’s in Reptile’s soundtrack under the final credits.  While detective Tom Nichols (unlike Sheriff Colin Baker [Slim Pickens] in Peckinpah’s film, dying in sync with the song’s lyrics) isn’t facing death, I have to wonder—given the experiences he’s had with police forces in both Philadelphia and Maine—how much tolerance he has to continue being a cop, even though he says he loves the profession nearly as much as he loves his wife.  While we don’t see him throw away his badge at the end of this story, as do the frustrated lawmen in High Noon (Fred Zinnemann, 1952), Dirty Harry (Don Siegel, 1971)—although Harry does return to the force—and the sequel to Shaft (John Singleton, 2000), Tom certainly has reason to think “ ‘Mama, take this badge off of me / I can’t use it anymore […] Mama, put my guns in the ground / I can’t shoot them anymore.’ ” Tom probably does sense something similar to “That long black cloud is comin’ down / I feel like I’m knockin’ on heaven’s door”  by the time the events of Reptile are concluded, as all of the deceptive skins have been shed.

            

SHORT TAKES

                

Related Links Which You Might Find Interesting:  

Some options for your consideration: (1) Killers of the Flower Moon opens big, but Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour stays on top domestically; (2)  ... Flower Moon tops ... Eras Tour internationally; and (3) Writers Guild of America West apologizes for its silence on Hamas attack on Israel.

We encourage you to visit the Summary of Two Guys Reviews for our past posts* (scroll to the bottom of this Summary page to see additional info about your wacky critic, Ken Burke, along with contact info and a great retrospective song list).  Overall notations for this blog—including Internet formatting craziness beyond our control—may be found at our Two Guys in the Dark homepage.  If you’d like to Like us on Facebook (yes?) please visit our Facebook page.  We appreciate your support whenever and however you can offer it unto us!  Please also note that to Post a Comment below about our reviews you need to have either a Google account (which you can easily get at https://accounts.google.com/NewAccount if you need to sign up) or other sign-in identification from the pull-down menu below before you preview or post.  You can also leave comments at our Facebook page, although you may have to somehow register with us at that site in order to do it (most FB procedures are still a perplexing mystery to us old farts).

*Please ignore previous warnings about a “dead link” to our Summary page because the problem’s been manually fixed so that all postings since July 11, 2013 now have the proper functioning link.

If you’d rather contact Ken directly rather than leaving a comment here at the blog please 

use my email address of kenburke409@gmail.com—type it directly if the link doesn’t work.

           

OUR POSTINGS PROBABLY LOOK BEST ON THE MOST CURRENT VERSIONS OF MAC OS AND THE SAFARI WEB BROWSER (although Google Chrome usually is decent also); OTHERWISE, BE FOREWARNED THE LAYOUT MAY SEEM MESSY AT TIMES.

           

Finally, for the data-oriented among you, Google stats say over the past month the total unique hits at this site were 57,916 (as always, we thank all of you for your ongoing support with our hopes you’ll continue to be regular readers); below is a snapshot of where those responses have come from within the previous week (with appreciation for the unspecified “Others” also visiting Two Guys’ site):

The Burial plus Short Takes on some other cinematic topics

The Ups and Downs of Justice on Trial

Review and Comments by Ken Burke

I invite you to join me on a regular basis to see how my responses to current cinematic offerings compare to the critical establishment, which I’ll refer to as either the CCAL (Collective Critics at Large) if they’re supportive or the OCCU (Often Cranky Critics Universe) when they go negative.  However, due to COVID concerns I’m mostly addressing streaming options with limited visits to theaters, where I don’t think I’ve missed much anyway, but better options are on the horizon.  (Note: Anything in bold blue below [some may look near purple] is a link to something more in the review.)

My reviews’ premise: “You can’t please everyone, so you got to please yourself.”

(from "Garden Party" by Rick Nelson and the Stone Canyon Band, 1972 album of the same name)

         The Burial (Margaret Betts)   rated R   127 min.

Here’s the trailer:

        Use the full screen button in the image’s lower right to enlarge its size; 

       activate the same button or use “esc” keyboard key to return to normal.)

If you can abide plot spoilers read on, but this blog’s intended for those who’ve seen the film or want to save some $ (as well as recognizing those readers like me who just aren’t that tech-savvy).  To help any of you who want to learn more details yet avoid these all-important plot-reveals I’ll identify any give-away sentences/sentence-clusters with colors plus arrows: 

⇒The first and last words will be noted with arrows and red.⇐ OK, now continue on if you prefer.

What Happens: (This docudrama, “Inspired by True Events,” has fictionalization added for dramatic effect as noted with graphics at the end by the filmmakers.)  In 1995 we find Jeremiah O’Keefe (Tommy Lee Jones), a decent man living in Biloxi, Mississippi whose only desire in late-life is to leave his 8 funeral homes in the southern part of the state to his children and grandchildren, but due to some bad investments (with a guy we later learn is now a felon) his finances are extremely tight, leading the state Insurance Commission to threaten to revoke his funeral-insurance-license, a necessity for the well-being of his company.  In desperation, he turns to Canadian “death business” entrepreneur, Raymond Loewen (Bill Camp), who owns hundreds of funeral homes in the U.S.  O’Keefe, along with his long-time-attorney, Mike Allred (Alan Ruck), fly to Vancouver, B.C. to meet with Loewen, resulting in an agreement O’Keefe will sell just 3 of his properties to have enough new cash to satisfy the insurance honchos while Loewen won't sell burial policies in southern MS (oddly enough O’Keefe signs this agreement, Loewen does not; however, the reason for this isn’t explained to us [?], although it would seem to have big-consequential-bearing on the trial which later emerges).

 Yet, the deadline time for buying Loewen’s share of O’Keefe’s businesses passes; without those needed financial resources the state's coming down hard on O’Keefe (by the time of the trial they temporarily suspend his license, forcing him to take out a third mortgage on his home to keep solvent), so he has no other choice than to sue Loewen for breach of contract and fraud (a devious strategy of putting O’Keefe out of business so Loewen can absorb all the funeral homes to add to his already-large-empire; he gloats about the U.S. having many elderly citizens who can provide an ongoing-supply of business for him).  Rather than go forward with Mike, though, a young attorney, Hal Dockins (Mamoudou Athie), also working with O’Keefe suggests they go to Florida to recruit flamboyant-lawyer Willie E. Gary (Jamie Foxx [so far, every character I’ve cited is based on an actual person, although a few others were created for this plot]), whom we’ve already seen to be a persuasive orator as he filled in for his cousin as a preacher one Sunday morning in an enthusiastic Black church.  Hal and Jeremiah see Willie in a courtroom, where he’s just as impactful on a jury so they encourage him and his entourage to join their case, though Mike’s concerned this new guy is a personal injury lawyer, not someone versed in contract law (still, he’s built a hugely-successful-career, rising from impoverished-beginnings as a sharecropper’s son to being married to stunning Gloria Gary [Amanda Warren] while owning a mansion, a private jet, many other trappings of luxury).

 Mike’s especially resistive to Willie acting as Lead Counsel, but Willie makes it clear that where the trial will be held the population is about 70% Black so putting a White lawyer in front of the likely-jury-members is a bad idea; Willie takes over.  Pompous and confident Loewen counters by bring in high-powered/aggressive Mame Downes (Jurnee Smollett [fictional, but Loewen did have Black male lawyers representing him]), top of her class at Harvard Law School, former clerk to a Supreme Court Justice, etc., privately called “The Python.”   Gary can brag he hasn’t lost a case in 12 years, but his team seems to have no hope of winning this one.  Once we get into the trial in Jackson, MS things begin to go wrong for O’Keefe because under oath he (and Gary) are blindsided by the investment situation with the now-felon, leading to his current financial difficulties, with Jeremiah putting Mike back in as Lead Counsel, but then he’s attacked by Downes about his grandfather being in the Ku Klux Klan (at least he didn’t have to publically repeat what he privately told Willie, that he’s a “little prejudiced” against Black people), so Mike voluntarily leaves the case, putting Willie back in charge.

 During a weekend break, Willie goes home to FL, Jeremiah flies there to tell him in person he’s ready to abandon the lawsuit, but before that conversation can be completed Hal calls with news about how Loewen made a deal with the National Baptist Convention (a large organization of Black churches [another actual aspect of this story]) where he was going to provide financial support and jobs, but Hal can come up with several witnesses that do then testify (great montage) how the Loewen Group used that connection to bilk low-income-Blacks they were supposed to be helping. ⇒Loewen’s so upset with this public revelation he comes to the trial, but under questioning from Willie he admits his scam and how the profits have enhanced his lavish life-style, has no regrets about what he’s done.  In desperation, his team arranges for a meeting with O’Keefe’s team to try to find a settlement amount, but Jeremiah rejects some hefty offers because he wants to publically punish Loewen.  Ultimately the jury does that for him, deciding on $500 million in damages, which, although later reduced to $175 million (much of which O’Keefe donates to help the poor in his area), leads to Loewen being ousted as CEO, the company going bankrupt, and Willie Gray becoming a top trial lawyer, winning cases against the likes of Anheuser-Busch & the Walt Disney Company.⇐

So What? If you’d like to know more about the facts behind what’s on screen here in The Burial (which seems to me to be more reality than fiction), you can consult an extensive timeline of the arc of the Loewen Companies, then delve into this detailed account of the genesis/development/ procedures of the film.  I don’t find anything in the fictionalization aspects of this narrative to undermine or minimize the truth of what occurs as a few guys fight diligently for justice against a greedy, soulless corporation (by the latter days of the trial, after the revelation about Allred’s KKK connection, Gary’s associates walked off the case, even as Mike did the same) with just Willie and Hal continuing on with Jeremiah.  And, while this story isn’t as purely-courtroom-set as the last film I reviewed (The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial [William Friedkin]; review in last week's October 12, 2023 posting), it shows what led up to the dispute between O’Keefe and the Loewen Group but doesn’t reveal key aspects of the situation until we encounter them in the trial (Loewen never signing the agreement with O’Keefe; the rip-off with the National Baptist Convention; shocking news about O'Keefe and Allred), so, just like with … Court-Martial we only witness some key aspects of what goes on via courtroom testimony, once again leaving it up to us to decide who to believe (though we do, through pre-final credits-graphics get necessary info on what the result/aftermath of the trial was whereas with … Court-Martial we’re left to assume Lt. Maryk's acquitted of the charges against him).

 One crucial aspect of this film that’s not so clear in terms of its real-world-accuracy is Gary’s inspiration to become a lawyer.  In the screen-version he tells O’Keefe it resulted from an incident years ago when he secured an apartment for himself and Gloria over the phone, but when they showed up the landlord—apparently surprised they were Black—changed his story, offered no vacancies for them.  Willie says he immediately consulted a phone book, found a law school, made it his mission in life to prevent other Blacks from being burdened with such racism; however, if you consult this History vs. Hollywood site you’ll find him simply attending law school at North Carolina Central U. in 1971 after graduation from Shaw U. in Raleigh, NC, without a mention of his motivation.

 Even if that aspect of the film is created for dramatic effect, it certainly reflects the ongoing-racism that’s burdened our society since its inception and fits well with director Betts’ (an African-American woman) intentions of bringing racial conflict into her film (as explored in the TIME citation above) to better emphasize how the Loewen Group exploited those economically-burdened-people of color, so she wrote the victims’ testimonies shown in the film (co-scriptwriter is Doug Wright)—there’s also a quick bit about how Southern monuments were built on the unmarked graveyards of slaves.  The acting in this cinematic exploration is top-notch from all concerned, with the 2 Oscar-winner-male stars evenly balanced in dominating their scenes by Foxx’s flamboyance and Jones’ quiet-but-determined-presence, although he has some effectively-fiery-outbursts also.  Nevertheless, the dynamic Mame Downes, the conflicted Mike Allred, the voice-of-reason Hal Dockings, and the self-absorbed Raymond Loewen are also crucial to conveying what needs to be understood in these encounters, just as Pamela Reed as Jeremiah’s wife, Annette, and Dorian Mesick as Willie’s devoted-associate, Reggie Douglas, make useful additions in their screen time as well.  We can only hope vicious corporate moguls like Loewen find their come-uppance in courts, slick-stock-trading, or other means to de-fang them of their venom, but justice often depends on a lawyer’s ability to sway a jury, so we have to hope law schools produce at least some graduates who honor their professions more so than their material success (or, at least like Willie Gary, they'll find a way to balance both).

Bottom Line Final Comments: The Burial is yet another film mostly intended for streaming that had a limited release in domestic (U.S.-Canada) theaters October 6, 2023 (so limited it was unnoticed by Box-Office Mojo, or at least no proceeds were reported)—not that it would have mattered much to try to compete in the public arena where Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour (Sam Wrench) seems to be what everyone was watching when it made its debut last weekend in 3,855 domestic venues, taking in $92.8 million in grosses, with a worldwide total (sure to grow) of $123.5 million.  For those of us currently being COVID-cautious, staying away from theatrical crowds, The Burial made for a fine alternative-stay-at-home-streaming-experience on Amazon Prime VIdeo (free to subscribers, also available via a 30-day-free trial) where I would encourage you to explore it.  The CCAL’s with me on this too: Rotten Tomatoes positive reviews at 89%, Metacritic average score at 74% (they call such a result “Generally Favorable”), so I do hope you’ll consider giving it a stream.

 While you’re deciding about that, I’ll offer my usual review-ending-device of a Musical Metaphor; often, I have to semi-meditate on what to use, but this time the film itself helped me out when, with the final credits. came The Ruffin Brothers’ (David and Jimmy) version of “Stand By Me” (written in 1960 by Ben E. King, Jerry Leiber, Mike Stroller; on the Ruffins’ 1970 album I Am My Brother’s Keeper) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU83uQOGaLk, which, in its soulful rendition, fit the mood of the film quite well, even though it’s essentially a love song about a couple giving each other needed support “When the night has come / And the land is dark”; it can also been understood in this context as Willie saying to Jeremiah to push away fear and pessimism because “I won’t cry, I won’t cry / No, I won’t shed a tear /Just as long as you stand, stand by me.”  However, I grew up with King's hit version of the tune (on his 1961 Don’t Play That Song album) so I’ll include it here if for no other reason than to see him singing it on some TV show (maybe ABC TV’s American Bandstand, hosted by Dick Clark) surrounded by dancing White teens, so it feels a bit metaphorical to me that this self-confident Black man is seemingly in charge of the situation as he’s the center of attention providing a stimulus for these dancers (who, of course, don’t look like him), just as Willie E. Gary (with aid from the other remaining Black attorney for the prosecution, Hal Dockings) proves to be in command of this court case, saving Jeremiah O’Keefe’s business for his progeny (his main intention in bringing this lawsuit) and conquering the assumed-command of Raymond Loewen, the most crucial White characters in this story.  That may be a bit-far-fetched of an explanation for this second version of the song, but it works for me, just like the film as a whole does from start to finish.

            

SHORT TAKES

              

Related Links Which You Might Find Interesting:   

(1) Disney movies song hits over the years; (2) Actors' strike taking personal financial tolls. 

We encourage you to visit the Summary of Two Guys Reviews for our past posts* (scroll to the bottom of this Summary page to see additional info about your wacky critic, Ken Burke, along with contact info and a great retrospective song list).  Overall notations for this blog—including Internet formatting craziness beyond our control—may be found at our Two Guys in the Dark homepage.  If you’d like to Like us on Facebook (yes?) please visit our Facebook page.  We appreciate your support whenever and however you can offer it unto us!  Please also note that to Post a Comment below about our reviews you need to have either a Google account (which you can easily get at https://accounts.google.com/NewAccount if you need to sign up) or other sign-in identification from the pull-down menu below before you preview or post.  You can also leave comments at our Facebook page, although you may have to somehow register with us at that site in order to do it (most FB procedures are still a perplexing mystery to us old farts).

*Please ignore previous warnings about a “dead link” to our Summary page because the problem’s been manually fixed so that all postings since July 11, 2013 now have the proper functioning link.

If you’d rather contact Ken directly rather than leaving a comment here at the blog please 

use my email address of kenburke409@gmail.com—type it directly if the link doesn’t work.

            

OUR POSTINGS PROBABLY LOOK BEST ON THE MOST CURRENT VERSIONS OF MAC OS AND THE SAFARI WEB BROWSER (although Google Chrome usually is decent also); OTHERWISE, BE FOREWARNED THE LAYOUT MAY SEEM MESSY AT TIMES.

          

Finally, for the data-oriented among you, Google stats say over the past month the total unique hits at this site were 57,916 (as always, we thank all of you for your ongoing support with our hopes you’ll continue to be regular readers); below is a snapshot of where those responses have come from within the previous week (with appreciation for the unspecified “Others” also visiting Two Guys’ site):

The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial [2023] plus Short Takes on some other cinematic topics

So, Who—or What—Is Truly on Trial Here?

Reviews and Comments by Ken Burke

I invite you to join me on a regular basis to see how my responses to current cinematic offerings compare to the critical establishment, which I’ll refer to as either the CCAL (Collective Critics at Large) if they’re supportive or the OCCU (Often Cranky Critics Universe) when they go negative.  However, due to COVID concerns I’m mostly addressing streaming options with limited visits to theaters, where I don’t think I’ve missed much anyway, but better options are on the horizon.  (Note: Anything in bold blue below [some may look near purple] is a link to something more in the review.)

My reviews’ premise: “You can’t please everyone, so you got to please yourself.”

(from "Garden Party" by Rick Nelson and the Stone Canyon Band, 1972 album of the same name)

                     The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial [2023]

                   (William Friedkin)   rated TV14  109  min.

Here’s the trailer:

        (Use the full screen button in the image’s lower right to enlarge its size; 

        activate the same button or use “esc” keyboard key to return to normal.)

If you can abide plot spoilers read on, but this blog’s intended for those who’ve seen the film or want to save some $ (as well as recognizing those readers like me who just aren’t that tech-savvy).  To help any of you who want to learn more details yet avoid these all-important plot-reveals I’ll identify any give-away sentences/sentence-clusters with colors plus arrows: 

⇒The first and last words will be noted with arrows and red.⇐ OK, now continue on if you prefer.

What Happens: On December 18, 2022 the mine-sweeper ship Caine is hit with a fierce typhoon while in the Persian Gulf leading Lieutenant Stephen Maryk (Jake Lacy, pictured above), Executive Office of the ship, to override the orders of his Captain, Lt. Commander Phillip Queeg (Kiefer Sutherland), and relieve him of his command, ordering the ship to move north into the storm (through howling winds/heavy waves) rather than south, away from it, as Maryk felt Queeg was suffering from mental distress (specifically paranoia) so his judgments couldn’t be trusted.  After the ship navigated through the storm, Maryk was charged with mutiny, tried at Naval Headquarters in San Francisco in 2023.  We learn of these events during testimony at the court-martial, presided over by Head Judge Captain Luther Blakely (Lance Reddick), but none of this is shown in the film, taking place in the real time/single-location of a military courtroom (a final scene at another place).  Through furious prosecution by Commander Katherine Challee (Monica Raymund) and determined-but-often-overruled-defense by Lt. Barney Greenwald (Jason Clarke) we learn of the events of what are being charged as mutiny but interpreted as necessary under Article 1108 of Navy Regulations by Maryk and his lawyer (who accepts the defense task out of duty but personally believes Maryk is guilty, feels great shame at having to confront Queeg, a noted 21-year-veteran, about his supposed-mental-instability, a situation that often brings some quick, harsh admonishment from Judge Blakely).

 When first called to the stand by the prosecution, Queeg denies he’s ever had any sort of mental problems, admits he’s a stern disciplinarian because he felt it necessary to instill needed order into his officers and crew, completely rejects Maryk’s decisions on the fateful night (despite the ship weathering the dangerous storm, focusing on the conflict).  The prosecution also calls medical and psychiatric witnesses who testify in support of Queeg’s mental stability (though he's noted as having an inferiority-complex from some childhood and adult traumas) based on their interviews with him (Greenwald manages to undercut that somewhat when he notes neither expert has ever served on a ship, has no experience with the situation a Captain must endure in a time of crisis).  One of the most damaging testimonies against Maryk, though, comes from his supposed-supporter, Lt. Thomas Keefer (Lewis Pullman)—an author in civilian life with several published short stories, a novel in the works—who says he didn’t support Maryk’s actions against Queeg, although the accused does manage to score a positive response from another of his fellow-officers, Lt. Willis Keith (Tom Riley).

 When Greenwald gets to present his case he calls only 2 witnesses: Maryk, who details incidents in a journal he kept of Queeg’s questionable actions (including one which took several days and energies from the entire crew in trying to find out who had a secret key to a locked icebox, then supposedly stole strawberries sent over from another ship—even though a couple of enlisted sailors finally confessed they secretly ate the strawberries before the lockdown, yet Queeg rejected their story) and admits he was an average/below-average-student from grade school through college with no coursework in psychology or psychiatry; and Queeg, who under intense examination by Greenwald becomes nervous (starts shuffling a couple of small metal balls from his pocket as a means of relaxation), then angry, on the verge of making a complete fool of himself but refusing to take a break, blaming everything on his disloyal subordinate officers.  Judge Blakely adjourns the trial for the day without coming to a decision yet, but it’s clear Queeg’s position’s been badly damaged, implying acquittal for Maryk.  That final scene occurs at a ballroom of San Francisco’s Fairmont Hotel where Keefer is throwing a big party for himself because of a large advance he’s gotten from his publisher (the book, Multitudes, Multitudes, is about Navy matters in some manner). 

 An already-drunk Greenwald shows up, makes it clear Maryk had neither the knowledge nor the experience upon which to base his mental-health-accusations against Queeg, but he certainly was easily-influenced by the much-more-intellectual Keefer who planted those ideas with Maryk (yet on a day when the 2 of them started out to report their concerns about Queeg to a nearby-Admiral, Keefer backed out at the last minute, leaving Maryk as confused as he was about Keefer’s courtroom testimony [Maryk admonished Greenwald about not attacking Keefer on the stand; the attorney replied he was trying to build a case for a lone hero, not 2 mutineers]).  ⇒Essentially, Greenwald said if Keefer hadn’t planted those more-extreme-doubts about Queeg in Maryk’s mind the 2 top officers could have found ways to cooperate, even during the crisis of the typhoon, but, instead, Greenwald was put in the horrible position of having to essentially wreck Queeg’s career, even though dedicated men like him are necessary to preserve America’s freedoms from the tyrants who would depose us, citing the horrors of the 9/11/2001 terrorists’ attacks.  Greenwald finishes his distain for Keefer by throwing the remains of his cocktail in Keefer’s face, walking out, film ends.⇐

So What? This is Friedkin’s final film (died on August 7 2023, 2 months before its release), and I’ve long had respect for his work, going back to the multi-Oscar-winning The French Connection (1971; Best Picture, Director, Actor [Gene Hackman], Adapted Screenplay [Ernest Tidyman]) and probably the best horror film I’ve ever seen, The Exorcist (1973)—with the likely-intended-irony of … Court-Martial first being streamed on Paramount+ with Showtime on Friday, October 6, 2023, the same day of the latest (unnecessary) sequel to Friedkin’s masterpiece, The Exorcist: Believer (David Gordon Green), a bomb with a mere 23% positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, a 38% average score from Metacritic (here’s a put-down from the San Francisco Chronicle’s Mick LaSalle, with about the only good thing in it a return of Ellen Burstyn’s character from Friedkin’s original: “Until someone is able to come up with a new way to depict possession or the battling of possession, this franchise is going nowhere.”)—so I was quite interested in revisiting this Caine mutiny story, having seen the noted adaption with Humphrey Bogart as Queeg years ago (more on that in just a little bit). 

 But, if I really want to be up to date on how things have evolved over the years with depictions of the Caine mutiny narrative, it would take quite a while (but surely a more fruitful use of my time than watching Exorcist sequels—I did see a couple of them out of curiosity, then gave up with the most-horrendous [but from a stupid-concept-perspective, not a scary-viewing-experience] being The Exorcist II: The Heretic [John Boorman, 1977; as best I know the events of this movie have been completely disregarded in regard to plot elements of any other sequels, or prequels], yet I did very much enjoy the foundation of it all, William Peter Blatty’s 1971 novel, The Exorcist, from which Friedkin’s film is adapted [Blatty as screenwriter]), beginning with the foundational novel, The Caine Mutiny, published by Herman Wouk in 1951 (Pulitzer Prize in 1952), which I haven’t read but from this summary it’s clear the book has more activities than any adaptations, with a focus on Lt. Keith and his involvement with the typhoon crisis of Queeg and Maryk.  Wouk then did the first adaptation (1953), transforming it into a 2-act-play called The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial which reached Broadway in January 1954, directed by famed stage/screen actor Charles Laughton.  The action here, just like in Friedkin’s film, takes place entirely in San Francisco’s Twelfth Naval District in February 1945 (and the Fairmont Hotel for the ending), the main differences being the prosecutor is a man, Lt. Comm. John Challee, while the official Navy Regulation cited is Article 184 (odd change).

 Five months later in 1954 saw the premiere of the film, The Caine Mutiny (Edward Dmytryk), with Bogart as Queeg, José Ferrer as Greenwald, Van Johnson as Maryk, Fred MacMurray as Keefer.  It got 7 Oscar noms (including Best Picture, Best Actor for Bogart) but won none; as for plot it brings in some further action from the book (especially about Lt. Keith), not nearly all of it, though.  After having seen Friedkin’s version of just the trial (a key element of both the novel and the 1954 film, but only 1 of many; at least in 1954 we get to see the events simply testified about in the … Court-Martial versions), I was curious to refresh myself on the contents of the earlier film so I rented it for $3.99 from Apple TV+ and, while I enjoyed what I watched I did find it a bit tedious to wait through all of these events that lead up to the crisis of the typhoon, then the trial of Maryk, so for me the best focus of all this would be the plot of the … Court-Martial adaptations, even though some might consider what Friedkin presents as being un-cinematic because, with everything just happening in the courtroom (and adjoining hallway), the situation calls for a lot of long takes, wide-angle-shots, panning/dollying of the camera to give some sense of movement to situations that are basically nothing more than someone sitting in a witness chair being grilled by 1 of the 2 opposing attorneys.*

*When I taught Visual Communication at Mills College (Oakland, CA; now Northeastern U. at Mills College), I noted that in the 1950s television existed on small screens in black & white imagery while movies were trying to counter the increasing-prominence of TV with widescreen color displays. Sidney Lumet took a different approach with his film of 12 Angry Men in 1957 (drawing upon his TV-plays-experience, as well as the original 1954 teleplay of … Men on CBS Studio One, written by Reginald Rose, directed by Franklin J. Schaffner).  With Lumet (script by Rose), we’re back to classic Hollywood days of B&W imagery, framed in an abundance of tight closeups more common then to TV.  Ironically, in 1997 Friedkin did a TV movie of 12 Angry Men—on cable’s Showtime (sorry, seemingly no streaming available)—which looked more like a theatrical film as it was in color, used a lot of wideshots and panning camera, but sticks (like his version of … Court-Martial) to the single location, real-time format, not so common on TV of the era.  Both of these explorations of the original 1954 teleplay are 5 stars-worthy-cinematic-experiences: Lumet’s film getting Oscar noms for Best Picture, Director, Adapted Screenplay (but won none), George C. Scott winning a Primetime Emmy for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Miniseries or a Movie for the 1997 version by Friedkin.

 Continuing on with this … Caine Mutiny chronology, there were also: (1) another version of the … Court-Martial as an American TV play in 1955 on the CBS Ford Star Jubilee (Schaffner) that in 1956 won an Emmy for Best Television Adaptation, also Best Director-Live Series (Barry Sullivan played Greenwald, was Emmy nominated [Henry Fonda had that role on Broadway, Sullivan replaced him]; Sullivan lost to Lloyd Nolan as Queeg, the role he had in the Broadway version); (2) an Australian TV play of The Caine Mutiny in 1959; and (3) another version of … Court-Martial as an American TV film (from another modern cinematic master, Robert Altman, 1988; 77% on RT) with Eric Bogosian as Greenwald, Jeff Daniels as Maryk, Brad Davis as Queeg, Peter Gallager at Challee. (This one’s on streaming—free on fubo, $3.99 rental on Apple TV+; it was also noted in my local newspaper TV listings as cablecast on Showtime on Sunday night, October 8, 2023, but I think that was a mix-up on someone’s part with Friedkin's new … Court-Martial, which was supposed to be on Showtime last Sunday [I forgot to check to verify], so you might keep a watch there for either the Altman or Friedkin versions free to you on cable if Showtime’s in your TV package).  And, if I haven’t driven you (or myself) crazy with all of these other Caine Mutiny references, here’s just one more of a related sort.  

 When I saw the new … Court-Martial last Friday night (I’m now a member of Paramount+ to go with my several other streaming services)—then witnessed the (almost) similar final scene from 1954 last Saturday I was struck with how Greenwald seemed to be speaking for Queeg at that ballroom party of Keefer’s, defending the overall record of a man who (especially in the 1954 version where WW II was still in active combat in both Europe and Asia) had given of himself for the good of his country for a couple of decades, with the earlier version ultimately explaining Queeg’s seeming lack of clear direction during the typhoon catastrophe was due to “battle fatigue” from events we’re not shown nor described from his recent time in the Atlantic Ocean fighting the Nazis.  Greenwald is furious at Keefer, with me almost hearing him growl at this former-Caine-officer “You can’t handle the truth!” as blurted out by Marine Col. Nathan Jessup (Jack Nicholson) during a similar fraught-filled-military trial in response to accusations by lawyer Lt. Daniel Kaffee (Tom Cruise) in A Few Good Men (Rob Reiner, 1992)—based on a 1989 Aaron Sorkin play (also wrote the film’s screenplay)—referring to how difficult it is trying to maintain discipline along with some sense of morale at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba surrounded by enemies of the U.S. with the often-uninterested-civilian-population back home unaware of the daily pressures on American military personnel to keep at arm’s length (whether human arms or firearms) those who live to destroy us.  Queeg’s on the verge of saying something like that early in his verbal combat with Greenwald, but after being worn down by trying to defend himself against all of the situations noted in Maryk’s journal, his inner fire was out.

 Therefore, Greenwald speaks for him against Keefer making it clear how even-more-difficult-than-usual it is for military commanders to always keep their bearings during wartime (the case with all of the previous versions of this story happening during WW II, the typhoon calamity on July 31, 1944 in the 1954 film), with Greenwald tearing into Keefer—and others like him—for trying to find ways to make war profitable for themselves in lieu of finding desirable-monetary-payoffs from military service; this all makes good sense within the setting of Wouk’s novel and its various adaptations in the 1950s but does seem a bit odd in Friedkin’s updating of the events to our present day in that guys like Keefer would likely have no incentive to volunteer for military service today, but that’s a minor concern relative to this fine story as a whole where the expected-triumph of Maryk (by means of Greenwald) comes across as less-uplifting than we’ve been conditioned to expect, Greenwald’s character is a lot more complex than how the standard crusading lawyer is usually depicted in that his self-imposed-actions are a burden on him internally rather than him suffering from some personal failing—like drunkenness by Paul Newman’s character, Frank Galvin, in The Verdict (Lumet, 1982).  

 So, when you put all of this together, I find the concept of the intense trial in the … Court-Martial version of this story to be the more compelling presentation of events (especially without actually seeing what the various testimonies are based on, as we do in the 1954 film) because we have little proof of what to believe from Maryk (who admits he doesn’t have the background to be making judgments about mental illness), Queeg (who defends everything he’s ever done, but like those medical experts who’ve not been at sea in battle how can we know what “should” be done in a crisis), and especially Keefer (whose attitudes/actions change with the wind, so what can we understand about him, although Greenwald seems to penetrate his bluff).  Both Greenwald and Challee do excellent jobs in their contrasting roles of helping/condemning the accused, so it’s only Queeg’s final breakdown that throws the seeming-win to Greenwald and Maryk, but given the Captain’s prior demeanor and the consistent support of him from all the witnesses Challee rounded up, you can’t really fault her for apparently coming out on the losing side as Queeg proved to be less trustworthy than she’d have expected given the firm demeanor of his first testimony.  All in all, we’ve got a powerful, complex story here which I do hope you’ll consider adding to your viewing itinerary.

Bottom Line Final Comments: Given the current-cinematic-attendance-climate of horror movies, silly comedies, unnecessary sequels and the like, I can’t speculate how well The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial might have done if played in theaters, because it seems a bit too serious compared to what increasingly-unconcerned-about-COVID-moviegoers are willing to pay for again (not me; none of this current stuff would be enticing me back in a theater just yet, although I’m glad I did take the plunge last summer to see Barbie [Greta Gerwig] and Oppenheimer [Christopher Nolan]—reviews in our August 17, 2023 posting).  There might also be some concern in this time—when as a conflicted-country we’re trying to decide how much military aid (if not actual combat support at some point) we should give to the current conflicts in Ukraine and Israel—about a film that questions the stability of leaders in our military command or the difficult decisions that must be made when officers provide contrasting accounts of what happened in a given situation (on the battlefield or during an unexpected turn of events).   Plus, it’s been many decades since William Friedkin’s great heyday so his name on the project might not pull in younger crowds who seem quite willing to fork over their cash for supernatural demonic tales, while those of us old enough to remember the heights he previously scaled are now not so certain we want to mingle in crowded theaters.  All in all, then, probably the best venue for this version of … Court-Martial is at-home-streaming where Paramount+ definitely can provide access (once you’ve signed up for some form of subscription) or, if you’ve added Showtime to your TV service then you can get it on their streaming platform as well (you could also keep up with local TV listings to see if this current film pops up on Showtime’s cable channel again, as it did tonight, Wed. 10/11/2023).  The CCAL is in solid support with RT positive reviews at 92%, MC average score at 71% (a range where they’re more supportive than numbers might indicate in that just as I rarely go above 4 stars [saving the higher numbers for truly remarkable cinema], so do the numbers from MC reviews usually average out to anywhere from about 50 to 80).

 With all of that as my encouragement to see this latest approach to the Caine mutiny story (as well as any of the others you can find—including the novel [but you know I probably won’t read it, as I’ve already got enough books stacked up by my bedside])—because I found it to be a compelling situation (where you have to come to your own conclusions about what the truth is—and if you like that concept then you must see one of cinema’s all-time-classics, Rashomon [Akira Kurosawa, 1950], 98% on both RT and MC, so you know it’s a masterpiece) with this ... Court-Martial supported by a taut script (which traces its way back to Wouk) and consistently marvelous acting.  Even the claustrophobic-confines of the single location work effectively to increase tension which builds to a quiet explosion in Queeg’s climactic testimony.  Now, if I could just conclude all of this with a powerhouse Musical Metaphor (my usual review-finale-tactic, though not often do I hit powerhouse-status) I’d really have constructed something notable for you, but after days of mulling over an appropriate song for this film yet coming up with nothing quite suitable, I settled on The Eagles’ “Desperado” (on their 1973 album named for the song) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aelpqWEBHR4&list=PLq5z2BErEPOVPyS7MgB_meNivbb3YUSGD&index=5 (a site that takes you to all 11 cuts on that album if you really want to immerse yourself in the band, with “Desperado” at #5 if this link doesn’t land properly) which doesn’t have any direct connection to the events of the movie, but the lyrics about “Oh, you’re a hard one, but I know that you got your reasons / These things that are pleasin’ you can hurt you somehow […] Your pain and your hunger, they’re drivin’ you home […] Your prison is walkin’ through this world all alone” do speak to me about how Greenwald likely saw both Queeg and Keefer, although he was much more sympathetic to the former; ultimately, he’d probably apply it to himself, if not so much about his ongoing life as how he had to sacrifice himself and Queeg on behalf of Maryk, a well-meaning-guy who thought he was sincerely doing what the Navy required of him but was ultimately seen as guilty even by his own successful attorney so this song doesn’t land on him because he always believed in his own innocence.  We get the quandary of deciding whether we'll agree, weighing this unresolved ending worth our engagement.

           

SHORT TAKES

              

Related Links Which You Might Find Interesting:   

An option for your concerned-consideration: Writers Guild ratifies contract, ends a lengthy strike.

We encourage you to visit the Summary of Two Guys Reviews for our past posts* (scroll to the bottom of this Summary page to see additional info about your wacky critic, Ken Burke, along with contact info and a great retrospective song list).  Overall notations for this blog—including Internet formatting craziness beyond our control—may be found at our Two Guys in the Dark homepage.  If you’d like to Like us on Facebook (yes?) please visit our Facebook page.  We appreciate your support whenever and however you can offer it unto us!  Please also note that to Post a Comment below about our reviews you need to have either a Google account (which you can easily get at https://accounts.google.com/NewAccount if you need to sign up) or other sign-in identification from the pull-down menu below before you preview or post.  You can also leave comments at our Facebook page, although you may have to somehow register with us at that site in order to do it (most FB procedures are still a perplexing mystery to us old farts).

*Please ignore previous warnings about a “dead link” to our Summary page because the problem’s been manually fixed so that all postings since July 11, 2013 now have the proper functioning link.

If you’d rather contact Ken directly rather than leaving a comment here at the blog please 

use my email address of kenburke409@gmail.com—type it directly if the link doesn’t work.

           

OUR POSTINGS PROBABLY LOOK BEST ON THE MOST CURRENT VERSIONS OF MAC OS AND THE SAFARI WEB BROWSER (although Google Chrome usually is decent also); OTHERWISE, BE FOREWARNED THE LAYOUT MAY SEEM MESSY AT TIMES.

         

Finally, for the data-oriented among you, Google stats say over the past month the total unique hits at this site were 57,916 (as always, we thank all of you for your ongoing support with our hopes you’ll continue to be regular readers); below is a snapshot of where those responses have come from within the previous week (with appreciation for the unspecified “Others” also visiting Two Guys’ site):