As the Laci Peterson case unfolds with tales of possible satanic cult involvement, there is probably no better time than now for this movie to be released. You may not remember the case of Arnold and Jesse Friedman as it came from the East Coast and followed on the heels of the crazy story out here involving the McMartin Day Care Center.
Back in 1988, Arnold Friedman, a former high school teacher and later an after school computer instructor, was charged with the physical and sexual abuse of a number of his students. Also charged was Arnold’s then eighteen year-old son, Jesse. All the alleged victims were boys, most of them around ten years old.
Let’s get right to the extraordinary thing about this movie – access. Not only are interviews conducted with all of the major participants today (except Arnold), but woven into this fascinating “documentary” is archival footage of the story from the late ‘80’s as it unfolded on local television. Yet even better is something I’ve never seen in a movie like this (actually, I’ve never seen a movie like this before) and that is “home movies” taken by the family back when the charges were filed.
Doing most of the talking in this movie is David Friedman, the oldest son. Believe it or not, his job today is as a children’s party clown. He seems to believe in his father and brother’s innocence, but that isn’t always clear because the guy is just so weird. Loud and dramatic and annoying, he comes off as a phony. That earnest look, that melodramatic pause in just the right place tells me he’s acting. But in his defense, his behavior is consistent both then and now – he even put underwear on his head as his father was being arrested. He also recorded himself back in 1988 and demonstrated the same strange behavior. How was he to know this would all end up in a movie?
Then there’s the mother, Elaine Friedman. Where to start – she’s the only one who isn’t so sure old Arnie didn’t molest those kids and her sons hate her for that. She’s cold, shrugs a lot, and is close to no one in this family. And, for a while there, you might take Mom’s side. After all, it’s pretty clear the guy did possess child porn. So why not believe the charges?
Because there is no evidence other than the porn and the boys testimony. The lingering question is “how could so much have been done to them during those computer classes and not one let on until the police came knocking on their doors over Arnie’s child porn collection?” Two “victims” (anonymously) agreed to be interviewed – you can draw your own conclusions but they are pretty weird too. We also hear from two other guys who say they were not molested plus the father of another kid who also believes nothing went on.
It’s clear Arnold Friedman deserved some kind of jail time and he got it. But the movie takes a shocking twist when it comes to Jesse Friedman’s case. I won’t spoil it- let me just say I had to tell myself this really happened and these are not actors. I couldn’t believe what I heard! It makes for a sloppy ending, but who cares?
“Capturing The Friedmans” puts junk like “The Osbournes” and “Jerry Springer” to shame. It was put together in top- notch fashion. In the end, you must be the jury because nothing is all that clear. I reconciled it this way – they were a strange family which got just about what it deserved. And now David Friedman the clown is hoping none of his clients finds out about his family history. Right – so go make a movie about it then. That will surely bury it. It doesn’t get any wilder or stranger than this and that’s why I go to the movies. I give “Capturing The Friedmans” a “10.0” on the scale. When’s the next installment?
Friday, June 13th, 2003
Yes, I’m guilty as charged. I don’t like to admit this often, but there are a few actors I like to see so much, that it blinds me to how bad everything else is with the movie. Harrison Ford is one of those guys. He’s such an easygoing, everyday guy, I sometimes forget I’m watching him play someone else.
This time he takes the role of Joe Gavilan, LAPD homicide detective, part-time real estate salesman. His partner is K.C. Calden, played by Josh Hartnett. K.C. would really rather be an actor. Which if you can stomach it, is the long running joke of this movie. It’s what the rest of the country and the world, for that matter, thinks of us out here on the “left coast”. Specifically, “Los Angeleeees” people.
You know, the clichés about us. We all yack on cellphones, we’re into goofy stuff like yoga, psychics are everywhere, many of us do one boring job but dream of another (acting), and, of course, the car chases. So there – you have most of “Hollywood Homicide” in a nutshell.
I guess you noticed the word “Homicide” in the title. Yeah, there is a quadruple murder for Joe and K.C. to solve, but that gets pushed way into the backround. Until the end, and that’s where this movie really goes wrong.
You see, I was sort of enjoying the pointless story of Joe and K.C.. Joe has big financial problems because we all know cops don’t make much money, but he can’t sell a house either. And K.C. reminds you of one of those people who dream of stardom but do little about it while going about their real jobs with no talent or enthusiasm. It was kind of like watching a reality show. I was thinking how unconventional it all was – a cop movie about almost nothing. Yup, very low key, just killing time. They even downplayed the mismatched cop buddy thing between Joe and K.C. and that was kind of rewarding in and of itself. It was the action cop movie that wasn’t. That is until…
Until they had to figure out how to bring it all together to solve that murder case. Too bad, because the last twenty minutes are consumed with the car chase from hell (it seemed like it would never end – back into the Red Line subway system we go again) and cell phones that never stopped ringing. The joke about that was long over, but nobody figured that out. Gee, is it really that funny that Joe is able to complete a big home sale on the phone while chasing and busting one of the killers? Not to me. And, can we ban L.A. TV news people from appearing in any more movies? Enough of Hal Fishman, Eric Spillman and , this time, Jennifer York in that traffic copter. Note to you people -you’re not going to go anywhere with a movie career playing yourself. And badly at that.
What I said at the beginning broke apart – I did notice how bad this movie is even with Harrison holding his own. I sense the real motive here is to set-up Josh Hartnett as the next Harrison Ford. A guy Harrison’s age can’t beat up guys forever. I give “Hollywood Homicide” a “4.0” on the scale.
Friday, June 6th, 2003
This movie is actually a remake – the original came out about thirty years ago and starred Michael Caine. I never heard of the original, and the question is, is that a good thing or a bad thing? You could argue that it makes things easier since there’s no standard of excellence here, or you could argue that you should never remake a movie no one saw in the first place.
Mark Wahlberg is the star this time. He’s ready to take over a gang of thieves with its sights set on a bunch of gold bars stored in a safe in Venice, Italy. Mark plays Charlie, the gang’s mastermind. The outgoing gang leader is played by Donald Sutherland. He’s the old time safecracker, and, of course, he’s going to retire after this “one last job”. The rest of the gang is made up of the usual experts – the demolitions expert, the computer expert and the expert getaway driver. Getting the feeling this movie is going the “usual” way?
There is one guy left who just doesn’t fit – that’s Steve, played by Ed Norton. I couldn’t figure out his role in the gang, so, naturally, he is the one to steal the gold bars from the others and leave them for dead. There’s only one problem – he just doesn’t do a good enough job of making sure the gang is really dead. Well, we wouldn’t have much of a movie if they did die, so, naturally, they come after Steve a few years later for revenge. They pick up a new member along the way and that’s a woman played by Charlize Theron. She’s Donald Sutherland’s daughter and she can open any safe just like dear old Dad. So, hail, hail, the gang’s all here again.
This movie is a paint by the numbers, follow the playbook bore. One problem is they gave Mark Wahlberg too much to do and didn’t give enough for Ed Norton to work with. Donald Sutherland gets off easy – he dies early on. Wahlberg is stiff and unconvincing as the leader and mastermind of the group. As the surrogate son of Sutherland, he ends up as being some sort of conscience for the group in the revenge plot against Steve. The old “honor among thieves” business I suppose. Is there really something noble about stealing gold for a living? Whatever. As for Norton, he’s never very convincing as the bad guy amongst bad guys. Instead, he’s just plain stupid and careless, living a conspicuously rich lifestyle and coming up with dumb plans to get away from his old gang.
Since I was turned off by the people, the last hope was the action sequences. Well, for that, there’s a boat chase through Venice and a car chase through the Los Angeles subway system. It simply isn’t enough. Hey, but at least somebody’s using that Red Line. Here’s an example of how by the book this movie gets – the computer expert guy insists he actually developed the “Napster” program for downloading music and it was stolen from here as he took a nap. Get it? This running joke gets old fast as does this guy being able to control all of the traffic lights on L.A. streets just by typing fast on a laptop keyboard.
“The Italian Job” is about thieves all right. They’re out to steal your nine bucks if you pay to see this junk. I give it a “3.0” on the scale.
