Plot summary (from the studio): In the gripping thriller “The Lincoln Lawyer,” Matthew McConaughey stars as Michael “Mick” Haller, a slick, charismatic Los Angeles criminal defense attorney who operates out of the back of his Lincoln Continental sedan. Having spent most of his career defending petty, gutter-variety criminals, Mick unexpectedly lands the case of a lifetime: defending a rich Beverly Hills playboy (Ryan Phillippe) who is accused of attempted murder. However, what initially appears to be a straightforward case with a big money pay-off swiftly develops into a deadly match between two masters of manipulation and a crisis of conscience for Haller.

Warning: Spoilers below!

Liked:

• I thought Matthew McConaughey was a brilliant choice to play Mickey Haller. McConaughey has that kind of charm that borders on smarmy, which is precisely how I imagined the Haller of the original book. This is the kind of defense lawyer that makes under-the-table deals with freelance videographers to rip off his own clients, but who also has a strange kind of conscience when it comes to the notion of justice. I am rarely impressed by McConaughey’s roles, but he was very good here.
• I just really like the whole concept of an attorney working out of the back seat of a Lincoln. It was pretty original, and added a twist to what might otherwise be a run-of-the-mill character. The idea didn’t come off as well on the screen as it did in the book (on screen, it just seemed as though Haller was simply commuting somewhere rather than actually working in the car), but it was still cool as hell.
• The supporting cast in this film was good. I like it when recognizable actors pop up as minor characters (Bryan Cranston as the detective) because it’s far easier for me to keep track of who’s who.

Disliked:

• I didn’t think the filmmakers did a good enough job of describing what allegedly happened at the victim’s apartment. I didn’t really understand what the whole deal was. I mean, of course I knew the details because I’d previously read the book, but the crime didn’t make sense as described in the film. How did that tiny woman overpower Roulet to begin with? Was an attempt even made to explain that?
• In the book, Haller makes a big deal out of the possibility of Roulet becoming the “franchise player” (a wealthy client that will return for legal advice again and again) that he needs in order to turn his firm around and hit the big time. But although there were a few mentions of Roulet’s money in the movie, they didn’t do enough to play up that reason as to why Haller wanted to take on the case.
• The mother’s motives for killing the investigator and shooting Haller were unclear. Was she simply trying to protect her boy? Or was there something more to the mother-son relationship than met the eye? Either way, to have her appear at the end wielding Haller’s gun was a bit unbelievable.

Rating:
Despite the flaws I listed above, I thought The Lincoln Lawyer was a solid movie adaptation of the Michael Connelly book. It was well paced, there were some good actors involved, and the story was inherently interesting. The likable protagonist helped keep me interested in his fate from beginning to end. I give the film 4 stars out of 5.

Plot summary (with spoilers): This Lifetime made-for-TV movie examines the circumstances of the 2007 murder of British student Meredith Kercher (played by Amanda Fernando Stevens) in Perugia, Italy. The crime made headlines around the world when Kercher’s roommate Amanda Knox (Hayden Panettiere), an American exchange student from Seattle, emerged as the prime suspect, along with boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito (Paolo Romio).

The film, which mixes both fact and conjecture to “recreate” some of the major events of the story, shows how Knox and Sollecito got mixed up in the police investigation and why they were eventually indicted, tried, and convicted for Meredith’s murder. Knox is currently serving a 26-year sentence in Italy, while Sollecito is serving 25. Another perpetrator, Rudy Guede (Djibril Kébé), was convicted as well. He initially received a 30-year sentence, but it was reduced to 16 years because he apologized to Kercher’s family.

Knox and Sollecito are appealing their sentences.

Liked:

• I thought Hayden Panettiere was wonderful in this movie! She looked a lot like the photographs of Knox that I’ve seen in newspapers, which really went a long way towards helping the performance seem convincing. I’ve never watched Panettiere in anything else before, so I was duly impressed by her skills.
• The film seemed pretty balanced to me. I know people have very strong feelings about this case, and they either believe that Knox was 100% guilty or that she was railroaded by an incompetent police force, prosecutor, and justice system. I personally feel that Knox is guilty, but I thought the movie left the question fairly open-ended. She wasn’t portrayed as a monster, nor did she come off as a victim. Honestly, I was expecting one or the other, so the balance was a nice surprise.

Disliked:

• The actor that played Raffaele bugged me every time he was on the screen. Ugh.
• The trial part seemed very rushed. It seemed that one minute it was opening arguments, and then in the very next scene, the verdict was being read. I would have liked to have seen more of the trial.
• The movie didn’t really bring any new facts or insights to the table. If you’ve followed the case in the newspapers, then you already know the whole story.

Rating:

Viewers often dismiss made-for-TV movies without giving them a proper chance, but that would be a mistake with Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy. This is a good retelling of the story (as it appeared in the newspapers. Whether this is the truth or not remains to be seen, I guess.) and was very compelling to watch. I give the film 4 stars out of 5.

Plot synopsis (from the studio): As he plans his next job that could result in his gang’s biggest score ever, a longtime thief plans his way out of the life and the town while dodging the FBI agent looking to bring him and his bank-robbing crew down. In addition the heading an electrifying cast, Ben Affleck also directed and co-wrote this suspenseful, critically-acclaimed crime thriller that unfolds — and often explodes — across gritty Boston locations. Rebecca Hall, Jon Hamm, Jeremy Renner, Blake Lively, Titus Welliver, Pete Postlethwaite, and Chris Cooper also star.

Warning: Spoilers below!

Liked:

• Ben Affleck’s acting career has been all over the place, but I think he is a terrific director. He doesn’t surprise you with his choices (like Tarantino or the Coens might), but he is a technically sound storyteller that manages to hit the right notes throughout the entire film.
• Jeremy Renner was about as good in this as he was in Hurt Locker, despite playing vastly different characters. He is quickly becoming one of my favorite actors. I hope he continues to make smart role choices and doesn’t just go for a huge payday with some brainless action flick.
• I liked that it turned out the florist was calling all (or most of) the shots. This made it easier to believe that Doug actually was a decent human being beneath the thug exterior and that he really was capable of changing.
• I loved that Claire signaled to Doug to stay away because of the FBI. Sure, the scene was reminiscent of Heat, but I liked it nonetheless. Doug clearly wasn’t going to get trapped anyway, because he could see exactly what was going on, but it was extremely important that he know Claire still cared for him even just a little.
• Robbing Fenway Park? Wow, how could those guys ever think a plan like that would work??? But it was an original one, as far as films go. Usually the big score is a bank, armored truck, jewelry store, art gallery, etc. I don’t think an iconic sports stadium has ever been the primary target before!

Disliked:

• The Boston accents were highly distracting. I understand having the characters speak that way lends an air of authenticity to the film, but there in several scenes, it was incredibly difficult to figure out what was being said. The accents just got in the way. I finally had to turn subtitles on and read the damn dialogue.
• I thought Doug’s escape was a bit too easy. I knew from the start that he would get away (that’s why the film was told from his point of view, not Jon Hamm’s), but didn’t think it would be as easy as hopping on a train and making it to Florida. His mug would be all over the wires, especially since the FBI was already involved and federal agents were killed during the attempted robbery. Growing a mountain man beard wasn’t going to be enough to put everyone off the trail.
• Some parts of the film were predictable and formulaic. For example, if there’s a shootout before the halfway point, you can bet none of the major characters will get hit, making those scenes feel like a waste of time. Also, since Jem and Doug were the only two guys from the gang that had substantial roles, you could tell that the lesser gang members would get shot first during the final stand against law enforcement. And of course the crazy-ass Jem would go down shooting in a suicide-by-cop scene. I know this movie was based on a book, so I’m not exactly blaming Affleck for this, but still…
• I didn’t like Titus Welliver in this because to me he will always be the Man in Black (from Lost). I know, this is wholly on me, not the actor, but I still felt obligated to throw it out there.

Rating:

The Town received very positive critical reviews, so I was expecting a great movie — and I got one. Despite the sometimes formulaic nature of the plot, the characters, acting, and directing really make this film worth watching. I give it 4 stars out of 5.