Seneca Movie Reviews


Newman and Mason clash in Oscar nominated roles
Newman was robbed!Jack Warden, James Mason and Charlotte Rampling are all flawlessly great, but Paul Newman was BRILLIANT playing the ambulance-chasing turned righteously indignant Frank Galvin ( the scene where he is photographing his client in the hospital! his meeting with the archdiocese! his return to his apartment after the judge refuses his request for a delay! Newman's best and most emotionally exposed acting ever ). I still refuse to see "Ghandi" because of the resentment I feel over the choice of Ben Kingsley for Oscar's best actor when THIS WAS THE ROLE FOR WHICH NEWMAN SHOULD HAVE WON!!
Nobody I have ever known , seeing this movie for the first time, fails to be riveted to the screen during the final ten minutes.
best movie ever made

BACK WHEN MIRA NAIR WAS STILL A TRUE FILMMAKERThe first thing admirable about it is Nair's ability to merge three cultures (Uganda, India, & Southern American) into an enchanting love story. An Indian family of a man, his wife and their young daughter Mina are expelled from Uganda under the reign of dictator Amin. The family eventually moves to the U.S. When Mina grows up she finds herself caught in a curious cultural twist and considers herself a mix "masala". She later falls in love with a black carpet cleaner (played immaculately by Denzil) only to stir up a hornet's nest in her family, culture and community.
The movie is from 1992, so the mild racism undercurrent may be a bit tired but wasn't when it came out, in fact most of the ironies (e.g., both the lovers are "colored" in different shades) are shown in a light-hearted and dignified manner.
The movie has a clutch of hilarious moments as well, which make it an all round fun movie to watch. Both the protagonists, Denzil as the southern man and Sarita Chaudhari as the Indian woman, are actually quite likeable characters and you end up caring about both of them.
A very wholesome treat to watch!
Something for everyone
Entertaining and thoughtfulOne of its particularly interesting insights for me was its take on the polarizing nature of black-white racial divisions in this country. This is shown not only by the negative reaction of the local Indian community in this small Mississippi town to the romance of one of its women by a black man, but, even more revealingly, by the response of the local whites, which results in the bank calling in its loan on Denzel Washington's carpet cleaning business, along with the loss of his white clientele. Even though the relationship in question is between two dark skinned people, the whites react to this as though the Indian woman is white; in otherwords, vis a vis blacks, if you are not black you are white.
I strongly recommend this movie.


Entertaining!!
Getting to the Root of Yesterday's and Today's Problems
Brings Back Memories!

In the Tarzan movie tradition
Funny!

what do i remember about THE EVIL THAT MEN DO?
Absolutely Brutal Bronson Actioner"The Evil That Men Do" may not be one of Bronson's best roles, but it certainly ranks as one of his seediest. In this sleazy production, Bronson plays a retired assassin named Holland living out his days on the Cayman Islands. Life looks good until an old friend arrives on the island looking to lure Holland back into business again. This friend, Hector Lomelin (played by Jose Ferrer) brings with him a mountain of videotaped testimony in which an endless string of people relate personal accounts of the most repulsive tortures inflicted upon them and their families. One name repeatedly appears in these accounts: The Doctor, specifically Dr. Clement Molloch, a demented physician who dedicates his life to instructing petty despots in desolate Central American countries about the intricacies of mental and physical torture. In fact, the movie begins with a lengthy scene of the doctor's work, as he teaches a group of military officials in Surinam how to put out the lights on those pesky political opponents who always complain about such irritating things as elections, civil rights, and due process of law. Holland eventually agrees to exterminate the doctor in the name of human decency; he even refuses to accept a fee for hunting down this aberrant creature.
Holland heads to Central America to track down Molloch, but in order to allay any suspicions from the doctor and his gang of bodyguards, he brings along Rhiana Hildalgo (Theresa Saldana) and her daughter to pose as his wife and child. Hildalgo's husband died at the hands of Clement Molloch, so she ostensibly wants to see his memory avenged. Holland and his "family" meet up with Max Ortiz, a guy who hates despotic regimes and their reliance on Molloch as a political weapon. With Ortiz supplying the information on the doctor's whereabouts, Holland starts knocking off the hired help. He kills one of the bodyguards by flinging a knife into his throat, hangs another one with a fire hose, shotguns a couple of baddies, and kidnaps Molloch's seamy sister in order to lure the doctor into the line of fire. Along the way, Holland runs into problems with Paul Briggs, a U.S. embassy official who kowtows to Molloch and his goons. In a film loaded with atrocity piled on atrocity, the ending is nauseating to watch, as Molloch gets his comeuppance at the hands of a group of peasants who remember him only too well.
"The Evil That Men Do" is one sick puppy of a movie. It's difficult to picture Bronson starring in such a tacky movie, but nearly all of Bronson's efforts in the 1980s depicted him as a vengeful entity mowing down the bad guys in increasingly sadistic ways. This film is no different, except that nearly every character (even the supposed good guys) leaves a bad taste in your mouth. To make matters worse, the script is so full of holes that you could sail a fleet of battleships through it. How could Molloch's bodyguard think Holland was anything but trouble after spotting him glaring at Molloch during that sporting event? And what was up with the weird recognition between Cannell and Holland in the village café? Maybe I slipped into a coma while watching the movie, but I don't remember any background about these two characters knowing each other from some other place and time. I also never grasped the reasons why Holland decided to accept the mission after some initial reluctance. He watched several of Lomelin's tapes without batting an eye, and adamantly refuses to assassinate the doctor. Then suddenly he decides to lend a hand. Why? I don't know because it's never explained clearly. It's problems like these that handicap "The Evil That Men Do."
The DVD version does contain the uncut version of the film, or at least it appears so. The first segment is really a doozy, and it sets the tone for the monstrous activities to follow. Unfortunately, the only extras on the disc are three trailers: one for this film, one for "The Replacement Killers," and one for "The Big Hit." At least the picture quality is quite good for such an old, low budget film. Maybe watching this slightly above average Bronson film isn't the best way to pay homage to the man, but it is a good representation of the movies Chuck churned out in the 1980s. After you work your way through the "Death Wish" films, you will need to see "The Evil That Men Do" in order to attain the rank of a Bronson completist.
........Lives On And Ooooooooooon!
Newman, in an Oscar nominated role, is Frank Galvin, a cynical and alcoholic ambulance chaser who is tossed a bone by old friend Mickey Morrissey (Jack Warden) in the form of a personal injury suit. A young woman went into a hospital, owned by the Roman Catholic Church, was given the wrong anesthetic, became comatose, and is never coming back. The idea is that Frank will do the paperwork, accept the settlement offer, and go back to sinking into oblivion. But circumstances convince him to get his day in court and go for broke.
One of the key dyanmics of this film is that even as Galvin has sunk so low as a lawyer, his opponent, Ed Concannon (James Mason, also deservedly nominated for an Oscar) represents one of the most corrupt large corporate law films in film history. Concanno will literally do everything possible to defend his client, as we see over the course of the film. Clearly the goal for Concanno is not justice but victory, while for Galvin the two become one in the same. Mason's performance is as strong as Newman's, mainly because Mamet has written some great scenes for each actor's character. But then, think of what is involved to make Newman the underdog in a major Hollywood movie.
The flaw in the movie comes when we learn that while Concanno has an army of associates as well as a large law firm and the weight of the local archdioesce behind him, Galvin might actually have the truth on his side. The case comes down to the claim of a proverbial last minute surprise witness as to what "really" happened and exactly what was the mistake that made the young woman brain dead. This becomes more than a case of contradictory testimony but one of contradictory records as well. At this point the every ready Concanno pulls out the appropriate legal precedent to have the piece of evidence thrown out. The judge agrees, Galvin throws a fit, and the verdict comes down to what sort of an empassioned speech our heroes gives in his closing.
The only problem is that the rule is wrong, and even viewers whose legal background consists of several seasons of "L.A. Law," "Law & Order," "The Practice" or even "Ally McBeal" can probably spot the flaw in the judge's reasoning. Even if they cannot come up with a sound legal basis for overturning the ruling, they will recognize on a fundamental level that this is just not right. I have every reason to believe that the twelves jurors true sitting in judgment of the case recognize the sense of injustice as well and just might have their minds made up before Galvin's closing argument.
Granted, most viewers are probably not as offended by this plot device as I am, especially given the mesmirizing performances of Newman and Mason. But I cannot get away from the idea that the flaw robs Newman of his climactic moment. Given the facts of the case there might not be any way around that particular legal predicament, but that would be a crime of a different nature.