The Rural Jurist

So I’m watching Can’t Hardly Wait tonight – don’t ask, I just like it – and I was wondering where else I’d seen the kid who plays the dork that plots to embarrass the jock and karaokes Paradise City. So I IMDB the guy, and I was surprised to see that (a) I recognized him from a number of films (Hook, What About Bob, Dick Tracy), but (b) surprisingly, Can’t Hardly Wait was his last film. I was curious to find out why he went out on such a high note so I clicked on the bio and this is what I found:

Graduated from MIT with a 4.0 and a degree in Physics

Accepted a position with the U.S. Missile Defense Team

Graduated from Yale Law in 2006 and booked the Corporate Law course

Currently serves as Deputy Domestic Policy Analyst for the U.S. House Republican Policy Committee

Whoa! – Managed the Congressional Republican softball team

Double Whoa! – turned down roles as Mark Evans (the actual good son) in The Good Son and John Connor in T2, Judgment Day.

Do you think he regrets turning down the John Connor role? I mean it’s not like it turned out well for Edward Furlong, but Jebus, a guy with a head on his shoulders would’ve been an instant killer. I’m guessing he’s okay with it.

Ross Douthat has a piece in the Times today commending Judd Apatow for his moviemaking skills; actually for his conservative moviemaking skills. Douthat argues that, in making a movie with real consequences and without the fluff, Funny People is Apatow’s most conservative, ergo best, movie yet.

I’ve always had a problem with people who overanalyze, and I think this is a pretty classic case. Admittedly, Knocked Up and The Forty Year Old Virgin dealt with conservative issues from a conservative editorial philosophy. Namely that foregoing abortion and unwed sex will work out incredibly well. But there’s nothing inherently “conservative” about death or heartbreak, the emotional touchstones of Funny People. Moreover, in removing the predictably happy Hollywood ending (well, for the most part anyway), Apatow is making a better movie, though I don’t see how it’s necessarily a conservative way to  end a movie. I can appreciate that Douthat has a mission, but I think it’s a trade best plied within the context of policy discussion rather than movie reviews.

Onto the movie itself; I haven’t heard a lot of critical acclaim for Adam Sandler’s acting skills, but frankly, I like the guy. I don’t think his performance in Punch Drunk Love can really be taken seriously as, like a lot of P.T.A.’s work, it was a bit too much of a psychedelic and visual piece, and too heavily influenced by the directing to garner critical acclaim for its acting. But there was little fault to find in Spanglish or Reign Over Me; well, maybe in the movies but not in Sandler’s performances. I also think Seth Rogan, as usual, does a nice job giving the movie the “reality” it needed to offset Sandler’s character’s larger-than-life house/career/charisma etc…

Acting aside, I know that a lot of people are foregoing this one because of some bad reviews out there, and I think some of the reviews had a point. Most notably, the film could have used another half-hour or so in the cutting room – it just takes on a little too much subject matter given the time constraints for comedies, even relatively serious ones. Also, there were a few too many “what the…?” scenes that were just inexplicable and, along those lines, much of the comedic fodder was of the juvenile fart/dick joke variety too typical of Apatow joints. Still, it’s worth a look. 3.5/5

P.S. I was amazed by the demographics in the theatre. I’ve been to some “date movies” recently, but I don’t recall ever going to a movie in which the theatre was completely packed and 100% of those in attendance were on a date. Also, literally everyone I saw was between the ages of 25 and 35. I’m not sure what it says about me, but it made the movie feel a little bit like being part of a focus group.

Also, if anyone is curious and/or gives a shit about these movie musings, I’m looking forward to seeing 500 Days of Summer sometime soon.

I had a “Continuing Legal Education” class (CLE) in Columbus yesterday and it made me think. I’ve been a lawyer for going on a year now and I’ve been to 3-4 of these in the last year and numerous others while in law school. Never have I ever been to one that actually provided any “education” or any other relevant/useful tools for practicing law. One look around the room tells you those with insomnia issues and hangovers are the only folks getting anything out of it.

I’ve found that, like many things, the best way to educate yourself in the law is practice and experience. That’s why I’d much rather spend those CLE hours doing pro bono work chipping in to meet the considerable need for civil legal services for the poor in this country, a need which is currently going unmet. Yet every year lawyers around the country, including Ohio, fight like hell to avoid amendments to professional conduct rules that would require them to meet a certain minimum number of pro bono service hours, favoring instead non-binding resolutions “encouraging” service. Still, every biennial reporting period they’re required to complete 24 hours of CLE credits.

It seems to me that a better system would reduce the number of CLE’s required and replace them with 8-12 hours of communuty service through pro bono work. Not only would this be good policy in that it would reduce the state’s spending for legal services, but it’s also a far better means for diversifying and/or specializing lawyers’ substantive expertice. Of course, it will never happen because most private sector lawyers would rather pay the relatively high tuition costs of CLE programs to avoid having to interact with poor people, and  instead write off a trip to San Diego or Cancun for some important symposium they’ll walk out of after about half an hour.

Congrats to Bill on his latest superhero routine. Unlike a lot on the left, I think there’s something to the criticism about rewarding bad behavior and legitimizing the North Korean regime. Still, count me squarely in the camp that’s just happy for Ling and Lee to be home, finally.

On a related note, anybody here have Channel One in their school when they were growing up? I remember being infatuated with Lisa Ling in the eighth grade – probably my first crossracial crush. That was, and is, a great concept and certainly better than the self-produced stuff you see in todays high schools. It would be nice if people started paying attention to what was going on in the world sometime before turning 30.

Maybe I’m just a contrarian given all the rave reviews this movie’s been getting, but allow me to be the first to say I was disappointed with The Hurt Locker.

For those of you unfamiliar with the film, it follows a 3-man bomb disposal unit in 2004 Baghdad through the last 30 days of their rotation in Iraq. Don’t go in expecting a special effects extravaganza though, there’s not a lot of explosions in the flick, and really only one that the director spends any time developing or showcasing. That’s not necessarily a problem though, as I tend to get turned off by bells and whistles. Still, if you’re going to make a bomb movie without any bombs, the character development and writing better be where they need to be. But I’ll bet you can guess where I’m going…

I’ve got two real problems with the movie. First, it’s not even remotely believable. The main character is a wild card, rebel type who doesn’t follow the rules and goes with his gut. That’s all well and fine as a character element, but it’s not a guiding philosophy for a unit commander amid a violent war. There are at least four scenes in which he does something that leaves the audience simultaneously in suspense and disbelief. We’re talking about a guy who’d get fired from a Silicon Valley start-up with the kind of attitude he shows, let alone the kind of command-driven and discipline-dependent entity we all understand the U.S. Army to be.

Second, like all too many recent war movies, the script follows a predictable formulaic approach to war. A while back a friend of mine posited a similar critique of Milk, and biopics in general. The same is true for war flicks, especially modern ones. There’s the smart but rebellious type I mentioned above, the level headed order following moral beacon, and the young emotional type who is easily shaken by the adrenaline and mortality of war. As a result, the whole movie was filled with cliche lines and predictable decision making.

None of this is to say that the performances were lacking. Leading man Jeremy Renner does a pretty nice job with a poorly written character. Anthony Macke (Million Dollar Baby, Half Nelson, Notorious) also excels with a much more believable and well-written character. There are also plenty of noteworthy cameos from larger stars like Ralph Fiennes, Evangaline Lilly, and David Morse. And I also think the praise lauded onto director Kathryn Bigelow was well deserved. But none was enough to make up for the poor writing.

Overall, I didn’t think it was a terrible movie, but I was expecting a lot more. If you didn’t like Jarhead, or any other of the recent string of mediocre modern war movies, you probably won’t care for this one.

This raises the issue: how long are we going to have to wait for the first great modern warfare movie? There’s a long line of great WWII and Vietnam movies (Patton, Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, Apolcalypse Now, Saving Private Ryan, etc…), but how many good movies have there been about conflicts beyond 1980? There have been good movies that weren’t truly “war” movies, like Courage Under Fire and In the Valley of Elah, which were really detective movies. But still, no great ones that are warfare-centric. Black Hawk Down is probably the best of the bunch, but I still don’t place it on the same plane as some of the older greats mentioned above. Matt mentioned 3 Kings, which we both agreed was good but not really about the war in which it was set. Probably the best job anyone has done depicting the realities and emotions of Iraq has been the HBO series Generation Kill. As always, when you’re looking for grit and sincerity, David Simon (The Wire) is as good a place as any to start.

So, imaginary readers, I leave it to you. If you’ve seen this one, do you agree or disagree? Any other good films about Bosnia, Somalia, Iraq I or Iraq II that come to mind? Let’s start with a modest goal of 5 comments.

Thanks for having me! I look forward to wasting a few hours each week writing things that no one will ever read; really just a tremendous opportunity. For those of you who don’t get the title you should know (1) I’m an attorney in small-town Southeast Ohio, and (2) you should be watching more 30 Rock.

I anticipate most of my writing will be movie reviews, baseball/sports analysis and the occasional political commentary – though there seems to be plenty of that out there already and those sorts of blogs tend to devolve pretty quickly, so I’ll leave it (mostly) to the experts.

For all my imaginary readers, I have a very laissez faire attitude toward comments, so don’t worry about deletions or edits from the moderator. Superfluous glowing adulation and vile venomous spewings alike are welcome. All right, away we go… (crappy movie by the way)