Change Your Image
jstreby003
Reviews
Deadline (2012)
A plot with great potential but squandered by uninspired filmmaking
"Deadline" could have been a near-great film, but the script, acting, and particularly the music and pacing were all badly done. This is the best illustration I've ever seen that any movie needs to have a beginning, a middle and and ending, if only for the purpose of building the dramatic tension needed to propel the story to its conclusion. The rock songs that were heard intermittently throughout did absolutely nothing to set the mood or tone, amounting instead to an annoying distraction. One has to wonder how any newspaper short of the New York Times could afford to pay two reporters to work primarily on obituaries, as apparently was the case with the two male protagonists (Eric Roberts and Steve Talley). The scene in which an inept deputy is drugged is utterly bizarre and unbelievable. It is hardly likely that a young cub reporter could afford a sports car (I was unable to recognize the make or model) that would typically cost upwards of $40,000. The courtroom scene near the end is a prime example of self-indulgent use of dramatic license that could have been avoided in the hands of a better screenwriter. Various other set-ups, which I'll not describe as they might be considered "spoilers," simply didn't ring true, again probably the product of hurried, poorly-vetted screen writing. Did anyone ever inform the screenwriter of this movie that the craft is labor-intensive, and it requires painstaking hours to eliminate the bugs from a plot? Am I sorry that I watched the movie? No. Does "Deadline" stand as further proof that the film industry, far from being any sort of meritocracy, is a dysfunctional system in which---despite all of the barriers that stand in the way of innovation and the infusion of new talent---consistently produces mediocre product? Absolutely. John Streby, attorney and novelist; jstreby003@comcast.net.
A Fever in the Blood (1961)
A solid, well-done film that is both satisfying and enjoyable.
I watched this film last night for the first time in 30 years, having seen it back in the early 80s. As a practicing attorney and self-published novelist with two courtroom-based books, I'm accustomed to how both TV and movies typically present a highly distorted, unrealistic view of trials. Indeed, I found it frustrating to watch such venerable but overrated shows as "L.A. Law" because the set ups (particularly the "firm meetings" that opened every episode) and the plotting were so contrived, the result of uninspired and overly stylized scriptwriting. But "A Fever in the Blood" presented fairly realistic images of a criminal trial and related behind-the-scenes activity, with only modest dramatic license taken. The out-of-control prosecutor, determined to convict someone for political gain without regard for actual guilt, is a theme seldom featured in fiction, film and television, but this movie did it quite well. Efrem Zimbalist, Jr. was thoroughly credible as a principled judge presented with a confounding moral dilemma, but his character rose to the challenge in a way that was refreshingly unpredictable. Sadly, judges with that level of rectitude are more the exception than the rule in the real world. Another potent reality dose was the dangling (to the Zimbalist character) of a federal judgeship, which, as Senator Alex Simon (Don Ameche) points out, entails lifetime tenure, rather than frequent re-election campaigns---a bit of inside baseball that was presented convincingly, rather than intrusively, adding to my respect for screenwriter Roy Huggins, who went on to create "The Fugitive" TV series. My only criticism is the lack of a back story as to why a trial court judge would have sufficient statewide recognition to be a gubernatorial contender, as most judges are unknown outside their local communities. Any black-and-white film made 51 years ago is bound to be somewhat dated, but the themes of hidden agendas and the ethical quandaries facing members of the judiciary are timeless, giving "A Fever in the Blood" a level of vitality that is remarkable, given its age. The story moves briskly along, never bogs down,and is thoroughly enjoyable and satisfying, with strengths that more than compensate for its weaknesses. It is no classic or near-classic,but I'd give it a solid three star (on a 4-star scale) rating, better than Leonard Maltin's 2.5 stars in earlier editions of his book (the film no longer appears in his guide). I am hoping that Turner Classic Movies will re-run it again from time to time, enabling it to develop the recognition that it deserves. Those who wish to comment directly may contact me at jstreby003@comcast.net.