Skip to main content

A laughing jury is never a hanging jury.

Find Me Guilty

(SPOILERS) I’m trying to recall when I last had the displeasure of viewing such a horribly lit movie. It took me longer than it should have to become engrossed in Find Me Guilty, because every early scene screamed of sets and soundstages in the tattiest, cardboard, amateurish fashion. Damages Season Four sprang to mind, which looked ghastly and cheap. Find Me Guilty looks equally ghastly and cheap. Which is a shame, as it is otherwise very good.

Making it a complete contrast to Sidney Lumet’s final film, Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead, which looked just fine but was absolutely ghastly (sorry, Devil fans, I know you are legion). You won’t find the stylistic grit characteristic of a Lumet movie here. Instead, this is big and broad and lunky, rather like Vin Diesel’s affable performance as irrepressible gangster Jackie DiNorscio, already in prison on drug charges at the time of the United States v. Anthony Accetturo et al trial and opting to defend himself, something that proves a hit with the jury but causes immense friction, not only with the prosecution, but also the judge and mob boss Nick Calabrese (Alex Rocco, essentially Accetturo).

Calabrese has a particular beef with Jackie on account of his defection to another mob family, while Jackie must contend with the evidence given by his druggie cousin Tony (Raul Esparza), who attempted to kill Jackie in the opening scene. DA Kierney (Linus Roache) has a beef with Jackie because he’s making a mockery of his serious trial – the longest federal trial in American legal history at 21 months (it lasted from 1986-88).

Find Me Guilty is mainly known – by those who know it – as the movie that proves Vin can act. And it does. He’s funny, charismatic, and kind of a lunk, and it’s easy to get the gist of how DiNorscio charmed the jury. That said, he also looks patently ridiculous, like he’s auditioning for My Blue Heaven 2. His toupée is absurd, sitting atop his enormous heed, and he’s such a big guy (who piled on pounds for the role too) that his prison costuming looks like it’s made from tablecloths.

Lumet co-penned the screenplay, often using verbatim courtroom dialogue, but he conspicuously fails to create a clear sense of why the jury reaches the decision they do, partly because we aren’t privy to their deliberations, but partly because we’re never really given a sense of the scope of the trial (which essentially charged the entire crime family with racketeering). That may be because it was a sprawling mess.

Again, it’s difficult to tell because Lumet simply makes Roach a purveyor of 2-D villainy (he even takes poor Jackie’s armchair from his cell, which he needs for his bad back!) It’s unclear just what it is that gets them off. Lack of evidence? Jury sympathy? A combination of the two? The jury debated for only fourteen hours, when days were expected. At the time, it was suggested ″Apparently the jury just resented the length (of the trial) and the breadth of the indictment″. So Lumet may not have been wrong not to pin it down. It’s still rather dissatisfying, though.

Lumet’s clearly on these hoodlums’ side against an inherently corrupt system, but the deficits in production value contribute to making Fine Me Guilty seem less sharp that it probably was on paper. It was shot on film, but somehow DP Ron Fortunato made it look horrid, like it was shot last week on a home video camera, killing the necessary period sense. Having said that, the use of When Your Smiling rather ironically makes it seem like a cheapskate filmed play for HBO, one that debuted somewhere around the late ’80s/early ’90s.

Lumet has some considerable supporting talent to draw upon. Roache can do nothing with what he’s got, but Ron Silver is great as the sympathetic judge, Peter Dinklage engaging as the defence counsel and Anabella Sciorra cameos winningly as Jackie’s ex. Best of the bunch is Rocco, though, spitting daggers as a threateningly real, properly convincing Scorsese gangster (he previously played Moe Greene in The Godfather). If Vin seems like a cartoon at times (a gagster, not a gangster), that’s exactly how Nick sees him.

Lumet was 84 when he directed the movie, which may not be in Clint’s rarefied league, but is still pretty impressive. He hadn’t really wowed with a movie at that point since 1990’s Q&A, though. Many see his final picture as a belated return to form, but I regard it as a rather sordid, distasteful wake of a sign off. Find Me Guilty, had it been a little more polished, could have been that parting gem.

Popular posts from this blog

The Bible never said anything about amphetamines.

The Color of Money (1986) (SPOILERS) I tend to think it’s evident when Scorsese isn’t truly exercised by material. He can still invest every ounce of the technical acumen at his fingertips, and the results can dazzle on that level, but you don’t really feel the filmmaker in the film. Which, for one of his pictures to truly carry a wallop, you need to do. We’ve seen quite a few in such deficit in recent years, most often teaming with Leo. The Color of Money , however, is the first where it was out-and-out evident the subject matter wasn’t Marty’s bag. He needed it, desperately, to come off, but in the manner a tradesman who wants to keep getting jobs. This sequel to The Hustler doesn’t linger in the mind, however good it may be, moment by moment.

I said I had no family. I didn’t say I had an empty apartment.

The Apartment (1960) (SPOILERS) Billy Wilder’s romcom delivered the genre that rare Best Picture Oscar winner. Albeit, The Apartment amounts to a rather grim (now) PG-rated scenario, one rife with adultery, attempted suicide, prostitution of the soul and subjective thereof of the body. And yet, it’s also, finally, rather sweet, so salving the darker passages and evidencing the director’s expertly judged balancing act. Time Out ’s Tom Milne suggested the ending was a cop out (“ boy forgives girl and all’s well ”). But really, what other ending did the audience or central characters deserve?

Listen to the goddamn qualified scientists!

Don’t Look Up (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s testament to Don’t Look Up ’s “quality” that critics who would normally lap up this kind of liberal-causes messaging couldn’t find it within themselves to grant it a free pass. Adam McKay has attempted to refashion himself as a satirist since jettisoning former collaborator Will Ferrell, but as a Hollywood player and an inevitably socio-politically partisan one, he simply falls in line with the most obvious, fatuous propagandising.

Your desecration of reality will not go unpunished.

2021-22 Best-of, Worst-of and Everything Else Besides The movies might be the most visible example of attempts to cling onto cultural remnants as the previous societal template clatters down the drain. It takes something people really want – unlike a Bond movie where he kicks the can – to suggest the model of yesteryear, one where a billion-dollar grosser was like sneezing. You can argue Spider-Man: No Way Home is replete with agendas of one sort or another, and that’s undoubtedly the case (that’s Hollywood), but crowding out any such extraneous elements (and they often are) is simply a consummate crowd-pleaser that taps into tangible nostalgia through its multiverse take. Of course, nostalgia for a mere seven years ago, for something you didn’t like anyway, is a symptom of how fraught these times have become.

Doctors make the worst patients.

Coma (1978) (SPOILERS) Michael Crichton’s sophomore big-screen feature, and by some distance his best. Perhaps it’s simply that this a milieu known to him, or perhaps it’s that it’s very much aligned to the there-and-now and present, but Coma , despite the occasional lapse in this adaptation of colleague Robin Cook’s novel, is an effective, creepy, resonant thriller and then some. Crichton knows his subject, and it shows – the picture is confident and verisimilitudinous in a way none of his other directorial efforts are – and his low-key – some might say clinical – approach pays dividends. You might also call it prescient, but that would be to suggest its subject matter wasn’t immediately relevant then too.

You ruined every suck-my-silky-ass thing!

The Matrix Resurrections (2021) (SPOILERS) Warner Bros has been here before. Déjà vu? What happens when you let a filmmaker do whatever they want? And I don’t mean in the manner of Netflix. No, in the sequel sense. You get a Gremlins 2: The New Batch (a classic, obviously, but not one that financially furthered a franchise). And conversely, when you simply cash in on a brand, consequences be damned? Exorcist II: The Heretic speaks for itself. So in the case of The Matrix Resurrections – not far from as meta as The New Batch , but much less irreverent – when Thomas “Tom” Anderson, designer of globally successful gaming trilogy The Matrix , is told “ Our beloved company, Warner Bros, has decided to make a sequel to the trilogy ” and it’s going ahead “with or without us”, you can be fairly sure this is the gospel. That Lana, now going it alone, decided it was better to “make the best of it” than let her baby be sullied. Of course, quite what that amounts to in the case of a movie(s) tha

You just threw a donut in the hot zone!

Den of Thieves (2018) (SPOILERS) I'd heard this was a shameless  Heat  rip-off, and the presence of Gerard Butler seemed to confirm it would be passable-at-best B-heist hokum, so maybe it was just middling expectations, even having heard how enthused certain pockets of the Internet were, but  Den of Thieves  is a surprisingly very satisfying entry in the genre. I can't even fault it for attempting to Keyser Soze the whole shebang at the last moment – add a head in a box and you have three 1995 classics in one movie – even if that particular conceit doesn’t quite come together.

Abandon selective targeting. Shoot everything.

28 Weeks Later (2007) (SPOILERS) The first five minutes of 28 Weeks Later are far and away the best part of this sequel, offering in quick succession a devastating moral quandary and a waking nightmare, immortalised on the screen. After that, while significantly more polished, Juan Carlos Fresnadillo reveals his concept to be altogether inferior to Danny Boyle and Alex Garland’s, falling back on the crutches of gore, nihilism, and disengaging and limiting shifts of focus between characters in whom one has little investment in the first place.

It’s always possible to find a good moral reason for killing anybody.

The Assassination Bureau (1969) (SPOILERS) The Assassination Bureau ought to be a great movie. You can see its influence on those who either think it is a great movie, or want to produce something that fulfils its potential. Alan Moore and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen . The just-released (and just-flopped) The King’s Men . It inhabits a post-Avengers, self-consciously benign rehearsal of, and ambivalence towards, Empire manners and attitudes, something that could previously be seen that decade in Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines (and sequel Monte Carlo or Bust , also 1969), Adam Adamant Lives! , and even earlier with Kind Hearts and Coronets , whilst also feeding into that “Peacock Revolution” of Edwardian/Victorian fashion refurbishment. Unfortunately, though, it lacks the pop-stylistic savvy that made, say, The President’s Analyst so vivacious.

This guy’s armed with a hairdryer.

An Innocent Man (1989) (SPOILERS) Was it a chicken-and-egg thing with Tom Selleck and movies? Did he consistently end up in ropey pictures because other, bigger big-screen stars had first dibs on the good stuff? Or was it because he was a resolutely small-screen guy with limited range and zero good taste? Selleck had about half-a-dozen cinema outings during the 1980s, one of which, the very TV, very Touchstone Three Men and a Baby was a hit, but couldn’t be put wholly down to him. The final one was An Innocent Man , where he attempted to show some grit and mettle, as nice-guy Tom is framed and has to get tough to survive. Unfortunately, it’s another big-screen TV movie.