ILNews

Hammerle On … '3 Days to Kill' and 'Non-Stop'

Robert Hammerle
March 12, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

bob hammerle movie reviewsYears ago, Indianapolis’ late, great criminal defense lawyer Owen Mullin brought me on board to help him with trials as he aged. Spending a lot of time with him, he would frequently be approached by other lawyers and asked, “Ownie, when are you going to quit this business?” to which Mr. Mullin responded, “You don’t quit the practice of law, it quits you.”

Whether that rule actually has some merit to the practice of criminal law, it definitely does not apply to the cinema. Both Kevin Costner and Liam Neeson proved that with their recent films, “3 Days to Kill” and “Non-Stop.” Though both films have fundamentally ludicrous concepts, these guys are living proof that great acting can overcome flaws in any script.

While Costner may be 59 and Neeson is 61, both are mean as a snake. Costner’s CIA hitman may be dying from brain cancer, but his assassin abilities make him look like James Bond on Social Security.

Neeson is an alcoholic air marshal who is dancing on the edge of a psychotic breakdown. On the other hand, when on a transatlantic flight to London, he literally kicks the living crap out of many unfortunate innocent passengers as he tries to locate a terrorist threatening to blow everyone into kingdom come. You keep waiting for him to mumble, “Sorry, buddy, I hope your scars heal.”hammerle-actionfilms.jpg

“3 Days to Kill” was easier to take for me given that it involved moments of genuinely amusing interaction between Costner’s character and a family whom he walked away from years earlier. Hailee Steinfeld is truly wonderful as a teenage girl who will only address her missing father by his first name.

What makes the film fun is the gradual bridge built between father and daughter, frequently resulting in cell phone calls that interrupt dad during a brutal interrogation of a vicious suspect. Wait for the moment where Costner hands the phone to a petrified, Italian terrorist target, forcing him to converse with Steinfeld’s character to help her make some decent pasta. At all times Steinfeld reminds everyone of her brilliant performance in the remake of “True Grit” (2010).

Finally, you are not likely to forget the stunning performance by Amber Heard, here playing Costner’s extraordinarily hot CIA boss. The scene where she is straddling him in her 5-inch heels as he lays wounded on the pavement, wearing a tight, short dress with black seams running up the back of her nylons is as sexually unnerving as when Margot Robbie stuck her high heel into Leonardo DiCaprio’s forehead as they both were on the floor in “The Wolf of Wall Street.

Along that same line, Neeson embraces his role as a deranged air marshal with the same enthusiasm that he brought to “The Grey” (2011) and the regrettable “Taken” films (2008 and 2012). He is helped immensely by the talented Julianne Moore, here playing a passenger sitting next to him on the plane whose life is nearly as pathetic as his.

Costner kills because that is his job, and Neeson dismisses constitutional rights as if they are a regrettable aggravation. In the end, you end up liking Costner’s agent because he is trying to connect with a lost life, while you get the feeling that Neeson’s humorless character could only find future employment working for Russian President Putin in Crimea.

2014 Academy Awards

If you followed my Oscar predictions, I can only hope that you did not put good money on them. While I hit more than I missed, the failure of “American Hustle” to get one blasted award was profoundly disappointing.

On the other hand, unlike 2012, I couldn’t disagree with any of the winners. For a whole host of reasons, Best Picture winner “12 Years a Slave” was a powerful film. Its only real handicap dealt with the fact that it revealed a moment in American history that we would rather forget, and as a result it was a mesmerizing film that was anything but entertaining.

Lupita Nyong’o deserved her Supporting Actress Oscar, and her acceptance speech was fabulous. As for my pick of June Squibb from “Nebraska,” I once again followed my heart instead of my head. How could I not root for an 84-year-old woman?

Cate Blanchett and Jared Leto were easy picks in their categories, and their acceptance speeches were also brilliant. And though Matthew McConaughey won out over Chiwetel Ejiofor, his performance will justifiably be remembered for a very long time.hammerle-oscars.jpg

The one thing that I did accurately predict was that “Gravity” would dominate in the production areas. While I loved that film, I had the good fortune of seeing it at the IMAX in 3-D. Ironically, I just don’t know how well it can play at home no matter how large your TV screen may be.

Two final observations. It remains hard to understand how a film like “American Hustle” could be left out in the cold despite the fact that all of its actors were nominated as well as director David O. Russell. Good grief, I loudly applauded both “12 Years a Slave” and “Dallas Buyers Club.” However, the box office for “American Hustle” more than doubled the combined total of both of them, and Hollywood can’t simply ignore the opinion of those who treasure the movie experience.

Lastly, the Friday before the Oscars I received a cryptic email from my youngest sister in southern Indiana. Married with two children, she said the following: “Don’t tell my 14-year-old daughter, but I would have sex with Jared Leto any place at any time.” I sent her an email in response that read, “Don’t tell your 14-year-old daughter this either, but so would I!”

And before finding fault with me or my twisted sister, what if all you could remember of the Oscars was the completely smashed Liza Minnelli or the surgically scarred Kim Novak? Like it or not, sometimes an idiotic imagination is far superior to reality.•

__________

Robert Hammerle practices criminal law in Indianapolis. When he is not in the courtroom or working diligently in his Pennsylvania Street office, Bob can likely be found at one of his favorite movie theaters watching and preparing to review the latest films. To read more of his reviews, visit www.bigmouthbobs.com. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Applause, applause, applause ..... but, is this duty to serve the constitutional order not much more incumbent upon the State, whose only aim is to be pure and unadulterated justice, than defense counsel, who is also charged with gaining a result for a client? I agree both are responsible, but it seems to me that the government attorneys bear a burden much heavier than defense counsel .... "“I note, much as we did in Mechling v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, that the attorneys representing the State and the defendant are both officers of the court and have a responsibility to correct any obvious errors at the time they are committed."

  2. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  3. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  4. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  5. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

ADVERTISEMENT