ILNews

Hammerle On … '22 Jump Street,' 'The Grand Seduction'

Robert Hammerle
July 2, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

“22 Jump Street”

The only reason I bought a ticket for “22 Jump Street” was to find out why this movie was such a box office hit. And if I had followed my repeated instincts to walk out during the first three-quarters of the film, I still wouldn’t know. However, I was cursed with my commitment to see all films through to their ending.

And it’s fortunate that I did, as the last quarter of the film involves some very funny moments, and it completely saves the whole experience. Without it, there is little that is creative or enjoyable. Think of living in Indianapolis and supporting a cricket stadium while opposing a raise in the minimum wage.

As you know, Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill play two police officers – Schmidt and Jenko, respectively, who are now assigned to impersonate college students as they investigate a new drug appearing at a college campus. Our boys are as dull as they are sanctimonious, and their interaction is brutally insipid. The film treats them like two of the Marx brothers, and they would be better cast as the human recreation of the Tom & Jerry cartoon characters.

rating22jump.jpg

On top of that, Ice Cube once again plays a one-dimensional police captain in charge of our lads, and he is good at profanity and little else.

Schmidt becomes repeatedly jealous of Jenko’s acceptance by a local fraternity as well as a star position on the football team, and he pouts like a school girl jealous of her boyfriend’s other interests. Schmidt and Jenko look like petulant teenagers.

Mercifully, the ending literally pulled “22 Jump Street” out of cinematic quicksand. As our boys miraculously avoided being shot to death by armed gangsters, a hysterical sequence occurs when Schmidt physically confronts a villainous female student. Played by Jillian Bell, she produces a laugh with every line. For example, as she sought to club Schmidt senseless, she would suddenly stop and accuse him of trying to kiss her. When he viciously hits her in the face knocking her to the ground, jumping on her to choke her, she responds with the accusation that he was trying to have sex with her. Now that was funny.

Finally, without giving away an ending that you all can predict, you have to watch the outtakes with the closing credits. Directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller continually show future imagined sequels to Jump Street, picking out numbers from 23 to infinity. We see our boys working undercover at a veterinary school, a medical school, a dance school, and then as old men in a retirement home. You couldn’t help but leave the theater thinking that you had actually watched a good film. You knew you were wrong, but you didn’t really care.

“The Grand Seduction”

It is unfortunate that “The Grand Seduction” dealt with a premise that has played quite well in the past. Here we have a small fishing village located in St. John’s, Newfoundland, where nearly everyone is unemployed. Living on welfare and lost pride, they need to lure a doctor to their town in order to land an oil company toying with the idea of building a factory.

Similar themes worked well on TV from 1990-1995 with “Northern Exposure,” and resulted in a delightful little film starring Michael J. Fox in “Doc Hollywood” (1991). But the folks conning Fox’s Dr. Benjamin Stone did not consider selfishness to be a virtue.

ratinggrand.jpg

Sadly, the film also suffered from the fact that most members of the town were elderly gentlemen who spent their welfare checks downing whiskey in bars. Regretting their lost opportunities on the sea, they suddenly found the possibility of hope when a young medic by the name of Dr. Lewis was assigned to spend 30 days in their town.

It almost appeared that the town was completely devoid of children and young women. The only attractive woman of any note was Kathleen (Liane Balaban) who stayed sane for unknown reasons. Our conniving group of lugs wanted her to serve as bait for Dr. Lewis, but she proved to be the only resident with a sense of honor.

Where the movie also lost its footing was with the performance of Taylor Kitsch as Dr. Lewis. It seems that he was stopped at an airport for possession of cocaine when returning to the States following a vacation, and Tickle Cove was his punishment. On top of that, Dr. Lewis was devoid of any common sense.

What really hurts the most about criticizing this film was the fact that it starred the wonderful Brendan Gleeson as Murray French, the heavily bearded, whiskey-swilling leader of Tickle Cove’s residents. Having relished his fabulous performance as an Irish police officer in “The Guard” (2011), I couldn’t help but feel that he would emulate that role here. However, he was a con man, nothing more and nothing less. And it was terribly upsetting how he organized two local women to secretly record all of the doctor’s phone calls when he called home to converse with a distant fiancée.

More to the point, if you want to watch a similar film that will completely capture your heart, then go see one of the great films ever made, “Local Hero” (1983). Though the scenery in “The Grand Seduction” is appealing, the cinematography in “Local Hero” was magical.

It involves ubiquitous locals who love to have a good time, a beautiful beach combing woman with webbed feet and a fantastic married couple running the local hotel who can’t resist having sex.

See “The Guard” and “Local Hero” and leave “The Grand Seduction” on the shelf.•

__________

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT