Night Falls on Manhattan

Night Falls on Manhattan

Night Falls on Manhattan

Night Falls on Manhattan

Here's yet another film with a too low IMDb average. Really 6.6. I'm so glad I came to view this film, a few years back. I just came to view it again, where I enjoyed it as much as last time. I love Sidney Lumet films. He makes good ones, rarely a bad one. I mean, he gave us Network, Equus, Family Business, and the lesser known, Guilty As Sin. This is just another one that holds up to the others, and another one on Lumet's notch of good films. This one has been constructed gingerly, attentively, as far as plot and story goes. One would even say judiciously, with great performances to boot, Dreyfuss, and Ron Leibman, a scene stealer, and terribly underused actor, most of his stuff t.v. related. Corruption runs high in a few cop beats, where Garcia's cop father (Holm, really good) is shot badly by a burst of machine gun fire, when a drug bust goes bad. Three beats were called in, where there should of only been one, which leads us to consider a few bad apples were involved. Even Garcia's father could be bad too like his partner and childhood mate, Joey (the late great Gandofini) a modest performance. Garcia, an ex cop, now a promising lawyer, is assigned to this criminal case, by Leibman who runs a law firm, to the disgust and anger of a slick lawyer adversary, Colm Feore (just another top form performance here), where the big black drug dealer, a nasty piece of work in a quite threatening performance, by Shiek Mahmud- Bey is caught, so it's really gonna get heated in that courtroom, where you don't want this black dude mad. Garcia's amusing remark, a moment I loved, sealed that deal. The turning point or second story, let's call it, takes off when a black book is recovered from one of the dead cops in that failed bust, a number of cops names including Holm's, all supposedly on the take are in there, and things get really juicy, plot wise, which sees Garcia back in the court room. This film has really been constructed thriller wise, as many characters, mostly the ones in question, aren't telling us everything. Dreyfuss's admittance about his teenage daughter to Garcia in those spa room scenes was something unexpected too. The film is very well written, all of it, it's treatment, etc, all shaped to perfection, solely by Lumet, the first scene in the lecture room, with budding lawyers, grabbing us straight away, with in your face frankness. The film has a very well researched feel, Garcia's performance though, not as good as the others. The character's choices and their situations, make sense, and we very well understand. If you're a cop and you go crooked, well the ball's in your caught, baby. Highly underrated and very much recommended cop/courtroom drama, Dreyfuss's performance as the black guy's defendant, the one you'll remember. He's brilliant.

Andy Garcia is a great actor, but casting a Cuban American as an Irish American (Sean Casey), is too much of a stretch. Ian Holm, a Brit, plays his father (Liam Casey), and no one would visualize the two as father and son. It is no coincidence that he was cast previously as a person of Mediterranean or Latin American heritage. Otherwise a fine film about New York police, divided loyalties, the illegal drug business, the corruption drug money makes possible, and the ethical consequences that involve everyone knowing of the crimes committed. "Night Falls on Manhattan" contains a good plot from the novel by Robert Daley and has a strong supporting cast with James Gandolfini, Richard Dreyfuss, Lena Olin, Dominic Chianese, Shiek Mahmud-Bey, and Paul Guilfoyle.

Only reason I decided to see this is that it's made by S.Lumet. Not something really original anymore, I guess, but quite interesting, it delivers the goods and managed to keep my interest till the end. I have decided to see all Lumet stuff I can. As every Lumet film I have seen, it touches interesting topics with a non-conventional way. Topics here are big drug-dealers & police corruption (again), law system, as well as others. But I have to say that his CRITICAL CARE (1997, same year) was FAR better , at least for my taste. NIGHT FALLS... suffered a bit from lack of climax near the end, but it was interesting and well made anyway.

Garcia is the only actor I know who has overactive hair in every one of his performances. In this film, the hair has a mind of its own. Olin is wasted, as is Dreyfuss. Only Gandolfini is successful in this familiar style of film from Sidney Lumet. We've seen this film before!

I, who know nothing, am sitting there watching these events unfold after having missed the first couple of minutes, including the credits. It begins with a horrific shoot out involving a black drug dealer and an absolute horde of confused NYPD cops milling around and shouting at each other. A couple of cops are dead, another wounded. The drug dealer disguises himself as a cop, coolly enters one of the squad cars and drives away. Later he surrenders himself under the legal guidance of Richard Dreyfuss. As soon as Dreyfuss and the black dealer show up, the cops go ape, bust the windows of the car, and beat the crap out of the dealer as they drag him away like a lynch mob gone wild. Newbie District Attorney, Andy Garcia, wins the case against the dealer, who is sentenced to life without parole. Garcia's father was the old cop wounded in the shoot out, and it's partly because of Garcia's status as victim that he wins the case and the office. He's an idealist, always a bad sign. And when he begins to look into the context in which the shoot out occurred -- the dealer trying to save himself from crooked cops out to kill him -- the trail is long and winding and eventually the cool arms of the law begin to enfold his own father. By this time, I'm thinking, "By Gad, this is Sidney Lumet territory!" Not just because of the subject -- police corruption and torn allegiances on the streets of New York -- but because of the detached style in which this dramatic material is handled. It was, of course, directed by Sidney Lumet, who has an indisputable feel for this sort of stuff. (Makes one wonder about his childhood.) I think, at times, he let's Garcia's quest for perfection get a little out of hand though. Garcia is best at projecting stifled intensity, what with his fevered eyes and unblinking stare, but Lumet may have him shouting when he should be glaring. But that doesn't happen often. Garcia is a likable and thoroughly competent actor and the role suits him. Well, as long as I'm carping, let me add that the name of Garcia's cop shouldn't have been Sean Casey. It should have been Juan Cansino. And men don't embrace or kiss cheeks in Irish families either. Both Ian Holm and James Gandolfini do quite well in their roles. The latter is an affable cop who cheerfully admits to perjury but, when faced with serious charges, blows himself away after sensibly getting skunked. Ian Holm is really surprising in his range. I mean, the guy is a Limey and still entirely believable as an aging New York cop. Some of the touches he brings to the role are so subtle as to go almost unnoticed. (Eg., when he learns by phone of the suicide of Gandolfini, who was his partner, his elbow slips off his knee an inch or so.) He was even convincing as a treacherous robot in "Alien." I don't know if this production is up there with "Serpico", "Prince of the City", or "Q & A". The script for that last flick is probably the weakest. But, in any case, trying to rank order movies is a hopeless task, each film being made up of its own unique dimensions -- casting, photography, score, performances, locations, and so forth. Still, Lumet's series on cops in New York is so much better than the typical kind of Manichean garbage on today's screens -- one impeccable hero against an army of venomous villains, not one of whom even has a stamp collection, just money, power, broads, and evil intent. In Lumet's work, the protagonist finds himself in all kinds of unanticipated morally gray areas. It challenges you. It asks, "What would YOU do under these circumstances?" I can understand why it might generate unease in some viewers.

Andy Garcia plays Sean Casey a lawyer turned District Attorney who is tasked with prosecuting the man that was responsible for shooting his father Liam Casey (Ian Holm) after Casey and his partner Joey Allegretto (James Gandolfini) attempt to arrest drug king pin Jordan Washington (Sheik Mahmud-Bey). However at Washington's trial he reveals some home truths about police corruption which makes this case not quite as open and shut as Casey anticipated. I think a major problem with a film like Night Falls on Manhattan is that it has such an explosive opening that it's almost inevitable that everything that follows is going to be an anti-climax. The start of the film where the police are chasing Washington was very entertaining - although his actual escape was rather questionable to me. Then we have the trial of Jordan Washington which again was compelling and helped to establish the plot. It perhaps also helped that Mahmud-Bey was great fun to watch during the trial. Despite how good this aspect of the film was this still brought about some problems.... We're told that Casey Jr will be prosecuting the man who shot his father even though he's never worked on a big case before. OK, in the 'real' world this would be a difficult enough task in itself, but Casey Jr is emotionally involved in this trial which would make prosecuting Washington much more difficult. I think it might have been more believable if Casey Jr were to show some emotion or get upset during the trial which would be a believable character trait given the circumstances. Despite the fact that this aspect of the film entertained me I struggled to find Casey Jr's character to be believable. The film really falls flat on its face after Washington's trial where we're left with about 55 minutes of divulging through all of the elements of police corruption, a ridiculous, bland and unconvincing romance. The police corruption aspect is interesting in itself, but Lumet seemed to offer very little commentary on the subject and with virtually nothing driving the film in the second half it does become quite dull and tedious. As far as performances go it's really down to Garcia to carry the film and in this respect he's only partly successful; when tough-talking is required he's great, but he shows very little vulnerability and wasn't great in scenes that require him to show emotion. Gandolfini and Holm were good in the screen time that they were given. Mahmud-Bey wasn't given much to do, but he was fun during the trial. Leibman was by the far the worst offender and his over-acting was unbearable for the most part. I don't want to pan this film too much as I appreciate and respect that Lumet was trying to explain that not everything in life is 'black and white' and that sometimes those that are meant to uphold and enforce the law can invariably be worse than those that are on trial, but sadly this only really hits home at the end. As far as I'm concerned everything from the end of the trial to the final 5 minutes were nothing more than boredom and tedium.

I really have no idea what motivates Sidney Lumet's choice of movies to do, even though I've read his book "Making Movies," which sheds a lot of light on his decision making process. If I had to take a guess, I might say that perhaps he wants a variety, and doesn't calculate the risk involved with certain works that have obviously turned out to be major flops. Or maybe he does know the risk and he just doesn't care. Now remember, though I'm sure even the "master" critics have jumped on and trashed some of his better work, if you place something like "Prince of the City" or "Equus" next to "The Wiz," "Running on Empty" and "Serpico" next to "Critical Care," wow! I mean you are just asking for trouble. Regardless, this guy is a filmmaker. As with anything, there are people who will dog this and say it was slow and Lapaglia was over the top or whatever the multitude of criticisms may be, "the lighting created an unwanted mood" (by whose standards), "the script had flaws" (oh did it? What were they?) and the list goes on. However without getting into every nook and cranny available, I will just say if you enjoy a good drama, you may enjoy this. For the decent side of Lumet's work, this is a pretty fair example and on every front, I think it works out okay. Do I have any criticisms? None worth more than "I liked it or didn't." I did in fact like it by the way. It might be considered standard fare or even dated a bit by some and as a result, not as powerful as it might be otherwise, but it is a good example of Sidney Lumet's better filmmaking and not a bad story to boot. Dig Colm Feore's role here. I like this guy and though he's probably found in the shadows more than in the spotlight, he is one vastly talented actor. I caught him last year in the lead for "My Fair Lady" at the Stratford Festival in Ontario, Canada and though he really probably is an acquired taste, he is a talent to be reckoned with for sure. It would be nice to see him garner larger roles since talent like this sure seems wasted on bit parts.