Movie Jail: This week's defendant is...Al Pacino!
Welcome to Movie Jail, a facility like any other, only its inmates are Hollywood writers, directors, actors and producers. This column will serve as a Movie Jail trial. We will put one defendant on trial; lay out arguments for the Prosecution and Defense. And we leave it up to YOU, the reader, to decide whether the defendant is guilty of his or her crime. What crime? The crime of consistently being a stinking shithouse.
The Prosecution: 88 Minutes, The Son of No One, Jack and Jill, Righteous Kill, Gigli, People I Know, S1mone*
Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, back when we put the legendary Robert De Niro on trial, it was brought up more than once in the comments section that De Niro's mighty peer, Al Pacino, be brought up on trial. After many months recovering from putting one of our heroes on trial (De Niro was found NOT GUILTY), we're ready to tackle the evidence of Mr. Pacino's case. It's safe to say, that Mr. Pacino's choice in films over the last ten years or so have been less than stellar. It looks like the trouble started at the turn of the century, with 2002's awfully bad (not even good) S1mone. But the famed actor planted his feet firmly in shit in 2007 when he started taking less movie roles. That year brought the forgettable 88 Minutes and the so so Oceans 13, a movie we didn't put on the prosecution list simply because it has a Fresh Rating for both critics and audiences on Rotten Tomatoes. 2008's only contribution was Righteous Kill, a movie with quite possibly the worst dialogue ever written for two of the greatest living actors. But the nation collectively groaned at 2011's Jack and Jill trailer which starred Movie Jail inmate Adam Sandler and.....Adam Sandler! Yuck. How'd Mr. Pacino get roped into this? More than one person has suggested that Mr. Pacino be thrown into Movie Jail for this infraction alone, and while that's a bit harsh, he hasn't given audiences what he usually does for some time now. But we think it's justified.
The Defense: 95% of the movies prior to 2000*
Ladies and Gentleman of the jury, here we go again. The defense still finds it silly that we're being called to defend legendary actors like Mr. Pacino, who's created some of the most memorable characters, in some of the most memorable movies of all time. Like Mr. De Niro, we feel that the case against Mr. Pacino, with all its trumped up charges, simply does not outweigh the amount of good movies the man has given us over the last 40 years. 40 fucking years! Does the jury mean to tell the court that 10 of the 40 years is enough to convict Mr. Pacino? We can't defend his latest movie choices (though Stand Up Guys was decent), but let's give the guy a break over here. We're talking about Michael Corleone here. Tony Montana....Sonny Wortzik....Arthur Kirkland....Motherfucking Serpico yo!
So, whatís to be done with Al Pacino? Can this legendary actor really be thrown into Movie Jail? Is he allowed to have a few bad years because of all the classic films he's been involved in? And the most important question to be asked, once all evidence is taken into consideration, we ask you The Jury, is Al Pacino GUILTY or NOT GUILTY? Letís hear YOUR arguments, either side, by STRIKING BACK BELOW.
*The court recognizes that all movies are subjective, so relax.
WHAT SAY YOU, GUILTY OR NOT?
LAST WEEK'S VERDICT
It is the jury's decision that after reviewing last week's evidence, the court finds Katherine Heigl GUILTY of all charges. Not only was she found SO guilty, it was suggested that Ms. Heigl be hanged in the town center, sentenced to have constant sex with Brett Ratner, or simply, do all of the facility's laundry. We'll settle for topless window washing.
|Extra Tidbit:||Who Should Take the Stand Next? Strike Back Below!|