The Pelican Brief

Julia Roberts is back, and everyone’s out to get her. That’s what you get when you make your return to the screen in The Pelican Brief, a paranoia thriller based on the novel by attorney-cum-author John Grisham. After all, if the movie’s villains are willing and able to kill two Supreme Court justices, then it’s a sure bet that they’ll have no qualms about bagging Hollywood’s most elusive star. But don’t worry, the mysterious assasins of The Pelican Brief seem to turn myopic when she’s around.

Their vision is fine, however, when it comes to the rest of the cast (including the aforementioned justices, whom the killers bump off in one night in enough time to catch the red-eye back to France). The President (Robert Culp) is worried. His chief of staff (Tony Goldwyn) is conniving. The FBI director (James B. Sikking) is vaguely incompetent, and nobody knows what the CIA is up to. In other words, standard politics.

No one can make sense out of the murders, except for a bright law student (guess who) in New Orleans. Roberts turns the double-hitter into a research project, and within a week she stumbles into a conspiracy so evil that even Oliver Stone didn’t know about it. Unfortunately, she gives the research paper to her professor/lover (Sam Shepard), who then hands it to a dubious FBI friend (John Heard). Before you can say Warren Commission, people around Roberts began having nasty little accidents.

Back inside the Beltway, Denzel Washington is also pursuing the case. He’s a hard-working, dedicated, serious investigative reporter whose main source of information is a White House butler. Which explain why he spends a lot of his time on TV talk shows.

Sooner or later, you know that Roberts and Washington are going to pool their resources. Likewise, you know that a John Dean-type is going to begin spilling his guts. If this all sounds familiar, it should. The Pelican Brief was written and directed by Alan J. Pakula, of All the President’s Men fame. The only thing missing is Richard Nixon.

The Pelican Brief is Pakula’s return to the kind of political thrillers he did so well in the ‘70s. It’s neither as intense, nor as exciting, as his earlier movies, but it does have its chilling moments. Unfortunately, as a whole, this movie is more half-baked than frenzied, and its plot is as clear as mud.

In case you’re interested, this is the fourth installment of what’s critically known as Pakula’s “Paranoia Trilogy.” Okay, so who’s counting?

Philadelphia

If you read nothing but the Village Voice, you'd think that Jonathan Demme was the only important filmmaker alive. That isn't, however, a universally shared opinion. Granted, the Academy game him virtually every award it could think of for Silence of the Lambs, but that doesn't mean he deserved them. Demme's tendencies toward social awareness are often more inter­esting than his cinematic execution.

But with his new film, Philadelphia, Demme pulls it off. In many ways, it's his finest film to date — and that has nothing to do with the hot-button story topic. Philadelphia is hardly the first movie to deal with the issues of homosexuality or AIDS. A gay lawyer may Be the most unique twist it brings to the screen, but, even there, L.A. Law beat Demme to the punch.

Tom Hanks plays an aggressive young attorney with a prestigious Philadelphia firm. He enjoys his new status. So much so, that he can barely keep from smirking when he upstages co-star Denzel Washington, a scrappy ambulance-chaser, in a zoning fight.

Hanks' career fast-track is blocked by several obstacles, however. He's a closeted gay who's working for a rigidly homophoic firm. He has AIDS. A lesion appears on his face the same day he's promoted. It isn't long before he's fired on a trumped-up charge of incompetence.

Hanks wants to sue, but no one's willing to touch the case. Not even Washington, who otherwise appears to be willing to do anything for a buck. In fact, Washington doesn't even want to be in the same room with Hanks — he despises gays and is frightened witless by AIDS. In a somewhat unlikely plot twist, these are the very factors than convince him that he's the ideal mouthpiece for Hanks' case.

Passing moments of implausibility are recurring minor flaws in Philadelphia. Another weakness is the film's extremely simplistic structure: there are good guys and bad guys, and no shades of gray in between. At one extreme, Washington quickly over­comes his deeply rooted prejudices as he fights the good fight. At the other extreme, the old men in Hanks' firm are totally immersed in unthinking bigotry (and don't mind saying so on the witness stand).

Luckily, Hanks and Washington are both able to act beyond the two-dimensional roles provided for them by the movie's script. It's with their performances that Philadelphia really kicks to life, as their legal odd couple zig zags a path through anger, pain and idealism. Washington is especially good as a sly shyster whose courtroom tac­tics combine street smarts with subtle but deadly jabs.

For once, Jonathan Demme lives up to his reputation. Philadelphia really is that good.