Much-Needed Chemistry Missing Between Stars In ‘City Hall’
It’s usually interesting to watch a young actor match his skills with an old hand, attempting to hold his own in an artistic exercise that virtually amounts to duelling egos.
A good case in point is “The Godfather,” Francis Ford Coppola’s 1972 masterpiece of mobster mythology. In that film, one of the most touching sequences is the garden scene in which Vito Corleone passes control of the family “business” to young Michael - who the old man fears may not be ready for such awesome responsibility.
With the superbly talented Marlon Brando controlling both the scene’s mood and tempo, Al Pacino’s Michael falls right in with the action - suitably respectful to the dying old man even as his mind must be whirling with all that needs to be done. Survival of the family is on the line, and yet Michael patiently hears his father out.
Coppola has set us up perfectly for the film’s climactic run of violence. And, as he demonstrates, Michael has learned his lesson well.
Now, compare that scene with pretty much anything featured in Harold Becker’s film “City Hall,” released this week on video (see capsule review below). This time, it is Pacino who is the veteran actor and 30-year-old John Cusack who is the young co-star.
The chemistry just isn’t the same, and the results are far less satisfying. For one thing, Pacino, for all his talent, is simply no Marlon Brando. Rather than disappear into his characters, as Brando was able to do with the aging mafioso, Pacino tends to shape characters to fit his standard persona - loud, brash, tough-talking types who cover up any vulnerability they have with mere volume.
For another, Cusack isn’t even Pacino. So good when playing such sensitive juvenile types as lovesick Lloyd Dobler in “Say Anything” and the budding playwright in Woody Allen’s “Bullets Over Broadway,” Cusack seems lost here as a Southern-bred political machinist who doesn’t see what’s going on in his own administration until far too late.
When the showdown scene does come, then, there is a distinct sense of letdown. Instead of brimming with context - as with Michael knowing about the bad guys coming and old Vito just seemingly plying platitudes - “City Hall” offers just what is there before us on the screen.
Which, as played by this acting pair, is both too much and not enough all at once.
City Hall
**-1/2
Al Pacino is a New York mayor with presidential aspirations, and John Cusack is the top aide who attempts to protect him from a series of threatening murders. Written by committee, the film tends to wander from sequence to sequence and, in doing so, loses grip on what it wants to be - a study of political corruption, a murder mystery, a profile of a flawed man? Pacino, thankfully, is a little more toned down than in other recent performances (“Scent of a Woman,” “Heat”), but Cusack is sadly miscast as a Louisiana boy takin’ on the big city with an accent that is about as authentic as veggie gumbo. There are a few profound moments, but they tend to get lost in the cinematic soup brewed up by director Harold Becker (“Vision Quest”). Rated R.
Homeward Bound II
**-1/2
Subtitled “Lost in San Francisco,” this sequel to the 1993 remake (of the 1963 original “The Incredible Journey”) again features Michael J. Fox and Sally Field, respectively, as the voices of a dog and cat owned by a Bay Area family (headed by Robert Hays). This time the duo, along with a collie (voice by Ralph Waite, taking over for the late Don Ameche), brave the streets of San Francisco on their way back home. It plays like a live-action version of “Lady and the Tramp,” but with barely half of that cartoon’s charm. Rated G.
Othello
**-1/2
Laurence Fishburne portrays the Moor of Venice, French actress Irene Jacob is his Desdemona and Kenneth Branagh is the conniving Iago who tears them apart. Trouble is that Branagh virtually owns the screen whenever he walks on. That, more than anything else, makes this adaptation of Shakespeare’s play both less, and more, than director Oliver Parker planned. It’s less complex, making the title character seem more than ever like a vain, gullible fool, and it’s more of an opportunity for Branagh - at the expense of the overall play - to show why he is one of the leading interpreters of Shakespeare at work today. Rated R.
, DataTimes ILLUSTRATION: Photo