The heist/caper genre is usually a reliable one. I’m always entertained by the new methods Hollywood comes up with to tell the familiar tale of a band of misfits with their eyes on a seemingly unattainable prize. Whether it’s the clever approach of the robbery in Inside Man, the intricacies of the Ocean’s Eleven plot, or the innovative swipe in The Thomas Crown Affair, I love watching the so-called “bad” guys pull it off. If you’ve seen one caper, have you seen them all? I don’t think so.
The Bank Job’s title is straight to the point. Quite simply, a small band of crooks is planning to rob a bank vault. Leading the crew is Terry (Jason Statham, Crank), a small-time body shop owner desperate to get out of debt. The robbery idea was hatched by Martine Love, an old acquaintance who resurfaces with the plan. Terry rounds up a few more people, and the gang is in place. Problems arise when it appears that Martine’s motives for the job aren’t just to get rich. It seems she’s after the contents of one particular safe deposit box, and may have jeopardized the crew and pissed off the wrong London thugs in the process. What made this movie so fun was that the crew was getting it from all angles: dodging crooked cops, the British government, and the local hoods. Pretty cool, and it’s all based on a true story, which lends a certain air of realness to all the unbelievable predicaments in which they find themselves. Set in 1971, the movie touches on the Black power movement abroad, and Black militancy, as one of the vault’s boxes contains incriminating photos taken by a Black militant who is using them as leverage against the British government. Sounds farfetched, but apparently it’s true!
I like Jason Statham because he’s one of those ruggedly handsome actors that appeals to men and women equally. He’s attractive but not soft. This is probably the most acting I’ve seen him do, as he’s usually kicking ass all over the place. He didn’t resort to fisticuffs until the movie’s final act, but I knew it was coming eventually. The Bank Job is one of those fast-paced mile-a-minute movies that assaults your senses and keeps you fixated the entire time. I mean, it starts with a threesome for crying out loud. I’m like okaaaaaay, I’m here with my mom. LOL. Anyway, I really dug it, it reminded me of Snatch or Lock, Stock and Two Smokin’ Barrels. You won’t be disappointed if you’re a fan of the genre. Even if you’re not, who doesn’t like a good caper flick?
Saturday, March 08, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
Vantage Point
This movie was pretty funny. What’s that you say, it wasn’t a comedy? Oh shit. Could’ve fooled me. I, along with the rest of the audience, got in a few good snickers. Call Vantage Point another squandering of immense talent. While certainly not terrible, I can’t say it was very good.
The movie examines the chaotic aftermath of an assassination attempt on the president that takes place in Spain, as the US and Spain prepare to enter into some sort of vague (trade?) agreement. As the title suggests, we see the event from multiple vantage points. We see it in “real time” initially, then the events “rewind” to several minutes before the attempt, and we see a new perspective. I don’t mind this technique, but I understand how it can be exasperating. After about the FOURTH time, the theater was laughing and groaning audibly. I don’t think that was the intended reaction. Marketed as a political action thriller with suspenseful twists and turns, Vantage Point failed to live up to its hype and instead played like a hodgepodge of stories, none of which was particularly intriguing - at least not to me. You’d think someone could make a better use of Forest Whitaker (The Last King of Scotland), Sigourney Weaver (The Village), and William Hurt (A History of Violence). These three are Oscar winners/nominees, and I think their combined presence elevates a movie, but they weren’t really used properly. For example, Forest Whitaker is superb, but his performance just seemed overdone – like it was too big for this silly little movie, if that makes any sense. It’s like I’m criticizing him for being too good, which is weird, I know. Sigourney Weaver had a throwaway role, which didn’t require much. She was onscreen for about 10-15 minutes, and that was it. William Hurt as the president did nothing more than act as a helpless victim, waiting for Dennis Quaid to save him. They had one really corny exchange at the end, where I thought they were actually going to kiss!
The theater I went to was packed, and I’m sure people expected a little more. Don’t get me wrong, Vantage Point wasn’t a total waste, but I had high expectations. I thought the plot devices were overdone, and the interlocking storylines felt superficial and contrived. It is what it is: a forgettable contribution to the political thriller genre.
The movie examines the chaotic aftermath of an assassination attempt on the president that takes place in Spain, as the US and Spain prepare to enter into some sort of vague (trade?) agreement. As the title suggests, we see the event from multiple vantage points. We see it in “real time” initially, then the events “rewind” to several minutes before the attempt, and we see a new perspective. I don’t mind this technique, but I understand how it can be exasperating. After about the FOURTH time, the theater was laughing and groaning audibly. I don’t think that was the intended reaction. Marketed as a political action thriller with suspenseful twists and turns, Vantage Point failed to live up to its hype and instead played like a hodgepodge of stories, none of which was particularly intriguing - at least not to me. You’d think someone could make a better use of Forest Whitaker (The Last King of Scotland), Sigourney Weaver (The Village), and William Hurt (A History of Violence). These three are Oscar winners/nominees, and I think their combined presence elevates a movie, but they weren’t really used properly. For example, Forest Whitaker is superb, but his performance just seemed overdone – like it was too big for this silly little movie, if that makes any sense. It’s like I’m criticizing him for being too good, which is weird, I know. Sigourney Weaver had a throwaway role, which didn’t require much. She was onscreen for about 10-15 minutes, and that was it. William Hurt as the president did nothing more than act as a helpless victim, waiting for Dennis Quaid to save him. They had one really corny exchange at the end, where I thought they were actually going to kiss!
The theater I went to was packed, and I’m sure people expected a little more. Don’t get me wrong, Vantage Point wasn’t a total waste, but I had high expectations. I thought the plot devices were overdone, and the interlocking storylines felt superficial and contrived. It is what it is: a forgettable contribution to the political thriller genre.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Jumper
Jumper is one of those movies that appear to be all fluff and no substance. I’m not sure how much substance one could be looking for, but it seemed like it would be gimmicky. I’ll credit the studio with promoting the hell out of this movie, and their marketing efforts have apparently paid off, as the movie is currently #1 at the box office. Having said all that, I’ll admit that Jumper wasn’t the suckfest I expected it to be. Not exactly high praise, but I wasn’t disappointed.
Directed by Doug Liman (The Bourne Identity, Mr. & Mrs. Smith), Jumper stars Hayden Christensen (Revenge of the Sith) as David Rice, a young man with a very special gift. He can teleport anywhere in the world just by willing himself there. He accidentally discovers his ability at the age of 15. He experienced a tragic, intense event that presumably got his adrenaline pumping, and the next thing you know he teleports from his high school grounds to the town library. Abandoned by his mother (Diane Lane in a bit part) at age 5 and enduring a strained relationship with his father, David takes off for NYC after discovering his newfound talent. He does what many people would do with such a gift, making the absolute most of it. He robs banks, since he can just magically appear within their vaults. He travels the world, and that’s perhaps the coolest part. He eats lunch atop the Sphinx in Egypt, chills out on Big Ben in London…you name it, he can do it. It was fascinating to watch him living a life without limits, where every whim is possible. There is also an emptiness to David’s life though, as he cannot share his secret with anyone and doesn’t have any friends. His is a solitary existence, filled with material possessions but nothing of any substance, no real relationships. That changes when he returns to his hometown of Ann Arbor and re-connects with his high school crush Millie, played by Rachel Bilson (The OC). Of course all good things must come to an end, and David’s charmed existence is bound to be noticed eventually, or else this wouldn’t be the movies. Enter Samuel L. Jackson as Roland (Black Snake Moan) a sort of jumper hunter, if you will. Roland thinks that only God should be able to do what David can. Fair enough. Roland doesn’t seem very religious though. Quite mean actually. Anyway, of course I have my complaints. Jumper ventures into the realm of the ridiculous when too many people find out that David can teleport. It’s supposed to be a secret, right? Also, doesn’t anyone wonder why he just disappears at times?? Come on now.
Jumper is fine enough for a matinee…but I wouldn’t make it a date night activity. Entertaining due to its concept but loaded with implausibilities, Jumper is good but not great.
Directed by Doug Liman (The Bourne Identity, Mr. & Mrs. Smith), Jumper stars Hayden Christensen (Revenge of the Sith) as David Rice, a young man with a very special gift. He can teleport anywhere in the world just by willing himself there. He accidentally discovers his ability at the age of 15. He experienced a tragic, intense event that presumably got his adrenaline pumping, and the next thing you know he teleports from his high school grounds to the town library. Abandoned by his mother (Diane Lane in a bit part) at age 5 and enduring a strained relationship with his father, David takes off for NYC after discovering his newfound talent. He does what many people would do with such a gift, making the absolute most of it. He robs banks, since he can just magically appear within their vaults. He travels the world, and that’s perhaps the coolest part. He eats lunch atop the Sphinx in Egypt, chills out on Big Ben in London…you name it, he can do it. It was fascinating to watch him living a life without limits, where every whim is possible. There is also an emptiness to David’s life though, as he cannot share his secret with anyone and doesn’t have any friends. His is a solitary existence, filled with material possessions but nothing of any substance, no real relationships. That changes when he returns to his hometown of Ann Arbor and re-connects with his high school crush Millie, played by Rachel Bilson (The OC). Of course all good things must come to an end, and David’s charmed existence is bound to be noticed eventually, or else this wouldn’t be the movies. Enter Samuel L. Jackson as Roland (Black Snake Moan) a sort of jumper hunter, if you will. Roland thinks that only God should be able to do what David can. Fair enough. Roland doesn’t seem very religious though. Quite mean actually. Anyway, of course I have my complaints. Jumper ventures into the realm of the ridiculous when too many people find out that David can teleport. It’s supposed to be a secret, right? Also, doesn’t anyone wonder why he just disappears at times?? Come on now.
Jumper is fine enough for a matinee…but I wouldn’t make it a date night activity. Entertaining due to its concept but loaded with implausibilities, Jumper is good but not great.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Juno
I want to make an effort to see the Oscar contenders, at least the ones I think I can stomach – you know, the ones that aren’t too pretentious. That led me to Juno, the tale of a small-town teenage girl dealing with an unexpected pregnancy. I knew this wasn’t the typical teen pregnancy story, because the screenwriter used humor to tell the story rather than the more obvious serious approach. Juno is a cautionary tale, but it is more sweet than bitter.
Directed by Jason Reitman (Thank You For Smoking), Juno plays out like real life. There is nothing glamorous about the title character (portrayed by newcomer Ellen Page), though she’s a cute kid. There’s nothing sexy about the manner in which she got pregnant, and there’s nothing cool about the pregnancy. Quite simply, it sucks. Juno has to deal with all the unfortunate byproducts of teen pregnancy, from disapproving stares to judgmental comments. Fortunately she has the support of her parents, best friend, and her pseudo-boyfriend and father of her unborn child. That role is played by Michael Cera (Superbad). I have to say that the casting is perfect, because the young couple really is quite sweet, and we can see that they are just babies themselves. Jennifer Garner (The Kingdom) and Jason Bateman (Smokin’ Aces) also gives strong performances as a young couple who are tied to Juno in a manner in which I won’t reveal, so as not to spoil it for you. I was particularly impressed with Garner, and I think she’s showing she’s the real deal and has successfully made the transition from small to big screen. Ellen Page made Juno a loveable girl you couldn’t help rooting for, and she conveyed the naiveté, frustration, and ultimate triumph of the character wonderfully. She was also funny as hell. This kid is up for an Oscar for the performance. She probably won’t win, but no one can say she doesn’t deserve it.
Juno is one of those small, sweet, endearing indie films that critics love. I think the most fitting term is “sleeper.” I can go with that, seeing as how the movie seems like a charming underdog. It’s nominated for 4 Oscars, and by the looks of it the budget was pretty small. It’s also a first-time effort for screenwriter Diablo Cody. Cody managed to craft a film that never came across as preachy or like a drag, but at the same time is not going to make teen girls want to run out and have a baby. I think it’s pretty hard to warn someone without lecturing them, and to accept something without condoning it. Cody managed to do this with teen pregnancy, a touchy subject given some of today’s headlines. Not bad for a first try, huh? Good luck to everyone associated with this movie, it was a joy to watch.
Directed by Jason Reitman (Thank You For Smoking), Juno plays out like real life. There is nothing glamorous about the title character (portrayed by newcomer Ellen Page), though she’s a cute kid. There’s nothing sexy about the manner in which she got pregnant, and there’s nothing cool about the pregnancy. Quite simply, it sucks. Juno has to deal with all the unfortunate byproducts of teen pregnancy, from disapproving stares to judgmental comments. Fortunately she has the support of her parents, best friend, and her pseudo-boyfriend and father of her unborn child. That role is played by Michael Cera (Superbad). I have to say that the casting is perfect, because the young couple really is quite sweet, and we can see that they are just babies themselves. Jennifer Garner (The Kingdom) and Jason Bateman (Smokin’ Aces) also gives strong performances as a young couple who are tied to Juno in a manner in which I won’t reveal, so as not to spoil it for you. I was particularly impressed with Garner, and I think she’s showing she’s the real deal and has successfully made the transition from small to big screen. Ellen Page made Juno a loveable girl you couldn’t help rooting for, and she conveyed the naiveté, frustration, and ultimate triumph of the character wonderfully. She was also funny as hell. This kid is up for an Oscar for the performance. She probably won’t win, but no one can say she doesn’t deserve it.
Juno is one of those small, sweet, endearing indie films that critics love. I think the most fitting term is “sleeper.” I can go with that, seeing as how the movie seems like a charming underdog. It’s nominated for 4 Oscars, and by the looks of it the budget was pretty small. It’s also a first-time effort for screenwriter Diablo Cody. Cody managed to craft a film that never came across as preachy or like a drag, but at the same time is not going to make teen girls want to run out and have a baby. I think it’s pretty hard to warn someone without lecturing them, and to accept something without condoning it. Cody managed to do this with teen pregnancy, a touchy subject given some of today’s headlines. Not bad for a first try, huh? Good luck to everyone associated with this movie, it was a joy to watch.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
There Will Be Blood
There Will Be Blood has been touted as the best film of 2007. Respectfully, I must disagree. That distinction should be awarded to No Country for Old Men. Since critics were saying There Will Be Blood is a movie that viewers will remember for a lifetime, I had to see for myself. That's high praise. My opinion: although not the best of '07 and certainly not a movie that remained with me afterwards, There Will Be Blood was a powerfully engrossing and flawlessly acted film.
Directed by Paul Anderson (Magnolia), Blood captures an early 20th century America that was still new and uncharted, in many respects. The opening sequence is a fascinating depiction of the painstakingly dangerous task of oil mining. We watch as a miner chips away at an underground wall of gravel, deep below the ground's surface. He plants dynamite and carefully climbs back up to the surface. Minutes later, there is an explosion. This process is repeated until the miner strikes oil. This may sound mundane, but it is an important scene because it sets the tone for the film and lets you know that men were willing to risk life and limb for "liquid gold." The oil business is a serious one (still today), and to the victor goes the spoils.
Enter Daniel Day Lewis (Gangs of New York) as Daniel Plainview, an enterprising oil man from humble beginnings. Plainview began as a digger, but the fruits of his labor soon afford him the luxury of power, and he is able to pay others to mine underground while he manages the operation. During a time in which many Americans carved out meager existences, Plainview's entrepreneurial zeal is palpable. As a viewer, I had to admire his seemingly honest, forthright nature. His simple, straightforward approach to business dealings reflected the appropriateness of his surname. However, the glimpses of his ambitious approach to oil mining belie a more nefarious nature that would be revealed later. An important focus of the movie involves the relationship between Plainview and his young son, R.W. Their relationship appears affectionate, with Plainview almost treating his son as his contemporary at some points. There is an uneasy atmosphere to the film, a sense of lingering foreboding that is hinted at in almost every scene. Hey, look at the title. Something's got to give eventually. The scene that reveals Plainview's essence is a quiet conversation he has with another character saying, (paraphrase) "I don't like to see other people succeed...I hate most people..." We see Plainview transform from an ostensibly loving father and businessman into a pathetic, hateful shell of a human being. Perhaps it is more of a duality than a transformation, as the same man capable of such paternal affection also proves to be guilty of cruel abandonment. Maybe it was the early 20th century American landscape that birthed this type of man, the sort of rogue individualist who views people with either apathy or contempt, never seeing them beyond the tangible purpose they may serve.
There Will Be Blood is a complex film that is difficult to describe but easy to appreciate. Lewis infuses Plainview with a carnivorous intensity, giving a performance that is so layered and nuanced that I'd be surprised if he didn't win an Oscar for this role. He is the most powerful, dominant figure in every scene, even when he doesn't utter a word. I think There Will Be Blood is a rewarding moviegoing experience, if you manage your expectations and go with an eye toward appreciating the performances rather than having a life changing experience.
Directed by Paul Anderson (Magnolia), Blood captures an early 20th century America that was still new and uncharted, in many respects. The opening sequence is a fascinating depiction of the painstakingly dangerous task of oil mining. We watch as a miner chips away at an underground wall of gravel, deep below the ground's surface. He plants dynamite and carefully climbs back up to the surface. Minutes later, there is an explosion. This process is repeated until the miner strikes oil. This may sound mundane, but it is an important scene because it sets the tone for the film and lets you know that men were willing to risk life and limb for "liquid gold." The oil business is a serious one (still today), and to the victor goes the spoils.
Enter Daniel Day Lewis (Gangs of New York) as Daniel Plainview, an enterprising oil man from humble beginnings. Plainview began as a digger, but the fruits of his labor soon afford him the luxury of power, and he is able to pay others to mine underground while he manages the operation. During a time in which many Americans carved out meager existences, Plainview's entrepreneurial zeal is palpable. As a viewer, I had to admire his seemingly honest, forthright nature. His simple, straightforward approach to business dealings reflected the appropriateness of his surname. However, the glimpses of his ambitious approach to oil mining belie a more nefarious nature that would be revealed later. An important focus of the movie involves the relationship between Plainview and his young son, R.W. Their relationship appears affectionate, with Plainview almost treating his son as his contemporary at some points. There is an uneasy atmosphere to the film, a sense of lingering foreboding that is hinted at in almost every scene. Hey, look at the title. Something's got to give eventually. The scene that reveals Plainview's essence is a quiet conversation he has with another character saying, (paraphrase) "I don't like to see other people succeed...I hate most people..." We see Plainview transform from an ostensibly loving father and businessman into a pathetic, hateful shell of a human being. Perhaps it is more of a duality than a transformation, as the same man capable of such paternal affection also proves to be guilty of cruel abandonment. Maybe it was the early 20th century American landscape that birthed this type of man, the sort of rogue individualist who views people with either apathy or contempt, never seeing them beyond the tangible purpose they may serve.
There Will Be Blood is a complex film that is difficult to describe but easy to appreciate. Lewis infuses Plainview with a carnivorous intensity, giving a performance that is so layered and nuanced that I'd be surprised if he didn't win an Oscar for this role. He is the most powerful, dominant figure in every scene, even when he doesn't utter a word. I think There Will Be Blood is a rewarding moviegoing experience, if you manage your expectations and go with an eye toward appreciating the performances rather than having a life changing experience.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Cloverfield
In the words of Public Enemy, "Don't Believe the Hype." The trailer for Cloverfield will undoubtedly pique your interest as you watch New Yorkers flee some unseen Godzillaesque thing. Curiosity is sometimes enough to get you to the theater, I can dig it. A lot of people were suckered, because I see that Cloverfield is #1 at the box office, but if you listen to me, I can save you a trip and a few dollars as well.
Producer JJ Abrams (Mission: Impossible III) brings us the "real" account of an attack on NYC shown from the perspective of a group of friends. The prinicpal character is Rob, and it is at his going away party where the real action begins. The party is videotaped by Rob's friend Hud, who wants to get an account of everyone's well-wishes. There is a little drama as Rob's ex-girlfriend Beth shows up accompanied by her new boyfriend. This is interesting because the movie begins with Rob filming Beth one month prior to the party, and they appear to be very much in love. Anyway, everyone is at the party having a good enough time until a thunderous boom brings the festivities to a jarring halt. Everyone goes to the roof, where in the distance they can see explosions and objects being hurled against buildings. In the streets, the scene is eerily reminiscent of 9/11, as pedestrians flee from huge plumes of smoke and ash, their faces masks of fear and bewilderment. Rob, his brother Jason and girlfriend Lilly, Hud, and a girl named Marlena all set out for the Brooklyn bridge. Rob wants to find Beth, who left the party eariler. Mind you, Manhattan is in a state of utter pandemonium. I do find the depiction of unbridled chaos to be strangely fascinating, but the movie quickly wears thin as it deteriorates into exactly what it is: a regular old, DUMB ASS horror movie, complete with stupid decisions made by the main characters. Hud does break up the tense atmosphere with funny commentary, but is isn't enough to salvage the movie.
Cloverfield comes in a slick package, but in the end you will be disappointed as the unique premise does not remain plausible. For example, why the hell is Hud still filming everything, is this believable? I don't know, I guess you can never underestimate the human capacity for stupidity, but still. Catch it on Netflix.
Producer JJ Abrams (Mission: Impossible III) brings us the "real" account of an attack on NYC shown from the perspective of a group of friends. The prinicpal character is Rob, and it is at his going away party where the real action begins. The party is videotaped by Rob's friend Hud, who wants to get an account of everyone's well-wishes. There is a little drama as Rob's ex-girlfriend Beth shows up accompanied by her new boyfriend. This is interesting because the movie begins with Rob filming Beth one month prior to the party, and they appear to be very much in love. Anyway, everyone is at the party having a good enough time until a thunderous boom brings the festivities to a jarring halt. Everyone goes to the roof, where in the distance they can see explosions and objects being hurled against buildings. In the streets, the scene is eerily reminiscent of 9/11, as pedestrians flee from huge plumes of smoke and ash, their faces masks of fear and bewilderment. Rob, his brother Jason and girlfriend Lilly, Hud, and a girl named Marlena all set out for the Brooklyn bridge. Rob wants to find Beth, who left the party eariler. Mind you, Manhattan is in a state of utter pandemonium. I do find the depiction of unbridled chaos to be strangely fascinating, but the movie quickly wears thin as it deteriorates into exactly what it is: a regular old, DUMB ASS horror movie, complete with stupid decisions made by the main characters. Hud does break up the tense atmosphere with funny commentary, but is isn't enough to salvage the movie.
Cloverfield comes in a slick package, but in the end you will be disappointed as the unique premise does not remain plausible. For example, why the hell is Hud still filming everything, is this believable? I don't know, I guess you can never underestimate the human capacity for stupidity, but still. Catch it on Netflix.
Sunday, January 13, 2008
The Great Debaters
I’m going to make more of an effort to broaden my horizons and step outside of my comfort zone with my movie choices. For example, “feel good” movies are NOT my thing. They’re fine, but I prefer darker movies. I don’t really go to the movies to be inspired. Maybe that makes me a screwed up person, I don’t know. I was reluctant to see The Great Debaters, Denzel Washington’s second directorial effort, because I knew it was one of those tear-jerk happy ending numbers. After watching it I feel embarrassed for having been so hesitant. It was inspiring, but there’s certainly nothing wrong with that.
As you probably know, the movie is a fictional account of the true story of the debate team of Wiley College, a tiny Black school in Texas. Set in 1935, the film shows the courage, intelligence, and tenacity of the young debaters and their instructor, portrayed by Washington. It culminates in the team’s historic victory over Harvard. I haven’t given anything away, and if you have a TV you already knew everything I’ve relayed thus far. Comprised primarily of newcomers, the cast was very impressive, and there are some faces to watch for in the future. Denzel Whitaker and Nate Parker star as James Farmer and Henry Lowe, respectively. Farmer is the youngest member of the team, a sweet, smart young man whose affection for teammate Samantha Brooke (Jurnee Smollett of Roll Bounce and Eve’s Bayou) is both comical and endearing. Henry Lowe is the most confident, headstrong member of the team, and he and Washington’s character briefly clash as Henry learns just who is in charge. Jurnee Smollett continues to show that she is no flash in the pan, and gives a weighty performance. As a matter of fact, with the inclusion of Forest Whitaker (The Last King of Scotland) and Kimberly Elise (John Q), this cast was truly amazing. It’s nice to see a movie based on true events that inspires hope and leaves room for the possibility of wonderful things in life. The Great Debaters accomplished this without sugarcoating the racial atrocities that took place during the time period. It is this authenticity that makes the movie more than a cutesy, “feel good” flick, and for that reason I recommend it without reservation.
As you probably know, the movie is a fictional account of the true story of the debate team of Wiley College, a tiny Black school in Texas. Set in 1935, the film shows the courage, intelligence, and tenacity of the young debaters and their instructor, portrayed by Washington. It culminates in the team’s historic victory over Harvard. I haven’t given anything away, and if you have a TV you already knew everything I’ve relayed thus far. Comprised primarily of newcomers, the cast was very impressive, and there are some faces to watch for in the future. Denzel Whitaker and Nate Parker star as James Farmer and Henry Lowe, respectively. Farmer is the youngest member of the team, a sweet, smart young man whose affection for teammate Samantha Brooke (Jurnee Smollett of Roll Bounce and Eve’s Bayou) is both comical and endearing. Henry Lowe is the most confident, headstrong member of the team, and he and Washington’s character briefly clash as Henry learns just who is in charge. Jurnee Smollett continues to show that she is no flash in the pan, and gives a weighty performance. As a matter of fact, with the inclusion of Forest Whitaker (The Last King of Scotland) and Kimberly Elise (John Q), this cast was truly amazing. It’s nice to see a movie based on true events that inspires hope and leaves room for the possibility of wonderful things in life. The Great Debaters accomplished this without sugarcoating the racial atrocities that took place during the time period. It is this authenticity that makes the movie more than a cutesy, “feel good” flick, and for that reason I recommend it without reservation.
Charlie Wilson's War
Although Tom Hanks (The DaVinci Code), Philip Seymour Hoffman (Capote) and Julia Roberts (Ocean’s Twelve) are accomplished actors, their presence in Charlie Wilson’s War wasn’t enough to erase my skepticism about the movie. Oh sure, with these three I knew it couldn’t be bad, but I wasn’t exactly sold on the subject matter. Seemed like there’d be ample opportunity for a case of heavy eyelids. I like being wrong sometimes. To state it simply, this movie was great. I have no shame in admitting that political movies sometimes leave me stupefied, but I was able to keep up with this one, LOL.
Directed by the acclaimed Mike Nichols (The Graduate, Closer) the film is set in 1980. In 1980 I was a year old, so there was no personal recollection of any events for me. A brief plot synopsis: Hanks is the title character, a congressman from TX who secretly becomes involved in helping the people of Afghanistan fight the Soviets after they invade their country. Julia Roberts plays Texas gal Joanne Herring, a salty southern belle and old friend of Charlie’s who wants him to take a stand. Up until this point Charlie’s main activities consist of cavorting with women and doing small favors for other congressmen. He’s a lovable hound, but now he has a chance to do something meaningful. And he does. Along with Gust Avrakatos (played by Hoffman), Charlie begins to outfit the Afghans with the weaponry they need to defend themselves. I feel like my description hasn’t done much to convince you to run out and catch this movie, but it was damn good. Funny, entertaining, and uniquely heartwarming. There was never a dull moment, actually. It is definitely worth checking out, and probably the best movie for Hanks and Roberts in quite a while.
Directed by the acclaimed Mike Nichols (The Graduate, Closer) the film is set in 1980. In 1980 I was a year old, so there was no personal recollection of any events for me. A brief plot synopsis: Hanks is the title character, a congressman from TX who secretly becomes involved in helping the people of Afghanistan fight the Soviets after they invade their country. Julia Roberts plays Texas gal Joanne Herring, a salty southern belle and old friend of Charlie’s who wants him to take a stand. Up until this point Charlie’s main activities consist of cavorting with women and doing small favors for other congressmen. He’s a lovable hound, but now he has a chance to do something meaningful. And he does. Along with Gust Avrakatos (played by Hoffman), Charlie begins to outfit the Afghans with the weaponry they need to defend themselves. I feel like my description hasn’t done much to convince you to run out and catch this movie, but it was damn good. Funny, entertaining, and uniquely heartwarming. There was never a dull moment, actually. It is definitely worth checking out, and probably the best movie for Hanks and Roberts in quite a while.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
I Am Legend
Will Smith (The Pursuit of Happyness) has the perfect mix of charisma and talent, making him a joy to watch. This was apparent from his early movie appearances of the mid-90’s and is still true today. Hopefully when it’s all said and done, the two- time Academy Award nominee will have a gold statue for his mantle. In the meantime, most of his movies are must-see, for me at least. I say most, because I can recall a few skippable ones (The Legend of Bagger Vance, Wild Wild West anyone?). Nevertheless, count me among Will Smith’s many fans.
I Am Legend is the apocalyptic tale of Robert Neville, a doctor and sole survivor of a catastrophic virus that has destroyed the world’s population. For unknown reasons, Neville is immune to the virus. His days are spent broadcasting a radio message to any survivors, roaming around Manhattan, hitting a few golf balls, and otherwise trying to maintain his sanity in the absence of human companionship. His only company is Sam, his loyal German Shepherd. Lest you think that the only point of this movie is to watch a solitary Smith amuse himself like Tom Hanks in Castaway, let me fill you in on the other key detail I’ve neglected to mention. Some humans were not killed by the virus, rather they mutated into nocturnal zombie-like creatures who fed on survivors after the initial outbreak. Neville must make sure he returns home before dusk, or else he will have to contend with these creatures. Although immune to the virus, he can still be killed by them, just not infected. He feverishly works on a cure for the virus by altering samples of his own blood and then (dangerously) administering the doses to the creatures. As Neville soon learns, the zombies are super strong, and their resourcefulness and intelligence become manifest with unfortunate consequences.
Will Smith shines in roles that allow him to show his broad range of emotions. He is particularly skilled at non-verbal acting, when he allows his face and eyes to do the talking. He doesn’t just cry, he cries differently, if that makes any sense. Think about it. The way you’d cry if your grandma died is not the same way you’d cry if your boyfriend/girlfriend cheated on you. Feel me? Smith is a master at delivering the perfect display of emotion. I was also very impressed with director Francis Lawrence’s depiction. I’ve never heard of him directing anything other than music videos, so for him to be able to create such a terrific feature film is nothing short of AMAZING. I’ve raved about the movie thus far, but it was not without its flaws. I always say that in terms of audience approval, movies can be won or lost in the last 5 minutes, and I Am Legend does not end strongly, which was a shame. You want to leave the audience on a high note, which just means a strong note, not necessarily a happy ending. You don’t want to erase all the good shit that unfolded in the previous hour and a half. I Am Legend falls short in its plausibility and will leave you scratching your head at certain parts, but I suggest you check it out. It was fascinating to watch Neville’s daily routine, his sanity bolstered only by his desire to find a cure and by the constant presence of man’s best and only friend, Sam. I Am Legend will leave you on the edge of your seat, if nothing else. Smith meets the challenge of carrying the movie by himself, and if you’re foolish enough to have neglected his talent before, you’ll be a believer by the time the credits roll.
I Am Legend is the apocalyptic tale of Robert Neville, a doctor and sole survivor of a catastrophic virus that has destroyed the world’s population. For unknown reasons, Neville is immune to the virus. His days are spent broadcasting a radio message to any survivors, roaming around Manhattan, hitting a few golf balls, and otherwise trying to maintain his sanity in the absence of human companionship. His only company is Sam, his loyal German Shepherd. Lest you think that the only point of this movie is to watch a solitary Smith amuse himself like Tom Hanks in Castaway, let me fill you in on the other key detail I’ve neglected to mention. Some humans were not killed by the virus, rather they mutated into nocturnal zombie-like creatures who fed on survivors after the initial outbreak. Neville must make sure he returns home before dusk, or else he will have to contend with these creatures. Although immune to the virus, he can still be killed by them, just not infected. He feverishly works on a cure for the virus by altering samples of his own blood and then (dangerously) administering the doses to the creatures. As Neville soon learns, the zombies are super strong, and their resourcefulness and intelligence become manifest with unfortunate consequences.
Will Smith shines in roles that allow him to show his broad range of emotions. He is particularly skilled at non-verbal acting, when he allows his face and eyes to do the talking. He doesn’t just cry, he cries differently, if that makes any sense. Think about it. The way you’d cry if your grandma died is not the same way you’d cry if your boyfriend/girlfriend cheated on you. Feel me? Smith is a master at delivering the perfect display of emotion. I was also very impressed with director Francis Lawrence’s depiction. I’ve never heard of him directing anything other than music videos, so for him to be able to create such a terrific feature film is nothing short of AMAZING. I’ve raved about the movie thus far, but it was not without its flaws. I always say that in terms of audience approval, movies can be won or lost in the last 5 minutes, and I Am Legend does not end strongly, which was a shame. You want to leave the audience on a high note, which just means a strong note, not necessarily a happy ending. You don’t want to erase all the good shit that unfolded in the previous hour and a half. I Am Legend falls short in its plausibility and will leave you scratching your head at certain parts, but I suggest you check it out. It was fascinating to watch Neville’s daily routine, his sanity bolstered only by his desire to find a cure and by the constant presence of man’s best and only friend, Sam. I Am Legend will leave you on the edge of your seat, if nothing else. Smith meets the challenge of carrying the movie by himself, and if you’re foolish enough to have neglected his talent before, you’ll be a believer by the time the credits roll.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
The Mist
Stephen King has created another masterpiece. He is a truly gifted storyteller, able to capture the essence of fear in all its forms, and there are many. There is obvious fear, perhaps signified by the presence of a monster, creature, alien, maybe even an axe-wielding psychopath. Then there are the more sinister types of fear…fear of the unknown, fear in the presence of unseen evil. There is terror, which may be all the different types of fear rolled into one. In any event, King (along with screenwriter Frank Darabont) has mastered the art of creeping you the fuck out, and I don’t think I scare too easily. You may think The Mist is a horror movie, and to a large extent that would be an accurate assumption. But it’s much, much more than that. It is just as much of a study in psychology and human behavior as it is a horror movie.
The film is set in a sleepy Maine(?) town that is enveloped by a mysterious mist that wafts in following a strong storm. A number of residents become trapped in a small grocery store when the mist first appears, and it is here where most of the action transpires. What’s the big deal about mist, you ask? There’s something in it that snatches you up, never to be seen or heard from again, except for your dying screams. Believe it or not, that’s not even the scary part. The most frightening aspect of the film is its examination of human behavior and group mentality when societal constraints crumble and the true nature of man is revealed. If the shit is hitting the fan and you’re possibly facing armageddon, there are worse places to be trapped than the supermarket, right? You would think that adults could survive for quite a while, considering that food and shelter are plentiful. Not so. In the face of disaster and fear, chaos erupts, with chilling results. I was reminded of one of my favorite books from high school, Lord of the Flies. What is the true nature of man? Good or evil? This question is posed directly and becomes a driving force in the film. Thomas Jane (The Punisher) is the main character who grapples with the more difficult choices, and Marcia Gay Harden (The Invisible) portrays his foil, a vocal religious zealot who personifies the danger of “groupthink,” the phenomenon by which people lose sense of themselves and behave in ways they normally would not when they are allowed to cloak themselves in the anonymity of a group setting.
The Mist is a frightening, riveting movie that leaves you feeling something deep inside and will leave you reeling, kinda like The Sixth Sense may have done years ago. In some ways it's the most powerful, penetrating movie I've seen all year. Don't see it alone like I did, see it with someone so the two of you can appreciate it together.
The film is set in a sleepy Maine(?) town that is enveloped by a mysterious mist that wafts in following a strong storm. A number of residents become trapped in a small grocery store when the mist first appears, and it is here where most of the action transpires. What’s the big deal about mist, you ask? There’s something in it that snatches you up, never to be seen or heard from again, except for your dying screams. Believe it or not, that’s not even the scary part. The most frightening aspect of the film is its examination of human behavior and group mentality when societal constraints crumble and the true nature of man is revealed. If the shit is hitting the fan and you’re possibly facing armageddon, there are worse places to be trapped than the supermarket, right? You would think that adults could survive for quite a while, considering that food and shelter are plentiful. Not so. In the face of disaster and fear, chaos erupts, with chilling results. I was reminded of one of my favorite books from high school, Lord of the Flies. What is the true nature of man? Good or evil? This question is posed directly and becomes a driving force in the film. Thomas Jane (The Punisher) is the main character who grapples with the more difficult choices, and Marcia Gay Harden (The Invisible) portrays his foil, a vocal religious zealot who personifies the danger of “groupthink,” the phenomenon by which people lose sense of themselves and behave in ways they normally would not when they are allowed to cloak themselves in the anonymity of a group setting.
The Mist is a frightening, riveting movie that leaves you feeling something deep inside and will leave you reeling, kinda like The Sixth Sense may have done years ago. In some ways it's the most powerful, penetrating movie I've seen all year. Don't see it alone like I did, see it with someone so the two of you can appreciate it together.
No Country For Old Men
Wow. No Country For Old Men has left me tongue-tied. I don’t even know where to begin. This was truly a superbly intense, well-acted and extremely well-written film. The dialogue was excellent, and that’s why I love the movies: you get to hear people say the coolest shit that no one says in real life. The movie is written and directed by Ethan and Joel Coen (O Brother Where Art Thou), a critically acclaimed pair whose work I’m not terribly familiar with. The only movies I’ve seen that one or both have been associated with are Intolerable Cruelty and a garish old movie called Blood Simple. I’d like to meet their parents, just to see the people who birthed these twisted geniuses.
No Country For Old Men’s plot is simple enough. A drug deal has gone wrong, leaving a band of Mexican drug dealers murdered in the middle of the Texas desert. When a passerby named Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin, American Gangster) stumbles upon the human carnage and helps himself to a couple of million dollars, he thinks he’s gotten away with a pretty sweet find. However, I’d like to borrow and slightly alter a quote from Jackie Brown (one of my faves) and point out that 2 million dollars will always be missed. On the trail of the money (and thereby Llewelyn) is Anton Chigurh (pronounced shoo-GAR’), a hired gun, hitman, and assassin – whatever you wanna call him. Homie put the psycho in psychopath; you have never seen anything like this dude. He might be the scariest MF on screen since Hannibal Lecter. Only difference is Chigurh doesn’t eat people. I think he have might have old Lecter beat though…this guy is positively frightening to look at. It doesn’t happen often, but have you ever seen somebody out in public, and they just look scary as hell? Maybe that’s only happened to me, but one time I pulled up to a stop light and looked in the car next to me at its driver and caught a chill. I couldn’t put my finger on it, but the guy just looked scary, and I quickly looked away and didn’t look back. He looked like the type of guy who had something in his trunk, and I don’t mean a spare tire. Chigurh is like that - the type of cat that if you saw in real life, you’d go the other way, trust me. Look at him: http://www.lashorasperdidas.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/javier-bardem-en-no-country-for-old-men.jpg He kills at will, savagely resourceful and unstoppable. The movie takes place in 1980, and also stars Tommy Lee Jones (U.S. Marshals) as a lawman in pursuit of Chigurh, trying to reach Llewelyn first. The movie personifies the TX stereotype of “salt of the earth” folks. Lewelyn is a “man’s man” and so is Tommy Lee Jones’ character. They are old school men, the antithesis of the pretty-boy metrosexual. As a matter of fact, Llewelyn almost matches Chigurh in guts and fearlessness, and Josh Brolin deserves an award for his portrayal. Nearly all of the men in this movie are larger-than-life cowboy types who (pardon my French) seem to have brass balls. I don’t think they really make men like that anymore, LOL.
On a more cinematic note, The TX landscape was filmed beautifully, serving as the perfect backdrop to a movie that at times felt like a Western. The movie was filmed in washed-out tones, which illustrated the starkness of it all, from the geography of the desert to the pallor of Chigurh’s skin. Sometimes I see a movie that throws me for a loop and stuns me into speechlessness. It doesn’t happen often, but all I can say about No Country For Old Men is that it was one of those movies that will leave you in awe. It’s ranked #31 in the top 250 movies of all time on IMDB, so take that for what it’s worth. Go see it if you remotely enjoyed any of the following: A History of Violence, Blood Simple, or American Psycho.
No Country For Old Men’s plot is simple enough. A drug deal has gone wrong, leaving a band of Mexican drug dealers murdered in the middle of the Texas desert. When a passerby named Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin, American Gangster) stumbles upon the human carnage and helps himself to a couple of million dollars, he thinks he’s gotten away with a pretty sweet find. However, I’d like to borrow and slightly alter a quote from Jackie Brown (one of my faves) and point out that 2 million dollars will always be missed. On the trail of the money (and thereby Llewelyn) is Anton Chigurh (pronounced shoo-GAR’), a hired gun, hitman, and assassin – whatever you wanna call him. Homie put the psycho in psychopath; you have never seen anything like this dude. He might be the scariest MF on screen since Hannibal Lecter. Only difference is Chigurh doesn’t eat people. I think he have might have old Lecter beat though…this guy is positively frightening to look at. It doesn’t happen often, but have you ever seen somebody out in public, and they just look scary as hell? Maybe that’s only happened to me, but one time I pulled up to a stop light and looked in the car next to me at its driver and caught a chill. I couldn’t put my finger on it, but the guy just looked scary, and I quickly looked away and didn’t look back. He looked like the type of guy who had something in his trunk, and I don’t mean a spare tire. Chigurh is like that - the type of cat that if you saw in real life, you’d go the other way, trust me. Look at him: http://www.lashorasperdidas.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/javier-bardem-en-no-country-for-old-men.jpg He kills at will, savagely resourceful and unstoppable. The movie takes place in 1980, and also stars Tommy Lee Jones (U.S. Marshals) as a lawman in pursuit of Chigurh, trying to reach Llewelyn first. The movie personifies the TX stereotype of “salt of the earth” folks. Lewelyn is a “man’s man” and so is Tommy Lee Jones’ character. They are old school men, the antithesis of the pretty-boy metrosexual. As a matter of fact, Llewelyn almost matches Chigurh in guts and fearlessness, and Josh Brolin deserves an award for his portrayal. Nearly all of the men in this movie are larger-than-life cowboy types who (pardon my French) seem to have brass balls. I don’t think they really make men like that anymore, LOL.
On a more cinematic note, The TX landscape was filmed beautifully, serving as the perfect backdrop to a movie that at times felt like a Western. The movie was filmed in washed-out tones, which illustrated the starkness of it all, from the geography of the desert to the pallor of Chigurh’s skin. Sometimes I see a movie that throws me for a loop and stuns me into speechlessness. It doesn’t happen often, but all I can say about No Country For Old Men is that it was one of those movies that will leave you in awe. It’s ranked #31 in the top 250 movies of all time on IMDB, so take that for what it’s worth. Go see it if you remotely enjoyed any of the following: A History of Violence, Blood Simple, or American Psycho.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Hitman
Based on a video game of the same name, Hitman is a straightforward, stylish tale of a trained assassin called “Agent 47.” 47 dispatches his victims with passionless efficiency, a virtual murdering machine. He is played by Timothy Olyphant (Die Hard 4, Gone in Sixty Seconds), who looks the part of sleek killer in a suit and tie slightly reminiscent of the The Matrix’ Agent Smith. However, once Olyphant opens his mouth the character falters slightly. His voice just sounds so…American. The movie takes place in various European locales, every character has a foreign accent, and yet Agent 47 is the only person speaking like the average American Joe. It just didn’t fit, and it didn’t match his sophisticated appearance. The plot involves a botched assignment and a double-cross resulting in 47 turning rogue as he tries to figure things out. Sound familiar? Now that I’ve recited the plot, it sounds like a poor man’s Bourne Supremacy. In addition to its familiarity, the plot is bogged down by the pointless interaction between 47 and his “love interest,” the prostitute girlfriend of one of his victims. Her character was pretty much there to sulk and look exotic and helpless. One minute she fears 47, the next minute she’s trying to seduce him. By the way, he's not interested. Apparently this killing machine doesn't feel anything from the waist down. I also could have done without the gratuitous nudity; spare me the pointless boob shots honey. Oh wait, I think I just inadvertently sold some people on the movie.
There are definitely some stunningly violent scenes, featuring both gunplay and hand-to-hand action. Again, Agent 47 is fun to behold, when he’s not speaking. Other than that, Hitman is fairly forgettable. Perhaps gamers will enjoy seeing the embodiment of 47 on screen, but the rest of us could probably take a pass. Not bad, but not that great either.
There are definitely some stunningly violent scenes, featuring both gunplay and hand-to-hand action. Again, Agent 47 is fun to behold, when he’s not speaking. Other than that, Hitman is fairly forgettable. Perhaps gamers will enjoy seeing the embodiment of 47 on screen, but the rest of us could probably take a pass. Not bad, but not that great either.
Friday, November 23, 2007
This Christmas
This was the sweetest little movie, a warm holiday flick that touted the virtues of family without coming across corny or hokey. This Cristmas is the second recent ensemble movie featuring a primarily Black cast, the first being Tyler Perry’s Why Did I Get Married? There aren’t any more similarities between the two movies, and what made This Christmas so enjoyable was that it was not contrived or forced; it was just a depiction of family life to which most people can relate, regardless of ethnicity. No family is perfect, but it’s those imperfections that make us human, and what would any holiday be without a little family drama anyway?
The movie centers on the Whitfield family, a middle-class clan whose members reunite every year for Christmas. Matriarch “Ma’Dere” (Loretta Devine, Crash) plays peacemaker to her six children, three boys and three girls. Her children are eldest son Quentin (Idris Elba, American Gangster), middle son Claude (Columbus Short, Stomp the Yard), youngest son “Baby” (Chris Brown, Stomp the Yard), and daughters Kelli (Sharon Leal, Why Did I Get Married?), Lisa (Regina King, Miss Congeniality 2), and Mel (Lauren London, ATL). Her long-time live-in boyfriend and surrogate father to the kids is Joe, played by Delroy Lindo (Clockers). Tension arises and mounts when the children discover that Baby has been keeping a secret from Ma’Dere, something that would barely raise an eyebrow in a typical family, but is a major cause of concern for Ma’Dere due to the fact that her husband abandoned their family many years ago to pursue his musical aspirations. As she puts it, “certain men just don’t need to be married.” Word, I hear you, LOL. Baby’s not the only one keeping a secret, however – and when the collective cats are out of the bag, this Christmas won’t soon be forgotten. Some plot fixtures are predictable, like the fact that one of the girls’ mates is a scumbag, and one of them can’t cook. We’ve seen and heard it before, but that’s okay because the cast and movie is so endearing. Just because you know what you’re getting doesn’t mean you can’t enjoy it, right? That’s how I looked at it. Of course all’s well that end’s well, but the fun is in getting there, and I think you’ll be entertained throughout. This movie doesn’t present the Whitfields as picture perfect, so when the positive aspects of various characters are displayed, it doesn’t seem unrealistic.
Though not quite as good, This Christmas is the best family drama/comedy since Soul Food, and definitely worth seeing during the holiday season.
The movie centers on the Whitfield family, a middle-class clan whose members reunite every year for Christmas. Matriarch “Ma’Dere” (Loretta Devine, Crash) plays peacemaker to her six children, three boys and three girls. Her children are eldest son Quentin (Idris Elba, American Gangster), middle son Claude (Columbus Short, Stomp the Yard), youngest son “Baby” (Chris Brown, Stomp the Yard), and daughters Kelli (Sharon Leal, Why Did I Get Married?), Lisa (Regina King, Miss Congeniality 2), and Mel (Lauren London, ATL). Her long-time live-in boyfriend and surrogate father to the kids is Joe, played by Delroy Lindo (Clockers). Tension arises and mounts when the children discover that Baby has been keeping a secret from Ma’Dere, something that would barely raise an eyebrow in a typical family, but is a major cause of concern for Ma’Dere due to the fact that her husband abandoned their family many years ago to pursue his musical aspirations. As she puts it, “certain men just don’t need to be married.” Word, I hear you, LOL. Baby’s not the only one keeping a secret, however – and when the collective cats are out of the bag, this Christmas won’t soon be forgotten. Some plot fixtures are predictable, like the fact that one of the girls’ mates is a scumbag, and one of them can’t cook. We’ve seen and heard it before, but that’s okay because the cast and movie is so endearing. Just because you know what you’re getting doesn’t mean you can’t enjoy it, right? That’s how I looked at it. Of course all’s well that end’s well, but the fun is in getting there, and I think you’ll be entertained throughout. This movie doesn’t present the Whitfields as picture perfect, so when the positive aspects of various characters are displayed, it doesn’t seem unrealistic.
Though not quite as good, This Christmas is the best family drama/comedy since Soul Food, and definitely worth seeing during the holiday season.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Lions for Lambs
Robert Redford (A River Runs Through It) offers his latest directorial effort in Lions for Lambs, a thought-provoking and slightly biased persepctive on the war in Iraq and U.S. foreign policy. The film presents three viewpoints, each substory illustrating a different message.
Redford is featured as a college professor who attempts to encourage a promising but disillusioned student to take a more proactive role in his life and in the lives of others. The second dynamic presented in the movie is an exchange between characters portrayed by Meryl Streep (The Devil Wears Prada) and Tom Cruise (Mission Impossible: III). Streep is reporter Janine Roth, and she's landed an exclusive interview with a rising star in the Republican party and staunch supporter of the war, Senator Jasper Irving. His name is Jasper. *snicker* Anyway, Irving pretty much spoon-feeds Roth his pro-war rhetoric, spinning the story every step of the way. He wants to unveil a new strategy in the war on terror, which brings us to the third and final perspective in the movie, that of two soldiers on the ground in Iraq. Derek Luke (Catch a Fire) and Michael Pena (Crash, Shooter) are Arian and Earnest, two bright, brave young soldiers who are part of a military unit charged with executing the first step in the new strategy being pushed by Senator Irving. So there's the connection to the Streep-Cruise part of the movie. Earnest and Arian are also former students of Redford's professor. Thus the three stories are loosely interconnected, and each perspective exalts a different moral lesson. The ideas most notably put forth by Redford are the notions that ill-conceived military operations and wars exploit and waste the lives of our best and brightest, and that this continues because most of us are sheep, and the few of us that aren't don't care enough to get involved. (this explains the title, do you get it? the soldiers are the lions and our faceless government and its scores of minions are the lambs). Simple enough, and not exactly groundbreaking. I oversimplified it a bit, but that's it in a nutshell.
What makes Lions a thought-provoking movie is that it inevitably challenges the viewer to ask him/herself where exactly they fall on the spectrum. It also examines the nobility of soldiers fighting a less-than-honorable war and presents the notion that doing something is better than doing nothing and talking about it. On that note, Redford is to be commended for creating a film that unabashedly disapproves of the war in Iraq but lauds the reasons why extraordinary individuals are compelled to contribute. Some may find the film to be rather heavy-handed in its execution, but it was interesting nonetheless.
Lions for Lambs is a thoughtful, quietly entertaining film. A political movie with a message, it's not for those with short attention spans, but the more mature moviegoer should find it enjoyable.
Redford is featured as a college professor who attempts to encourage a promising but disillusioned student to take a more proactive role in his life and in the lives of others. The second dynamic presented in the movie is an exchange between characters portrayed by Meryl Streep (The Devil Wears Prada) and Tom Cruise (Mission Impossible: III). Streep is reporter Janine Roth, and she's landed an exclusive interview with a rising star in the Republican party and staunch supporter of the war, Senator Jasper Irving. His name is Jasper. *snicker* Anyway, Irving pretty much spoon-feeds Roth his pro-war rhetoric, spinning the story every step of the way. He wants to unveil a new strategy in the war on terror, which brings us to the third and final perspective in the movie, that of two soldiers on the ground in Iraq. Derek Luke (Catch a Fire) and Michael Pena (Crash, Shooter) are Arian and Earnest, two bright, brave young soldiers who are part of a military unit charged with executing the first step in the new strategy being pushed by Senator Irving. So there's the connection to the Streep-Cruise part of the movie. Earnest and Arian are also former students of Redford's professor. Thus the three stories are loosely interconnected, and each perspective exalts a different moral lesson. The ideas most notably put forth by Redford are the notions that ill-conceived military operations and wars exploit and waste the lives of our best and brightest, and that this continues because most of us are sheep, and the few of us that aren't don't care enough to get involved. (this explains the title, do you get it? the soldiers are the lions and our faceless government and its scores of minions are the lambs). Simple enough, and not exactly groundbreaking. I oversimplified it a bit, but that's it in a nutshell.
What makes Lions a thought-provoking movie is that it inevitably challenges the viewer to ask him/herself where exactly they fall on the spectrum. It also examines the nobility of soldiers fighting a less-than-honorable war and presents the notion that doing something is better than doing nothing and talking about it. On that note, Redford is to be commended for creating a film that unabashedly disapproves of the war in Iraq but lauds the reasons why extraordinary individuals are compelled to contribute. Some may find the film to be rather heavy-handed in its execution, but it was interesting nonetheless.
Lions for Lambs is a thoughtful, quietly entertaining film. A political movie with a message, it's not for those with short attention spans, but the more mature moviegoer should find it enjoyable.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
Jay-Z: American Gangster
I don't usually review music, because to be honest I usually don't feel like it. Every now and then I'll come across a new joint that makes me want to talk about it. So, with no further ado, American Gangster.
Marketed as a "concept" album inspired by the film of the same name, American Gangster is Jay-Z's musical interpretation of the film...each song corresponds to a scene/aspect of the movie that spoke to his life experiences growing up in Marcy projects, or perhaps even now, though Jay has been on the straight and narrow for quite a while. It's not a stretch to imagine that Jay, a former hustler, could relate to particular personality traits displayed by Frank Lucas. Both can be said to "run New York" in their own way. Jay's latest musical effort allows him to revert back to his old self, to give us shades of Reasonable Doubt. Call it a guilty pleasure, or an indulgence, but American Gangster (the movie) provided the perfect opportunity for Jay to rhyme about something he knows all too well: the hustle. Jay has evolved into an entrepreneur, an urban renaissance man, jack-of-all trades, and trendsetting mogul. If he rapped about selling drugs at this point, his words would ring hollow. We know he's a long way from Marcy. The man had an HP commercial for crying out loud. By masking this album under the guise of a concept album, Jay allows himself to slip back into a pre-Blueprint world he hasn't revisited in years, save for a few remixes and guest appearances here and there.
What I like most about the album is its umistakeable soulfulness. It harkens back to a musical era unknown to a lot of younger listeners. I'm not that old myself (28), but the reason why I could recognize some of the samples on the album is because I enjoy soul music and I'm familiar with it because I sought it out. Hell, Marvin Gaye was dead by the time I was 5 years old, but I know his voice because I am a lover of music. Maybe in some weird way American Gangster will foster that same love of soul music in some teenage consumers. If not, then I guess Jay really is for the grown and sexy, and all the kids can go back to crankin' that Soulja Boy.
On this album Jay still shows his maturity and introspection on tracks like "American Dreamin'"and "Say Hello," but keeps it gutter on songs like "Ignorant Shit" and "Hello Brooklyn 2.0," a collaboration with Lil' Wayne that will lay any rumors of a beef between the two to rest. The one shortcoming I've always attributed to Jay over the years is that he didn't have a knack for storytelling, for painting a picture with his words, like Nas for example. I think the cinematic nature of this project allowed him to overcome that hurdle, because the music is the canvas and his words are the paint...together those words and rhythms combine for a masterpiece, and an album that is nearly the best rap album of the year. I'll need a little longer to decide if it surpasses Graduation.
Interestingly enough, Diddy actually contributed to several of the more soulful tracks, which I find surprising. Honestly I didn't know he had it in him. I'll leave you with this one to chew on: Nas must be the greatest rapper alive. Hear me out. To be the best you have to beat the best, right? Well, he won the battle back when he and Jay were feuding. He HAS to be the greatest, because Jay is on a whole other level right now. Hmmm, actually although Nas is my fave rapper, that sounds stupid. Jay is only competing with himself at this point. When Buster Douglas knocked out Mike Tyson he wasn't the best. That negro got lucky and caught the champ on an off night. Nevermind. All hail the king of New York, the Michael Schumacher of the Roc roster... President Carter.
Marketed as a "concept" album inspired by the film of the same name, American Gangster is Jay-Z's musical interpretation of the film...each song corresponds to a scene/aspect of the movie that spoke to his life experiences growing up in Marcy projects, or perhaps even now, though Jay has been on the straight and narrow for quite a while. It's not a stretch to imagine that Jay, a former hustler, could relate to particular personality traits displayed by Frank Lucas. Both can be said to "run New York" in their own way. Jay's latest musical effort allows him to revert back to his old self, to give us shades of Reasonable Doubt. Call it a guilty pleasure, or an indulgence, but American Gangster (the movie) provided the perfect opportunity for Jay to rhyme about something he knows all too well: the hustle. Jay has evolved into an entrepreneur, an urban renaissance man, jack-of-all trades, and trendsetting mogul. If he rapped about selling drugs at this point, his words would ring hollow. We know he's a long way from Marcy. The man had an HP commercial for crying out loud. By masking this album under the guise of a concept album, Jay allows himself to slip back into a pre-Blueprint world he hasn't revisited in years, save for a few remixes and guest appearances here and there.
What I like most about the album is its umistakeable soulfulness. It harkens back to a musical era unknown to a lot of younger listeners. I'm not that old myself (28), but the reason why I could recognize some of the samples on the album is because I enjoy soul music and I'm familiar with it because I sought it out. Hell, Marvin Gaye was dead by the time I was 5 years old, but I know his voice because I am a lover of music. Maybe in some weird way American Gangster will foster that same love of soul music in some teenage consumers. If not, then I guess Jay really is for the grown and sexy, and all the kids can go back to crankin' that Soulja Boy.
On this album Jay still shows his maturity and introspection on tracks like "American Dreamin'"and "Say Hello," but keeps it gutter on songs like "Ignorant Shit" and "Hello Brooklyn 2.0," a collaboration with Lil' Wayne that will lay any rumors of a beef between the two to rest. The one shortcoming I've always attributed to Jay over the years is that he didn't have a knack for storytelling, for painting a picture with his words, like Nas for example. I think the cinematic nature of this project allowed him to overcome that hurdle, because the music is the canvas and his words are the paint...together those words and rhythms combine for a masterpiece, and an album that is nearly the best rap album of the year. I'll need a little longer to decide if it surpasses Graduation.
Interestingly enough, Diddy actually contributed to several of the more soulful tracks, which I find surprising. Honestly I didn't know he had it in him. I'll leave you with this one to chew on: Nas must be the greatest rapper alive. Hear me out. To be the best you have to beat the best, right? Well, he won the battle back when he and Jay were feuding. He HAS to be the greatest, because Jay is on a whole other level right now. Hmmm, actually although Nas is my fave rapper, that sounds stupid. Jay is only competing with himself at this point. When Buster Douglas knocked out Mike Tyson he wasn't the best. That negro got lucky and caught the champ on an off night. Nevermind. All hail the king of New York, the Michael Schumacher of the Roc roster... President Carter.
Saturday, November 03, 2007
American Gangster
Director Ridley Scott (Alien, Black Hawk Down), Denzel Washington (Déjà vu), and Russell Crowe (Cinderella Man) set the bar astronomically high in this film about the rise and ultimate demise of NY drug lord Frank Lucas. Fun fact: Washington and Crowe previously teamed up in 1995’s Virtuosity, back when Crowe’s career was in its infancy, at least in the States. It goes without saying that both actors’ performances easily surpassed their previous joint effort.
American Gangster starts with a jolt, the brutal image of Frank Lucas executing some poor soul for an unknown offense. He sets the man ablaze and then finishes off the job with a series of quick gunshots. And so it begins, a tale that is at varying times touching, tense, awkward, and violent. The opening scene prepares us for the notion that you never know what Lucas is capable of, and that with Frank Lucas, like most gangsters, a violent undercurrent steadily bubbles under a seemingly cool exterior. Yet Lucas is never unjustifiably short-tempered, he is never a loose cannon. When he “snaps,” the recipient of his rage is always well-deserving, and so Lucas is not fearsome or ruthless in his violence, but rather measured and calculated. He is a man who can blow someone’s brains out in broad daylight on a crowded street, then re-enter his favorite diner and resume his meal as if he merely stepped out to feed a parking meter. Some actors are can’t miss, and Denzel Washington is as close to a sure thing as you can get. He brings his standard charm and cocky swagger to the role, conveying Lucas’ duality with relish and authenticity. Frank Lucas is a man that can set another human being on fire, but is almost child-like in his adoration of his mother. His anger is equally matched by the love and affection he has for his family, and the tenderness he shows with his wife-a demure young beauty queen who melts under Lucas' warm and steady gaze when they first meet. This is a performance that Washington seemed to enjoy delivering, a brief return to the villainous capability he displayed in Training Day, but to compare the two roles would be a disservice to Washington as an actor.
I would be remiss if I don’t leave the impression that American Gangster is as much about Frank Lucas as it is about the lawman who hunts him: Officer Richie Roberts, a professionally scrupulous but personally questionable man who initially underestimates Lucas’ power and influence. I’m not a huge Russell Crowe fan, but the man is an outstanding actor and turns in a compelling performance. You’re forced to be a part of his experience, because the movie constantly shifts between Roberts and Lucas, which brings me to one of the things that bothered me about the film. The frequent scene changes and introduction of subplots and side stories were a mild distraction and made the movie feel as if it was moving in a thousand directions. As a viewer, I was bombarded with images and characters that served as brief breaks from what I felt was the principal story: Frank Lucas and the cop who pursues him. Perhaps the writers wanted to flesh out back stories so that the viewer had a complete perception of the character. For example, there is a great deal of time spent showing the interaction between Roberts and his partner, and Roberts and his estranged wife. In some respects the movie seemed like a collection of scenes rather than a cohesive film.
Director Ridley Scott effectively captured the hopelessness of the heroin epidemic of the 1970s, although some of his scenes of junkies shooting up wore thin and became disgustingly gratuitous after a while. Another observation is that other characters were relegated to the periphery, whether they were members of Lucas’ family (roles played by Common and TI) or other tangential characters whose purpose and function remained vague and ambiguous. I’ll leave you with this parting thought. American Gangster is not the instant classic you think it is. It’s not the best drug movie, it’s not the best cop vs. kingpin movie, it’s not a movie I will see twice in theaters (surprising for me), nor is it the best Denzel Washington movie. It is a slightly underdeveloped, highly ambitious, gritty spectacle, which is saved by Washington’s larger-than-life performance. Oh yeah, Ridley Scott is no Martin Scorcese. Scorcese is still the master of the gangster epic, and I found myself wondering how much better the movie would've been in his hands. I do give Scott credit for capturing the atmosphere and time period. There's an amusing scene where Officer Roberts sees a microwave for the first time, and little details like that give the movie a subtle boost. Anyway, enough rambling. American Gangster is one of those movies you need to see for yourself. It was noticealby imperfect, but I enjoyed it. You be the judge.
American Gangster starts with a jolt, the brutal image of Frank Lucas executing some poor soul for an unknown offense. He sets the man ablaze and then finishes off the job with a series of quick gunshots. And so it begins, a tale that is at varying times touching, tense, awkward, and violent. The opening scene prepares us for the notion that you never know what Lucas is capable of, and that with Frank Lucas, like most gangsters, a violent undercurrent steadily bubbles under a seemingly cool exterior. Yet Lucas is never unjustifiably short-tempered, he is never a loose cannon. When he “snaps,” the recipient of his rage is always well-deserving, and so Lucas is not fearsome or ruthless in his violence, but rather measured and calculated. He is a man who can blow someone’s brains out in broad daylight on a crowded street, then re-enter his favorite diner and resume his meal as if he merely stepped out to feed a parking meter. Some actors are can’t miss, and Denzel Washington is as close to a sure thing as you can get. He brings his standard charm and cocky swagger to the role, conveying Lucas’ duality with relish and authenticity. Frank Lucas is a man that can set another human being on fire, but is almost child-like in his adoration of his mother. His anger is equally matched by the love and affection he has for his family, and the tenderness he shows with his wife-a demure young beauty queen who melts under Lucas' warm and steady gaze when they first meet. This is a performance that Washington seemed to enjoy delivering, a brief return to the villainous capability he displayed in Training Day, but to compare the two roles would be a disservice to Washington as an actor.
I would be remiss if I don’t leave the impression that American Gangster is as much about Frank Lucas as it is about the lawman who hunts him: Officer Richie Roberts, a professionally scrupulous but personally questionable man who initially underestimates Lucas’ power and influence. I’m not a huge Russell Crowe fan, but the man is an outstanding actor and turns in a compelling performance. You’re forced to be a part of his experience, because the movie constantly shifts between Roberts and Lucas, which brings me to one of the things that bothered me about the film. The frequent scene changes and introduction of subplots and side stories were a mild distraction and made the movie feel as if it was moving in a thousand directions. As a viewer, I was bombarded with images and characters that served as brief breaks from what I felt was the principal story: Frank Lucas and the cop who pursues him. Perhaps the writers wanted to flesh out back stories so that the viewer had a complete perception of the character. For example, there is a great deal of time spent showing the interaction between Roberts and his partner, and Roberts and his estranged wife. In some respects the movie seemed like a collection of scenes rather than a cohesive film.
Director Ridley Scott effectively captured the hopelessness of the heroin epidemic of the 1970s, although some of his scenes of junkies shooting up wore thin and became disgustingly gratuitous after a while. Another observation is that other characters were relegated to the periphery, whether they were members of Lucas’ family (roles played by Common and TI) or other tangential characters whose purpose and function remained vague and ambiguous. I’ll leave you with this parting thought. American Gangster is not the instant classic you think it is. It’s not the best drug movie, it’s not the best cop vs. kingpin movie, it’s not a movie I will see twice in theaters (surprising for me), nor is it the best Denzel Washington movie. It is a slightly underdeveloped, highly ambitious, gritty spectacle, which is saved by Washington’s larger-than-life performance. Oh yeah, Ridley Scott is no Martin Scorcese. Scorcese is still the master of the gangster epic, and I found myself wondering how much better the movie would've been in his hands. I do give Scott credit for capturing the atmosphere and time period. There's an amusing scene where Officer Roberts sees a microwave for the first time, and little details like that give the movie a subtle boost. Anyway, enough rambling. American Gangster is one of those movies you need to see for yourself. It was noticealby imperfect, but I enjoyed it. You be the judge.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
We Own The Night
When I saw the trailer for this movie a couple of months ago, I was mesmerized – kinda like the way I felt when I first saw the trailer for The Departed. Then as it comes to a close, they hit me with the title…"We Own the Night." What? Sounds like an 80's tune from a one-hit-wonder. The lame title brought my excitement down a notch, but nevertheless, the movie looked great. The cast alone was enough to entice me to the theater. Mark Wahlberg (Shooter), Joaquin Phoenix (Walk the Line), and Robert Duvall (The Godfather) star in this dark, gritty crime drama about a man who is torn between two worlds.
Joaquin Phoenix is Bobby, a nightclub manager living New York’s fast life. He has a beautiful, devoted girlfriend (Eva Mendes, Hitch) and lives a carefree existence, except as it relates to his family. His job puts him at odds with his brother and father, both of whom are deeply entrenched in law enforcement. When his brother Joseph (Mark Wahlberg) asks for his help nabbing a Russian drug dealer who frequents Bobby’s nightspot, his reluctance deepens the wedge between the two. Bobby would prefer to remain neutral, and feels no sense of duty to his family, or any desire to change his lifestyle. When Joseph raids the club and allows Bobby to be arrested, things come to a head. Soon tragic events compel Bobby to make the unlikely choice to help his father and brother. What follows next is an edge-of-your-seat journey as Bobby teeters on the line between the cops and the criminals. We Own the Night doesn’t break new ground in terms of concept or theme, but it felt refreshing and new. You could sympathize with Bobby as he unearthed a previously-buried sense of loyalty and duty. Joaquin Phoenix is a wonderful actor, and conveys the desperation, helplessness, and ultimate resolve of the character brilliantly. We watch him transition from aloof to resolute, and he gives an amazing performance.
The movie explored how the love of family is unyielding, despite any superficial differences. A superb crime drama that captivated from start to finish, We Own the Night will not disappoint. A must-see for lovers of the genre.
Joaquin Phoenix is Bobby, a nightclub manager living New York’s fast life. He has a beautiful, devoted girlfriend (Eva Mendes, Hitch) and lives a carefree existence, except as it relates to his family. His job puts him at odds with his brother and father, both of whom are deeply entrenched in law enforcement. When his brother Joseph (Mark Wahlberg) asks for his help nabbing a Russian drug dealer who frequents Bobby’s nightspot, his reluctance deepens the wedge between the two. Bobby would prefer to remain neutral, and feels no sense of duty to his family, or any desire to change his lifestyle. When Joseph raids the club and allows Bobby to be arrested, things come to a head. Soon tragic events compel Bobby to make the unlikely choice to help his father and brother. What follows next is an edge-of-your-seat journey as Bobby teeters on the line between the cops and the criminals. We Own the Night doesn’t break new ground in terms of concept or theme, but it felt refreshing and new. You could sympathize with Bobby as he unearthed a previously-buried sense of loyalty and duty. Joaquin Phoenix is a wonderful actor, and conveys the desperation, helplessness, and ultimate resolve of the character brilliantly. We watch him transition from aloof to resolute, and he gives an amazing performance.
The movie explored how the love of family is unyielding, despite any superficial differences. A superb crime drama that captivated from start to finish, We Own the Night will not disappoint. A must-see for lovers of the genre.
Why Did I Get Married?
Let me say something about myself before I talk about the movie. I don’t try to be snobby about the movies I like. I’m no more qualified to critique a movie then the next person. However, let me pose this question…does a person have to know how to sing to appreciate a beautiful voice? Hell no. I’m no Whitney Houston or Mariah Carey, but I know lousy singing when I hear it, and I know a good voice when I hear it. Similarly, I’ve never written or directed a movie (yet), but I know good movies when I see ‘em. And I know bad ones…so keep that in mind as you read this review.
When it comes to writer/director/actor Tyler Perry, I think his motto should be “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” He has a loyal fanbase, and has been a cash cow for Lions Gate the past few years. Black folks are gonna show up for Tyler Perry’s movies, period. My friends and I had to try not one, not two, but three theaters before we were able to find a show that wasn’t sold out. I’ve never seen any of Perry’s films before, and I was looking forward to taking in this movie, largely because of its appealing ensemble cast. I was hoping for an entertaining and thoughtful drama that explored the difficulties that married couples face. Why Did I Get Married? has drawn obvious comparisons to the 1980’s drama The Big Chill, which also involves a group of married friends who reunite at a vacation home, where secrets are revealed and relationships are tested. Perry admits he hasn’t seen The Big Chill. Maybe he should have. If he would’ve ripped it off he might have turned out with a better movie.
Why Did I Get Married? is pleasing to look at it, well-intentioned, and entertaining. However, the characters and the storyline were utterly predictable, and completely one-dimensional. The movie is about four couples who gather periodically for a retreat/vacation to bond, reflect, and learn about one another. This year the group agrees to meet at a cabin in the snowy mountains of Colorado. Terry (Tyler Perry) and Diane (Sharon Leal of Dreamgirls) are a doctor and lawyer, respectively. Janet Jackson (The Nutty Professor) is Patricia, an award-winning psychiatrist and author. Her husband is Gavin (Malik Yoba), a successful architect. Angela (Tasha Smith of ATL) and Marcus provide the comic relief as sharp-tongued shrew and hen-pecked hubby. Rounding out the cast are Mike (Richard T. Jones of The Wood and Kiss The Girls) and Sheila, played by the lovely Jill Scott. The couples suffer from varying degrees of dysfunction, from the obvious to the hidden. Mike is a grade-A asshole, berating Sheila at every turn. It’s unbelievable that the two were ever married in the first place. And that’s the problem. Terry’s characters are unnecessarily overdrawn and completely over-the-top. It’s like he dumbed it down. I wanted to say, we get it, Mike’s a jerk! His character was almost a caricature, and it detracted from the movie by adding a degree of absurdity. Speaking of detractions, there were SEVERAL times during the movie where a microphone could be seen in the shot. Apparently this only happened in my particular showing (go figure), but it was a major drawback. It was hard to take the movie seriously when in the middle of a dramatic scene the damn mic is hanging down. Back to the performances. Everyone did a good job, with what they were given. There were several funny moments, but some of the scenes were a lesson in overkill. It’s like Perry used a sledgehammer to nail in a thumbtack. But hey, like I said; if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. If you want to see an attractive cast in a funny and occasionally entertaining movie, check it out. If you’re looking for a provocative movie that will play out better than an episode of The Young and The Restless, maybe you should take a pass. Why Did I Get Married? might have you asking Why Did I See This Movie?
When it comes to writer/director/actor Tyler Perry, I think his motto should be “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” He has a loyal fanbase, and has been a cash cow for Lions Gate the past few years. Black folks are gonna show up for Tyler Perry’s movies, period. My friends and I had to try not one, not two, but three theaters before we were able to find a show that wasn’t sold out. I’ve never seen any of Perry’s films before, and I was looking forward to taking in this movie, largely because of its appealing ensemble cast. I was hoping for an entertaining and thoughtful drama that explored the difficulties that married couples face. Why Did I Get Married? has drawn obvious comparisons to the 1980’s drama The Big Chill, which also involves a group of married friends who reunite at a vacation home, where secrets are revealed and relationships are tested. Perry admits he hasn’t seen The Big Chill. Maybe he should have. If he would’ve ripped it off he might have turned out with a better movie.
Why Did I Get Married? is pleasing to look at it, well-intentioned, and entertaining. However, the characters and the storyline were utterly predictable, and completely one-dimensional. The movie is about four couples who gather periodically for a retreat/vacation to bond, reflect, and learn about one another. This year the group agrees to meet at a cabin in the snowy mountains of Colorado. Terry (Tyler Perry) and Diane (Sharon Leal of Dreamgirls) are a doctor and lawyer, respectively. Janet Jackson (The Nutty Professor) is Patricia, an award-winning psychiatrist and author. Her husband is Gavin (Malik Yoba), a successful architect. Angela (Tasha Smith of ATL) and Marcus provide the comic relief as sharp-tongued shrew and hen-pecked hubby. Rounding out the cast are Mike (Richard T. Jones of The Wood and Kiss The Girls) and Sheila, played by the lovely Jill Scott. The couples suffer from varying degrees of dysfunction, from the obvious to the hidden. Mike is a grade-A asshole, berating Sheila at every turn. It’s unbelievable that the two were ever married in the first place. And that’s the problem. Terry’s characters are unnecessarily overdrawn and completely over-the-top. It’s like he dumbed it down. I wanted to say, we get it, Mike’s a jerk! His character was almost a caricature, and it detracted from the movie by adding a degree of absurdity. Speaking of detractions, there were SEVERAL times during the movie where a microphone could be seen in the shot. Apparently this only happened in my particular showing (go figure), but it was a major drawback. It was hard to take the movie seriously when in the middle of a dramatic scene the damn mic is hanging down. Back to the performances. Everyone did a good job, with what they were given. There were several funny moments, but some of the scenes were a lesson in overkill. It’s like Perry used a sledgehammer to nail in a thumbtack. But hey, like I said; if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. If you want to see an attractive cast in a funny and occasionally entertaining movie, check it out. If you’re looking for a provocative movie that will play out better than an episode of The Young and The Restless, maybe you should take a pass. Why Did I Get Married? might have you asking Why Did I See This Movie?
Monday, October 01, 2007
The Kingdom
After seeing the trailer for months, finally I get a chance to enter The Kingdom. Directed by actor Peter Berg (Cop Land), the film paints itself as a whodunit within the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
When terrorists attack a U.S. compound that houses oil company employees, the FBI covertly sends in agents to investigate. Enter Jamie Foxx (Collateral, Miami Vice) as Agent Ronald Fleury, a man determined to piece together clues on borrowed time. He and his agents must investigate while being kept at bay by the Saudi government, who has its own desired protocol for such matters. Rounding out the unit and the rest of the cast are Jason Bateman (Smokin’ Aces), Jennifer Garner (Elektra), and Chris Cooper (Breach). One thing about these political drama/action movies is that they tend to be nebulous in their storytelling. Not so with The Kingdom, and I appreciated it. The storyline was pretty easy to follow, which was a good thing, most of the time. The only problem with the simplicity of the plot was that it made the investigation almost a little too easy at times. Certain parts of the movie played out like CSI: Saudi Arabia. The unit has mere days to wrap up its investigation and find the culprits responsible for the attack, and it’s a joke that Fleury and company make such significant progress in such a short amount of time, especially after being initially stonewalled by the government. Clues and evidence are miraculously easily to find, and I know this is a movie, but I’m just sayin…in real life we can’t find Bin Laden, and we’re supposed to believe that the nefarious mastermind behind a major terrorist plot can be located in less than a week? LMAO!
Don’t get me wrong, the film was very very good, it just wasn’t perfect – and that’s okay. The Kingdom was fast-paced, interesting, and ends on a very though-provoking note that hopefully will have viewers wondering just how different we Americans are from the so-called terrorists. I urge you to enter The Kingdom.
When terrorists attack a U.S. compound that houses oil company employees, the FBI covertly sends in agents to investigate. Enter Jamie Foxx (Collateral, Miami Vice) as Agent Ronald Fleury, a man determined to piece together clues on borrowed time. He and his agents must investigate while being kept at bay by the Saudi government, who has its own desired protocol for such matters. Rounding out the unit and the rest of the cast are Jason Bateman (Smokin’ Aces), Jennifer Garner (Elektra), and Chris Cooper (Breach). One thing about these political drama/action movies is that they tend to be nebulous in their storytelling. Not so with The Kingdom, and I appreciated it. The storyline was pretty easy to follow, which was a good thing, most of the time. The only problem with the simplicity of the plot was that it made the investigation almost a little too easy at times. Certain parts of the movie played out like CSI: Saudi Arabia. The unit has mere days to wrap up its investigation and find the culprits responsible for the attack, and it’s a joke that Fleury and company make such significant progress in such a short amount of time, especially after being initially stonewalled by the government. Clues and evidence are miraculously easily to find, and I know this is a movie, but I’m just sayin…in real life we can’t find Bin Laden, and we’re supposed to believe that the nefarious mastermind behind a major terrorist plot can be located in less than a week? LMAO!
Don’t get me wrong, the film was very very good, it just wasn’t perfect – and that’s okay. The Kingdom was fast-paced, interesting, and ends on a very though-provoking note that hopefully will have viewers wondering just how different we Americans are from the so-called terrorists. I urge you to enter The Kingdom.
Sunday, September 02, 2007
Death Sentence
Wow. I’d had a nice little run of seeing some pretty enjoyable movies up until now. Morbid, violently depressing, and oddly unbelievable, Death Sentence left me feeling like I’d been suckered. First let me say that I’m a fan of revenge flicks, but what Death Sentence lacked was a degree of plausibility. Everything about this Kevin Bacon (The Woodsman) flick stretched the bounds of patience.
Bacon plays Nicholas Hume, an executive with the picture-perfect family. He has a loving wife and two good kids. His oldest son Brendan is a star hockey player with a bright future. Things couldn’t be more wonderful, until one fateful night Brendan becomes the victim of a most gruesome crime, a gang initiation murder. When the district attorney tells Nick that his best bet is to hope for 3-5 years for his son’s killer, he decides to dish out his own brand of justice. What follows is a deadly back-and-forth game of "one upsmanship" between Nick and the gang. We want to cheer for Nick, as the loss of his oldest child is both devastating and tragic. However, the movie ventures into ridiculous territory fairly quickly. For example, as Nick literally runs for his life, bad guys fire bullets from close range that magically miss their mark, despite being shot from a distance of about 10 feet. In the beginning of the movie Nick is hapless, defeating his adversaries by sheer luck and resourcefulness. By the end of the movie, he’s some kind of gun-wielding badass, beating people up left and right. I wasn’t buying it. Additionally, the police detective working the case (Aisha Tyler) doesn’t seem too concerned that Nick has taken the law into his own hands. Yeah right! I know it’s a movie, but I don’t deal in foolishness. The one positive thing about the movie was that the beginning portion depicting the aftermath of Brendan’s murder was touching, characterized by the essence of grief and despair. It seemed almost voyeuristic, a glimpse into a family’s very real attempt to cope with the unthinkable. However, one good sequence does not make a movie. An overall downer, Death Sentence is one to skip; a fitting name for a movie that is sure to flop at the box office.
Bacon plays Nicholas Hume, an executive with the picture-perfect family. He has a loving wife and two good kids. His oldest son Brendan is a star hockey player with a bright future. Things couldn’t be more wonderful, until one fateful night Brendan becomes the victim of a most gruesome crime, a gang initiation murder. When the district attorney tells Nick that his best bet is to hope for 3-5 years for his son’s killer, he decides to dish out his own brand of justice. What follows is a deadly back-and-forth game of "one upsmanship" between Nick and the gang. We want to cheer for Nick, as the loss of his oldest child is both devastating and tragic. However, the movie ventures into ridiculous territory fairly quickly. For example, as Nick literally runs for his life, bad guys fire bullets from close range that magically miss their mark, despite being shot from a distance of about 10 feet. In the beginning of the movie Nick is hapless, defeating his adversaries by sheer luck and resourcefulness. By the end of the movie, he’s some kind of gun-wielding badass, beating people up left and right. I wasn’t buying it. Additionally, the police detective working the case (Aisha Tyler) doesn’t seem too concerned that Nick has taken the law into his own hands. Yeah right! I know it’s a movie, but I don’t deal in foolishness. The one positive thing about the movie was that the beginning portion depicting the aftermath of Brendan’s murder was touching, characterized by the essence of grief and despair. It seemed almost voyeuristic, a glimpse into a family’s very real attempt to cope with the unthinkable. However, one good sequence does not make a movie. An overall downer, Death Sentence is one to skip; a fitting name for a movie that is sure to flop at the box office.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)