This was a charming piece overall. The young girls gave exceptional performances and the writing did exemplify competence in film storytelling. All of the moments worked except for what happens in the end. Inventive way of dealing with the problem of exclusion but it sends the message that everyone should be accepted. For example, a basketball team would now have to accept anyone who goes out for the team and let them play merely because they show up. Forget whether they can play or not, like it used to be, they just have to show up. This is pretty much what the film is telling us and when you see it you will know what I mean.
Reviews
58 Reviews
The Equalizer
(2014)
You have seen this film before 1000 times
16 September 2014
A highly trained, retired field operative resorts to violence as the only way to free a Russian prostitute from brutal Russian men who are part of an international crime organization. The many years of retirement didn't show any sign of rust on Robert McCall (Washington) as he ran through his adversaries, dismantling one after another, without batting an eye. He made it look too easy. These bad Russian men had nothing for him, which is probably the biggest problem with this film. There is nothing interesting about a Good vs Evil film with weak bad guys. The filmmakers did work hard at trying to make Teddy, played by Marton Csokas, look ruthless and deadly. But I was never convinced, and I doubt whether the many who saw this film with me at the Toronto International Film Festival were convinced as well.
I found the film rather boring for the most part, with a setup unusually longer than anything Hollywood released in decades. The dialogue was heavy handed. The supporting roles didn't provide nothing more than their vulnerability to the scum of society, which beckoned on a hero like McCall to teach them a lesson or two.
And as I stated in my summary, you have already seen this film a thousand times already: the bad guys shooting big, scary guns and rarely grazing the hero, the hero walking away in slow motion from an explosion he caused, bad guys tracking hero down in this sort of cat-and-mouse thing, damsels in distress, high octane martial arts. Wait, the filmmakers did try to make the film unique by excluding a car chase and having McCall kill each and every bad guy in the most unique way every time. A bullet to the cranium wasn't good enough. No. He had to use methods like overflowing bathroom sinks to electrocute someone. He seemed like he was trying to one-up himself every time. The hero doesn't make any mistakes in the process, even taking the time to catch a fly ball to win the company baseball game. The way he swooped in, in slow motion, and snatched that ball from the joker character who thought he had it was roll-your-eyes worthy and completely laughable.
However, when the film got going it started to be exactly what I expected; an entertaining, highly stylized, popcorn film. At the same time, being Fuqua's weakest directorial effort since his first film, I cannot recommend it. 5/10
I found the film rather boring for the most part, with a setup unusually longer than anything Hollywood released in decades. The dialogue was heavy handed. The supporting roles didn't provide nothing more than their vulnerability to the scum of society, which beckoned on a hero like McCall to teach them a lesson or two.
And as I stated in my summary, you have already seen this film a thousand times already: the bad guys shooting big, scary guns and rarely grazing the hero, the hero walking away in slow motion from an explosion he caused, bad guys tracking hero down in this sort of cat-and-mouse thing, damsels in distress, high octane martial arts. Wait, the filmmakers did try to make the film unique by excluding a car chase and having McCall kill each and every bad guy in the most unique way every time. A bullet to the cranium wasn't good enough. No. He had to use methods like overflowing bathroom sinks to electrocute someone. He seemed like he was trying to one-up himself every time. The hero doesn't make any mistakes in the process, even taking the time to catch a fly ball to win the company baseball game. The way he swooped in, in slow motion, and snatched that ball from the joker character who thought he had it was roll-your-eyes worthy and completely laughable.
However, when the film got going it started to be exactly what I expected; an entertaining, highly stylized, popcorn film. At the same time, being Fuqua's weakest directorial effort since his first film, I cannot recommend it. 5/10
American Heist
(2014)
Audience members walked out on this at Toronto
13 September 2014
They complained how bad the movie was and they were right. I knew we were in trouble with that cheaply done title graphic in the beginning, which is odd because they obviously had a serious budget.
I think Adrien Brody was a poor choice for the role even though he gave a solid performance. We were supposed to believe he was this hardened criminal just released from prison. Fat chance, with those flamingo legs of his. And what seems like support for him given by some black thugs he knew from prison was nothing more than exploitation of his services, and his brother's (Hayden Christensen) talent with cars, in helping them rob a bank. And Christensen's character was just trying to keep his life on the clean side, working as a car mechanic. The brothers have a troubled relationship, making it one of the most bizarre reunions between family members in movie history.
The film further trudges along with this love story subplot between the straight-laced Christensen character and an old flame (Jordana Brewster) who happens to work for 9-1-1 dispatch. You see where this is going? Despite the efforts of Adrien Brody and Hayden Christensen, this is the worst film I have seen at the Toronto International Film Festival. It was a Heat (1995) wannabe written by an 11-year-old with limited awareness of reality and the human condition, and directed by an amateur. But none of this didn't prevent it from being bought for distribution immediately upon it's premiere.
I think Adrien Brody was a poor choice for the role even though he gave a solid performance. We were supposed to believe he was this hardened criminal just released from prison. Fat chance, with those flamingo legs of his. And what seems like support for him given by some black thugs he knew from prison was nothing more than exploitation of his services, and his brother's (Hayden Christensen) talent with cars, in helping them rob a bank. And Christensen's character was just trying to keep his life on the clean side, working as a car mechanic. The brothers have a troubled relationship, making it one of the most bizarre reunions between family members in movie history.
The film further trudges along with this love story subplot between the straight-laced Christensen character and an old flame (Jordana Brewster) who happens to work for 9-1-1 dispatch. You see where this is going? Despite the efforts of Adrien Brody and Hayden Christensen, this is the worst film I have seen at the Toronto International Film Festival. It was a Heat (1995) wannabe written by an 11-year-old with limited awareness of reality and the human condition, and directed by an amateur. But none of this didn't prevent it from being bought for distribution immediately upon it's premiere.
Prisoners
(2013)
An 8 point freaking 2 out of 10 rating for this lame movie? Really?
22 September 2013
A movie that is, in my humble opinion, toeing the line between So-so and bad? What happened to audiences today? Have you all lost your minds? Is the government already succeeding at dumbing-down the masses? OK, sure, the performances were solid. But what I saw in the end was great talent wasted on an insanely contrived film.
We all know what the story is about and the premise is rather primal, I must admit, encouraging me to see the film. But it was poorly written. POORLY. It started with the characters then snowballed down the hill to a contrivance cesspool where it drowned.
I didn't like any of the characters, except for Alex, played by Paul Dano. The second character I empathized with was Detective Loki (Gyllenhaal), who almost went on my list of "Idiots the world would be better off without," but he avoided it by really trying to find the girls and practically being tormented by Dover (Jackman), father of one of the girls abducted.
Now Dover was one of the worst characters in the film, probably in movie history. He was written for us to connect to, whether we disagreed with his methods or not. But in the end, he was basically jeopardizing the investigation. His level of stupidity was dangerous, to himself and everyone around him. So, he may not be a thinking man. I could buy that. Then could he at least smarten up somewhere towards the end of the film? Where was his character arc, his moment of truth? Are we to assume he actually learned something as events unfolded? Never once did he admit his humility and humanity, and yield his control of events over to fate. It could've taken 5 seconds. But he didn't. I'm not going to give away too much, but he was angry and desperate until the end.
Then you had Dover's band of douchebags, like the Birch's, who also lost their daughter and are seemingly close friends with the Dovers. They most likely shared stupid pills as well. There wasn't a single useful person in the film. Loki came close but he did things I couldn't imagine anyone with his expertise, who supposedly solved every crime or missing person case he ever worked (not clear as to the kind of detective he was), doing the things he did. Also, he rarely called for backup or assistance, and don't give me that malarkey about the town's underfunded police department. Did everyone have to be brain-dead and desperate like Dover? To answer the previous question, yes, they had to be this way otherwise things would have had to happen differently, and it could've ended badly like how things happen in real life sometimes. But, as a writer, when you intend on something happening one way to get the result you want, most likely a happy ending, then you have to have characters who can comply, even at their own detriment, and that's where contrivances find their home and breed.
The film had way too many wasted moments. Most of it did nothing to move the story along. Some lines, like the "solved every case" line regarding Loki's illustrious career as a police officer, not only made me chuckle but they felt more like set pieces, like the blue lamp on Dover's end table. Other wasted elements in the film were like red herrings that only added the extra 30 minutes to the already long movie.
Also, the antagonist's agenda was quite ridiculous, as most have been in recent Hollywood movies. They're now very roundabout and overly complicated, making them ridiculous, instead of more direct approaches. The bad guys are working way too hard to reach their ultimate goal. I thought the hard work was supposed to be reserved for the good guys. "Rage against God"? Really? That makes as much sense as going through the trouble to control the money and assets of all the local billionaires, taking power away from the wealthy and giving it to the the persecuted, all to create anarchy just before blowing up the city, and making the town's wounded hero watch it all from some prison pit in nowhere land. Oh wait...
We all know what the story is about and the premise is rather primal, I must admit, encouraging me to see the film. But it was poorly written. POORLY. It started with the characters then snowballed down the hill to a contrivance cesspool where it drowned.
I didn't like any of the characters, except for Alex, played by Paul Dano. The second character I empathized with was Detective Loki (Gyllenhaal), who almost went on my list of "Idiots the world would be better off without," but he avoided it by really trying to find the girls and practically being tormented by Dover (Jackman), father of one of the girls abducted.
Now Dover was one of the worst characters in the film, probably in movie history. He was written for us to connect to, whether we disagreed with his methods or not. But in the end, he was basically jeopardizing the investigation. His level of stupidity was dangerous, to himself and everyone around him. So, he may not be a thinking man. I could buy that. Then could he at least smarten up somewhere towards the end of the film? Where was his character arc, his moment of truth? Are we to assume he actually learned something as events unfolded? Never once did he admit his humility and humanity, and yield his control of events over to fate. It could've taken 5 seconds. But he didn't. I'm not going to give away too much, but he was angry and desperate until the end.
Then you had Dover's band of douchebags, like the Birch's, who also lost their daughter and are seemingly close friends with the Dovers. They most likely shared stupid pills as well. There wasn't a single useful person in the film. Loki came close but he did things I couldn't imagine anyone with his expertise, who supposedly solved every crime or missing person case he ever worked (not clear as to the kind of detective he was), doing the things he did. Also, he rarely called for backup or assistance, and don't give me that malarkey about the town's underfunded police department. Did everyone have to be brain-dead and desperate like Dover? To answer the previous question, yes, they had to be this way otherwise things would have had to happen differently, and it could've ended badly like how things happen in real life sometimes. But, as a writer, when you intend on something happening one way to get the result you want, most likely a happy ending, then you have to have characters who can comply, even at their own detriment, and that's where contrivances find their home and breed.
The film had way too many wasted moments. Most of it did nothing to move the story along. Some lines, like the "solved every case" line regarding Loki's illustrious career as a police officer, not only made me chuckle but they felt more like set pieces, like the blue lamp on Dover's end table. Other wasted elements in the film were like red herrings that only added the extra 30 minutes to the already long movie.
Also, the antagonist's agenda was quite ridiculous, as most have been in recent Hollywood movies. They're now very roundabout and overly complicated, making them ridiculous, instead of more direct approaches. The bad guys are working way too hard to reach their ultimate goal. I thought the hard work was supposed to be reserved for the good guys. "Rage against God"? Really? That makes as much sense as going through the trouble to control the money and assets of all the local billionaires, taking power away from the wealthy and giving it to the the persecuted, all to create anarchy just before blowing up the city, and making the town's wounded hero watch it all from some prison pit in nowhere land. Oh wait...
Think Like a Man
(2012)
Definitely one of the worst films of 2012 so far...
28 May 2012
I'm proud of this film's success. Will Packer and Rainforest work hard and they deserve it. But this film is weak on so many levels. Being based on a "self-help" book, this screenplay was crammed with nothing but on-the-nose dialogue that left me bored and fidgety for the most part. Outside of Kevin Hart, there wasn't a single thing funny about this film. Okay, maybe once or twice I laughed but one time it was at something I don't think was meant to be funny (actor Romany Malco singing with his guitar). You can't call a film a comedy where only one character was remotely, or should I say barely humorous. I found more humor in dramas like American Beauty, City Lights, and The Graduate.
This film seemed to just flat-line from beginning to end. When I say flat, I mean literally flat. Nothing happened until the guy-meets-girl moments, and that took a while to get to. Once the relationships started, the weak conflicts seemed to be limited to the superficiality of Steve Harvey's best selling book. No inner conflicts, not even conflict on the extra-personal level.
I could've done without most of the characters which can read like a list of players on a football team. They had no purpose and added nothing to the telling, like the married guy amongst them, Bennett played by Gary Owen. I know a lot of people loved this film. But can anyone seriously say they got to know any of the characters? Also, I had a hard time buying most of the relationships. The worst of them all had to be Jerry Ferrara with Gabrielle Union. It was like having to suspend your disbelief watching them together and that didn't even work for me. I didn't believe they even knew each, let alone them being in a 13 year relationship. At a glance, I would faster believe Union was Ferrara's babysitter or nanny, not her man. It was one big spoof to me.
The next absurd relationship was Regina Hall and the guy from 106 and Park, Terrence Jenkins. I didn't believe he and Hall went to high school at the same time. In fact, she could've passed for his mother as well.
Taraji Henson's relationship with Michael Ealy was also hard to stomach, as I had trouble believing a woman with her success in business wouldn't question Ealy's facade.
I liked the relationship between Meagan Good and Romany Malco but it was so contrived, like everything else about this film.
And the next black film made showing black friends discussing their relationships while trying to play basketball should have little-tree car re-fresheners hanging from theater ceilings for the sake of audiences. Why? Because such expository scenes are a load of steaming crap. Guys don't stand around on the court discussing such things, or play ball while having those kinds of conversations. I know they did it in The Brothers (2001) and it was b.s. then as it still is now.
The telling had no direction, no point-of-view. It could've been anyone or anything's story at any given time, which left me confused and disengaged. I was waiting for the fire hydrant's storyline eventually.
I really wanted to like it, but I couldn't. In the end, I was dissatisfied and utterly annoyed.
This film seemed to just flat-line from beginning to end. When I say flat, I mean literally flat. Nothing happened until the guy-meets-girl moments, and that took a while to get to. Once the relationships started, the weak conflicts seemed to be limited to the superficiality of Steve Harvey's best selling book. No inner conflicts, not even conflict on the extra-personal level.
I could've done without most of the characters which can read like a list of players on a football team. They had no purpose and added nothing to the telling, like the married guy amongst them, Bennett played by Gary Owen. I know a lot of people loved this film. But can anyone seriously say they got to know any of the characters? Also, I had a hard time buying most of the relationships. The worst of them all had to be Jerry Ferrara with Gabrielle Union. It was like having to suspend your disbelief watching them together and that didn't even work for me. I didn't believe they even knew each, let alone them being in a 13 year relationship. At a glance, I would faster believe Union was Ferrara's babysitter or nanny, not her man. It was one big spoof to me.
The next absurd relationship was Regina Hall and the guy from 106 and Park, Terrence Jenkins. I didn't believe he and Hall went to high school at the same time. In fact, she could've passed for his mother as well.
Taraji Henson's relationship with Michael Ealy was also hard to stomach, as I had trouble believing a woman with her success in business wouldn't question Ealy's facade.
I liked the relationship between Meagan Good and Romany Malco but it was so contrived, like everything else about this film.
And the next black film made showing black friends discussing their relationships while trying to play basketball should have little-tree car re-fresheners hanging from theater ceilings for the sake of audiences. Why? Because such expository scenes are a load of steaming crap. Guys don't stand around on the court discussing such things, or play ball while having those kinds of conversations. I know they did it in The Brothers (2001) and it was b.s. then as it still is now.
The telling had no direction, no point-of-view. It could've been anyone or anything's story at any given time, which left me confused and disengaged. I was waiting for the fire hydrant's storyline eventually.
I really wanted to like it, but I couldn't. In the end, I was dissatisfied and utterly annoyed.
I Do... I Did!
(2009)
I hate this movie with everything I could muster...
30 March 2011
Warning: Spoilers
Remember those days when independent black filmmakers were making these terrible, extra low budget, poorly executed movies and Starz used to air them, such turds like Nothing' 2 Lose (2000), G (2002), and almost everything from Maverick Entertainment? I guess these type of films are still being made.
This film is atrocious in every way. The camera work was boring, uninspired and inept. The lighting was flat and in most cases, nonexistent. The writing lacked plausibility and depth, with the most unmotivated, unlikable characters in the history of film. The editing was sloppy. The performances were melodramatic. Too much arguing, forcing conflict and drama in scenarios where there clearly wasn't any.
Whoever said the film is racist is right. The white wife was treated worst than anything I have ever seen in this genre of movie. The black people got away with everything from totally disrespecting the white wife in her own home to slapping her while she was pregnant. I truly believed that the writers wrote this steaming pile to vent their obvious hatred for white women. Well, their effort was an epic fail as I ended up only caring about the white wife.
As for Vivian, the so-called protagonist, I was praying a building would fall from the sky and land on her, crushing her like the little roach she was.
Every thing about this movie was insanely absurd, especially the ending. There wasn't any redeeming factors or any justice, morally or figuratively. It was just a racist, idiotic waste of HD files that shows how messed up black people are.
This film is atrocious in every way. The camera work was boring, uninspired and inept. The lighting was flat and in most cases, nonexistent. The writing lacked plausibility and depth, with the most unmotivated, unlikable characters in the history of film. The editing was sloppy. The performances were melodramatic. Too much arguing, forcing conflict and drama in scenarios where there clearly wasn't any.
Whoever said the film is racist is right. The white wife was treated worst than anything I have ever seen in this genre of movie. The black people got away with everything from totally disrespecting the white wife in her own home to slapping her while she was pregnant. I truly believed that the writers wrote this steaming pile to vent their obvious hatred for white women. Well, their effort was an epic fail as I ended up only caring about the white wife.
As for Vivian, the so-called protagonist, I was praying a building would fall from the sky and land on her, crushing her like the little roach she was.
Every thing about this movie was insanely absurd, especially the ending. There wasn't any redeeming factors or any justice, morally or figuratively. It was just a racist, idiotic waste of HD files that shows how messed up black people are.
Obsessed
(2009)
The Most Expensive Straight-to-DVD B-Movie in the History of Straight-to-DVD B-Movies
26 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This screenplay could have been written in one day, with bathroom breaks and a two hour lunch. Unfortunately for the filmmakers, they were serious in their intention of making a serious drama/thriller, in the vein of "Fatal Attraction," "The Hand That Rocks the Cradle" and many, many more. Were they at all serious about the screenplay? If you saw the aforementioned films, then you have seen this one before, just put two African America leads. Idris Alba plays Derek, a successful stockbroker happily married to Sharon, played by wannabe thespian Beyonce Knowles. After moving into their new home with their toddler son, Derek arrives at work and meets Lisa, the attractive new temp who is assigned to work for him as the secretary. She proves to be more than intelligent and efficient. But Lisa's obsession with Derek becomes evident right away and dangerous to everything he holds dear.
This is where I got confused. After watching lots of meandering between Derek and Sharon in their pretentious life, filled with pointless, uninteresting dialogue, Lisa doesn't hide her deep attraction for Derek upon meeting him for the first time in the elevator. It was never clear to me who Lisa was replacing as secretary. At first I thought she was replacing the openly gay secretary Matthew. Then, after watching Matthew and Lisa engage as fellow secretaries for a while, I started thinking that Matthew was in on Lisa's plot to have Derek to herself, which would have been more absurdity for the already absurd. But, hey, this was that kind of movie. This isn't very relevant I guess. But, for me, this is where the film started down this slippery slope to pure garbage.
My biggest problem with the film was the idiocy of the characters. Everyone seems to have the combined I.Q. of a rock.
Derek spoke the words of a loyal man to his wife, but his actions expressed otherwise in my eyes. He did nothing to stop Lisa in her tracks, and proved that he wasn't smart enough to fend her off. I remember hoping that his character was conflicted, that we were watching a man who wanted to be loyal to his wife but he needed someone on the side. I guess that was me hoping for more from this one-dimensional tripe. But I was wrong. He was actually loyal to his wife. In fact, he was flawless, making him completely uninteresting. The filmmakers tried to make him a "good guy doll." Well, unwittingly to them, they gave him a flaw, the flaw of stupidity. The excuses he made for not shutting down this woman Lisa were downright preposterous. He was a useless, boring man.
Sharon was just there for the most part. She was brought in as the only one fighting off the insane Lisa with now famous lines like "I show you crazy" and "Do something about this b****, or I will." She actually pulled the impossible feat of being more uninteresting than Derek. And Beyonce's amateurish, flat, sleep inducing performance didn't help with the already paper thin character. She just doesn't have what it takes to be a great actress in my opinion. She could never stay in the moment. She comes and goes. After all the movies she has done so far, I would say that she is impressively bad as an actress.
Lisa was the biggest disappointment. She was obviously the smartest turnip in the bowl, which really doesn't say much, but she was just as shallow as the others. I was left with way too many questions about her. Where did she come from? Who was she before this story? Why Derek? What was that instant connection with Matthew all about? Why she kept asking Derek "what was wrong" when she sprung a new one on him? Did she actually get what she wanted when Derek was unconscious? They tried to make her mysterious after a while, but the filmmakers confused natural humanistic mystery with the "now you see me, now you don't" Batman crap. It was ridiculous.
The film played like the most expensive B-movie in the history of B-movies. It was no better than the worst straight-to-DVD flicks. That's what made it worthwhile for me. I was thoroughly entertained by this garbage. I was laughing at everything, just like I would for a bad-movie. I laughed at the dialogue. I laughed at the performances, like when Derek storms out on Lisa after her first aggressive pass at him in the bathroom stall and her calling after him. I laughed at what I now christen as "Beyonce Obsessed lines." I laughed at how big the baby boy was but he still needed his diapers changed. I laughed at the cop's late response to everything in such posh surroundings. I laughed at the predictably, brain dead actions of Sharon and Derek's babysitter and Matthew. I laughed at the contrivances. I would have to say, the funniest thing about this film was the believability of it all.
If you're looking for a truly well crafted drama/thriller like "Fatal Attraction" or "Chinatown," then I would advise you to skip this one. But, if you're looking for a ludicrous piece of farce, with straight-to-DVD bad acting, writing and directing masqueraded as a well crafted drama/thriller then by all means have a good time.
This is where I got confused. After watching lots of meandering between Derek and Sharon in their pretentious life, filled with pointless, uninteresting dialogue, Lisa doesn't hide her deep attraction for Derek upon meeting him for the first time in the elevator. It was never clear to me who Lisa was replacing as secretary. At first I thought she was replacing the openly gay secretary Matthew. Then, after watching Matthew and Lisa engage as fellow secretaries for a while, I started thinking that Matthew was in on Lisa's plot to have Derek to herself, which would have been more absurdity for the already absurd. But, hey, this was that kind of movie. This isn't very relevant I guess. But, for me, this is where the film started down this slippery slope to pure garbage.
My biggest problem with the film was the idiocy of the characters. Everyone seems to have the combined I.Q. of a rock.
Derek spoke the words of a loyal man to his wife, but his actions expressed otherwise in my eyes. He did nothing to stop Lisa in her tracks, and proved that he wasn't smart enough to fend her off. I remember hoping that his character was conflicted, that we were watching a man who wanted to be loyal to his wife but he needed someone on the side. I guess that was me hoping for more from this one-dimensional tripe. But I was wrong. He was actually loyal to his wife. In fact, he was flawless, making him completely uninteresting. The filmmakers tried to make him a "good guy doll." Well, unwittingly to them, they gave him a flaw, the flaw of stupidity. The excuses he made for not shutting down this woman Lisa were downright preposterous. He was a useless, boring man.
Sharon was just there for the most part. She was brought in as the only one fighting off the insane Lisa with now famous lines like "I show you crazy" and "Do something about this b****, or I will." She actually pulled the impossible feat of being more uninteresting than Derek. And Beyonce's amateurish, flat, sleep inducing performance didn't help with the already paper thin character. She just doesn't have what it takes to be a great actress in my opinion. She could never stay in the moment. She comes and goes. After all the movies she has done so far, I would say that she is impressively bad as an actress.
Lisa was the biggest disappointment. She was obviously the smartest turnip in the bowl, which really doesn't say much, but she was just as shallow as the others. I was left with way too many questions about her. Where did she come from? Who was she before this story? Why Derek? What was that instant connection with Matthew all about? Why she kept asking Derek "what was wrong" when she sprung a new one on him? Did she actually get what she wanted when Derek was unconscious? They tried to make her mysterious after a while, but the filmmakers confused natural humanistic mystery with the "now you see me, now you don't" Batman crap. It was ridiculous.
The film played like the most expensive B-movie in the history of B-movies. It was no better than the worst straight-to-DVD flicks. That's what made it worthwhile for me. I was thoroughly entertained by this garbage. I was laughing at everything, just like I would for a bad-movie. I laughed at the dialogue. I laughed at the performances, like when Derek storms out on Lisa after her first aggressive pass at him in the bathroom stall and her calling after him. I laughed at what I now christen as "Beyonce Obsessed lines." I laughed at how big the baby boy was but he still needed his diapers changed. I laughed at the cop's late response to everything in such posh surroundings. I laughed at the predictably, brain dead actions of Sharon and Derek's babysitter and Matthew. I laughed at the contrivances. I would have to say, the funniest thing about this film was the believability of it all.
If you're looking for a truly well crafted drama/thriller like "Fatal Attraction" or "Chinatown," then I would advise you to skip this one. But, if you're looking for a ludicrous piece of farce, with straight-to-DVD bad acting, writing and directing masqueraded as a well crafted drama/thriller then by all means have a good time.
Medicine for Melancholy
(2008)
O-ver-ra-ted!!! (clap, clap, clap-clap-clap) O-ver-ra-ted!!! (clap, clap, clap-clap-clap)
13 April 2009
And this is coming from someone who eagerly anticipated seeing this film. I was not impressed. In fact, I was bored stiff for most of the film.
It started off with a lot of promise. I was engaged to the mystery of these two totally different characters, brought together by a one-night stand and reunited by curiosity--possibly loneliness. Despite her cattiness, I approved of the idea of him pursuing her and finding out who she really is. As I expected, she turns out to be a lonely yet worldly, intelligent, open minded woman who became smitten by the equally lonesome, pro-black charmer with radical ideologies. The dialogue was great and the cinematography was solid.
Then, the film went left for me. It started with the preachy conversation they had at her place. It was appropriate but too convenient for the telling of this story. Then we move on to some uninteresting visuals inside a museum, some angled on passages I needed to be a speed reader just to take in before it was cut away, only to learn that I was being preached to even more. The whole 2nd ACT seemed to be stretched out in order to reach the necessary amount of minutes needed to be categorized as a legitimate feature. I mean, that party scene was longer than the both of "House Party" and "House Party 2," and what happened? Nothing. Just a long, drawn out uneventful party scene.
To make things worse, the filmmaker threw in this moment featuring a community group discussing gentrification, a subject I'm deeply concerned about. However, it was touched on just enough to feel forced and not enough to hold any relevance for the story.
Also, the acting seemed flat, mostly due to the male lead.
In the end, I didn't know these characters at all. I wanted to care but I really didn't. I learned absolutely nothing. I even found myself reaching for a connection between gentrification and the love story. I may see how the main characters and their choices are being influenced by it, but that's me pushing it. The connection was unclear, leaving me with the only option of looking for something that might not be there. It wasn't a good film. 4/10.
It started off with a lot of promise. I was engaged to the mystery of these two totally different characters, brought together by a one-night stand and reunited by curiosity--possibly loneliness. Despite her cattiness, I approved of the idea of him pursuing her and finding out who she really is. As I expected, she turns out to be a lonely yet worldly, intelligent, open minded woman who became smitten by the equally lonesome, pro-black charmer with radical ideologies. The dialogue was great and the cinematography was solid.
Then, the film went left for me. It started with the preachy conversation they had at her place. It was appropriate but too convenient for the telling of this story. Then we move on to some uninteresting visuals inside a museum, some angled on passages I needed to be a speed reader just to take in before it was cut away, only to learn that I was being preached to even more. The whole 2nd ACT seemed to be stretched out in order to reach the necessary amount of minutes needed to be categorized as a legitimate feature. I mean, that party scene was longer than the both of "House Party" and "House Party 2," and what happened? Nothing. Just a long, drawn out uneventful party scene.
To make things worse, the filmmaker threw in this moment featuring a community group discussing gentrification, a subject I'm deeply concerned about. However, it was touched on just enough to feel forced and not enough to hold any relevance for the story.
Also, the acting seemed flat, mostly due to the male lead.
In the end, I didn't know these characters at all. I wanted to care but I really didn't. I learned absolutely nothing. I even found myself reaching for a connection between gentrification and the love story. I may see how the main characters and their choices are being influenced by it, but that's me pushing it. The connection was unclear, leaving me with the only option of looking for something that might not be there. It wasn't a good film. 4/10.
The Reader
(2008)
Good movie but not great.
22 January 2009
Warning: Spoilers
When I watched the screener, alone at home with nothing but my own thoughts, I was pleasantly surprised at how fast paced the film started. It was sexy and intriguing. I did question Hanna (Kate Winslet) temperament at times but it worked for me.
Everything fell apart when Hanna skipped town on the mousy boy Michael. I bought into his love for her. That was clear. I just didn't accept her doggedness in keeping her illiteracy a secret. It was absurd. Of course, in real life, most people who can't read or write are ashamed and work at keeping it a secret. The absurdity of it all didn't surface until much later when a crisis presented itself.
When he started law school, he becomes this passive, washed out student who takes in 50 packs of cigarettes a day. That's all he did. Go to class, smoke his lungs to tar and kept his distance from fellow students. I accepted his new characterization. It reflected his feelings of hurt and distrust. But it did nothing for story. His passiveness put the story on hold, and me as well (Zzzz).
Then Hanna reenters his life as a perpetrator on trial for crimes against humanity when she worked as a S.S. guard at a Nazi death camp. "The Kid," aka Mr. Passive, happens to be present (contrivance) as a law student observing a real life trial, and what does he do? Nothing, this time rightfully so being that he's only there to observe. Then the crisis comes when her illiteracy could have actually saved her from a life sentence. However, she chooses to keep her shame to herself and take the blame for everything. She would rather go to prison for life than admit that she can't read or write.
Junior realized this and wanted to confront her, to save her from herself and to breath life back into his comatose role. But what does he do? Just take a wild guess. That's right. Nothing. He lets her rot, at which point I wanted to stop watching this film and let the screener rot.
Of course, I continued on reluctantly and I was pleased when the story left his uninteresting youth behind to show a man who was finally about something (working on his relationship with his daughter). The story even became touching as he reconnected with the aging Hanna who was on the verge of getting out of prison after 20 years. But the solid yet predictable ending wasn't enough to save this film from the depths of mediocrity.
"The Reader" isn't Best Picture material. The Academy fell for the old tricks of the Weinstein's aggressive campaigning once again.
Everything fell apart when Hanna skipped town on the mousy boy Michael. I bought into his love for her. That was clear. I just didn't accept her doggedness in keeping her illiteracy a secret. It was absurd. Of course, in real life, most people who can't read or write are ashamed and work at keeping it a secret. The absurdity of it all didn't surface until much later when a crisis presented itself.
When he started law school, he becomes this passive, washed out student who takes in 50 packs of cigarettes a day. That's all he did. Go to class, smoke his lungs to tar and kept his distance from fellow students. I accepted his new characterization. It reflected his feelings of hurt and distrust. But it did nothing for story. His passiveness put the story on hold, and me as well (Zzzz).
Then Hanna reenters his life as a perpetrator on trial for crimes against humanity when she worked as a S.S. guard at a Nazi death camp. "The Kid," aka Mr. Passive, happens to be present (contrivance) as a law student observing a real life trial, and what does he do? Nothing, this time rightfully so being that he's only there to observe. Then the crisis comes when her illiteracy could have actually saved her from a life sentence. However, she chooses to keep her shame to herself and take the blame for everything. She would rather go to prison for life than admit that she can't read or write.
Junior realized this and wanted to confront her, to save her from herself and to breath life back into his comatose role. But what does he do? Just take a wild guess. That's right. Nothing. He lets her rot, at which point I wanted to stop watching this film and let the screener rot.
Of course, I continued on reluctantly and I was pleased when the story left his uninteresting youth behind to show a man who was finally about something (working on his relationship with his daughter). The story even became touching as he reconnected with the aging Hanna who was on the verge of getting out of prison after 20 years. But the solid yet predictable ending wasn't enough to save this film from the depths of mediocrity.
"The Reader" isn't Best Picture material. The Academy fell for the old tricks of the Weinstein's aggressive campaigning once again.
Cadillac Records
(2008)
This boring, superficial movie could've been better. TQS Breakdown PROS/CONS
7 December 2008
1. It was a necessary history lesson for young people in understanding where most of today's music originated from.(PRO)
2. Jeffrey Wright gave a good performance as Muddy Waters. He was amusing at times with enough mystique to make him interesting without making him a total bafflement.(PRO)
3. Mos Def was good as Chuck Berry. This had plenty to do with the fact that his character was the most engaging. He was witty and talented, possessing most of the film's admirable qualities.(PRO)
4. Beyonce gave her best performance to date. She was captivating at times. Seductive.(PRO)
========================================
1. I was bored. The movie took too long for anything real to happen. The first thirty minutes played like an uneventful montage between Chess and Waters.(CON)
2. The characters were all one dimensional. Every single one of them. They were as much developed as characters in dramatizations one would see on "America's Most Wanted." In fact, the whole film felt like one big dramatization about the rise and fall of Cadillac Records. The dots never connected.(CON)
3. I didn't engage with any of the characters. In other words, I couldn't care less. Oh, your father doesn't want anything to do with you? I don't care. Are the police working you over for being a loud mouth? I don't care. You feel slighted because your husband is out having babies with other women? (yawn) Get in line. I know there were too many characters to develop them all fully and appropriately, in which case the story should have focused on the necessary few. In some cases, they all seem to be doing something that made me disconnect from them even more, like the kid Little Walters. I had a problem with everything he did. He would act out and do cowardly things to people. Where were the humanistic qualities in most of them? They all seem to be looking out for themselves, except for Muddy Waters. I never pitied any of them. They were flawed but we never go to know their inner, personal or extra-personal conflicts. And they seemed to be predictable.(CON)
4. The transitions were not smooth at all. The story and editing together felt choppy, erratic and disjointed. This goes back to my point about the film never "connecting the dots." One minute we're here, the next we're there, cutting a time we needed to understand or see simple yet eventful things like Chess getting married.(CON)
5. Adrian Brody's performance was mediocre at best in a futile effort to breath life into a character without focus. I knew I was in trouble in the first scene, with him staring in the wake of a Polish father dragging his daughter away from him. He uttered something about one day his wife "will drive a Cadillac," the worst execution of a line in Brody's career.(CON)
6. Too much musical number scenes and not enough story. It wasn't a musical. So, what's with the constant music being played? Also, the music was so loud it clouded out the already difficult to make-out dialogue. The sound mixer should have been replaced with one who understands the necessity of dialogue in a film like this.(CON)
7. The rest of the performances were not good at all. Gabrielle Union's facial expressions made her look like she was going mad instead of being emotional about her circumstances. And what's that thing she does with her lips folded in? Columbus Short was terrible. Cedric the Entertainer was just... there. Emmanuelle Chriqui looked like she was asking in her mind, "Why am I here?"
8. I didn't believe the whole atmosphere of the film. I mean, the over all film had no life. I guess this was responsible for me being bored. I blame the writer/director.(CON)
9. Beyonce's best wasn't enough. I said it was her best performance but it wasn't very good in my opinion. When she wasn't captivating and seductive, she was whiny and boring. In the scene at the restaurant, Etta exploded in rage, throwing a glass at the floor and for that brief moment, it felt like I was watching Effie White from "Dreamgirls." The voice, the tone, the execution of the line as she breaks the glass. Besides that one unique moment of her list of underwhelming beats, she was flat and her character was all over the place. I see, like in "Dreamgirls," she still have trouble staying in the moment for a whole scene. There will be a flash of Etta James or whomever she was impersonating, then it'll be Beyonce trying to act the rest of the way. Her performance and character was inconsistent. But, she was very easy on the eyes.(CON)
IN CLOSING: I was constantly asking myself about these characters, "What does he/she want and how is he/she trying to get it?" There was never any real inciting incident and the ending was anti-climatic. And for all those who are betting their home on Beyonce winning an Oscar for her performance in this film, let me be the one to save you all from being homeless in what appears to be the coldest winter in years (at least those that live in cold places like the NYC). Not only will Beyonce NOT win an Oscar for this, she will also be overlooked for a nomination by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences.
2. Jeffrey Wright gave a good performance as Muddy Waters. He was amusing at times with enough mystique to make him interesting without making him a total bafflement.(PRO)
3. Mos Def was good as Chuck Berry. This had plenty to do with the fact that his character was the most engaging. He was witty and talented, possessing most of the film's admirable qualities.(PRO)
4. Beyonce gave her best performance to date. She was captivating at times. Seductive.(PRO)
========================================
1. I was bored. The movie took too long for anything real to happen. The first thirty minutes played like an uneventful montage between Chess and Waters.(CON)
2. The characters were all one dimensional. Every single one of them. They were as much developed as characters in dramatizations one would see on "America's Most Wanted." In fact, the whole film felt like one big dramatization about the rise and fall of Cadillac Records. The dots never connected.(CON)
3. I didn't engage with any of the characters. In other words, I couldn't care less. Oh, your father doesn't want anything to do with you? I don't care. Are the police working you over for being a loud mouth? I don't care. You feel slighted because your husband is out having babies with other women? (yawn) Get in line. I know there were too many characters to develop them all fully and appropriately, in which case the story should have focused on the necessary few. In some cases, they all seem to be doing something that made me disconnect from them even more, like the kid Little Walters. I had a problem with everything he did. He would act out and do cowardly things to people. Where were the humanistic qualities in most of them? They all seem to be looking out for themselves, except for Muddy Waters. I never pitied any of them. They were flawed but we never go to know their inner, personal or extra-personal conflicts. And they seemed to be predictable.(CON)
4. The transitions were not smooth at all. The story and editing together felt choppy, erratic and disjointed. This goes back to my point about the film never "connecting the dots." One minute we're here, the next we're there, cutting a time we needed to understand or see simple yet eventful things like Chess getting married.(CON)
5. Adrian Brody's performance was mediocre at best in a futile effort to breath life into a character without focus. I knew I was in trouble in the first scene, with him staring in the wake of a Polish father dragging his daughter away from him. He uttered something about one day his wife "will drive a Cadillac," the worst execution of a line in Brody's career.(CON)
6. Too much musical number scenes and not enough story. It wasn't a musical. So, what's with the constant music being played? Also, the music was so loud it clouded out the already difficult to make-out dialogue. The sound mixer should have been replaced with one who understands the necessity of dialogue in a film like this.(CON)
7. The rest of the performances were not good at all. Gabrielle Union's facial expressions made her look like she was going mad instead of being emotional about her circumstances. And what's that thing she does with her lips folded in? Columbus Short was terrible. Cedric the Entertainer was just... there. Emmanuelle Chriqui looked like she was asking in her mind, "Why am I here?"
8. I didn't believe the whole atmosphere of the film. I mean, the over all film had no life. I guess this was responsible for me being bored. I blame the writer/director.(CON)
9. Beyonce's best wasn't enough. I said it was her best performance but it wasn't very good in my opinion. When she wasn't captivating and seductive, she was whiny and boring. In the scene at the restaurant, Etta exploded in rage, throwing a glass at the floor and for that brief moment, it felt like I was watching Effie White from "Dreamgirls." The voice, the tone, the execution of the line as she breaks the glass. Besides that one unique moment of her list of underwhelming beats, she was flat and her character was all over the place. I see, like in "Dreamgirls," she still have trouble staying in the moment for a whole scene. There will be a flash of Etta James or whomever she was impersonating, then it'll be Beyonce trying to act the rest of the way. Her performance and character was inconsistent. But, she was very easy on the eyes.(CON)
IN CLOSING: I was constantly asking myself about these characters, "What does he/she want and how is he/she trying to get it?" There was never any real inciting incident and the ending was anti-climatic. And for all those who are betting their home on Beyonce winning an Oscar for her performance in this film, let me be the one to save you all from being homeless in what appears to be the coldest winter in years (at least those that live in cold places like the NYC). Not only will Beyonce NOT win an Oscar for this, she will also be overlooked for a nomination by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences.
Miracle at St. Anna
(2008)
Spike Lee's worst film ever!!!
12 October 2008
Warning: Spoilers
I could hear it now. "What? This isn't worse than 'She Hate Me.'" Um, yes it is. The reason why is simple. He wasn't trying as hard with "She Hate Me." In this film, he tried and tried, but in the end, it all went nowhere.
Mr. Lee quarrels with Eastwood about not including black soldiers in both of his World War II (WWII) themed films. "Miracle at St. Anna" was suppose to be his answer to such issues. What baffles me is why would you work so hard in making the black soldiers look so ridiculous in your zeal at showing blacks were there too? From Spike's absurd vision, black soldiers couldn't follow orders, they were always fighting amongst each other and unfocused, lusted after the Caucasian European locals. Whatever happened to the brotherhood of soldiers, watching each other backs and working at preventing your brother from ending up dead? They were buffoons, jealous and fighting like little children. I'm surprised they made it this far without getting killed. If that's how black soldiers behaved in WWII, it would be almost better not to show them, save us from embarrassment.
The most important quality a film can have for me are characters I can empathize with. Not sympathize, empathize. Despite their flaws, do I care or can I connect to them, at least one? One of the major differences between this war film and say, "Saving private Ryan," besides the battle scenes, has to be character connection. I couldn't care less about any of them in MASA. In fact, I didn't like any of them. I found myself wishing for the Germans to come and kill them all, smash cut to the closing of the post office shooting case then end credits immediately after. I was basically wanting the Germans to end the film as soon as possible, saving me from the excruciating pain of watching this steaming pile any further.
In the hands of a more talented director, this film would have humanized the Germans and the Italians just a little more. Just a tad. Unfortunately, Spike thought it would be worth our while seeing these retarded caricatures running around on the screen. The Germans were over-the-top mean, just like the white chief officers in the U.S. Army commanding the Buffalo Soldiers. And they all seem to be vying for the "Stupidest person ever award." Italian villagers who would rather run outside in the midst of gunfire instead of stay in their homes, hide in a closet and STFU. Black soldiers returning armed and dangerous to the diner where they were asked to leave by stereotypical white racist diner owner, basically holding him up for their ice scoops. I mean, come on Spike Lee. And you wonder why Tyler Perry is knocking you out the box? This film is worse than anything TP has ever puked out.
I didn't like the many story lines. It took the film in directions it didn't need to go. I see how they all were relevant to the mystery of the stone head and the post office shooting or whatever, but it didn't matter because the story was nonexistent. Story starts with a through-line for me and this film didn't have one. It was easy to follow. However, if he could have cut a few story lines out, maybe cramming them down to montages or something, and shave a few of them down, it would've been shorter, much more tolerable film.
The performances were stiff and flat. However, I wouldn't completely blame the actors for this. They were working with one dimensional characters. In fact, from what I heard, the main actors weren't inspired by the material.
I also had a major problem with the dialogue. If the characters weren't saying anything absurd and ignorant, most of the time running their mouths about nothing, then they were preaching. In fact, I would dare to say this is Spike Lee's preachiest film ever.
Also, Spike Lee lost his sense of humor and it's evident in his work these days. All attempts to be funny failed miserably. I was so annoyed. Lighten up.
As for the technical aspects, well, I should start with the editing. The film should have been cut down. The battle scenes looked like they were shot by some amateur, film school student. Wasn't it Ebert that likened the battle scenes to that of "Saving Private Ryan"? Ebert is losing it. He has that neck brace thingy he wears too tight around his neck. It's cutting off circulation to his brain. I mean, I saw the amputee's arm blow off before the grenade hit and explode. WTF? It was all so laughable. The cinematography was terrible. The music was horrid. And I don't know about you, but I am sick and tired of Spike Lee's tight shots on inanimate objects and symbols, cutting them right in during the scene, like the tight shots on the German medals. He does this all too often. It's corny. Ugh.
The biggest problem with the film was the believability aspect of it all. I wasn't buying anything. I didn't believe the black soldiers were soldiers. I didn't believe it was 1940 something, war torn Italy. I didn't believe the drama. I never once believed they were shooting or bombing anything, something I never felt before watching any war film. Maybe because previous war films never had constant bombs going off around the main characters for no reason. Unnecessary. I couldn't believe the characters were so stupid. I didn't believe the Italian woman would be remotely interested in Ealy when she seemed more engaged with Derek Luke's character.
And I'm sorry. What you may call a miracle, I call a contrivance, just another contribution to the overall lack of believability of this crappy film.
Mr. Lee quarrels with Eastwood about not including black soldiers in both of his World War II (WWII) themed films. "Miracle at St. Anna" was suppose to be his answer to such issues. What baffles me is why would you work so hard in making the black soldiers look so ridiculous in your zeal at showing blacks were there too? From Spike's absurd vision, black soldiers couldn't follow orders, they were always fighting amongst each other and unfocused, lusted after the Caucasian European locals. Whatever happened to the brotherhood of soldiers, watching each other backs and working at preventing your brother from ending up dead? They were buffoons, jealous and fighting like little children. I'm surprised they made it this far without getting killed. If that's how black soldiers behaved in WWII, it would be almost better not to show them, save us from embarrassment.
The most important quality a film can have for me are characters I can empathize with. Not sympathize, empathize. Despite their flaws, do I care or can I connect to them, at least one? One of the major differences between this war film and say, "Saving private Ryan," besides the battle scenes, has to be character connection. I couldn't care less about any of them in MASA. In fact, I didn't like any of them. I found myself wishing for the Germans to come and kill them all, smash cut to the closing of the post office shooting case then end credits immediately after. I was basically wanting the Germans to end the film as soon as possible, saving me from the excruciating pain of watching this steaming pile any further.
In the hands of a more talented director, this film would have humanized the Germans and the Italians just a little more. Just a tad. Unfortunately, Spike thought it would be worth our while seeing these retarded caricatures running around on the screen. The Germans were over-the-top mean, just like the white chief officers in the U.S. Army commanding the Buffalo Soldiers. And they all seem to be vying for the "Stupidest person ever award." Italian villagers who would rather run outside in the midst of gunfire instead of stay in their homes, hide in a closet and STFU. Black soldiers returning armed and dangerous to the diner where they were asked to leave by stereotypical white racist diner owner, basically holding him up for their ice scoops. I mean, come on Spike Lee. And you wonder why Tyler Perry is knocking you out the box? This film is worse than anything TP has ever puked out.
I didn't like the many story lines. It took the film in directions it didn't need to go. I see how they all were relevant to the mystery of the stone head and the post office shooting or whatever, but it didn't matter because the story was nonexistent. Story starts with a through-line for me and this film didn't have one. It was easy to follow. However, if he could have cut a few story lines out, maybe cramming them down to montages or something, and shave a few of them down, it would've been shorter, much more tolerable film.
The performances were stiff and flat. However, I wouldn't completely blame the actors for this. They were working with one dimensional characters. In fact, from what I heard, the main actors weren't inspired by the material.
I also had a major problem with the dialogue. If the characters weren't saying anything absurd and ignorant, most of the time running their mouths about nothing, then they were preaching. In fact, I would dare to say this is Spike Lee's preachiest film ever.
Also, Spike Lee lost his sense of humor and it's evident in his work these days. All attempts to be funny failed miserably. I was so annoyed. Lighten up.
As for the technical aspects, well, I should start with the editing. The film should have been cut down. The battle scenes looked like they were shot by some amateur, film school student. Wasn't it Ebert that likened the battle scenes to that of "Saving Private Ryan"? Ebert is losing it. He has that neck brace thingy he wears too tight around his neck. It's cutting off circulation to his brain. I mean, I saw the amputee's arm blow off before the grenade hit and explode. WTF? It was all so laughable. The cinematography was terrible. The music was horrid. And I don't know about you, but I am sick and tired of Spike Lee's tight shots on inanimate objects and symbols, cutting them right in during the scene, like the tight shots on the German medals. He does this all too often. It's corny. Ugh.
The biggest problem with the film was the believability aspect of it all. I wasn't buying anything. I didn't believe the black soldiers were soldiers. I didn't believe it was 1940 something, war torn Italy. I didn't believe the drama. I never once believed they were shooting or bombing anything, something I never felt before watching any war film. Maybe because previous war films never had constant bombs going off around the main characters for no reason. Unnecessary. I couldn't believe the characters were so stupid. I didn't believe the Italian woman would be remotely interested in Ealy when she seemed more engaged with Derek Luke's character.
And I'm sorry. What you may call a miracle, I call a contrivance, just another contribution to the overall lack of believability of this crappy film.
The Secret Life of Bees
(2008)
Solid film...
14 September 2008
I caught an exclusive screening of this film a week back and I must say, it might be the best film featuring a mostly black cast since "Antwone Fisher." The story centers around Lily (Dakota Fanning), a poor, lonely little girl in the deep south, who deals with a tragic past and a miserable, cruel father (Paul Bettany). Her life revolves around dreams of being every bit like her deceased mother and her relationship with her caregiver Rosaleen (Jennifer Hudson).
In the midst of the civil rights movement, Rosaleen finds herself in some trouble with the locals, inspiring Lily to flee with her to a South Carolina town that she believes holds the secret to her mother's past. In this town, they find refuge with the Boatwright sisters (Queen Latifah, Alicia Keys and Sophie Okonedo), who take them in on the strength of a story concocted by Lily. Through their cultured world, filled with beekeeping, a lucrative honey business, religious beliefs and love, Lily finds the security she has longed for and finds the answers to questions that haunted her for years.
The director (Prince-Brythewood) did a great job at making us care about the characters, even the miserable father played excellently by Paul Bettany. Alicia Keys shows that some R&B singers can actually perform well in a movie, playing the snooty June Boatwright. However, the best performances has to be between Fanning and Okonedo, who played the gentle, simple minded, manic depressive May Boatwright. If Okonedo reminded me less of Thandie Newton's character in "Beloved," I would've predicted an Oscar nomination depending on this year's competition. Maybe there's one in store for Bettany? Its all left to be seen.
The film has its flaws. It dragged for a good portion of the first thirty minutes as we watch Lily and Rosaleen mill about, doing mundane things in their pitiful lives. But then it really picks up when they meet the Boatwright sisters. The characters were balancing on a thin line between empathetic and sympathetic. You never want to be in the latter. And the filmmakers couldn't resist being a bit schmaltzy on occasion, making most of it play like a good after school special with nothing beyond two dimensionality. And my biggest problem with the film... anti-climatic.
Overall, its a solid film and definitely worth the time in seeing.
In the midst of the civil rights movement, Rosaleen finds herself in some trouble with the locals, inspiring Lily to flee with her to a South Carolina town that she believes holds the secret to her mother's past. In this town, they find refuge with the Boatwright sisters (Queen Latifah, Alicia Keys and Sophie Okonedo), who take them in on the strength of a story concocted by Lily. Through their cultured world, filled with beekeeping, a lucrative honey business, religious beliefs and love, Lily finds the security she has longed for and finds the answers to questions that haunted her for years.
The director (Prince-Brythewood) did a great job at making us care about the characters, even the miserable father played excellently by Paul Bettany. Alicia Keys shows that some R&B singers can actually perform well in a movie, playing the snooty June Boatwright. However, the best performances has to be between Fanning and Okonedo, who played the gentle, simple minded, manic depressive May Boatwright. If Okonedo reminded me less of Thandie Newton's character in "Beloved," I would've predicted an Oscar nomination depending on this year's competition. Maybe there's one in store for Bettany? Its all left to be seen.
The film has its flaws. It dragged for a good portion of the first thirty minutes as we watch Lily and Rosaleen mill about, doing mundane things in their pitiful lives. But then it really picks up when they meet the Boatwright sisters. The characters were balancing on a thin line between empathetic and sympathetic. You never want to be in the latter. And the filmmakers couldn't resist being a bit schmaltzy on occasion, making most of it play like a good after school special with nothing beyond two dimensionality. And my biggest problem with the film... anti-climatic.
Overall, its a solid film and definitely worth the time in seeing.
The Great Debaters
(2007)
I'm still waiting for the next great film featuring a predominately black cast. This wasn't it.
19 June 2008
"The Great Debaters" wasn't good enough for me in recognizing it as a great black American film. It was decent but not great. The last great black American film in my opinion was "Antwone Fisher". So, Mr. Washington still wins. Before AF, "Eve's Bayou"... I guess Jurnee Smollett wins as well.
The acting, writing and cinematography were all above average. However, I couldn't engage with most of the characters except for Forest and Denzel Whitaker's characters. And, unfortunately, I don't think the kid's acting gave enough range to fully realize the emotions of James Farmer Jr. I also think there is something phony about Jurnee Smollett's performance. She was always in the moment but would shift to "Acting" with a capital 'A' in moments that seemed unscripted or improvised. And I hated the slow droll in her words when she debated in the end, sounding like the soulful narrator from "Eve's Bayou." I do appreciate the sports genre feel of the film, substituting the typical sport for something like the competition in debating. However, the debates were not interesting or insightful at all. The debates were just the same old arguments mostly presented by black intellectuals since forever. I found myself bored of the debates. I needed to hear a new perspective on the same ole'issues.
The best part was the scenes stemming from the characters witnessing an abominable act of violence committed to a stranger, which rightfully left them all distraught up until the final debate competition of the film.
It was a great effort for a mediocre film. And I'm still waiting for the next great film featuring a predominately black cast.
The acting, writing and cinematography were all above average. However, I couldn't engage with most of the characters except for Forest and Denzel Whitaker's characters. And, unfortunately, I don't think the kid's acting gave enough range to fully realize the emotions of James Farmer Jr. I also think there is something phony about Jurnee Smollett's performance. She was always in the moment but would shift to "Acting" with a capital 'A' in moments that seemed unscripted or improvised. And I hated the slow droll in her words when she debated in the end, sounding like the soulful narrator from "Eve's Bayou." I do appreciate the sports genre feel of the film, substituting the typical sport for something like the competition in debating. However, the debates were not interesting or insightful at all. The debates were just the same old arguments mostly presented by black intellectuals since forever. I found myself bored of the debates. I needed to hear a new perspective on the same ole'issues.
The best part was the scenes stemming from the characters witnessing an abominable act of violence committed to a stranger, which rightfully left them all distraught up until the final debate competition of the film.
It was a great effort for a mediocre film. And I'm still waiting for the next great film featuring a predominately black cast.
Crossover
(2006)
"Why this film is one of the worst movies ever?"
15 June 2008
someone asked? Hmm... Where should I start? Well, let's start with the blueprint: screenplay.
The dialogue was on-the-nose, predictable babbling about nothing. The jokes were even worse. The characters were less than one dimensional while accomplishing all sorts of inconsistencies, which attributed to outrageous behavior. I mean, at one point, the main character was just having a nervous breakdown for absolutely nothing, for the sake of drama. The plot was as believable as Rudolph the Rednose Reindeer. And even with the absurd plot, the writing failed to be original at all levels. I mean, we saw the same subplots done before in way more superior films like "White Men Can't Jump".
The directing was Amateur night at the Apollo. He did nothing with the camera or the blocking of the actors to make me believe he has an ounce of talent in his body. And the shots were so flat and uninteresting. I hope they shot the movie on HD. I'd hate to think one can make film stock look so bad.
The acting was the worst. Inappropriate and unjustified outbursts of anger, straight line readings off the page and so much wooden actions/reactions that it started to look like a smörgåsbord for termites.
And the basketball playing was terrible, even from the actors who are known for basketball, like Hot Sauce. They made a big mistake trying to pass off Anthony Mackie as some ballplayer. He looked uncomfortable with the basketball every time he touched it. I had a hard time watching him.
Uneventful montages. Glossy cinematography looking like someone's home VHS camera. Lame jokes. Inept editing.
You know when you have watched a bad film? When you're a passionate cinephile and after watching the film, it was so bad, you're left with a temporary bad taste in your mouth for movie making since the beginning of time. This film is that bad.
The dialogue was on-the-nose, predictable babbling about nothing. The jokes were even worse. The characters were less than one dimensional while accomplishing all sorts of inconsistencies, which attributed to outrageous behavior. I mean, at one point, the main character was just having a nervous breakdown for absolutely nothing, for the sake of drama. The plot was as believable as Rudolph the Rednose Reindeer. And even with the absurd plot, the writing failed to be original at all levels. I mean, we saw the same subplots done before in way more superior films like "White Men Can't Jump".
The directing was Amateur night at the Apollo. He did nothing with the camera or the blocking of the actors to make me believe he has an ounce of talent in his body. And the shots were so flat and uninteresting. I hope they shot the movie on HD. I'd hate to think one can make film stock look so bad.
The acting was the worst. Inappropriate and unjustified outbursts of anger, straight line readings off the page and so much wooden actions/reactions that it started to look like a smörgåsbord for termites.
And the basketball playing was terrible, even from the actors who are known for basketball, like Hot Sauce. They made a big mistake trying to pass off Anthony Mackie as some ballplayer. He looked uncomfortable with the basketball every time he touched it. I had a hard time watching him.
Uneventful montages. Glossy cinematography looking like someone's home VHS camera. Lame jokes. Inept editing.
You know when you have watched a bad film? When you're a passionate cinephile and after watching the film, it was so bad, you're left with a temporary bad taste in your mouth for movie making since the beginning of time. This film is that bad.
The Omega Man
(1971)
Whoever says this was better than I Am Legend needs to share with me what they're smoking.
9 March 2008
This film was horrible. It was a complete nightmare to watch, and totally tedious. Instead of writing concise sentences on why this movie was so horrendous to me, I will simply list the negative points about the film:
1. The dialogue - When I heard Heston scream out "It's turning into night," that's when I knew I was in for a long night.
2. Neville - I had an easier time connecting with one of the many manikins in the film than Neville. He was interestingly uninteresting. The dog in "I Am Legend" was an added necessity for Will Smith's character recognition. It helped.
3. The Family - Even though they can articulate like intelligent human beings, they proved to be more mindless than the mindless monsters running around in "I Am Legend."
4. The romance - This should have been number one on this list. I didn't buy the romance for one split second. It was laughably absurd. It only took a second for it to happen. And I didn't believe Heston was even attracted to her.
5. Richie or Richard (whatever) - What was he thinking?
6. The performances - For-the-birds.
7. Camera work - I started calling out the next shot before it happened, like the zoom in on Heston when he found Richie's note. It looked shamefully amateurish and predictable for what was a string of corny shots since the beginning of the film.
8. Music - It was all done in one night on a Casio synthesizer keyboard.
9. Make up/Effects - Okay. What was with the red Kool-aid and, in some cases, the Campbell's tomato soup as blood? And granted, the CGI monsters in "I Am Legend" weren't easy on the eyes or sensibility (I hated them), but I can appreciate them more than the intellectual, pale faces walking around in their Jedi cloaks.
10.The ending - Need I say more?
Overall, it was an awful film. If I could give it "zero" stars, I would.
1. The dialogue - When I heard Heston scream out "It's turning into night," that's when I knew I was in for a long night.
2. Neville - I had an easier time connecting with one of the many manikins in the film than Neville. He was interestingly uninteresting. The dog in "I Am Legend" was an added necessity for Will Smith's character recognition. It helped.
3. The Family - Even though they can articulate like intelligent human beings, they proved to be more mindless than the mindless monsters running around in "I Am Legend."
4. The romance - This should have been number one on this list. I didn't buy the romance for one split second. It was laughably absurd. It only took a second for it to happen. And I didn't believe Heston was even attracted to her.
5. Richie or Richard (whatever) - What was he thinking?
6. The performances - For-the-birds.
7. Camera work - I started calling out the next shot before it happened, like the zoom in on Heston when he found Richie's note. It looked shamefully amateurish and predictable for what was a string of corny shots since the beginning of the film.
8. Music - It was all done in one night on a Casio synthesizer keyboard.
9. Make up/Effects - Okay. What was with the red Kool-aid and, in some cases, the Campbell's tomato soup as blood? And granted, the CGI monsters in "I Am Legend" weren't easy on the eyes or sensibility (I hated them), but I can appreciate them more than the intellectual, pale faces walking around in their Jedi cloaks.
10.The ending - Need I say more?
Overall, it was an awful film. If I could give it "zero" stars, I would.
Why Did I Get Married?
(2007)
This may be Tyler Perry's best, but his best isn't good enough...
22 October 2007
Warning: Spoilers
Basic Screen writing 101: "Show, don't tell." This separates the great films from the not-so-great films.
In Married?, all Perry did was "tell us" through forced exposition, like the scene where we're introduced to Terry (Tyler Perry) and Diane (Sharon Leal) as they cruise in their luxury SUV. The unstable couple picks that time to discuss her, Diane's, lack of commitment to the marriage? Couldn't we have caught them at the end of the discussion? He waits until they're almost there to talk about their problem? Not in a Tyler Perry film, where secrets and deep, sometimes malicious, feelings are absurdly revealed in the most contrived and inappropriate of times, and not for the sake of story but for over-the-top drama.
Most of what Perry "tells us" is through Patricia (Janet Jackson), the psychiatrist who is basically his ventriloquist dummy, spewing all of his views about love, faith and marriage.
Perry "tells us" how to love again, sometimes with an unbearable superficiality that has nothing to do with true love.
He "tells us" Sheila's (Jill Scott) feelings about herself during her marriage with this dramatic, teary monologue, which felt like a play-by-play recap of her whole story in the film and it felt as real as Santa Claus. So, basically, Perry showing us her feelings, like when she was unceremoniously tossed off the plane or her reaction to her husband's infidelity, didn't suffice. He had to continue the "telling." If Tyler Perry wants to be respected as a "film storyteller," he needs to get into the habit of "showing" more than he "tells."
The characters in this film were uninteresting, stereotypical at times, and worst of all, one-dimensional.
Patricia was flawless, and that's a bad thing believe it or not. A character should be flawed and not merely due to his/her inability to reveal her emotions. Her biggest flaw, an unintentional one by the filmmaker, was the advice she gave. It's basic, popular psychology and self-help advice at its most fundamental. There was never an "a-ha" moment with her marriage counseling. It was things any passive viewer of Oprah or Dr. Phil could've advised to anyone. With her lame advice, she was sounding more like Barney the dinosaur rather than this successful psychologist. And Gavin was just a female version of her.
Angela (Tasha Smith) and Marcus were the stereotypical of the bunch and offered nothing to this story. I couldn't connect with them. Angela had some admirable qualities. However, her admirable qualities easily sink below her myriad of tirades and inappropriate behavior. As for Marcus, he was just there.
Sheila and Mike were totally ridiculous. Sheila was too nice and Mike was too mean for either of them to be real. Mike had enough flaws for the other characters in this film that were lacking.
And like Patricia, Terry was perfect but Diane was the selfish, inconsiderate one. If anything, she was the only character barely more than just one-dimensional.
My scroll of flaws with this film continues but I don't have enough room on this IMDb.com comment page to fully articulate them all. However, I must point out the main problem with Tyler Perry's writing. Everything seems to be so contrived.
Contrivance No. 5 The set up for the big dinner scene was evident when the confrontational Angela just happens to see Mike creeping into Trina's room without saying something right there and then.
Contrivance No. 4 Angela is a contrivance all in herself. She's the loud, bold, confrontational one of the bunch that is there to reveal everyone's secrets when they refuse to. In a Tyler Perry film, a character like that is needed because the other characters would rather talk about being uppity black folks rather then communicate their problems to their loved ones. But what Angela was doing on past retreats? It seems to only all come out here for the sake of this story.
Contrivance No. 3 In a Tyler Perry film, there just happens to be an eligible, perfect black man who happens to be attracted to plus sized black women just waiting in Pemberton, Colorado as Sheila's rebound when she divorces Mike.
Contrivance No. 2 Sheila blissfully encourages Trina to come along with her and her husband to find a single black man in Pemberton. Why would she do that? None of them ever been there before, so why would she assume that there will be "single black men" out there just waiting to meet Trina? This wasn't some resort in Jamaica. However, in a Tyler Perry film, single, handsome black men are conveniently everywhere, especially in snow capped mountains as sheriffs in small towns. Of course, this makes it easy for everyone to discover Mike's affair with Trina.
And the number one of them all, the one thing that made me pan this film immediately upon noticing:
Contrivance No. 1 Patricia is the world renowned therapist that has been getting the same married couples together for seven years where she would help them work on their marriages. However, in a Tyler Perry film, Patricia's many years of marriage exercises and counseling on their many marital retreats have done nothing for them. It seems as if now, year seven, they are actually getting down to the problems of their marriages. Were they playing so much on past retreats that they never addressed their problems? And most of the problems we see in the film are fresh and new. So, after years of counseling from one of the nation's best marriage counselors, the marriages got worse? The question should have been, "why did they stay married?"
In Married?, all Perry did was "tell us" through forced exposition, like the scene where we're introduced to Terry (Tyler Perry) and Diane (Sharon Leal) as they cruise in their luxury SUV. The unstable couple picks that time to discuss her, Diane's, lack of commitment to the marriage? Couldn't we have caught them at the end of the discussion? He waits until they're almost there to talk about their problem? Not in a Tyler Perry film, where secrets and deep, sometimes malicious, feelings are absurdly revealed in the most contrived and inappropriate of times, and not for the sake of story but for over-the-top drama.
Most of what Perry "tells us" is through Patricia (Janet Jackson), the psychiatrist who is basically his ventriloquist dummy, spewing all of his views about love, faith and marriage.
Perry "tells us" how to love again, sometimes with an unbearable superficiality that has nothing to do with true love.
He "tells us" Sheila's (Jill Scott) feelings about herself during her marriage with this dramatic, teary monologue, which felt like a play-by-play recap of her whole story in the film and it felt as real as Santa Claus. So, basically, Perry showing us her feelings, like when she was unceremoniously tossed off the plane or her reaction to her husband's infidelity, didn't suffice. He had to continue the "telling." If Tyler Perry wants to be respected as a "film storyteller," he needs to get into the habit of "showing" more than he "tells."
The characters in this film were uninteresting, stereotypical at times, and worst of all, one-dimensional.
Patricia was flawless, and that's a bad thing believe it or not. A character should be flawed and not merely due to his/her inability to reveal her emotions. Her biggest flaw, an unintentional one by the filmmaker, was the advice she gave. It's basic, popular psychology and self-help advice at its most fundamental. There was never an "a-ha" moment with her marriage counseling. It was things any passive viewer of Oprah or Dr. Phil could've advised to anyone. With her lame advice, she was sounding more like Barney the dinosaur rather than this successful psychologist. And Gavin was just a female version of her.
Angela (Tasha Smith) and Marcus were the stereotypical of the bunch and offered nothing to this story. I couldn't connect with them. Angela had some admirable qualities. However, her admirable qualities easily sink below her myriad of tirades and inappropriate behavior. As for Marcus, he was just there.
Sheila and Mike were totally ridiculous. Sheila was too nice and Mike was too mean for either of them to be real. Mike had enough flaws for the other characters in this film that were lacking.
And like Patricia, Terry was perfect but Diane was the selfish, inconsiderate one. If anything, she was the only character barely more than just one-dimensional.
My scroll of flaws with this film continues but I don't have enough room on this IMDb.com comment page to fully articulate them all. However, I must point out the main problem with Tyler Perry's writing. Everything seems to be so contrived.
Contrivance No. 5 The set up for the big dinner scene was evident when the confrontational Angela just happens to see Mike creeping into Trina's room without saying something right there and then.
Contrivance No. 4 Angela is a contrivance all in herself. She's the loud, bold, confrontational one of the bunch that is there to reveal everyone's secrets when they refuse to. In a Tyler Perry film, a character like that is needed because the other characters would rather talk about being uppity black folks rather then communicate their problems to their loved ones. But what Angela was doing on past retreats? It seems to only all come out here for the sake of this story.
Contrivance No. 3 In a Tyler Perry film, there just happens to be an eligible, perfect black man who happens to be attracted to plus sized black women just waiting in Pemberton, Colorado as Sheila's rebound when she divorces Mike.
Contrivance No. 2 Sheila blissfully encourages Trina to come along with her and her husband to find a single black man in Pemberton. Why would she do that? None of them ever been there before, so why would she assume that there will be "single black men" out there just waiting to meet Trina? This wasn't some resort in Jamaica. However, in a Tyler Perry film, single, handsome black men are conveniently everywhere, especially in snow capped mountains as sheriffs in small towns. Of course, this makes it easy for everyone to discover Mike's affair with Trina.
And the number one of them all, the one thing that made me pan this film immediately upon noticing:
Contrivance No. 1 Patricia is the world renowned therapist that has been getting the same married couples together for seven years where she would help them work on their marriages. However, in a Tyler Perry film, Patricia's many years of marriage exercises and counseling on their many marital retreats have done nothing for them. It seems as if now, year seven, they are actually getting down to the problems of their marriages. Were they playing so much on past retreats that they never addressed their problems? And most of the problems we see in the film are fresh and new. So, after years of counseling from one of the nation's best marriage counselors, the marriages got worse? The question should have been, "why did they stay married?"
The Seat Filler
(2004)
Wow... Cam'ron's "Killa Season" was better than this? Woooow!!!
11 September 2007
You know when you see a bad film? It's after you've watched it, and you're so taken by the horridness of it all that you start feeling guilty for criticizing the films you recently labeled as the worst film you ever watched, while pitying everyone involved with the steaming pile. In fact, you start to appreciate the "Phat Girlz," "Transformers," and "Killa Season's" of the world. "The Seat Filler" had that affect on me.
The reason why this film was so ghastly to me was because it was trying too hard to be good. It almost took itself too seriously despite the strained, unfunny comedic moments, like an oxymoron or something.
They had an original premise: a "seat filler" at an award show having a chance encounter with a pop singer. But the premise was devalued by inept directing, poor acting and appalling writing.
Kelly Rowland was nightmarish as the pop singer Jhnelle who makes an unlikely connection with a "seat filler" (played by the ever-so-over-the-top Duane Martin) at an award show. And that's the whole film. No drama, no complexity, no crisis, no character arc, nothing.
The characters were so uninteresting. They were just pretentious, paper thin, caricatures that were basically flawless, and I don't mean flawless in a good way. In fact, I could only mean that in their flawlessness, true character depth was compromised. I couldn't connect with any of them on a human level due to the overwhelming bombardment of sappy moments between Martin and Rowland. There was nothing to pity, no humanistic qualities, nothing to admire about them. What we should've admired about Jhnelle and her celebrity felt unrealistic, forced and underdeveloped. Derrick was more boring than Jhnelle. It was just another story about a black American aspiring to be or living as a lawyer or doctor, or something monotonous like that, another futile attempt to prove to the rest of the world that black Americans are more than thugs and pimps.
And don't let me get started on DeRay Davis. He was the worst thing about the film. He was annoying, obnoxious and he couldn't shut his mouth from spewing his nonsense for more than two seconds of his screen time. It was exhausting watching him.
The scenes were uneventful, only shedding light on the many holes riddled in the overall script. I found myself asking "how did he" and "didn't she" too many times.
Listening to the dialogue was like listening to fingernails clawing a chalkboard. That was partly due to the lack of character development in this steaming pile.
And the assistant director should've been fired while the sound editor should be sued for his awful work on this film. In the film, you would hear audience members applauding while sitting still, completely motionless, in the same shot. Mistakes like this aren't acceptable in films at this level, films that obviously had more than $500,000 in their budget to spend.
The best thing about this film was the cinematography, which could've been better as well.
This film would've gotten more than a star from me if it was a spoof, making fun of its cliché "boy meets girl" concept. But it was really trying to be good, with the singing performances from Kelly Rowland at so-called award shows that felt like talent shows at a local elementary school. This whole film was elementary at best.
The reason why this film was so ghastly to me was because it was trying too hard to be good. It almost took itself too seriously despite the strained, unfunny comedic moments, like an oxymoron or something.
They had an original premise: a "seat filler" at an award show having a chance encounter with a pop singer. But the premise was devalued by inept directing, poor acting and appalling writing.
Kelly Rowland was nightmarish as the pop singer Jhnelle who makes an unlikely connection with a "seat filler" (played by the ever-so-over-the-top Duane Martin) at an award show. And that's the whole film. No drama, no complexity, no crisis, no character arc, nothing.
The characters were so uninteresting. They were just pretentious, paper thin, caricatures that were basically flawless, and I don't mean flawless in a good way. In fact, I could only mean that in their flawlessness, true character depth was compromised. I couldn't connect with any of them on a human level due to the overwhelming bombardment of sappy moments between Martin and Rowland. There was nothing to pity, no humanistic qualities, nothing to admire about them. What we should've admired about Jhnelle and her celebrity felt unrealistic, forced and underdeveloped. Derrick was more boring than Jhnelle. It was just another story about a black American aspiring to be or living as a lawyer or doctor, or something monotonous like that, another futile attempt to prove to the rest of the world that black Americans are more than thugs and pimps.
And don't let me get started on DeRay Davis. He was the worst thing about the film. He was annoying, obnoxious and he couldn't shut his mouth from spewing his nonsense for more than two seconds of his screen time. It was exhausting watching him.
The scenes were uneventful, only shedding light on the many holes riddled in the overall script. I found myself asking "how did he" and "didn't she" too many times.
Listening to the dialogue was like listening to fingernails clawing a chalkboard. That was partly due to the lack of character development in this steaming pile.
And the assistant director should've been fired while the sound editor should be sued for his awful work on this film. In the film, you would hear audience members applauding while sitting still, completely motionless, in the same shot. Mistakes like this aren't acceptable in films at this level, films that obviously had more than $500,000 in their budget to spend.
The best thing about this film was the cinematography, which could've been better as well.
This film would've gotten more than a star from me if it was a spoof, making fun of its cliché "boy meets girl" concept. But it was really trying to be good, with the singing performances from Kelly Rowland at so-called award shows that felt like talent shows at a local elementary school. This whole film was elementary at best.
Clockers
(1995)
One of Spike Lee's best films to date...
17 July 2007
This is a long overdue review, being that I had the pleasure of seeing this film when it was first released.
"Clockers" is an urban tale about Strike (Mekhi Phifer), a drug dealer running a crew on the benches of his New York City Housing projects, who unconsciously has a desire to live a righteous life but doesn't see anyway out of the drug game. Strike's desire is further complicated when the local kingpin (Delroy Lindo) he works for gives him the task of killing another one of his own dealers who turns up dead soon after. Now Det. Rocco (Harvey Keitel) is adamant in finding out who killed the drug dealer. His veteran detective's intuition points him at Strike as the shooter.
Strike's brother Victor (Isiah Washington), a hardworking, God fearing, law abiding husband and father of two, confesses to the murder, which seems like a ploy to get Strike off the hook to Rocco and his intuition.
During Rocco's persistent scrutiny of Strike, there is an engaging subplot that shows Strike trying to be a big brother to a fatherless young boy in his projects, a boy that obviously admires the conflicted drug dealer. On the other hand, the boy's mother doesn't share her son's admiration for Strike while Andre the Giant (Keith David), once a mentor to Strike, threatens him to stay away from the young boy as well.
However, Rocco's dogged determination to catch Strike spirals the investigation way out of control, to the point of no return.
I thoroughly enjoyed this film. I cringed at the colorful clothes wore by the young Brooklyn boys, but that was a minor flaw overshadowed by the complex characters, riveting performances and the interesting plot. Strike's seamless character arc was a difficult journey. Everyone seems to end up in a win/lose situation that doesn't give us any answers to the drug problem in urban America or a solution for urbanites' damaging glorification of gun violence.
The drug dealing scenes were excellent. Spike Lee either used real crack addicts for these scenes or the greatest actors ever that can play crack addicts flawlessly.
The ending could be perceived as anticlimactic but it all works well for a satisfying, motion picture experience.
I was unimpressed by the camera-work and the cinematography, particularly the reversal film look of the movie. The cinematographer should have kept the look clean instead of grainy.
The performances weren't without flaws, with some that seemed over-the-top (Spike Lee's style) or muted, like the young boy that idolized Strike.
However, Mekhi Phifer, making his motion picture debut, was like a tour de force, bringing the New York City street attitude and slang to the big screen rarely seen in film and television while leaving out the trained thespian, unauthentic feel that undermines any actor's portrayal of street kids from the N.Y.C. Keitel, Turturro, David and Lindo were all excellent, rounding out the supporting cast.
This is a great film if you're looking for something urban and gritty, driven by a murder mystery against the backdrop of 1990's Brooklyn, before the gentrification. It's definitely one of Spike Lee's top five best films in my humble opinion.
"Clockers" is an urban tale about Strike (Mekhi Phifer), a drug dealer running a crew on the benches of his New York City Housing projects, who unconsciously has a desire to live a righteous life but doesn't see anyway out of the drug game. Strike's desire is further complicated when the local kingpin (Delroy Lindo) he works for gives him the task of killing another one of his own dealers who turns up dead soon after. Now Det. Rocco (Harvey Keitel) is adamant in finding out who killed the drug dealer. His veteran detective's intuition points him at Strike as the shooter.
Strike's brother Victor (Isiah Washington), a hardworking, God fearing, law abiding husband and father of two, confesses to the murder, which seems like a ploy to get Strike off the hook to Rocco and his intuition.
During Rocco's persistent scrutiny of Strike, there is an engaging subplot that shows Strike trying to be a big brother to a fatherless young boy in his projects, a boy that obviously admires the conflicted drug dealer. On the other hand, the boy's mother doesn't share her son's admiration for Strike while Andre the Giant (Keith David), once a mentor to Strike, threatens him to stay away from the young boy as well.
However, Rocco's dogged determination to catch Strike spirals the investigation way out of control, to the point of no return.
I thoroughly enjoyed this film. I cringed at the colorful clothes wore by the young Brooklyn boys, but that was a minor flaw overshadowed by the complex characters, riveting performances and the interesting plot. Strike's seamless character arc was a difficult journey. Everyone seems to end up in a win/lose situation that doesn't give us any answers to the drug problem in urban America or a solution for urbanites' damaging glorification of gun violence.
The drug dealing scenes were excellent. Spike Lee either used real crack addicts for these scenes or the greatest actors ever that can play crack addicts flawlessly.
The ending could be perceived as anticlimactic but it all works well for a satisfying, motion picture experience.
I was unimpressed by the camera-work and the cinematography, particularly the reversal film look of the movie. The cinematographer should have kept the look clean instead of grainy.
The performances weren't without flaws, with some that seemed over-the-top (Spike Lee's style) or muted, like the young boy that idolized Strike.
However, Mekhi Phifer, making his motion picture debut, was like a tour de force, bringing the New York City street attitude and slang to the big screen rarely seen in film and television while leaving out the trained thespian, unauthentic feel that undermines any actor's portrayal of street kids from the N.Y.C. Keitel, Turturro, David and Lindo were all excellent, rounding out the supporting cast.
This is a great film if you're looking for something urban and gritty, driven by a murder mystery against the backdrop of 1990's Brooklyn, before the gentrification. It's definitely one of Spike Lee's top five best films in my humble opinion.
Transformers
(2007)
How could Hollywood mess this "sure thing" up? What a shameful disaster!
4 July 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This deafeningly loud, obnoxious, usually stagnant and glorified epic disaster of a film was presented with too many opportunities to be one of the all-time greatest summer flicks ever. However, despite the advancements in today's special effects, it being inspired from the highly popular 1980's Hasbro toys and cartoon, with Steven Spielberg overseeing the production as an Executive producer, Michael Bay and his writers were still guilty of making this a "steaming pile." I can effortlessly breakdown at every level why this film didn't work for me.
The story was about a teenager name Sam (Shia LaBeouf) who purchases a car that happens to be a robot in disguise from another world. Sam is then caught in the middle of an ancient battle between two groups of these alien robots, the heroic Autobots and the Evil Decepticons. Both are seeking a mysterious cube known as the "Allspark" that contains their "life source." This central plot intertwines with the story of a special ops team being attacked by one of the Decepticons in the beginning, the pentagon enlisting teams of computer hackers to decode a signal they detected that ultimately came from the Decepticons and a hokey love story between Sam and Mikaela, the gorgeous bombshell in his class.
As intriguing as all of this may sound, besides the many battle scenes, car chases, attempts on Sam's life and Decepticon attacks, nothing happens to move the story along. Whatever layers of stories that were suppose to be happening beneath the unimpressive action sequences were uneventful and slow. So, all you're left with is the action, which by the end was boring and tedious to watch.
The characters were flat and moronic. The humans were one-note, soulless caricatures. They were also more than capable of damaging the robots, which took away from the extraordinary antagonism the original cartoon presented for our human heroes. The humans were helpless against the Decepticons and this made the Autobots necessary. In this absurd film, the humans didn't really need the Autobots to take out the Decepticons.
And whatever happened to characters like Jorge "Fig" Figueroa and Maggie? They sort or left this film halfway to the end to join the film playing in the theater next door.
Also, part of the cartoon's success was the personalities of the Transformers. They were emotional beings that were capable of treacherous, loyal, courageous, cowardice, morose and optimistic behavior. They weren't just giant piles of junk destroying an American metropolis. Whatever happened to the ongoing struggle for power over the Decepticons between Starscream and Megatron? This would've added some real complexity to this paper-thin story. Instead, Bay and the writers settled for hinting at it with a laughable one-liner from Megatron that rang falser than the action. Wasn't Bumblebee the kindest, frailest of them all? He was essential for his undying compassion for the humans in the cartoons. Not in this film, where he obviously fought in many battles and, when annoyed, can urinate on a human being at any given time. Now going from the true character to the characterizations of the robots, the looks of the original were more engaging and attractive to the eye. In this film, they looked like metal scraps of junk.
Then the films auteur had to take it there by making Jazz the Transformer with the Black-American soul, screaming, "What up, b****es?" Ironically, he was the only Autobot that easily gets killed as well. Now, a lesser minded person would pull the race card for this. I would just blame it on lazy, unimaginative, sloppy, hack writing and directing. In the end, I couldn't care less about any of the characters, human or Transformer.
The original Transformers could be chastised for wooden dialogue. However, when the characters weren't trying to be funny in this film, the dialogue was ten times worse than that of the cheesy words spoken in the cartoon. It was absolutely ridiculous, with zero subtext. The quality of the dialogue was lessoned in scenes where exposition was inappropriately forced in, like the ineptly written scene when Agent Simmons (John Turturro) was questioning Sam and Mikael in the backseat of the SUV, revealing Mikaelas' weak back story. And how many times did Optimus Prime have to tell us his name? At one point, I thought he was forgetting the many times he said his name previously. Besides, the whole introducing-yourself-thing from the Transformers, especially the Decepticons, was extra cheddar cheesy to me: "I am Megatron!" Yeah, and?! The monologues underscored by the sappy music could've gotten the collective "heave-hove" from this film as well.
The special effects were cool but could've been better. Most of the time, the Transformers looked animated instead of real in my opinion. And the confusing, unorthodox way they transformed, not to mention detailing that made them look like piles of scrap metal, revealed most of the flaws in the cartoon like computer generated images. As a director, I wouldn't be satisfied with the end result.
The most entertaining thing about sitting through a screening of this film was the hordes of people that were going ballistic over it. They laughed at anything and applauded for everything. From Bumblebee shattering all the glass in and around the car dealership to the Autobots skidding in unison on a U-Turn, these people thought every little thing deserved a standing ovation. Okay, maybe they were not standing. But it was all so laughable to me.
In my opinion, Bay, Spielberg and the writers massacred what could've been one of the greatest sci-fi films ever made. The only thing amazing about this experience was my girl sleeping through most of it with me nodding off right along side her. Bay has proved himself to be one of the worst, overpaid film directors in the history of Hollywood.
The story was about a teenager name Sam (Shia LaBeouf) who purchases a car that happens to be a robot in disguise from another world. Sam is then caught in the middle of an ancient battle between two groups of these alien robots, the heroic Autobots and the Evil Decepticons. Both are seeking a mysterious cube known as the "Allspark" that contains their "life source." This central plot intertwines with the story of a special ops team being attacked by one of the Decepticons in the beginning, the pentagon enlisting teams of computer hackers to decode a signal they detected that ultimately came from the Decepticons and a hokey love story between Sam and Mikaela, the gorgeous bombshell in his class.
As intriguing as all of this may sound, besides the many battle scenes, car chases, attempts on Sam's life and Decepticon attacks, nothing happens to move the story along. Whatever layers of stories that were suppose to be happening beneath the unimpressive action sequences were uneventful and slow. So, all you're left with is the action, which by the end was boring and tedious to watch.
The characters were flat and moronic. The humans were one-note, soulless caricatures. They were also more than capable of damaging the robots, which took away from the extraordinary antagonism the original cartoon presented for our human heroes. The humans were helpless against the Decepticons and this made the Autobots necessary. In this absurd film, the humans didn't really need the Autobots to take out the Decepticons.
And whatever happened to characters like Jorge "Fig" Figueroa and Maggie? They sort or left this film halfway to the end to join the film playing in the theater next door.
Also, part of the cartoon's success was the personalities of the Transformers. They were emotional beings that were capable of treacherous, loyal, courageous, cowardice, morose and optimistic behavior. They weren't just giant piles of junk destroying an American metropolis. Whatever happened to the ongoing struggle for power over the Decepticons between Starscream and Megatron? This would've added some real complexity to this paper-thin story. Instead, Bay and the writers settled for hinting at it with a laughable one-liner from Megatron that rang falser than the action. Wasn't Bumblebee the kindest, frailest of them all? He was essential for his undying compassion for the humans in the cartoons. Not in this film, where he obviously fought in many battles and, when annoyed, can urinate on a human being at any given time. Now going from the true character to the characterizations of the robots, the looks of the original were more engaging and attractive to the eye. In this film, they looked like metal scraps of junk.
Then the films auteur had to take it there by making Jazz the Transformer with the Black-American soul, screaming, "What up, b****es?" Ironically, he was the only Autobot that easily gets killed as well. Now, a lesser minded person would pull the race card for this. I would just blame it on lazy, unimaginative, sloppy, hack writing and directing. In the end, I couldn't care less about any of the characters, human or Transformer.
The original Transformers could be chastised for wooden dialogue. However, when the characters weren't trying to be funny in this film, the dialogue was ten times worse than that of the cheesy words spoken in the cartoon. It was absolutely ridiculous, with zero subtext. The quality of the dialogue was lessoned in scenes where exposition was inappropriately forced in, like the ineptly written scene when Agent Simmons (John Turturro) was questioning Sam and Mikael in the backseat of the SUV, revealing Mikaelas' weak back story. And how many times did Optimus Prime have to tell us his name? At one point, I thought he was forgetting the many times he said his name previously. Besides, the whole introducing-yourself-thing from the Transformers, especially the Decepticons, was extra cheddar cheesy to me: "I am Megatron!" Yeah, and?! The monologues underscored by the sappy music could've gotten the collective "heave-hove" from this film as well.
The special effects were cool but could've been better. Most of the time, the Transformers looked animated instead of real in my opinion. And the confusing, unorthodox way they transformed, not to mention detailing that made them look like piles of scrap metal, revealed most of the flaws in the cartoon like computer generated images. As a director, I wouldn't be satisfied with the end result.
The most entertaining thing about sitting through a screening of this film was the hordes of people that were going ballistic over it. They laughed at anything and applauded for everything. From Bumblebee shattering all the glass in and around the car dealership to the Autobots skidding in unison on a U-Turn, these people thought every little thing deserved a standing ovation. Okay, maybe they were not standing. But it was all so laughable to me.
In my opinion, Bay, Spielberg and the writers massacred what could've been one of the greatest sci-fi films ever made. The only thing amazing about this experience was my girl sleeping through most of it with me nodding off right along side her. Bay has proved himself to be one of the worst, overpaid film directors in the history of Hollywood.
The Wiz
(1978)
Just a small list of the reasons why this movie sucked...
27 May 2007
Warning: Spoilers
For now on, films that I give a three star rating or under don't get a long, detailed review from me anymore. I'll just breakdown in simple text the many reasons why the film was a steaming pile to me in my humble opinion.
The vision: It was too dark and creepy. The cast: Michael Jackson was the only "okay" one. The rest were poorly cast. The acting: This one beat the original at being way over the top. Art Production: Too colorful with no creativity. Our Heroes: Michael Jackson's stuffed life vest. The lion looked like my high school mascot. The "Tin Man" should have been called the "Junk Man." Diana Ross look TOO old and haggard to even play a 30 year old teacher, let alone a 24 year old one. The choreography: the film's scale couldn't keep up with it in some scenes. And in others, it was way too underdone, slow and tedious to watch. The costumes: Most of the time, I didn't know if I was watching a Jim Henson production or something else. The bad guys: The wicked witch was horrendous, straight from the depths of anyone's worst nightmare. She died too easily and she was a complete idiot. The resolution: Rushed, unsatisfying, completely missing the point of the original book's message. Oz: It was ugly. The Wiz: A laughable cartoon. The subway scenes: Way too hellish. Columns breaking from ceilings with the Medusa hair thing going on, the orange creatures chasing our heroes, growing bigger on every step.
Wasn't this film made for children?
The best thing was the music but that's not enough for me to like this film at the least bit.
The vision: It was too dark and creepy. The cast: Michael Jackson was the only "okay" one. The rest were poorly cast. The acting: This one beat the original at being way over the top. Art Production: Too colorful with no creativity. Our Heroes: Michael Jackson's stuffed life vest. The lion looked like my high school mascot. The "Tin Man" should have been called the "Junk Man." Diana Ross look TOO old and haggard to even play a 30 year old teacher, let alone a 24 year old one. The choreography: the film's scale couldn't keep up with it in some scenes. And in others, it was way too underdone, slow and tedious to watch. The costumes: Most of the time, I didn't know if I was watching a Jim Henson production or something else. The bad guys: The wicked witch was horrendous, straight from the depths of anyone's worst nightmare. She died too easily and she was a complete idiot. The resolution: Rushed, unsatisfying, completely missing the point of the original book's message. Oz: It was ugly. The Wiz: A laughable cartoon. The subway scenes: Way too hellish. Columns breaking from ceilings with the Medusa hair thing going on, the orange creatures chasing our heroes, growing bigger on every step.
Wasn't this film made for children?
The best thing was the music but that's not enough for me to like this film at the least bit.
It could have been better
15 April 2007
I won't give away much but I will say this. Sophie Scholl's true story was incredible. It was one of the many poignant stories coming out of Nazi Germany about a student and fellow members of her rebellious organization who became martyrs in an attempt to defame Hitler. They sacrificed their lives in the name of their cause.
Many young people these days can learn from the example Scholl made.
But the story was poorly executed. I didn't connect with the character of Sophie Scholl. If anything, I was growing impatient of her constant lying during the overlong interrogation scenes. By the time the court scene came, the only thing I found empathetic about her was her having a fiancé or something, her brother who was going down with her and her courage to speak for the people that were being victimized by the Nazis. There was nothing fascinating or mysterious about her character to keep me engaged. At one point during the interrogation, I said to myself "Unless you're confessing, shut up already! Maybe the writer should have started the story of her life before her motivation to join an organization to speak out against the Nazis. That would have shown us her relationships with her parents, her fiancé, which would have made for a great subplot, and the story itself would have been more complex and three dimensional.
In the end, I couldn't care less about her and her comrades in this film. The true story sounds compelling but the film didn't do Sophie Scholl any justice. In my humble opinion, this film about these heroic people was unnecessary.
Many young people these days can learn from the example Scholl made.
But the story was poorly executed. I didn't connect with the character of Sophie Scholl. If anything, I was growing impatient of her constant lying during the overlong interrogation scenes. By the time the court scene came, the only thing I found empathetic about her was her having a fiancé or something, her brother who was going down with her and her courage to speak for the people that were being victimized by the Nazis. There was nothing fascinating or mysterious about her character to keep me engaged. At one point during the interrogation, I said to myself "Unless you're confessing, shut up already! Maybe the writer should have started the story of her life before her motivation to join an organization to speak out against the Nazis. That would have shown us her relationships with her parents, her fiancé, which would have made for a great subplot, and the story itself would have been more complex and three dimensional.
In the end, I couldn't care less about her and her comrades in this film. The true story sounds compelling but the film didn't do Sophie Scholl any justice. In my humble opinion, this film about these heroic people was unnecessary.
Dreamgirls
(2006)
Takes the title from "Crash" as the most overrated film of the past two decades... Flawed at every level conceivable
26 December 2006
Warning: Spoilers
I think what the public and critics are doing is shameful, as they confuse these people's singing performances for acting. There wasn't a moment of acting for any of them, except for Jamie Foxx.
I blame the inept, heavy-handed writing of the film's writer/director, Bill Condon. One would think that an Academy Award winning writer can produce something better on page, with real characters that change inside out. Condon's script portrays black people as one-dimensional, superficial, insincere connivers.
This scantily written screenplay's second biggest flaw lies in never initiating on screen the love triangle between Knowles, Foxx and Hudson. In other words, I felt as a paying audience member that I was cheated by not experiencing such an essential element of this story. I needed to see how Foxx's relationship with Hudson started then evolved. In the commercial trailers, I recall at least seeing Hudson in bed with Foxx, vaguely indicating their love affair. That shot seemed to have made its way to the cutting room floor. So, being that their relationship was never established visually for me, I didn't believe it ever happened and there goes the rest of the film for me. Then we needed to see how Foxx's relationship with Knowles supposedly started behind Hudson's back. The key relationships in the aforementioned were the necessary components that could have made this a good telling. I guess the filmmakers went for time economy rather than story.
Hudson's character was a selfish whiner with an unfavorable attitude in the beginning of the film and was continuing with her self-destructive behavior until Glover pulled her to the side and told her about herself. I felt that she should have changed since the day her daughter was born, or at least two years into her parenthood. It takes Glover, someone who was never established as her mentor or anything like that in the beginning of the film, to change her attitude literally in a few minutes... on a stage during an audition? I didn't buy it then and I can't believe it now.
Eddie Murphy's character was tedious to watch because I felt as if I was watching Eddie Murphy who would break into his James Brown impersonations during his singing performances. I also felt cheated when Condon didn't show us Murphy's reaction after being broken off from the Dreamgirls. That reaction would have started us on his downtrodden journey to drugs, insecurities and hopelessness. Instead, that was substituted for a pointless love affair with Anika Rose's character that had an abrupt start just like the others. We would hear about this wife of his but we didn't see her until the end when he decides to make a fool out of himself on stage? Also, besides his singing, what was so good about Murphy's performance that garnered him a Globe nomination? One scene, he was performing with The Dreamgirls, the next scene he's using drugs in front of his friends after seeing the girls on television. It got to a point where I started to think that his drug use was to further guilt trip the others into pitying him enough to turn them against Foxx, particularly in the scene where Foxx rejected his "new sound." That was ridiculous. I didn't care about his character and I don't think he should be nominated for anything.
Which brings me to Beyonce Knowles, the goddess. She's beautiful in this film, making it almost worthwhile watching just because of that kisser she's been blessed with. Her acting wasn't as bad as people try to make it sound because her character wasn't challenging, which didn't make or break her in my personal opinion. She performed to the degree the character demanded of her. Again, I think she is truly being faulted for her lack of singing performances in the picture as opposed to her acting abilities. Also, people are empathizing more with Hudson and Murphy's (Why? I don't know.) characters because they're the most victimized in this film, not because they're necessarily the better ACTING performances.
It's unfortunate that Foxx and Keith Robinson's (C.C.) acting performances were overlooked, because their characters were the most interesting of the entire cast. I don't think they should be nominated for anything either but I came to see some acting and Foxx delivered. Foxx's character had admirable qualities like being a leader and making something out of nothing, but he can be cruel and undermining to those he love for only his own good when it comes to business. Robinson, on the other hand, was caught between his loyalty to his sister (Hudson), Foxx and his own career. Most may consider his role as being "small," but there's no such thing as small roles: just small actors.
And I refuse to listen to all the excuses from novice film goers uttering, "It's a Musical! What do you expect?" I expect high quality musicals, not just in production value and song but in story and acting as well. I expect "My Fair Lady," "The Sound of Music," "The Wizard of Oz," "Grease," etc. The aforementioned films all have great singing and dancing performances, complimented with great, complex characters and great dialogue. No excuse for "Dreamgirls" inability to reach it's highest potential from this true film-goer.
Then, for the sake of the black film goers experience, the filmmaker throws in some socially conscious dilemmas like the Detroit riots and the civil rights music to serve mostly as a backdrop, instead of adding conflict to this superficial depiction of the careers of black stars during the 1960's.
I could go on and on, but it doesn't really matter at this point.
I wasn't exactly expecting a masterpiece with this film but I was hoping for something rewarding and satisfying. "Dreamgirls" turned out to be worst than I thought: unoriginal, predictable, drawn out, hokey and worst of all... overrated.
I blame the inept, heavy-handed writing of the film's writer/director, Bill Condon. One would think that an Academy Award winning writer can produce something better on page, with real characters that change inside out. Condon's script portrays black people as one-dimensional, superficial, insincere connivers.
This scantily written screenplay's second biggest flaw lies in never initiating on screen the love triangle between Knowles, Foxx and Hudson. In other words, I felt as a paying audience member that I was cheated by not experiencing such an essential element of this story. I needed to see how Foxx's relationship with Hudson started then evolved. In the commercial trailers, I recall at least seeing Hudson in bed with Foxx, vaguely indicating their love affair. That shot seemed to have made its way to the cutting room floor. So, being that their relationship was never established visually for me, I didn't believe it ever happened and there goes the rest of the film for me. Then we needed to see how Foxx's relationship with Knowles supposedly started behind Hudson's back. The key relationships in the aforementioned were the necessary components that could have made this a good telling. I guess the filmmakers went for time economy rather than story.
Hudson's character was a selfish whiner with an unfavorable attitude in the beginning of the film and was continuing with her self-destructive behavior until Glover pulled her to the side and told her about herself. I felt that she should have changed since the day her daughter was born, or at least two years into her parenthood. It takes Glover, someone who was never established as her mentor or anything like that in the beginning of the film, to change her attitude literally in a few minutes... on a stage during an audition? I didn't buy it then and I can't believe it now.
Eddie Murphy's character was tedious to watch because I felt as if I was watching Eddie Murphy who would break into his James Brown impersonations during his singing performances. I also felt cheated when Condon didn't show us Murphy's reaction after being broken off from the Dreamgirls. That reaction would have started us on his downtrodden journey to drugs, insecurities and hopelessness. Instead, that was substituted for a pointless love affair with Anika Rose's character that had an abrupt start just like the others. We would hear about this wife of his but we didn't see her until the end when he decides to make a fool out of himself on stage? Also, besides his singing, what was so good about Murphy's performance that garnered him a Globe nomination? One scene, he was performing with The Dreamgirls, the next scene he's using drugs in front of his friends after seeing the girls on television. It got to a point where I started to think that his drug use was to further guilt trip the others into pitying him enough to turn them against Foxx, particularly in the scene where Foxx rejected his "new sound." That was ridiculous. I didn't care about his character and I don't think he should be nominated for anything.
Which brings me to Beyonce Knowles, the goddess. She's beautiful in this film, making it almost worthwhile watching just because of that kisser she's been blessed with. Her acting wasn't as bad as people try to make it sound because her character wasn't challenging, which didn't make or break her in my personal opinion. She performed to the degree the character demanded of her. Again, I think she is truly being faulted for her lack of singing performances in the picture as opposed to her acting abilities. Also, people are empathizing more with Hudson and Murphy's (Why? I don't know.) characters because they're the most victimized in this film, not because they're necessarily the better ACTING performances.
It's unfortunate that Foxx and Keith Robinson's (C.C.) acting performances were overlooked, because their characters were the most interesting of the entire cast. I don't think they should be nominated for anything either but I came to see some acting and Foxx delivered. Foxx's character had admirable qualities like being a leader and making something out of nothing, but he can be cruel and undermining to those he love for only his own good when it comes to business. Robinson, on the other hand, was caught between his loyalty to his sister (Hudson), Foxx and his own career. Most may consider his role as being "small," but there's no such thing as small roles: just small actors.
And I refuse to listen to all the excuses from novice film goers uttering, "It's a Musical! What do you expect?" I expect high quality musicals, not just in production value and song but in story and acting as well. I expect "My Fair Lady," "The Sound of Music," "The Wizard of Oz," "Grease," etc. The aforementioned films all have great singing and dancing performances, complimented with great, complex characters and great dialogue. No excuse for "Dreamgirls" inability to reach it's highest potential from this true film-goer.
Then, for the sake of the black film goers experience, the filmmaker throws in some socially conscious dilemmas like the Detroit riots and the civil rights music to serve mostly as a backdrop, instead of adding conflict to this superficial depiction of the careers of black stars during the 1960's.
I could go on and on, but it doesn't really matter at this point.
I wasn't exactly expecting a masterpiece with this film but I was hoping for something rewarding and satisfying. "Dreamgirls" turned out to be worst than I thought: unoriginal, predictable, drawn out, hokey and worst of all... overrated.
Apocalypto
(2006)
Well-made but gratuitously violent.
8 December 2006
Apocalypto is well-made but gratuitously violent. This film solidifies director Mel Gibson's visual flare and ability to transport us to times deep into the past, beyond most people's imagination. However, I had story issues as far as our hero and his journey of survival.
I thought the ironies in the film made it too easy for the hero. People (mostly resentful critics) complain that there was a lot left out about the Mayans and their advanced civilization as opposed to the savages they were depicted as in this film. I couldn't care less about that because lots of the savagery in the film was accurate is regard to sacrificing (do the research), and also that stuff has nothing to do with our hero and his survival. The film could've benefited from more complications for the hero, without all the gore and violence. More inner conflicts could've eaten at his heart as he battles against more personal conflicts besides the warriors who wants his head and the survival of his family.
Overall, it had me glued to the screen and at the edge of my seat for the whole two hours and twenty minutes. I was concerned that I wouldn't be able to identify with the hero, seeing that most films made nowadays about ancient history fail to make an audience care about the characters. That wasn't the case with this film. It was entertaining and the ending was interesting enough for a sequel. Out of four stars (****), I'm stuck between 2 and a half (**1/2) and three stars (***). If you can tolerate lots of gore, violence and close ups of human organs, while reading subtitles then this film is worth checking out.
I thought the ironies in the film made it too easy for the hero. People (mostly resentful critics) complain that there was a lot left out about the Mayans and their advanced civilization as opposed to the savages they were depicted as in this film. I couldn't care less about that because lots of the savagery in the film was accurate is regard to sacrificing (do the research), and also that stuff has nothing to do with our hero and his survival. The film could've benefited from more complications for the hero, without all the gore and violence. More inner conflicts could've eaten at his heart as he battles against more personal conflicts besides the warriors who wants his head and the survival of his family.
Overall, it had me glued to the screen and at the edge of my seat for the whole two hours and twenty minutes. I was concerned that I wouldn't be able to identify with the hero, seeing that most films made nowadays about ancient history fail to make an audience care about the characters. That wasn't the case with this film. It was entertaining and the ending was interesting enough for a sequel. Out of four stars (****), I'm stuck between 2 and a half (**1/2) and three stars (***). If you can tolerate lots of gore, violence and close ups of human organs, while reading subtitles then this film is worth checking out.
The Queen
(2006)
A Flawless Masterpiece
8 December 2006
Where conventional films lack in strong craftsmanship, great acting, story, character arc, crisis and climax, "The Queen" seems to effortlessly execute all within this tight biopic about the tragedy of Princess Diana's death and the demands made on the royal family by the people.
It was a perfect reflection of our society today, where people's connection to celebrity, or in this case royalty, is so strong, it can gravitate to the level of obsessiveness or even tragedy. This theme starts off this soaring masterpiece with the car accident that took Princess Di's life. Wasn't it the paparazzi photographers who was partly responsible for this untimely death? And isn't the demands of the inquiring minds of the public that only fuel the tabloids paying the paparazzi top dollar for such pictures? Then when a tragedy occurs such as this, it's the same public that grieves the most.
What disturbed me was the demands the people made on The Queen to join them in their mourning for the princess. The threats and criticism she received from the people, was it necessary? They spewed hateful rhetoric about The Queen's lack of remorse concerning the incident. The people's invested interest in Princess Diana's passing should never cloud rational thinking then be insisted upon the monarchy. But it was, which gives this story a grim look at us as a people.
The excellent performance by Michael Sheen as Prime Minister Tony Blair makes one reflect on the business of politics.
Helen Mirren was mesmerizing as The Queen, which should solidify her for a 2006 Best Leading Actress Oscar.
The screenplay was near perfection, with witty dialogue, fleshed out characters and unforgettable character arcs.
So far, this is the first film I am giving a ten to this year, making it my Best Picture of 2006.
It was a perfect reflection of our society today, where people's connection to celebrity, or in this case royalty, is so strong, it can gravitate to the level of obsessiveness or even tragedy. This theme starts off this soaring masterpiece with the car accident that took Princess Di's life. Wasn't it the paparazzi photographers who was partly responsible for this untimely death? And isn't the demands of the inquiring minds of the public that only fuel the tabloids paying the paparazzi top dollar for such pictures? Then when a tragedy occurs such as this, it's the same public that grieves the most.
What disturbed me was the demands the people made on The Queen to join them in their mourning for the princess. The threats and criticism she received from the people, was it necessary? They spewed hateful rhetoric about The Queen's lack of remorse concerning the incident. The people's invested interest in Princess Diana's passing should never cloud rational thinking then be insisted upon the monarchy. But it was, which gives this story a grim look at us as a people.
The excellent performance by Michael Sheen as Prime Minister Tony Blair makes one reflect on the business of politics.
Helen Mirren was mesmerizing as The Queen, which should solidify her for a 2006 Best Leading Actress Oscar.
The screenplay was near perfection, with witty dialogue, fleshed out characters and unforgettable character arcs.
So far, this is the first film I am giving a ten to this year, making it my Best Picture of 2006.
Shadowboxer
(2005)
Steamiest Steaming Pile of 2006 (maybe even the decade)
7 December 2006
I am going to make this quick, basically pointing out why this film doesn't work at every level without giving it away.
I didn't believe any of the relationships in the film. Not a single one. From the sexual relationships to the few friendships (Ferlito and Gray), the characters were too shallow for me to absorb the relationships I was seeing on screen. I didn't even believe that any of them lived in the same building (sarcasm) let alone slept in the same bed.
I also didn't believe Gooding as this tough guy. He looks like another wimp with a gun, almost never showing us if the shadowboxing ever works for him. I wasn't intimidated by Dorff either. He was laughable. His character was the type that would get slapped quick by the old school cats in the NYC.
The performances were unbearable, mainly speaking of Macy Gray. She should stick to looking inebriated at award functions.
I thought that the directing was amateurish. The director had cut together shots that should not have been cut together, while using intercuts and flashbacks like a pure novice.
The music was ghastly. What was it suppose to be? Hip-Opera style? They apparently had about five casting directors but couldn't get a single extra to put some life into that scene in the bar with Macy Gray. Wasn't that the point? I also had trouble empathizing with any of the characters. They were deeply flawed, which is always good, but they failed to show any humanistic or admirable qualities about them early enough for me to care. I didn't feel pity for any of the characters as well. What was there to feel sorry about? They chose to be assassins. Most of them chose their sexual encounters. It wasn't as if they were forced into this sort of life. Also, the writer and director riddled the script with ironies that sort of undermined their intentions with the characters. Also, the character arc for Gooding was absurdly executed, something that didn't seem to have any relevance when considering his years of experience at his chosen profession.
The ending was contrived and predictable. It was lazy writing at its best.
The worst thing about the film was that you have a black man like Gooding, coming off as this indentured slave boy for all of the Caucasian women in this film. He obeyed Mirren obsessively, like a "good dog," and swore to do the same for Ferlito. I couldn't stand seeing Gooding in this part. Well, he wasn't the only one. I had issues with the overall casting of this steaming pile.
Overall, stay away at all cost.
I didn't believe any of the relationships in the film. Not a single one. From the sexual relationships to the few friendships (Ferlito and Gray), the characters were too shallow for me to absorb the relationships I was seeing on screen. I didn't even believe that any of them lived in the same building (sarcasm) let alone slept in the same bed.
I also didn't believe Gooding as this tough guy. He looks like another wimp with a gun, almost never showing us if the shadowboxing ever works for him. I wasn't intimidated by Dorff either. He was laughable. His character was the type that would get slapped quick by the old school cats in the NYC.
The performances were unbearable, mainly speaking of Macy Gray. She should stick to looking inebriated at award functions.
I thought that the directing was amateurish. The director had cut together shots that should not have been cut together, while using intercuts and flashbacks like a pure novice.
The music was ghastly. What was it suppose to be? Hip-Opera style? They apparently had about five casting directors but couldn't get a single extra to put some life into that scene in the bar with Macy Gray. Wasn't that the point? I also had trouble empathizing with any of the characters. They were deeply flawed, which is always good, but they failed to show any humanistic or admirable qualities about them early enough for me to care. I didn't feel pity for any of the characters as well. What was there to feel sorry about? They chose to be assassins. Most of them chose their sexual encounters. It wasn't as if they were forced into this sort of life. Also, the writer and director riddled the script with ironies that sort of undermined their intentions with the characters. Also, the character arc for Gooding was absurdly executed, something that didn't seem to have any relevance when considering his years of experience at his chosen profession.
The ending was contrived and predictable. It was lazy writing at its best.
The worst thing about the film was that you have a black man like Gooding, coming off as this indentured slave boy for all of the Caucasian women in this film. He obeyed Mirren obsessively, like a "good dog," and swore to do the same for Ferlito. I couldn't stand seeing Gooding in this part. Well, he wasn't the only one. I had issues with the overall casting of this steaming pile.
Overall, stay away at all cost.
Tell Your Friends