Dell's Good, Bad & Ugly Movie Reviews

[dell71]

Searching for Sugar Man
<b>Directed by Malik Bendjelloul.</b>
<i>2012. Rated PG-13, 86 minutes.
Cast:
Sixto Rodriguez
Stephen "Sugar" Segerman
Steve Rowland
Dennis Coffey
Mike Theodore
Clarence Avant
Jerome Ferretti
Eva Rodriguez
Regan Rodriguez</i>​

In the early 1970s, a folk singer by the name of Rodriguez was discovered in a bar in Detroit, Michigan. Everyone who heard him agreed he was putting brilliant poetry to music that was on par, if not greater than Bob Dylan. Despite releasing two highly praised albums, almost no one heard of him. At least in the United States. Fast forward to the mid 1990s and travel to South Africa. There, we find out that over the last few decades Rodriguez has become one of the most iconic and influential music artists in that country's history. Strangely, no one in South Africa knew anything at all about him. They didn't even know if he was still alive. In fact, he was presumed dead since several fantastic tales of his public suicide had become accepted parts of the Rodriguez mythology. Finding it odd there was no concrete information anywhere about such a legendary figure, a few people separately embark on fact finding missions to learn a little about the man they have all come to greatly admire.

During the portions of the documentary filmed in America, we meet the people who discovered Rodriguez and worked with him on his albums. In South Africa, we hear from the people looking for him. Through the stories they tell and the music often playing, Rodriguez quickly becomes an ethereal presence hanging over the film. Full disclosure: since watching this many of the songs keep popping into my head at all times of the day. The combination of hard to believe anecdotes and haunting songs casts a spell that locks us into the mystery. We become completely absorbed in the efforts of these people to separate fact from fiction. We wonder how long they'll keep following paths to nowhere.

Most compelling are the stories of how Rodriguez came to be a legend in South Africa. It's a tale with humble beginnings, to say the least. Learning how the modest seeds blossomed into making him a full-blown music God in their country is fascinating stuff. It also begs the question why didn't he become popular in America? Many try to answer it, but can't come up with a reason that satisfies even themselves. Watching them try to talk their way through it is interesting. The funny part is Rodriguez is so loved in South Africa, they assumed he was gigantic in the States, too. There, he is estimated to have sold millions of records over the years. When asked how many he's sold in the U.S., Clarence Avant, a former record exec who worked closely with Rodriguez, only half-jokingly says "Six." This dichotomy between the two markets at the resulting viewpoints of those markets is startling. Or, I should say the difference between how South Africa viewed him and America not viewing him at all.

In the end, Searching for Sugar Man becomes one of the most unbelievable and inspirational stories you will ever come across. After the mystery dissipates it becomes just plain fun to watch. We can't help but to be swept up by the thing. For people like me who listen intently to lyrics of the songs we hear, it's a great help that there is some harshly beautiful and imaginative poetry here. These are not cliche filled couplets built for mass consumption. This probably explains his lack of success in his native country to some extent. Though hearing it makes it surprising that he didn't develop at least a cult following, here at home. Is he really better than Bob Dylan? I'd say it's arguable on the basis of what little we have from him. Obviously, he pales in comparison when it comes to volume and worldwide impact. Still, he became legendary in another land. Thanks to that, this film was eventually made. Thanks to this movie, I have discovered another great artist for myself.

<b>MY SCORE: 10/10</b>​

 

[dell71]

It's
a
Morgan
Freeman
Marathon!​

 

[dell71]

The Shawshank Redemption
<b>Directed by Frank Darabont.</b>
<i>1994. Rated R, 142 minutes.
Cast:
Tim Robbins
Morgan Freeman
Bob Gunton
Clancy Brown
William Sadler
James Whitmore
Mark Rolston
Gil Bellows</i>​

When Andy Dufresne (Robbins) is convicted of murdering his wife and her lover, for which he will serve consecutive life sentences, he is sent to Shawshank to spend the rest of his days. Shawshank is the type of place where a vicious beating from the guards is to be expected for just about any indiscretion. Of course, there are also some rough and tumble characters who try to take whatever it is they want from whomever may have it. As you might suspect of a guy whose been a clean cut banker his whole life, he has a tough time of it early on. Eventually, he joins a small circle of friends. Among them, he is closest to Red (Freeman). Over the next couple decades we watch as their friendship grows and both men go through lots of trials and tribulations. This is based on a Stephen King novella entitled Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption.

Perhaps, the most remarkable thing about this movie is how well it holds together. Every piece of it seems to fit perfectly into the whole. Therefore, even when it does things that seem counter-intuitive, such as having a group of convicted felons as our heroes, it works. Of course, if the cons are the good guys, the warden and the guards are the villains. That's not at all a new thing in cinematic history, but it's never been done better than it is right here. Bob Gunton as Warden Norton and Clancy Brown as Capt. Hadley are so thoroughly detestable it gets to the point where we feel some of the same fear as the inmates whenever we know they're coming. There may be no worse or more helpless feeling than when the persecuted knows that their persecutors are acting with impunity. This is what makes Norton's and Hadley's a tremendously effective combination of antagonist and henchman.

On the other side of things are the guys we love. As Andy, Robbins gives arguably the best performance of his career. He's a guy who seems aloof at times, but really has the best interest of others at heart. Yes, there is a bit of selfishness present. He wants his fellow prisoners to experience as many things as possible that people in the free world enjoy. Freedom, and the pursuit of it, is an enormous theme in this film. This pursuit helps him feel normal. He likes feeling normal. He also likes thinking. There is always something going on beneath the surface. Robbins clearly shows this. As his main cohort, Freeman is just wonderful. His easy-going way, and ability to get stuff, make him a perfect companion for Andy. We see the two men become much more than business associates without really saying so to each other for a very long time. The look on Red's face often shows us this. Most interestingly, Freeman uses a variety of smiles to subtly create emotion. These aren't clownish grins and obvious acting tactics, but sly positioning of his facial features that suggests something different than the smile he wears a scene before or later. It's an amazing piece of work by Freeman.

Across the board, the acting is outstanding. This includes a never-better William Sadler and James Whitmore, part of the small circle of friends that includes Andy and Red. But acting isn't all there is here. The story just moves along so effortlessly it's impossible not to get pulled along. Then, somehow, it suddenly injects mystery in the third act. Usually, movies can't do this effectively. It's either suspenseful from the start or not at all. Here, things just seem to be moseying along, albeit not in our guys' favor, then we're suddenly not sure what will happen next. It works good enough that what Andy does tends to be the only part of the film most people remember.

Following Andy's escapades, the movie goes on a little while longer. I can see why some think it goes too long and that it's entirely too sappy. It is sappy. In this case, however, it works because we've come to know these guys so well that we yearn for it to work out this way. Truthfully, it could have ended earlier. I am a guy who is quite okay with a less than happy ending. Some films just have to have a feel good ending, though. This is one of them. Do I believe it's the best movie ever made, as readers of imdb.com have ranked it? No. However, it is certainly a modern classic and I wouldn't fault anyone who did have it as their number one.

<b>MY SCORE: 10/10</b>​

 

[dell71]

The Marathon Continues...

Oblivion
<b>Directed by Joseph Kosinski.</b>
<i>2013. Rated PG-13, 125 minutes.
Cast:
Tom Cruise
Morgan Freeman
Olga Kurylenko
Andrea Riseborough
Nikolaj Coster-Waldau
Melissa Leo</i>​

That alien invasion you've been waiting on has finally happened. It's 2077, well after the big showdown and I'm happy to inform you that we won. Sort of. In the process of beating the invaders, we pretty much ruined Earth by nuking everything. The entire planet is a desolate wasteland. The few human survivors have all relocated to Titan, the largest of Saturn's moons. Well, everyone but Tech 49 Jack Harper (Cruise) and Victoria Olsen (Riseborough). As needed, he flies around and repairs the drones that are protecting power stations from Scavengers. The power stations basically harvest the water for energy to be used on Titan. Scavengers are the few remaining survivors of the invading army. Victoria works the control tower from their apartment in the sky. At night, they turn the place into a love shack. Anyhoo, Jack has the sneaking suspicion that something isn't quite right. This is mostly due to the fact that even though his memory has been completely wiped, as has been done to all humans, he has recurring dreams of meeting a woman at the Empire State Building back before the war. That's not even mentioning the fact that the Scavengers, or Scavs as our hero calls them, are getting bolder by the day.

What works most is the look of the film. It presents us with stark visuals of what the world could be like after nuclear annihilation. You really get the sense that the planet has been decimated. This helps us get the same sense of isolation as our hero. The only contact they have with anyone else is with Sally (Leo), the lady who works mission control from the space station Tet, that functions as headquarters for their little operation. That feeling is compounded by the fact that Jack is the only one who goes out. This means he is alone most of the day except for Victoria's voice in his headphones. It is a fairly lonely existence.

The concepts put forth by Oblivion are also intriguing. It uses these concepts to build mystery and suspense. This is especially true of the Scavs. For awhile, we are strung along trying to figure out exactly what they are trying to accomplish. Jack struggles with this also. We watch him attempting to piece things together in his head, but see that it's not quite coming together. Meanwhile, the mysterious creatures that roam the Earth seem to be closing in on him. It many ways, the movie functions like an updated version of Richard Matheson's iconic novel I Am Legend with Tom Cruise giving us his version of Robert Neville.

Okay, let's be honest. Tom Cruise is really giving us his version of Tom Cruise, pretty much like he always does. This is not necessarily a bad thing. It's just that you know what you're going to get before the movie even starts. Likewise Morgan Freeman gives us Morgan Freeman. The major difference is that he's a bit more suave than normal as he's seen often sitting cross-legged while puffing on a cigar. This is a bit strange given the setting and circumstances, but it works. In case you're confused, no Cruise and Riseborough are not the only people in the movie. However, I won't tell you who Freeman plays since I don't want to spoil things for any of you that haven't seen it.

Most of this film's problems lie within the execution of things. This is particularly true for the second half of the movie where things are to be resolved. We start to notice the threadbare script as it cuts corners. Things aren't fleshed out quite enough to work. And in one case, the film goes all out on a bait-and-switch that feels like a cheat, at best. At worst, it creates a hole in the plot bigger than the one Jack gets trapped in at one point. This leaves us with a movie that was going along nicely and then falls apart at the end.

<b>MY SCORE: 6/10</b>​

 

[dell71]

The Marathon Continues...

Olympus Has Fallen
<b>Directed by Antoine Fuqua.</b>
<i>2013. Rated R, 120 minutes.
Cast:
Gerard Butler
Aaron Eckhart
Morgan Freeman
Rick Yune
Angela Bassett
Dylan McDermott
Finley Jacobsen
Robert Forster
Melissa Leo
Radha Mitchell
Cole Hauser
Ashley Judd</i>​

When the limousine carrying President Benjamin Asher (Eckhart) and his wife (Judd) is involved in an accident Secret Service Agent Mike Banning (Butler) reacts immediately and saves the Commander-in-Chief's life. Unfortunately, he cannot rescue the First Lady. Even though the two men are friends, the president has Banning transferred to a desk job so that he doesn't have to be reminded of what happened whenever he sees his face. Fast forward eighteen months and President Asher and his son Connor (Jacobsen) appear to have adjusted as well as possible. Still, as presidents must, he's dealing with another crisis. This one involves meeting with the South Korean president to discuss how to keep their neighbors to the north at bay. If you guessed that the North Koreans crash this little party with guns blazing, give yourself a cookie. No extra points for guessing they put a pretty good hurtin' on our nation's capital, White House included. The Prez is taken to his bunker, but yeah, there are bad guys there, too. Okay, you only get one shot at this one. Guess who is the only person who can save the day? So yeah, Agent Banning spots all the mayhem from his office window and springs into action.

Typical of just about every movie where a foreign entity invades the U.S., we get an exercise in flag waving. We also get an oversimplification of our place in the world, at least from our point of view. It's all America good, everyone else evil, or weak. With this comes hokey dialogue, faceless villains from whatever country we think is most dangerous to us when the film is made, and lots of hand-wringing over what our heroes' next move should be. Anyone expecting anything more is setting themselves up for disappointment.

Even with expectations properly set, there are some less than exemplary aspects to Olympus Has Fallen. For starters, Pres. Asher comes across as less brave than his subordinates and explicitly goes against the only policy the movie bothers to mention: The United States will not negotiate with terrorists. Part of the plot is the North Koreans trying to gain access to a system that will effectively shut down all of America's nukes. To do this they need three codes which three separate people, all in the bunker, including the president, have one each. When the others are pressed a bit, he immediately caves and implores them to give up the goods. What the movie wants us to think is that he's saving the lives of those with him and is even willing to sacrifice himself. This is why he says to both, when he tells them to spill the beans, "They'll never get mine!" In reality, he's giving up our nation's security without much of a fight even though it's painfully obvious the bad guys can't just kill these people and accomplish their objectives.

Another issue is that our villains willfully put themselves in position to be defeated. We're told, without qualification, that no one can get into the president's bunker. As I mentioned, every person the North Koreans need is already in there with them. Everything they want is at their fingertips. Why keep talking to those who have assumed power in the president's absence? By the way, that person is Morgan Freeman and Speaker-of-the-House Trumbull. More tactically important, why send anyone out, or open the door for any reason until the mission is complete? If I'm the bad guys, whatever Banning is doing outside is largely irrelevant. I've got whatever need in the bunker with me and he can't get to me. Of course, that would make this a far different movie, so I understand why it was done. It just makes them look stupid, and in turn, the movie looks this way, too.

Without some idiocy by the villains, the movie wouldn't have as much of what it does best: action. There is plenty of it. During it, star Gerard Butler kicks all sorts of ass. In other words, people looking for a shoot 'em up get what they came for. It's all well done with lots of casualties on both sides. This keeps the movie entertaining even if it is eye-roll worthy. Things speed by pretty quickly as they go boom left and right. Yup, Washington DC is torn up good. All in all, it's similar to the recent remake of Red Dawn. That doesn't even take into account the apparent similarities it has to a movie I haven't even seen yet, but will soon, White House Down. OHF has loads of chest thumping patriotism, explosions, gunfights, and problems with its plot.

<b>MY SCORE: 5/10</b>​

 

[dell71]

The Marathon Continues...

Now You See Me
<b>Directed by Louis Letterier.</b>
<i>2013. Rated PG-13, 115 minutes.
Cast:
Jesse Eisenberg
Mark Ruffalo
Morgan Freeman
Woody Harrelson
Isla Fisher
Dave Franco
Melanie Laurent
Michael Caine
Common
Michael Kelly
Elias Koteas</i>​

A quartet of magicians manages to really do the impossible. Daniel (Eisenberg), Henley (Fisher), Merritt (Harrelson), and Jack (Franco) are putting on a huge Las Vegas magic show. They pluck an unsuspecting man from the audience and make him disappear. That's not the trick. The trick is that the man reappears in a bank vault in Paris. When they zap him back to Vegas, all the money in the vault comes with him. Both the FBI and Interpol are quite interested in figuring out how they really robbed a bank on another continent. Working the case are Agent Rhodes (Ruffalo) for the former and Agent Dray (Laurent) for the latter. Also after our heroes is Thaddeus Bradley (Freeman), a former magician who now makes a living exposing trade secrets.

Now You See Me is an insanely watchable movie. It captures our interest early and clinches it tight. Truth is, whether we admit it or not, all of us like to see a good magic trick. When we see one, we immediately try to figure out how it was done. This is the key to the film's intrigue. It repeatedly puts us in the position of bewildered yet fascinated spectator. This spills over from the stage show of our would be heroes into their cat-and-mouse with the law. As a result, the plot moves at a brisk pace while we try to keep up. It's not that the plot is terribly intricate or complex in any way. Our minds are just pre-occupied with the 'how' of what we just saw.

Eventually, the movie has to give us some answers. This is where the problems start. The process of elimination will likely give you the answer to the most pressing question. That question is not how, but who. You can follow that up with why. The answer is unsatisfactory in either case. Scrutinizing things only makes it fall apart even more. Still other things can only be explained by the term "movie magic." We get the same feeling of disappointment Dorothy had after her first peek at the man behind the curtain in the land of Oz.

Of course, if all the big reveals work for you then just ignore the entire previous paragraph. You'll sing its praises and possibly fling around words like 'brilliant' and 'genius.' Though I disagree, I wouldn't even dream of trying to dissuade you. It does take some serious ingenuity to keep up the various ruses as long as it does. And like I said, it is fun to watch as it rolls along. If you haven't seen it, be prepared. The movie may make or break itself during those last few scenes.

<b>MY SCORE: 6.5/10</b>​

 

[dell71]

The Marathon Continues...


Addendum to the Morgan Freeman Chain of Command​

A few years ago, the picture above started making its rounds on the internet. It's a fun little pic with an interesting ranking of some of Morgan Freeman's roles. Obviously it works from the top down in order of power and/or importance, hence his role as God at the top. Other than flip-flopping the Inmate and the Freed Slave, I'd say it's accurate. In the time since, he's played a few more roles, and a couple of the earlier ones were neglected. I won't go through them all, but there are some that deserve to be included in this mix. Some of these were a bit tricky. Feel free to let me know how bad I screwed up, or others you might include.

Speaker of the House
(Olympus Has Fallen)
Ranks Between South African President and CIA Director

Leader of the Human Resistance
(Oblivion)
Ranks Between Brigadier General and Colonel

CEO of Wayne Enterprises
(The Dark Knight/The Dark Knight Rises)
Ranks Between Colonel and Sergeant Major

Forensic Psychologist/Detective/Author
(Kiss the Girls/Along Came a Spider)
Ranks Between Judge and Police Detective

Crime Boss
(Lucky Number Slevin)
Ranks Between High School Principal and Pimp​

 

[dell71]

The Marathon Continues...

Se7en
<b>Directed by David Fincher.</b>
<i>1995. Rated R, 126 minutes.
Cast:
Brad Pitt
Morgan Freeman
Gwyneth Paltrow
Kevin Spacey
R. Lee Ermey
John C. McGinley
Richard Roundtree
Daniel Zacapa
Mark Boone Junior
Hawthorne James
Richard Schiff
Reg E. Cathey</i>​

Like The Shawshank Redemption, which kicked off Morgan Freeman Week, Se7en is not only considered a classic, it's a revisit for me, as well. My first encounter with this film was during its initial theater run. I remember being fascinated all the way through, thoroughly enjoying myself. Then the finale came. My jaw hit the floor. I took a few moments to assess what I had just seen and immediately crowned it on of the best movies I've ever seen. I have watched well over a thousand movies since. Still, it remains one of my all-time favorites. I'm just glad that first viewing took place during my adult years. Had the teenage me been watching this, my head may have literally exploded as I tried to reconcile it with my Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jason Vorhees world. Piecing it all together might have proven difficult. For those of you who haven't seen it, it's not nearly as complex as I am making it seem. However, it's still light years away from the movies I usually watched, even as I entered the theater to see Se7en, mostly action and slasher flicks with some comedies mixed in.

Unlike a lot of my other faves, I didn't return to this film very often. In fact, I hardly watched it again at all. I've caught bits and pieces of it on TV a few times over the years, but I don't remember sitting down to watch it in its entirety again. Until now. It was finally time to put this movie to the test. The climactic scene was truly an indelible moment in my movie watching life. With full knowledge of the surprise awaiting me, how would it hold up? Quite well, thank you very much.

As far as plots go, Se7en has a fairly simple one. Detective William Somerset (Freeman) is a genius, but weary cop a week away from retirement. In a bucking of Hollywood law, he doesn't die once we receive this information. He does, however, have to give Det. David Mills the lay of the wasteland where they work. Mills is a young hotshot whose just moved to town with his wife Tracy (Paltrow). He worked homicide in a nicer part of the world. Strangely, he begged to be transferred here, to one of the most hellish parts of Chicago. The first case they come upon is one in which the victim appears to have eaten himself to death, upon initial inspection. A little more looking around reveals the man was forced to do this. As more facts are learned, Somerset believes this murder is only the first of what someone plans to be many more. When a second body is found, it becomes apparent the two are related and that our killer is using The Seven Deadly Sins as inspiration.

Even without the mystery it holds for first time viewers, Se7en is still a movie that draws you in. It does this by keeping not just the police a step or two behind the bad guy, but the audience, too. In a lot of films, even those that conceal its villain like this one, we get to see the crimes in progress. We have more knowledge than the hero and we know where they are going wrong. Here, all we get is the grisly aftermath. We arrive upon it with the cops and don't have any more tools than they to put this puzzle together. For someone who has seen it, this automatically makes us scout the crime scene closer than we did that first time around. We desperately look for clues we and/or the detectives may have missed that would lead to the villain more quickly. We are not just watching this film. We are studying it.

The relationship between our two heroes is also a major factor in our continuing enjoyment. At first, the men try to size each other up. It's plain to see they don't really click. Freeman's Somerset takes the far more cerebral approach to everything. It is no surprise he is divorced and still alone. He seems to have trouble dealing with us mental midgets. If there is one scene that perfectly sums up who he is, it's our first trip with him to the library. Before getting there, he hops into the back of a cab. When the driver asks where he is going, he laments "Far away from here." He is a man who despises his surroundings, but understands that this is the place where he is needed. Once arriving, he spots a group of security guards playing poker. Never mind it seems to be an excessive amount of guards for a library. It is more important that other than those guys, he is alone (it is at night), which appears to be how he likes things. It's also important to show just how different he is from other law-enforcement folk. Who goes to a library to research the possible motives of a serial killer? Regardless of his differentness, though, he is well respected. This is evidenced by the guards seemingly trying to impress him by cranking up the classical music to show off their own "culture." Their display is a reaction to the one line that most explicitly shows us Somerset's outlook on things. To them, he says "I'll never understand. All these books, a world of knowledge at your fingertips. What do you do? You play poker all night."

Pitt's David is much more the cop we're used to seeing, nearer the every man for us to identify with. He shares our frustration with both the case and with the things his partner does that appear almost completely dissimilar to police work as he knows it. He is also not afraid to cut corners. Occasionally, it's to keep up with the old man. We see this in his acquiring of the Cliff Notes version of the texts that Somerset painstakingly researched. Other times, it is a way to cover his tracks after making a rash decision. However, what really endears him to us is that he's hilarious. I'd forgotten how funny he is. He isn't doing slapstick and pratfalls. He just makes us laugh by his delivery of some sharp dialogue and his reactions to the situations in which he finds himself. And given the fact he's married, his wife also plays an important role. In one of Gwyneth Paltrow's best performances, she gives us a woman distraught and conflicted by her choice to support her man's career choices and where it has taken them. The matter seems to be destroying her even as she seeks, in her own way, to protect her husband.

As good as its actors are, the real star of Se7en is director David Fincher. He packs every frame with symbolism and/or mystery. The library scene I described earlier is just one of many examples. Another involving Freeman is when he destroys the metronome by his bed. The case he is working is about rules, yet it's creating chaos all around him. This is a man who thrives on order. What's more orderly than a metronome? As far as mystery goes, Fincher reveals our killer at precisely the right time, but we still feel lost. We don't see his endgame. Us repeat watchers don't see a way we could have seen his endgame. Then, there are those amazingly unsettling visuals. Each corpse is a true depiction of someone dying by the sin of which they've been deemed guilty. It's a remarkable feat by a remarkable film maker.

I could go on praising this movie forever. From the time it starts, I am intrigued by it. I am trying to crack its code. More accurately, I'm trying to see where I should have been able to crack it before, and failing. I am also enjoying the fantastic acting taking place across the board. And I haven't even mentioned the person who is causing all the fuss. Because of that person, Freeman's scholarly approach, Pitt's levity, and top notch story telling, to name a few things, we always have a marvelous movie watching experience. Yes, even if we already know what's in the box.

<b>MY SCORE: 10/10</b>​

 

[dell71]

The Marathon Continues...


The Mt. Rushmore of Morgan Freeman Characters​

Who deserves to be on Mt. Rushmore more than Morgan Freeman? The man has played dozens of characters. Below are the four that I carve into the side of a mountain in heartbeat. And you know what? I'd even go so far as to carve an inscription beneath each one.

Ellis Boyd "Red" Redding
(The Shawshank Redemption)​

Simply put, this is the most iconic role Freeman has ever played. Twenty years since its release, it's still the one most associated with him. And we're definitely carving the hat.

Red's Inscribed Quote: I have to remind myself that some birds aren't meant to be caged. Their feathers are just too bright. And when they fly away, the part of you that knows it was a sin to lock them up DOES rejoice.

Det. William Somerset
(Se7en)​

Has there ever been a more brilliant detective in cinematic history? Maybe...MAYBE two. Sherlock Holmes being one, the other is one will actually be on the mountain with Somerset. How smart is he? Be honest with yourself. If you had never seen Se7en and were assigned to investigate the same murders he did, how long would it be before you went and read Dante's Inferno in search of clues?

Somerset's Inscribed Quote: Ernest Hemingway once wrote, "The world is a fine place and worth fighting for." I agree with the second part.

Alex Cross
(Kiss the Girls/Along Came a Spider)​

This is that other brilliant detective. My biggest reason for including him is that he is something Freeman rarely gets to be, the protagonist. Why there weren't a whole slew of Alex Cross movies with him in the lead, I'll never know. Another reason for his inclusion? He played the role far better than Tyler Perry. Zing!

Cross' Inscribed Quote: You're born with a gift. If not that, then you get good at something along the way. And what you're good at, you don't take for granted. You don't betray it.

Sgt. Maj. John Rawlins
(Glory)​

For the last spot, I actually wanted one of his more recent roles and was leaning heavily toward Lucius Fox. However, as much as I love Batman flicks, I had to go with the older, more "important" role. For me, there's really no more important character on Freeman's resume than John Rawlins, a black man who joined the Union Army to fight for his own emancipation during the Civil War. Yup, this hat goes on the mountain, too.

Rawlins' Inscribed Quote: So that if tomorrow is the great getting-up morning, if that tomorrow we have to meet the Judgement Day, O Heavenly Father, we want you to let our folks know that we died facing the enemy! We want 'em to know that we went down standing up! Amongst those that are fighting against our oppression, we want 'em to know, Heavenly Father, that we died for freedom!

 

[dell71]

Finally, The Last Leg of the Marathon...

Morgan Freeman & The Magical Negro Dilemma​

It goes without saying that Morgan Freeman is a tremendous actor. With 50 years in the business and over 100 credits, nearly 80 of these are for movies, he has proven himself time and again. He has earned his place among the all time greats and made quite a nice living for himself in the process. Indeed, he deserves all of the respect and accolades that have come his way, and more. His voice is so widely known and recognized, he became the subject of a running internet gag. You might have seen one of these. It's just a picture of the actor with some text sprawled across it letting you know that you are indeed hearing the voice of Morgan Freeman as you read. And it works.

If this isn't evidence that the man is an icon, I don't know what is. However, even icons are not perfect. JFK has The Bay of Pigs, Jay-Z has "Kingdom Come," LeBron James has the 2011 NBA Finals. Morgan Freeman has The Magical Negro. If you've poked around here a bit, you may have come across that phrase a time or two. For those unaware, I'll explain. The Magical Negro is a trope invented in American literature and has since crossed over into the cinematic universe. It's typically an African-American male character with some sort of special ability, often but not always supernatural, whose sole purpose is to aid the white male protagonist. He never saves the day (or gets the girl), but paves the way for the hero to do so. Many times, paving the way means sacrificing his own life so that the hero can go on to glory, or become a better person. This is a variation of the 'noble savage' archetype. According to Encyclopaedia Brittanica, the noble savage is "an idealized concept of uncivilized man who symbolizes the innate goodness of one not exposed to the corrupting influences of civilization." Though The Magical Negro is usually not depicted quite as primitively as to be called savage, the underlying idea of someone being wise despite their own heritage remains.

The Magical Negro is a character Mr. Freeman has played many times in his career, though usually not the supernatural type. Let's take a look just at some of his characters from movies I've reviewed during the marathon. [SPOILER ALERT!] As Red in The Shawshank Redemption, he was the guy who was able to get things no one else could. These 'things' made it possible for Andy to escape prison. What else do we know of him? We know all about the crime Andy is convicted of and what he did for a living before prison. We get a pretty clear picture of his life prior to being incarcerated. In Oblivion he plays the leader of the human resistance. Again, he does what no one else can. He gets Jack Harper to understand what's going on. He also sacrifices himself for the cause without the benefit of having a clone like Harper does. Again, what else is known of this man? As Det. Somerset in Se7en, he's a unique cop pretty much dragging his partner, Det. Mills, along the whole time. It is almost always his work that gets them anywhere on the baffling case they're working. This work entails doing things no normal officer would even dream of. However, yet again, when the climactic scene rolls around, our focus is on Mills. Like the others, we don't really know much about Somerset either, other than he was once married. In Olympus Has Fallen, Freeman plays the Speaker of the House whose ascended to the presidency due to events that find both the President and Vice-President in a bunker being held captive by some very angry North Koreans. Here, he is a guiding voice for the hero. And that's pretty much it.

After reading the above paragraph, some of you might wonder what the problem is? On the surface, each movie features and black man in a heroic role. True. It is far more agreeable to have a black man pigeon-holed as one of cinema's good guys, instead of only playing gang-bangers, pimps, drug dealers, and the like. However, The Magical Negro is still a cardboard stereotype with underlying racist implications. The easiest of these to spot is the tokenism that usually takes place in movies that make use of this particular trope. Again, think of four movies I mentioned above. Also think of other Freeman movies such as Driving Miss Daisy, Bruce Almighty, Evan Almighty, The Bucket List, Invictus and yes the entire Dark Knight trilogy. In most, if not all of these, he is the singular black character of note. He is also much less developed than his white counterpart, also lending to the idea that he is merely a token. And yes, he has some sort of special ability that is put to use by our hero in every one of these.

Yes, in every one of the movies mentioned above, the person played by Freeman has some sort of special ability that is put to use by our hero in every one of these. When this type of character is the only representative of his race, it lends credence to the idea that only those who are obviously exceptional can contribute to this world. Cultural critic Toure put it best in a Time Magazine article about the re-election of Pres. Barack Obama in 2012, himself occasionally labeled a Magical Negro. Toure wrote "While some may thing it complimentary to be considered 'magical', it is infantilizing and offensive because it suggests black excellence is so shocking it can only come from a source that is supernatural."* Think about it. Almost none of the white characters have any sort of special ability. They are often allegorical characters, an Everyman, if you will. They are normal.

Another issue with The Magical Negro is that for all his ability, it's still a character that is subservient to the white protagonist and normally underdeveloped. Go back to something I said early on. He never saves the day, or gets the girl. Regardless what he is capable of, it's used mostly in service to the hero. If you had the power to save the day yourself, wouldn't you just do it? Why all the time and effort to get someone else figure it out when it could already be done? Aside from those questions, what do we know about these guys? I said as much about Freeman's characters in some of the movies I've reviewed this week. What about Lucius Fox in The Dark Knight trilogy? He can make any damn thing Bruce Wayne wants while simultaneously running Wayne Enterprises. Where the hell did he come from? Does he do any damn thing besides coming up with cool crap? By the way, I mean in the movies, not his comic book history. Even God is only there to help Bruce and Evan become better people. Of course, some of these characters are more rounded than others. However, these are the exceptions, not the rule.

There are a few things that cause The Magical Negro dilemma. Becoming an exception is one way. There have been some excellent movies utilizing this stereotype. Shawshank is a great film and Se7en is one of my all-time favorites. I am also a huge fan of The Dark Knight trilogy and a number of other movies where the trope is employed. All of these movies subvert the trope in some way. In Shawshank, after Red's ability to get stuff helps Andy get out, he then sacrifices himself by not uttering a word about how Andy might have done it. Following this, Andy actually shows some special ability of his own and essentially saves Red's life. In Se7en, no matter how knowledgeable Det. Somerset is, he actually can't help Det. Mills save the day. In those Batman flicks, well, it's right there in the hero's name. Batman does indeed have special abilities. Aside from that, it's a series built around the idea of him sacrificing himself. While it's true, he needs Fox to make things for him, he really has no clear cut victories, except possibly in Batman Begins, the first of the three. Therefore, The Magical Negro is like many other devices used in story-telling. They are often better when the rules governing them are skillfully broken, things turn out better.

Finally, Morgan Freeman himself is part of the dilemma. Should African-Americans be up in arms with him for playing such characters? Maybe. Should we demand he stop playing them? No. As I said earlier, he's made a nice living doing what he does. Who are any of us to tell him he's done it wrong? It's a career that's given us so many wonderful performances its hard to count them all. And if there are levels of Magical Negroes, he certainly plays the ones on the higher end of the scale. He's not playing gifted imbeciles like Michael Clarke Duncan (R.I.P.) did in The Green Mile, or half-beast buffoons like Brandon T. Jacobs in the Percy Jackson movies. Other than God in the ...Almighty flicks, he's not portraying a supernaturally magical being. For the most part, he's playing highly intelligent and authoritative men. And he's playing them like only he could. Morgan Freeman brings an uncommon dignity to his roles. It's that dignity which makes me proud even if I wish he were in more movies where it really was all about him.

* "The Magical Negro Falls to Earth". TIME. Sep. 26, 2012

 

[dell71]

Superman Unbound
<b>Directed by James Tucker.</b>
<i>2013. Rated PG-13, 75 minutes.
Cast:
Matt Bomer
Stana Katic
John Noble
Molly C. Quinn
Diedrich Bader
Frances Conroy
Jason Beghe
Will Yun Lee
Sirena Irwin
Stephen Root
Wade Williams</i>​

A few months before our story begins, Superman's (Bomer) cousin Kara, aka Supergirl (Quinn) arrives from the Planet Krypton. Yes, we're shoehorning her into the canon yet again. Check out my Supergirl review for a full explanation of my problem with the very existence of this character. This time due to some time warp thingy, paradox, or total BS I fail to grasp, the planet hadn't yet blown up in her life like it has his. Okay, fine. the point of all this is that before she came to Earth, she witnessed the Kryptonian city of Kandor attacked by an army of androids. The whole thing was then literally shrunken to fit in a glass jar and taken away with many people still inside, including her parents. When those same androids start showing up in Metropolis, she fears the worst. Sure enough, they are trying to do the same to Superman's place of residence.

Ignoring my disdain for every origin story I've ever heard for Supergirl, this is a thoroughly fun adventure. Her character is more fully realized than normal. She comes across as a real person struggling with a slew of emotions the way most teenage girls do. She sulks, she pouts, she lashes out in anger, and so on. She's a bit of a mess. That's okay. given what she's been through and how recently it all took place, she should be. She hasn't had a lifetime to come to grips with things like her more famous cousin.

Speaking of Superman, he's actually much more of a secondary character, at least while being super. The Man of Steel disappears for lengthy stretches and doesn't get a whole lot to do until the final act. Don't worry, there is still lots of action and the final battle with the eventual villain is splendid. All of it is beautifully animated, as well. However, things are more intently focused on the mild-mannered Clark Kent and the state of his relationship with Lois Lane (Katic). It is well handled with situational humor and familiar, yet effective, dialogue. We get a real sense that these are two folks in love, but not necessarily sure what their next step should be.

Lois herself continues to be a perplexing character, though. Consistently, over the last few decades, her substance has been at war with her style. She's a fierce woman - independent and driven. Obviously, she is amazing at what she does. The issue is one that afflicts many ladies in the DC Animated Universe. She dresses like someone not even considering being taken seriously in her chosen profession. Her skirts barely cover her hoo-ha and her blouses have more buttons undone that most moms would approve of. I understand that many of us boys of all ages in the target audience have no qualms with this and may not even notice. Hell, it's taken me years to recognize the strange juxtaposition of who she is and what she looks like. I fully understand and agree that women are free to dress however they like. Let's be honest, though. This isn't a woman making a fashion choice. I'm not going prude on you. I may not even be fully mature. After all, I still count Porky's among my favorite movies of all-time. I realize how hypocritical this sounds. The difference, to me at least, is that superhero cartoons are largely thought to be family friendly. I don't think they should all be sanitized and completely devoid of any mature themes, but I'd rather not encourage little girls to show up for their job interviews with mini-skirts and showing as much cleavage as possible. This is to say nothing of the double-bird she flips.

Whether Superman: Unbound is really family friendly is debatable, anyway. Admittedly, it's rather tame in comparison to many things we watch, including most recent animated Batman fare. Still, the violence is a little more explicit than I expected from a Superman title. This is NOT a knock on the movie. I rather enjoyed this aspect of it. It's more a heads up for parents who don't want their kids to see blood splattering after a droid has stabbed some person in the head. Some adults look at the cover and think it's "just" a cartoon and then are mortified by what they see as they watch with the kids. This isn't a Saw movie, or anything, but be prepared.

Okay, I'm stepping down from my soap box now. The truth is I had a good time watching Superman: Unbound. All of the storylines work pretty well and come together in a way that makes sense. The action is fun and applies a gritty feel to the proceedings without making our hero a dark, brooding guy. It certainly helps that he has a physically formidable foe. To me, Supes is naturally more tense when he has a villain that can match his brawn. This guy, not giving the name on purpose, does that and has a superior intellect. I'll dock it just a little because there are some significant similarities between their battle and that of our hero with General Zod in the live-action Man of Steel. But, just a small dock.

MY SCORE: 7/10​

 

[dell71]

Jack the Giant Slayer
<b>Directed by Bryan Singer.</b>
<i>2013. Rated PG-13, 114 minutes.
Cast:
Nicholas Hoult
Eleanor Tomlinson
Ewan McGregor
Stanley Tucci
Eddie Marsan
Ewen Bremner
Ian McShane
Christopher Fairbank
Bill Nighy
Mingus Johnston
Ralph Brown</i>​

By now, you've probably heard the tale of Jack and the Beanstalk. Jack (Hoult) is a poor farm boy and things aren't going so well. He is sent out to sell his horse so his family can buy some food. Instead of money, he swaps the animal for some supposedly magic beans which is none too pleasing to the person who sent him. Lo and behold, the beans get planted accidentally, resulting in a beanstalk that stretches to the sky. At the top of this beanstalk is a man-eating giant and a princess to save. If my memory serves correctly.

Basically the same thing happens, here. The first difference is that we're dealing with an entire race of giants. Another is that along with Jack, King Brahmwell (McShane) sends a rescue party after Isabelle (Tomlinson), the princess. Among them is his top advisor, Lord Roderick (Tucci), and his top guard Elmont (McGregor). Elmont is a faithful soldier, but Roderick wants to take over both realms as he is in possession of a magic crown enabling him to do so. Oh, almost forgot something you probably already know. Jack is falling hard for Isabelle.

There is another difference more major than any I've mentioned thus far. In this world, the magic beans and the giants are part of a famous legend on par with the boogeyman in the eyes of many. A select few, the king and Roderick for sure, know the stories to be true. This adds a misplaced and unnecessary layer of self-awareness. Instead of the tale just being, we have to hear constantly about how they all thought it was just a myth. By itself, that wouldn't be terrible, but it's talk that goes nowhere and doesn't enhance the film. It just pads the run time with more needless exposition than we already get from the rest of the movie.

Everything else that happens is paint-by-numbers. It's a fairy tale told from [-]Prince Charming's[/-] Jack's point of view, but that's hardly enough of a change in perspective to make a difference. In fact, it's only a very slight change. Normally, these are male-centric stories told through the eyes of the damsel in distress and the wicked person who put her there. This dispenses with any faux-girly pretenses yet still gives us the same outcome. We know what's going to happen, when it's going to happen. The kids in the target audience know it, too.

What all of this menas is Jack the Giant Slayer is a movie that has its worth resting completely upon its spectacle. At being one, it's a modest success. The beanstalk itself is fabulously rendered and causes all sorts of mayhem. The giants are also pretty well done. A few of them even have personalities which helps the cause a bit. The action scenes, which almost always involve the stalk, work out solidly. Our hero, portrayed by Nicholas Hoult of Warm Bodies is rather bland, here. As the villain, Stanley Tucci is typically excellent. Neither is enough to save or sink this movie. It can only be what it is: pretty, somewhat fun, and entirely derivative.

MY SCORE: 5.5/10​

 

[dell71]

The Lives of Others
<b>Directed by Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck.</b>
<i>2006. Rated R, 137 minutes.
Cast:
Ulrich Muhe
Sebastian Koch
Martina Gedeck
Ulrich Tukur
Thomas Thieme
Hans-Uwe Bauer
Volkmar Kleinert
Matthias Brenner</i>​

In 1984, East Germany is still fiercely ruled by the German Democratic Republic, The GDR, and is a strictly socialist nation. The ruling party expends lots of resources spying on citizens they suspect of working against their interests. Many are jailed while many others are coerced into becoming informants. Not surprisingly, many of the people they are keeping tabs on are heavily involved with the arts. After all, creative endeavors require the freest thinkers. We're told every writer in the country is under surveillance except one, Georg Dreyman (Koch). He is the only one whose work is not considered subversive. That all changes after some higher-ups take in a performance of his latest play. The decision is made to bug his apartment and see exactly what he's up to. This is where Cpt. Wiesler (Muhe) comes in. He heads up the operation and soon finds out there is a lot more going on than making sure Georg is being a good socialist.

Wiesler is a fascinating character. On the surface, he's all about strict adherence to the party and its protocols. Beneath that, we can see where he's lacking and how this affects him. Over the course of the movie, our task becomes deciding whether we're watching him unravel or merely get in touch with his own humanity. Maybe he's doing both. Ulrich Muhe displays this through a wonderfully understated performance. Without the showy moments of some of his co-stars, he conveys everything necessary for us to understand his character.

Muhe is far from alone in his effectiveness. Martina Gedeck is thoroughly conflicted as Crista, Georg's girlfriend who finds herself in a tricky situation. As Georg himself, Sebastian Koch is perfectly confused by all that's going on around him while trying to maintain several facades of his own. Thomas Thieme and Ulrich Tukur play Minister of Culture Hempf and Lt. (?) Grubitz, respectively. They give us the villain and his top henchman. Both are intimidating, made more so by the conviction of their beliefs. The movie itself doesn't share them, but is smart enough to show that these men truly feel they are doing what is necessary to maintain the order of things as they feel it should be.

The Lives of Others, or Das Leben der Anderen in its native German, may lose some viewers along the way. This is because this film is a slow burn and not a spontaneous combustion. It seems to meander where it is really establishing the various dynamics at play. It can appear random where it is actually giving us important information about the behavior of the characters. Most of all, it comes across as just a political thriller. Bubbling just beneath the surface, however, is a very human tale. Sure, it makes a somewhat obvious social comment by the time it ends. What's more important than that is that it studies the people involved and their understanding of the world.

MY SCORE: 8.5/10​

 

[dell71]

Prisoners
<b>Directed by Denis Villanueve.</b>
<i>2013. Rated R, 153 minutes.
Cast:
Hugh Jackman
Jake Gyllenhaal
Terrence Howard
Viola Davis
Maria Bello
Paul Dano
Melissa Leo
Wayne Duvall
David Dastmalchian
Erin Gerasimovich
Kyla Drew Simmons</i>​

For Thanksgiving, the Dover family walks across the street to spend the day with their neighbors and close friends the Birch family. Each clan is made up the way we typically think of a middle-class American family. They live in nice houses in a quiet suburb, are headed by a happily married couple and have two kids. The older child is a teenager, a boy for the Dovers and a girl for the Birches. In both, the younger child is an eight year old girl. These two young ladies decide they need to go back to the Dover house to get something. Instead of asking their older siblings to escort them as instructed, they go alone. Soon, it becomes apparent the girls are missing. After unsuccessfully searching the area, the parents get the police involved. When the law doesn't seem to getting the job done, one of the dads, Keller Dover (Jackman) decides to spring into action.

Prisoners isn't as concerned with what happens to the abducted children as it is with how us moms and dads react to the situation. The couples represent two sides of a coin. For the mothers, this means Grace (Bello) is outwardly emotional. Hysterically crying herself to sleep seems to be all of which she is capable. On the other hand, Nancy Birch (Davis) is also clearly distraught, but mightily holds it together. Her defense mechanism is drawing into herself to at least maintain the appearance of composure. With the fathers, it's almost as if the roles are reversed. Franklin Birch (Howard) is the emotional one in his marriage. He is also a genuinely nice guy and doesn't have the strongest personality. He can be pushed around. Meanwhile, Keller is one hundred percent alpha male. Sure, he's out searching the woods with the rest of the community on occasion, but that's not enough for him. He is determined to get things done himself, since no one else seems able. He is also emotional, but in a much more fiery manner. Screaming at and berating whomever he happens to be addressing is typical for him. He is simply going to get answers come hell or high water.

The person most often yelled at by Keller is Detective Loki (Gyllenhaal). He's passionate about the law, no matter who is breaking it. This, and details of the case, make him keenly aware that Keller may be overstepping his boundaries. He finds himself simultaneously investigating the kidnapping and another potential crime. The latter is what the movie uses to force the viewer to consider and reconsider his or her own ethics. Would you go as far as Keller in order to find your child? Many of us like to think we would. Could we really, though, if the same opportunities present themselves? This is where Franklin and Nancy come in. they are in effect, Keller's conscience. They object, debate it amongst themselves and, eventually, come to a decision. Through them, we contemplate our own feelings on the matter. The stroke of genius in this is that they serve as our conscience, also. Due to the fact that we are only viewers, we are stuck going along with whatever the Birches decide.

While the moral dilemma is fascinating stuff, what makes Prisoners work is the tension created by suspense. Not only are we concerned with whether or not Keller is ethically and morally correct, we wonder if he's barking up the wrong tree to begin with. The movie does a very nice job keeping us guessing as it plays out. Combined with the visceral nature of our hero's actions, this draws us to the edge of our seats. Director Dennis Villanueve delivers a movie that we are simply into. Best of all, in my opinion, he doesn't leave us with a simple solution. There is still a mystery as the final credits roll. What happens, or doesn't happen, next is wide open for interpretation and, of course, discussion. It gives the movie a lingering quality. It does not do this as an obvious set up for a sequel, but a vehicle to keep us actively involved in a story that will not give us any further information.

MY SCORE: 8.5/10​

 

[dell71]

Planes
<b>Directed by Klay Hall.</b>
<i>2013. Rated PG, 91 minutes.
Cast:
Dane Cook
Stacy Keach
Brad Garrett
Teri Hatcher
Julia Louis-Dryfus
Priyanka Chopra
John Cleese
Cedric the Entertainer
Carlos Alazraqui
Sinbad
Anthony Edwards
Roger Craig Smith
Val Kilmer
Brent Musberger</i>​

Dusty Crophopper (Cook) is just a crop duster. That doesn't stop his dreams of being racing plane. To fulfill his lifelong wish, he decides to try to qualify for the upcoming world famous Wings Across the World race. Against all odds, and due to some funny business by another racer, Dusty snags the last available spot. Even though he's severely outclassed by his competitors, and they let him know it, he is out not just to participate, but to win. There is one other teeny, tiny problem. One leg of the race involves flying over mountains and he is afraid of heights. Yup, he's a plane afraid of heights.

If you've heard anything about Planes, it's probably that it was made to capitalize on the popularity of the Cars franchise and is pretty much a knock-off. That much is true. Where most will probably disagree with me is that, in this case, the knock-off is better than the original. Full disclosure: I hate Cars. To me, it is an overly long, poorly paced, snooze fest. Planes is on par with Cars 2, which I also like better than Cars. I place this movie as a small step below Turbo, yet another movie following the same basic template. In that one, we sub in a snail.

Planes knows something that Cars didn't and uses that knowledge to its advantage. It fully understands that the racing is the draw. Where Cars back-logged all of the fun stuff to sit behind a way-too-lengthy setup, Planes gets us to the action rather quickly. All of the other elements you'd expect to be there are incorporated into the racing. We still get the wise old sage (Keach), a love interest (Chopra), an identity crisis for our hero, and a villain. The pace is so snappy, we notice that they are present, but don't have time to dwell on them, nitpick them, or worse, become bored by them. Instead, the time flies by, bad pun intended, and we have a fun time.

The drawback to all that speed is that our characters are stuck in neutral. They all stick to the expected arcs with almost no deviation from the norm. This robs most of them of their pizazz. This is where Turbo excels. In that movie, we get big personalities that follow similar tropes, but with much more charisma. Here, I felt like I could write the dialogue. Actually, I could probably replace it all with a catch-phrase or two for each character.

As things come to a close, we've seen a movie that's fun, but ultimately forgettable. It zips through our lives covering the same basic lessons so many other cartoons have trampled to death. Without doing anything especially good or bad, it leaves nary a trace after it's gone. The silver lining is that while it's on, it's an enjoyable little plane ride.

<b>MY SCORE: 6/10</b>​

 

[dell71]

This is not a review, just me rambling about...

<b>Movies I Grew Up With</b>

The Warriors​

I've been a bit of an insomniac for as long as I can remember. So it's no surprise that my first encounter with many of the movies I grew up with occurred long after sundown on ABC's "The Late Show." It's where I saw such classics as Blacula, The Car, and today's subject, The Warriors. I was probably eleven or twelve years old the first time I saw it and I was hooked right from the start. By the pounding score that opens the film, the trains barreling through the New York City subways (which I was fascinated by since I actually knew some of the men in the neighborhood who worked for New York Transit Authority), hordes of young men in small cliques that all dressed alike boarding these trains headed for something they're not sure about, a sense of mystery was created. I just had to know what was going on. We quickly find out that these cliques are nine representatives of the city's various gangs. When they got to this big meeting, we see them all surrounding a makeshift stage. It's a scene that literally uses a thousand people, most of them extras. It's a pretty striking visual to introduce us to this world.

Then Cyrus (Roger Hill) speaks.

In true 1970s fashion, this was released theatrically in 1979, he asks us all "Can you count, suckas?" He then proceeds to run down how the gangs can take over New York due to the sheer manpower numbers and there is nothing the police can do about it, provided the gangs work together. To get his audience riled up, both in person and those of us watching from the safety of our mother's living rooms, he asks "Can you dig it?" But wait, it's more of an declaration, certainly an exclamation, rather than a question so I'll change the punctuation so you can understand. He says, "Can you dig it! Can you dig it! CAN YOU DIG IIIIIIIIIIITTTTTT!"

The crowd goes wild.

Then Cyrus is shot.

Dead.

We saw the guy who actually did the shooting, but no one else did. He tells everyone it was the Warriors. Cleon (Dorsey Wright), the leader of the Warriors happens to standing in a crowd of guys belonging to the Gramercy Riffs, Cyrus' gang. They put a beat down on Cleon and we never see him again. The remaining eight Warriors get away as the police show up. Now they have to make it back to their home turf of Coney Island. One little problem. Every gang in the city is after them.

From there, the movie is just a huge chunk of teenage boy/juvenile delinquent fantasy. The gangs all dress alike in the most amazing and/or awful outfits to ever grace the silver screen. Our heroes themselves opt for blue jeans and a brown leather vest that most wear without a shirt underneath. The Riffs mostly wear orange gais and all know martial arts. There are also the Turnbull AC's with their all denim look and bald heads. The Boppers are decked out in black dress shirts, purple vests, purple ties, purple fedoras, and white slacks. Nothing says 'gangsta' like white slacks. The Hi-Hats rock red shirts with black stripes down the sleeves, black suspenders and pants, and yes, they wear top hats. Oh, they also have their faces painted like mimes. Speaking of face paint, this brings us to the most famous gang of them all aside from the Warriors themselves, the Baseball Furies. Yes, their faces are all done up as well, but that's not what people remember most about them. Their outfit is a full blown baseball uniform, complete with cleats and a bat. I say 'Wow!' every time I see this movie.

Okay, we just gotta take a break for those of you who haven't seen it to understand the type of outfits I'm talking about...

The Warriors

The Gramercy Riffs

The Boppers

The Hi-Hats

The Baseball Furies​

Got it? Good. Let's move on...

I've seen this movie God-knows-how-many times. No matter how often I watch it, I have a blast. Swan (Michael Beck), who takes over leadership of the Warriors after Cleon goes down is the coolest dude in the world. His butting heads with the hotheaded Ajax (James Remar) gives us some juicy tension within the group. The local radio DJ spinning tunes that serve as code for the gangs around the city while also giving them a play-by-play of the pursuit of our heroes is a stroke of cinematic genius. Masai (Edward Sewer), who takes over the Riffs is just as scary as Swan is cool. Of course, there's a girl. Her name is Mercy (Deborah Van Valkenburgh). She's tough and just kinda hangs around until Swan takes a liking to her. Speaking of girls, Mercedes Ruehl, whose credits include Last Action Hero, Big, and Married to the Mob, shows up as an undercover cop. Even a young Debra Winger shows up as an extra. Finally, David Patrick Kelly is just plain nutty as Luther, the leader of the Rogues and the man who shot Cyrus.

Back when I was a kid, I feel old just typing that, there were gangs. They were dangerous, but were not anywhere near the scourge on society the way we currently think of them. In terms of pop culture, we thought more of West Side Story or one of those outfits that had a run-in with The Fonze on Happy Days. Not quite on the same level, is it? The Warriors is a 1979 movie that exists as a midway point between the two extremes. These guys still have a predilection for looking goofy by dressing in matching outfits, but taking a life is sometimes part of the deal. They fall somewhere between West Side Story and Colors. Their attire would have them fit right in with the Sharks and the Jets. However, they aren't nearly so innocuous as to be doing musical numbers. On the other hand, they aren't the outright banes of urban humanity, the way they are in Colors. Or in real life.

That real life part is what makes The Warriors a little bit troublesome for me as a father. It can certainly be seen as a glorification of gangs. However, these gangs are so cartoonish they don't much resemble anything my kids have actually heard of, or possibly encountered. To be honest, it helps that these are a multicultural collection of knuckleheads and there are barely any guns present. A movie glorifying a cast solely consisting of Black and Latino young men would probably seem much more harsh to me. Cast as it is, it has more of a 'we're all knuckleheads' kind of feel. And like I said, it's a bit on the goofy side. So the thought of my son running out and joining a gang after seeing it never entered my mind. He watched and wondered what kind of madness I was showing him. My youngest daughter did the same, out loud, right at the beginning. As we see all of the different gangs assembling for the big meeting where Cyrus would meet his end, she said "If I see one more group all dressed up alike I'm going to scream." No, I hadn't warned her beforehand. She didn't scream, but she did roll her eyes really hard. By the end, they were both into it. And they both wanted to slap me as I sang along with Luther on his now famous deranged taunting of our heroes, "Warriors, come out to play-yay!" I just couldn't help myself. I won't be able to help myself next time, either.

<b>R.I.P. Roger Hill AKA Cyrus
Jul. 31, 1948 - Feb. 25, 2014</b>​

 

[dell71]

Best Man Holiday
<b>Directed by Malcolm D. Lee. </b>
<i>2013. Rated R, 123 minutes.
Cast:
Taye Diggs
Morris Chestnut
Nia Long
Terrence Howard
Melissa De Sousa
Monica Calhoun
HaroldPerrineau
Regina Hall
Sanaa Lathan</i>​

When last we saw our gang of friends, way back in 1999, things culminated in a beautiful wedding for Lance (Chestnut) and Mia (Calhoun). All these years later, they've all moved on to bigger and better things. We pick up the story with Lance and Mia inviting the whole crew over to their place for the week of Christmas. Everyone is on board, no problem, except Harper (Diggs). It turns out things between he and Lance haven't been so good in the intervening years. The events of The Best Man, seems to have irreparably damaged their friendship. Nonetheless, he agrees to go because he has an ulterior motive. His last few books have flopped. His next one may not see the light of day. He has also lost his teaching job at NYU, his wife Robin (Lathan) is pregnant with their first child, and the bills are piling up. At the urging of his agent, he plans on writing a biography on Lance, the football hero. One slight problem. He hasn't actually mentioned this to Lance. The playing out of this situation and a number of others ensues.

In case you were wondering, the entire cast does indeed reprise their roles from the original. Julian (Perrineau) really did marry Candy (Hall), the stripper. Though she no longer does that sort of thing, her past comes back to haunt them in a big way. Jordan (Long) is a media mogul of sorts, still incredibly driven and beautiful. I just had to mention the beautiful part. I mean, it is Nia Long, dammit. I digress. She is also still single, but dating Brian (Cibrian), the only newcomer and only Caucasian. Both of these matter for at least a few minutes. Quentin (Howard) is a successful ad man and still a mischevious button pusher. Finally, Shelby (De Sousa) is a reality TV star more concerned with building her brand than anything else. In true sequel fashion, each person plays a bigger, badder version of themselves. Their most memorable traits take center stage and never leave. In general, this works. The one issue is that leves the characters with a flatter feel to them.

Even if the players aren't as well-rounded as they once were, they are still a fun bunch to be around. They make us laugh on a fairly consistent basis as each member of the ensembl, usually two at a time, takes turns in the spotlight. When their turn is done, they fade into the background just enough to still be seen until they are either tasked to give counsel to one of the others, or take over the proceedings once more. It essentially becomes a game of hot potato with the cast quickly passing our attention our their circle.
All of that tossing us around is where the movie gets into a bit of trouble. Director Malcolm D. Lee might be a world class juggler. However, even the best have limits. At times, it feels as if he's reached his, but threw one more ball in the air anyway. To his credit, he ties the stoires together organically and in a manner that is never confusing. It can just feel as if the system is dangerously close to overloading. Thankfully, a cast which is more than game makes it all a joy to watch. They are uniformly excellent. Even so, Terrence Howard and Melissa De Sousa stand out as doing particularly nice work. They help maintain a sense of fun, even as things start to get heavy during the final act.

This last portion of Best Man Holiday is where it might lose some of you. Though what's going on with Mia is telegraphed practically from the moment people start arriving at her house, the movie still shifts hard into tear-jerker mode. It pulls mightily at our heartstrings. Judging by the crowd I watched with, including my wife and a cousin of hers, it's effective. If, like me, you're not prone to crying over movies, it can start to feel very manipulative. What was a fun, occasionally raunchy ensemble comedy devolves into a profit driver for Kleenex. I say this fully realizing that people who do cry over movies are much more inclined to love the films that move them to tears. Personally, I like it a good deal. I just don't love it.

<b>MY SCORE: 7/10</b>​

 

[dell71]

White House Down
<b>Directed by Roland Emmerich.</b>
<i>2013. Rated R, 131 minutes.
Cast:
Channing Tatum
Jamie Foxx
Maggie Gyllenhaal
Richard Jenkins
James Woods
Jason Clarke
Joey King
Nicolas Wright
Michael Murphy
Rachelle Lefevre</i>​

Agent John Cale (Tatum) works on the security detail for Speaker of the House Eli Raphelson (Jenkins). Through some favors, he got that job and finagles his way into an interview for a position in the Secret Service at the White House, because that's really how you get a job guarding the most powerful men in the free world. It so happens that the person interviewing him, Agent Finnerty (Gyllenhaal), is an ex-girlfriend from college. Given that, and a spotty work history, he doesn't get hired. Since his daughter is a political buff and absolutely adores Pres. James W. Sawyer (Foxx), he brought her along and she gets separated from him because she has to make a trip to the restroom. Wouldn't ya know it? This is precisely when all hell breaks loose as terrorists storm the property, guns blazing. Pretty soon, Cale realizes he's the only one who can save both his daughter and the Chief Executive.

To my surprise, White House Down takes a little longer to kick into high gear than expected. This is actually a good thing. These early scenes establish our characters nicely and are fairly funny. The mood is kept light and wee see the bad guys moving into position. During this time, star Channing Tatum exudes the easy charm, and yes ladies, the movie star looks that have made him famous. Co-star Jamie Foxx isn't bad, but seems to be caught in a bit of a conundrum. It appears he is unsure how much Pres. Obama should be in his character. He vacillates between impersonation and doing his own thing. Like Tatum, though, he has a natural charm that pulls him through without being too big a detriment.

Once the fireworks start, this is solid turn-your-brain-off fare that never threatens to get too heavy. It doesn't attempt to brow-beat you into a flag waving frenzy, either. That last thing is a huge problem with this movie's barely older twin sister, Olympus Has Fallen. I am an American, proud to be one. Still, movies that are relentlessly heavy-handed tend to leave me cold, regardless of how great its message. Thankfully, that isn't the case with WHD. Sure, there is some overt patriotism going on, but it feels organic to the plot, not the product of overbearing propagandists. It just follows two guys, one of whom happens to be the President of the United States, as they try to maneuver their way out of the White House even though bad guys control the premises. They have a nice chemistry which certainly helps. And yup, not only does everything go boom all around them, they make plenty of things go boom themselves.

The villain does the usual ranting and raving, plus their is plenty of in-fighting with his team. Meanwhile, the secondary characters on the good side do the prerequisite hand wringing. It's all pretty much par for the course. The only standout being the overall quality of the cast. Even though it is just a big, dumb action flick, they bring the goods.

Where the movie strains just a bit is when it over-twists itself. It spends lots of time building up one character as our bad guy, giving him a detailed backstory and the whatnot. Eventually, as must always be the case, we switch gears and find out there's someone else involved. Normally, this would be fine. Here, it occurs so late in the proceedings we get almost nothing about him that matters. It's not quite a deal breaker, but it does take some air out of the balloon.

Plot malfunctions aside, we still have a fun ride on our hands. It's got loads of action, it's goofy at times, and genuinely humorous at others. Our two leads work together very easily. I wouldn't mind seem them together again. Maybe they can do a buddy-cop movie or something, not a sequel. We don't need a part two. However, I did have a good t ime watching this. Without the Kong-like chest-thumping of Olympus Has Fallen, I felt free to just enjoy it, not be brow-beaten by it. I understand lots of people didn't like WHD. After all, it is loud and stupid. You know what, though? It works for me.

<b>MY SCORE: 6.5/10</b>​

 

[dell71]

Noah
<b>Directed by Darren Aronofsky.</b>
<i>2014. Rated PG-13, 138 minutes.
Cast:
Russell Crowe
Jennifer Connelly
Ray Winstone
Emma Watson
Anthony Hopkins
Logan Lerman
Douglas Booth
Nick Nolte
Kevin Durand
Mark Margolis
Frank Langella
Leo McHugh Carroll</i>​

Even if you're not religious, you're probably familiar with the story of Noah's Ark. The Good Lord was so fed up with mankind that he sent a great flood to wipe us all out. Before He did, though, He let Noah in on the plan and told him to build a great ark and all the animals, two by two, will join him and his family. That way, when the waters recede all of the various species can continue. Noah did precisely this and the world was repopulated entirely by the occupants of the most famous boat of all time. With Russell Crowe in the titular role, Noah fleshes out this saga in more detail than has ever been attempted.

Noah is presented to us as a simple man. He is wholly devoted to The Creator first, his family second, and has the courage of his convictions on all fronts. Crowe plays him as a man with a quiet, yet unwavering, authority. It is also unquestioned within his own family. When he says 'we're building an ark and all the animals are coming,' his wife Naameh (Connelly) doesn't even blink. It's evident that she is as committed as he to carrying out The Creator's wishes. If either of them, or anyone in the movie for that matter, isn't quite sure what He is saying to them, or what should be done next, they go pay a visit to Noah's cave-dwelling grandfather Methusaleh. All is then made clear and we drive on. Also involved are Noah's sons Shem (Booth), Ham (Lerman), and Jahpeth (Carroll). This makes for some pretty interesting family dynamics when things don't seem to be going quite as planned, or at least to everyone's liking. This provides the movie with its biggest dilemma and a controversial outcome. It opens the door for the interpretation that Noah was ultimately a failure in God's eyes. Noah himself seems to feel this way. It goes against the prevailing idea that he was an unmitigated success. Well, unless I missed something. That's entirely possible given I'm not a religious guy. If so, feel free to let me know.

Then again, letting me know what I missed isn't really necessary because this movie really only uses the biblical story of Noah as an outline for the rest of the movie. Basically, that he built an ark, all the animals came, and The Creator flooded the world destroying all life outside of that ark is all that's taken from scripture. However, this isn't a complaint. I fully understand why so much was added to the story. It would have been really boring watching Noah and his family chop down trees, swing hammers, and sing spirituals while they work for a hundred years to get it done. Likewise, it would not have been exciting watching them sail along for forty days and forty nights unless the animals started getting unruly. By the way, the movie very neatly skirts this possibility. Things were needed to give us human conflicts the viewer could relate to. To that end, we get the family drama, including a very tough situation that weighs heavily on the movie's final act. We also get a villain in the form of Tubal-cain (Winstone). He believes Noah really has been told by God to build the ark and that a great flood is coming. Well, Tubal-cain has an army and he wants on that boat! These things work pretty well to create tension where the source material has none. There is also an additional layer of mysticism applied to a tale that already starts with a supernatural conversation. This comes in the form of "The Watchers," fallen angels made of light but encased in rock ages ago when they betrayed The Creator by helping mankind. They seem to have leapt from Peter Jackson's imagination as possible Middle Earth inhabitants. Their presence gives our heroes some much-needed allies and they really spring to life during movie's largest battle scene.

On the technical side, director Darren Aronofsky has created a visually pleasing film. There are lots of wide shots of our heroes either traversing lush landscapes or hard at work on the ark. These and the depiction of the battles again bring Peter Jackson to mind. In battle, The Watchers take on humans in spectacular fashion. Bodies and rocks fly about the screen as swords, axes, and all sorts of ancient weaponry is put to use. By the time we get quite that far, however, we have already seen the most amazing shot of the movie: a forest instantly springing up around Noah and family from a singular seed. Another wonderful sequence has our hero audibly recite the story of Creation, but visually melds it with The Big Bang Theory and evolution. During our scenes aboard the famed vessel, we get lots of shots of people coming out of and going into the shadows symbolizing the less than altruistic intentions of several characters. We are also shown more close ups mimicking the claustrophobic nature of their situation. It's a clear case of the director and his cinematographer using the camera to influence the viewer.

Like lots of films, how much we enjoy Noah might depend on the expectations we bring to it. If you are a devout Christian and/or looking for something that sticks closely to the story you know and love, you may be sorely disappointed. I venture to say so many liberties are taken wish the source material it's possible you'll be offended. Of course, there's that whole bit about just what happened at the beginning of time. If you go into it dreading having to sit through a religious flick, you might just roll your eyes all the way through. Fallen angels and God delivering ultimatums in a voice only heard by one person is not going to change your mind. However, if you enter without clinging to your thoughts on what it should be, you will be pleasantly surprised. The story is told well and a good deal of tension is created. It also looks very good, as mentioned. It can drag a bit in spots, but things perk up whenever Ray Winstone or Anthony Hopkins is on the screen. It's a decent watch, but won't inspire you to start building an ark anytime soon.

MY SCORE: 6.5/10​

 

[dell71]

Parkland
<strong>Directed by Peter Landesman.</strong>
<i>2013. Rated R, 93 minutes.
Cast:
Paul Giamatti
James Badge Dale
Zac Efron
Colin Hanks
Marcia Gay Harden
Billy Bob Thornton
Jacki Weaver
Jackie Earl Haley
Ron Livingston
Jeremy Strong</i>​

As we were all reminded last year, during which the 50th anniversary of the event occurred, Pres. John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, TX on November 22, 1963. Parkland tells the story of what happened starting a few moments before he was shot until the time he was buried a few days later. The title refers to Parkland Memorial Hospital, where Pres. Kennedy was taken after being shot. We go there with him and go through the attempts to save his life, headed up by Dr. Jim Carrico (Efron), a very young doctor, and seasoned head nurse Doris Nelson (Harden). We see how first the Secret Service and then hordes of media folk descend upon Abraham Zapruder (Giamatti) when it becomes known that he caught the tragedy on film. We're also privy to the fed's handling of Lee Harvey Oswald (Strong) and his family. Finally, we deal with the shift in focus to protecting Lyndon B. Johnson who suddenly found himself President of the United States.

The fly on the wall perspective makes this about as close to being there as a movie is likely to get. To perpetuate that feeling, the camera is often in odd locations. A lot of times it is at a distance we would normally think of as too close. We can't make out much of the rooms these people are in. This is particularly true of the scenes in the operating room. It helps foster the feeling of being in a crowded space with almost no wiggle room. Outside the hospital, this technique hints at how little each person involved was really aware of, or could see from their vantage point.

In keeping with its documentary like survey of events, the acting is so good across the board it feels like we are watching the actual people live through a moment in history. Paul Giamatti and Marcia Gay Harden are, excellent as always. Billy Bob Thornton simply dominates the screen in one of his better, but bound to be underrated performances. Even Zac Efron impresses. His portrayal of Dr. Carrico rings true right from the start. In the film's showiest performance, Jacki Weaver is absolutely mind-blowing as Lee Harvey Oswald's mother Marguerite. She quickly becomes a person we love to hate, possibly even more than her son who killed arguably the most beloved U.S. president of the 20th century. Kudos to Weaver for completely selling it. Conversely, the person we most sympathize with is her other son Robert played with remorse for his brother's actions by James Badge Dale.

Clocking in at a shade under ninety minutes when you subtract the credits, it is a movie that moves at an extraordinary pace. It packs each frame to the gills and sprints by. As fast as it moves, it has no time to do what a lot of movies based on true events can. There is no theorizing about grassy knolls, second shooters, and the like. There also doesn't appear to be much in the way of agenda pushing. It just punches us right in the mouth with the most corroborated parts of a still mysterious story. It ends without any speculation whatsoever. Therefore, Parkland is certainly not the most contemplative JFK movie you'll ever see, but it's likely the most visceral one.

<b>MY SCORE: 9/10</b>​