Movie Review Take the Lead

Take the Lead (2006) 

Directed by Liz Friedlander 

Written by Dianne Huston 

Starring Antonio Banderas, Rob Brown, Alfre Woodard 

Release Date April 7th, 2006

Published April 7th, 2006

The real life of Pierre Dulaine is one that should be honored with some variation of the nobel prize. While on the surface that may seem outrageous, Pierre Dulaine is merely a ballroom dance instructor. However, a closer examination shows that Mr. Dulaine's ballroom dance classes introduced to inner city New York classrooms returned more positively reinforced children and improved classmates than any after school activity in the history of New York schools.

His fight to bring culture to the classroom was ridiculed as frivolous and a waste of what limited resources schools had for their often troubled inner city students. Mr. Dulaine turned that around by demonstrating a unique ability to bring even the worst lost causes back to school on a daily basis. His care and hard work helped many kids discover a love for learning they never knew they had.

There may not be a Nobel prize for Pierre Dulaine but at the very least Hollywood has a loving treatment of his life in the new drama Take The Lead. Yes, this is a creaky little old school overcoming the odds drama but if anyone deserves a sickly sweet love letter its Pierre Dulaine.

In the inner city high schools of New York City teachers fight to save the kids they feel they can save and just hope the rest don't get killed. Years of underfunding, lack of security and just plain hopelessness will lead to the kind of defeatist attitudes that pervade these schools.

Thankfully Pierre Dulaine (Antonio Banderas) was never exposed to this systemic hopelessness. Pierre Dulaine is a ballroom dance instructor with his own high end studio and upper crust clientele. One night, while riding his bike home, Pierre comes in contact with Rock (Rob Brown) , a troubled kid who has just vandalized his Principal's car.

The principal is played by the terrific Alfre Woodard who skeptically receives a visit from Pierre Dulaine the following morning. Pierre is not here to rat out the student who destroyed her car. Rather, he wishes to offer his services as an instructor to any student willing to learn to dance.

The principal is ready to laugh Pierre out of her office before she remembers that she has no instructor for her detention. What harm can it do for her to let Pierre try and teach some of the school's most lost causes how to cha cha cha. Heck he probably won't last the afternoon.

Known as the school's rejects, the detention kids are a mixed group of street thugs, latch key kids and lost souls who have been told all their lives that they have no chance of escaping their surroundings. Ramos (Dante Basco), Lahrette (Yaya DaCosta), Monster (Brandon Andrews), Easy (Lyriq Bent) and Tina (Laura Benanti) are just a few of the kids the rest of the teachers have given up on.

Also in Mr. Dulaine's detention class is Rock who does not believe Pierre's appearance is a coincidence. Convinced Pierre is going to turn him in for his vandalism refuses to participate even as the rest of the class begins to come around to Pierre's passionate demonstrations.

Antonio Banderas is the linchpin of Take The Lead. His performance sells what is essentially a predictable, almost farcical inner city melodrama. With his usual smolder at a mere simmer, Banderas crafts a starring performance that is unlike anything he has delivered before.

Humble yet strong, charismatic without trying Banderas pays near perfect tribute to Pierre Dulaine.

The rest of the cast is good if undistinguished. As tends to happen with such large casts of young actors, names and faces get lost in the crowd. I can tell you that each dances incredibly well but beyond that, only the enigmatic Rob Brown really stands out.

I have been a fan of Rob Brown since his exceptional debut alongside Sean Connery in the underrated drama Finding Forrester. Brown needs to break the mold of the High School roles that have been his forte since Forrester, including another terrific performance in 2005's Coach Carter. One of these days Rob Brown will take a role that is not another High School coming of age story and he will become a major star.

Take The Lead was directed by rookie director Liz Friedlander, a music video veteran. The music video experience likely explains why only the dance scenes really jump off the screen while much of the drama is clumsy. Friedlander and screenwriter Dianne Houston fumble Pierre's introduction which is supposed to deliver his motivation for teaching these kids. 

This forces some fancy footwork, pun intended, by Banderas to make the character work. It is a tribute to Banderas that he rescues much of the film from a number of similar mistakes. Mistakes that include a thinly drawn villain character, a fellow teacher, whose reasons for hating Mr. Dulaine and his dance classes are merely the contrivance of the plot.

I'm not saying that Take The Lead is a very good movie, actually it's just barely a good movie. I am saying that because of Antonio Banderas, Rob Brown and the real life Pierre Dulaine, there is a great deal about Take The Lead that works.

As a tribute to a man who deserves a tribute, see Take The Lead and be inspired by the spirit of Pierre Dulaine.

Step Up 3D

Step Up 3D (2010)

Directed by Jon M. Chu 

Written by Amy Anderson, Emily Meyer 

Starring Rick Malambri, Adam G. Savani, Sharni Vinson, Alyson Stoner

Release Date August 6th, 2010 

Published August 12th, 2010

‘You're just jealous because you can't dance’ was one of many angry emails I received after I panned the first “Step Up” movie. I was out sick and missed out on the “Step Up 2: The Streets” assignment though colleagues have told me it was as riveting as the first. Now comes “Step Up 3D” and instead of being sick before the movie I became sick during and after this one. “Step Up 3D” teams some very talented dancers, some exceptionally dull club music and the awfulness that is 3D technology to create a force of sheer tedium.

Rick Malambri is the 3D abs of steel at the center of “Step Up 3D.” As Luke, Malambri plays kind Fagin to a group of urchin dancers with no place to live. Seven or ten different teenage dancers live on top of one another in the space above the nightclub left to Luke by his late parents.

The latest to join this crew that calls themselves the Pirates, no real reason why so just don't bother asking, is Moose (Adam G. Sevani) who, I'm told, was one of the stars of “Step Up 2: the Streets.” If Moose is from the ‘Streets' we must be talking Sesame Street or maybe Klickitat Street where the wonderful Ramona & Beezus hail from and where dancing in the streets would be quite welcome.

Moose has just arrived in New York to attend NYU and put street dancing behind him. Unfortunately, on his first day in the big city, Moose stumbles into a dance battle with a crew known as the Samurais and manages to beat one of the leaders of their crew. How a win in dancing is determined is your call but apparently it involves showing up your opponent through the clever employment of balloons, bubbles and other such props.

Luke rescues Moose from what I am sure was another highly volatile dance showdown and invites him to join the Pirates. Joining Moose on the team is Natalie (Sharni Vinson) , a girl that Luke meets in the club who happens to be a great dancer looking for a place to live. She has a secret that pays off later in the movie but I will leave you to discover this SHOCKING revelation. All caps used here to infer mockery.

I have filled in much of the context of “Step Up 3D” and if you see it you will have to do so as well. The makers of “Step Up 3D” were not tasked with much on the story front; they are here to film and choreograph dance routines. One might ask: Why not make a documentary about real dancers and film their amazing performances instead of subjecting us to more than 90 minutes of blithering expository dialogue that interrupts the dancing? This question remains unanswered by the movie. 

There was a terrific 2005 documentary called “Rize” that did just what I was talking about before. The film chronicled the dance movement happening in South Central Los Angeles and featured astonishing scenes of dance that likely inspired the Fox dance competition “So You Think You Can Dance” and many of the dance movies that have come since. 

”Rize” told the stories of the dancers as they danced and conveyed the depth of their love for dance in ways that the “Step Up” movies can only dream of. For the makers of “Step Up,” movies are merely a vehicle for commerciality. Dance movies are an opportunity for pretty young people to be sexy without threatening anything actually sexual. In the first film, Channing Tatum could smolder sans shirt and needed no other context than dance to do so. It was his Othello, his, Henry the 8th, his Michael Corleone.

”Step Up 3D” falls to Tatum clone Rick Malambri who, like a great understudy, carries the same blank stare and chiseled tummy as Mr. Tatum. He understands, like Mr. Tatum, that his job is to embody sexual desire as a means of selling a movie without any actual sex and like a perfectly smooth Ken Doll, he nails it. Sex without sex is the unspoken heart of the “Step Up” movies, the two that I've seen. 

That sex sells has never been in question, what it sells in “Step Up 3D” are movie tickets, Nike special edition dance shoes and various other products placed within reach of the characters. Each available space in “Step Up 3D” is covered with some kind of salable brand that no doubt spent a pretty penny to place its product in front of a captive audience of young moviegoers. 

Commercial concerns aside, “Step Up 3D” and indeed each of the “Step Up” movies, have the potential to be earnest, 'let's put on a show,' old Hollywood throwbacks where feisty young characters throw caution to the wind and seek nothing but truth, justice and a good time. Sadly, those old Hollywood movies had stars like Gene Kelly or Judy Garland and Mickey Rooney. “Step Up 3D” has not one performer with that level of charisma or appeal. 

To be fair, if the cast of “Step Up 3D” had an unending fount of charisma and charm we wouldn't likely know about it. What these young dancers are called upon to do is look good and dance. Punching their way through a thicket of expository dialogue robs each of any opportunity to be anything more than a pretty face or an ad for a good trainer. 

Should we even bother talking about 3D? It's a gimmick, we know that. The gimmick here is no different than any other 3D movie; it's meant to extract a couple extra bucks from the willing moviegoer. The technology adds not one iota to the experience of “Step Up 3D.” Indeed, if you feel you need 3D to improve on the dancing in a dance movie, maybe the movie should not be made. 

One of my critic colleagues made the excellent point that if you want to enjoy team dancing like that displayed in “Step Up 3D,” watch Randy Jackson's America's Best Dance Crew on MTV.com. It's the same experience for free and instead of mind meltingly awful snippets of dialogue you have some boring host banter and 30 seconds of commercials here and there.

Plus, no headache inducing, eye strain causing 3D. Sure you miss out on the smoldering Mr. Malambri and the lithesome Ms. Vinson but you can get everything you need from a “Step Up 3D” movie poster.

Movie Review: BlackKKlansman

BlacKKKlansman (2018) 

Directed by Spike Lee

Written by Spike Lee 

Starring John David Washington, Adam Driver, Topher Grace, Laura Harrier Ryan Eggold 

Release Date August 10th, 2018

Published August 9th, 2018

BlacKKKlansman is one of the most ambitious and daring movies to come down the pike in quite some time. This story about a real-life Colorado Springs, Colorado cop who decided to take on the Ku Klux Klan is bold, audacious, funny and deeply compelling. That is is also a biting satire of our current political climate also serves to remind us why Spike Lee remains one of the most vital and necessary filmmakers.

BlacKKKlansman stars John David Washington, Denzel’s son, as Ron Stallworth, a man fresh out of college and eager to become a police detective. His ambition brings him to Colorado Springs, Colorado where he seizes his opportunity to quickly move up the ranks by volunteering for undercover work. Whether intentional or not, Ron takes advantage of the racism of the department as they need someone young and black to go undercover at meetings of so-called black radicals.

After succeeding in his first undercover gig, Ron is fully promoted to detective in the Intelligence division. It is here where the story of BlacKKKlansman kicks into gear. Seeing an ad in the paper for the Ku Klux Klan recruitment drive, Ron decides to pick up the phone and find out how the Klan recruits. Ron quickly ingratiates himself to the local Klan leader, Walter (Ryan Eggold) who invites him to a meeting.

Naturally, Ron himself can’t go undercover at the meeting, so, he’s partnered with Flip (Adam Driver). Together they will catfish the Klan into believing that Ron Stallworth is a former Vietnam veteran eager for the chance to be part of the coming race war on the side of ‘The Organization’ as they call themselves when in public so as not to arouse suspicion and maintain the anonymity that comes with their traditional hood and shroud.

Where the story goes from there you will need to see for yourself. I will tell you that the scope of the story includes the longtime Grand Wizard of the KKK, David Duke, here played by Topher Grace in a performance that truly takes the piss out of Duke and his self-righteous attempts at mainstreaming his hateful rhetoric. Grace is terrific at being the butt of the film’s best gags, especially the final payoff laugh which sends the crowd home happy.

This is however, J.D Washington’s show and boy is this kid ready for stardom. Yes, you can definitely hear some of his dad’s voice, his unique inflection, coming from J.D but he demonstrates here, with the help of Spike Lee, that he is fully his own man. This is a breakout, charismatic, a star is born, kind of leading man performance. Washington is funny, confident, bold and sympathetic and yet far from perfect, still wet behind the ears but eager to learn in charming fashion.

Adam Driver as well is fantastic in BlacKKKlansman. Driver’s choice of roles is so smart, always seeming to choose roles that play to his unique strengths. Many of BlacKKKlansman’s best scenes are played in Driver’s eyes, with the thinly veiled control he has over the contempt he feels for the Klan he’s pretending to be part of and for himself for having to spout the racist nonsense back at these redneck losers. It’s a performance of measured cool and Driver is phenomenal.

Spike Lee hasn’t felt this much like the Spike Lee of old since 2002’s 25th Hour. This is Spike once again on an epic scale. This is Spike indulging his style once again rather than pushing his instincts aside to make something mainstream ala 2006’s Inside Man, a fine movie, but not a Spike Lee movie, and 2013’s Oldboy, a film idea doomed at conception. BlacKKKlansman takes us back to when Spike Lee was more than just a director, he was a creative life force.

BlacKKKlansman is vital and angry, funny and dangerous. The film engages and repels audiences, it challenges you and ingratiates you. If you are uncomfortable with political movies, BlacKKKlansman is not for you as it is a film that challenges you with parallels to today’s politics and the dangerous attempts too many people in the political realm have made to equate the hate of bigots and racists with the anger of people suffering from the hate of bigots and racists.

BlacKKKlansman is bold and fearless filmmaking filled with style and humor, fiery polemical rhetoric and damn good storytelling. BlacKKKlansman is a Spike Lee Joint as vital and exciting as anything he’s made since Do the Right Thing, arguably his one true masterpiece. BlacKKKlansman is also simply one of the finest movies of 2018.

Movie Review King Arthur

King Arthur (2004) 

Directed by Antoine Fuqua 

Written by David Pranzoni 

Starring Clive Owen, Keira Knightley, Stellan Skarsgard, Hugh Dancy, Til Schweiger, Ioan Gruffaud 

Release Date July 7th, 2004 

Published July 5th, 2004

Jerry Bruckheimer’s slavish devotion to commerce may satisfy capitalistic business plans, but as for making enjoyable films, those have been few and far between. Okay, I can’t deny that Pirates Of The Caribbean was a slick, exciting bit of entertainment fluff but I cannot forget the nightmare that was Kangaroo Jack or the most dreadful blockbuster in history, Armageddon.

Bruckheimer’s latest film, King Arthur, combines the commercial slickness of Pirates with the dreary sadness of most of the films that carry his name. King Arthur is an attempt at an authentic historical epic, the so-called “real” story behind the legend of King Arthur and his Knights of The Roundtable. However, the film has no answer to the question “Why would anyone want a history lesson from the man who brought us Con-Air?”

Clive Owen stars as the legendary British/Roman King, Arthur, the greatest warrior in all of the land. Arthur’s legend has grown as he and his loyal band have helped to secure Roman rule in Britain. However with the slow decline of the empire and the encroachment of a warrior horde called the Saxons, the Romans have decided to pull out of Britain. Though Arthur and his knight were to have completed their service, they are asked for one more battle while Rome runs for the hills.

Arthur’s knights include his loyal second Lancelot (Ioan Gruffudd), Tristan the lookout (Mads Mikkelson), childish Galahad (Hugh Dancy), brave Daganet (Ray Stevenson) and tough guy Boers (Ray Winstone). Together they have never lost a battle but this mission is more dangerous than ever before. The final mission, saving a family whose son may be the next Pope, takes them not only toward the vicious Saxons but also into the midst of Merlin and the Britons whom the Romans had been fighting for control of the country.

Once they reach the family they are to save, Arthur finds these religious people may not be as pious as they seem. As the Saxons quickly advance, Arthur and his men rescue a number of abused slaves and captive Britons, including the lovely Briton warrior Guinivere (Keira Knightley). With the slaves and the family in tow, they must outrun the Saxons and eventually form a tenuous pact with the Britons to fight the common enemy.

Jerry Bruckheimer and director Antoine Fuqua have a number of surprises in store in King Arthur but few of them are welcome. Most shocking is the outright overt hatred of religion, specifically Christians. Every religious authority in the film is corrupt to a disturbing degree. The Knights despise religion and as for Arthur, he considers himself loyal to the Pope but also follows a man who is considered a heretic.

When his religious superiors are exposed as bad people, Arthur doesn’t just question his faith; he abandons it with little inner turmoil. As an atheist, I am sympathetic to the film’s looking down at religion but this blatant hatred of religion will turn off a number of everyday filmgoers, and worse, it’s entirely unnecessary.

Another controversial element of King Arthur is its PG 13 rating. Jerry Bruckheimer, the commercial whore that he is, somehow wrangled a PG-13 from the geniuses at the MPAA for a film filled with R-rated violence. Just because there is very little blood actually seen doesn’t make the film less violent. Those are still piles of bodies lying on the ground, those are still guys catching flaming arrows in their chests.

I’m no prude, in fact I wish the film had been more blatantly violent, the punches pulled are purely commercial in nature. The film would have been helped by some honest bloody violence instead of trying to pretend no one really got hurt. Families who go to see King Arthur thinking it’s appropriate for 13 year olds will get a disturbing surprise.

Director Antoine Fuqua is a competent technical director who films action with a professional flair. His actors, especially Clive Owen, Ioan Gruffudd, and Ray Winstone, are pros that easily sell you on their character’s heroism and toughness. It's a shame that they are given a script by writer David Franzoni that is amazingly scattershot.

The script ricochets from staid drama, to well-conceived violence then tosses in cheesy dialogue bits and the unnecessary religion bashing. Director Fuqua and his actors actually hold the film together pretty well. Well enough to give the film the conventional blockbuster look that is portrayed in the film’s advertising. Watching the film however, you will be surprised at how unconventional, or if you’re so inclined, offensive, the film is.

This is definitely not your father’s King Arthur. Forget what you know of the mythic Knights. This is a grittier, more realistic telling of the legendary story. Obviously liberties are taken, I doubt Guinivere was really the kind of girl-power heroine she is portrayed as here. As played by the gorgeous Keira Knightley, Guinivere is the kind of post-feminist heroine that is badass, politically correct and easily marketable.

Of course anyone relying on the producer of Kangaroo Jack for a history lesson gets what they pay for. Bruckheimer’s approach is all about the Benjamins, which probably means that history occasionally took a backseat. Of course Bruckheimer’s commercial approach makes the film all the more curious considering how non-commercial much of the film’s content is. Did he read this script or just commission the poster?

Movie Review: White Chicks

White Chicks (2004) 

Directed by Keenan Ivory Wayans 

Written by Marlon Wayans, Shawn Wayans 

Starring Marlon Wayans, Shawn Wayans, Terry Crews, Frankie Faizon 

Release Date June 23rd, 2004

Published June 23rd, 2004 

This may be an unpopular admission, but I like Shawn and Marlon Wayans.

After their disastrous hosting job on the MTV Movie Awards a couple years back, the boys were savaged by many. The second film in the Scary Movie franchise did little to help their reputation. Still in their short lived TV series, the first Scary Movie and in countless interviews, the brothers have come off as likable, intelligent and funny. So I like them. Which makes White Chicks a difficult film to review because the brothers are far less than likable in this dreadful cross-dressing comedy.

Shawn and Marlon play brothers and undercover FBI agents Kevin and Marcus Copeland. When we meet them they are undercover in a grocery store where a drug deal is supposed to go down. Too bad the guys grab the wrong guys and the real bad guys get away. Worse yet, their undercover mission was not authorized by their boss (Frankie Faizon) and they are almost fired.

Barely retaining their jobs, Kevin and Marcus are stuck with a crappy babysitting gig far from the action of the big case. The brother’s job is to escort bitchy socialite sisters Brittany (Maitland Ward) and Tiffany Wilson (Anne Dudek) to the Hamptons where the sisters are bait in a kidnapping sting. Of course Kevin and Marcus screw up, a car accident leaves the girls slightly banged up and they refuse to go to the Hamptons. This leaves Marcus and Kevin with only one option, call a bunch of makeup and costume artists and take the girl’s place.

Okay so there were a number of better options but this was the only one that got our heroes into white-face and drag. Now the boys must convince everyone from their FBI partners to Tiff and Brit's closest friends and enemies that they are the Wilson sisters. This is where the film completely tosses plausibility to the wind in favor of impossible contrivance.

Yes I realize there is a thing in Hollywood movies called the willing suspension of disbelief, but this is ridiculous. Anyone who could mistake Shawn and Marlon Wayans in their drag get-ups as these two attractive women, Maitland Ward and Anne Dudek, would have to blind, deaf and dumb. That is a little bit too much suspension of disbelief for me. I might be willing to overlook it a little in Marlon's case, his slight frame is better suited for drag, but Shawn Wayans looks only like a man in a bad drag outfit.

Even if the drag bit were a little more convincing, the plot and the various comic situations are so dreary that it wouldn't matter. After dressing Shawn and Marlon in drag, co-writer, director and big brother Keenan Ivory Wayans can think of nothing funnier than having them win a dance contest and act black stereotypes under the guise of being white woman. The running gag is that the guys can't help but revert to being themselves in situations where they are supposed to be acting like white chicks.

The kidnapping plot is far less inspired, involving a career low performance from John Heard as well as the smoking hot Brittany Daniel and model Jaimie King. The only actor that walks out of White Chicks better off is former football star Terry Crews who tops both Marlon and Shawn in the number of laughs, even with far less screentime. 

Crews' character Latrell is a basketball star with a fetish for, ahem, white chicks. When he takes a liking to Marlon in the guise of Tiffany, it leads to the film’s best scene, the restaurant date so prominently shown in the film’s trailer. There is more to that what is seen in the trailer and it's almost worth the price of admission. Just wait till Crews sings, by far the film’s biggest sustained laugh, or maybe it's only sustained laugh.

The problem comes from the idea of parodying Paris and Nicole Hilton who are the oh-so-obvious templates for the film’s bitchy heiresses. Paris is already such an outsized character, on TV every week making a continuing fool of herself and not caring or realizing. Parody of her behavior is far less interesting than the real thing. Worse yet, the little satire that they include has no bite. It's in fact sympathetic to the stick thin, shopping obsessed socialites that are supposed to be its targets.

I know the Wayans Brothers are funny but they need to cultivate better material. Shawn and Marlon are credited with the script with big brother Keenan but there is also a lawsuit soon to hit the courts from a couple guys who claim they submitted this idea to the Wayans’ production company. Why anyone would want to claim this script is beyond me, but on the bright side maybe all these bad jokes weren't entirely the Wayans fault.

Movie Review Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) 

Directed by Alfonso Cuaron 

Written by Steve Kloves 

Starring Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Alan Rickman, David Thewlis, Gary Oldman 

Release Date June 4th, 2004 

Published June 3rd, 2004 

When Chris Columbus announced that he would not direct the third Harry Potter film, Alfonso Cuaron was not the first director who came to mind. His most recent work, the coming of age drama Y Tu Mama Tambien, earned an NC-17 rating. Not exactly the sensibility one would bring to one of the largest family movie franchises in history. A closer look however at Cuaron's body of work shows that he indeed may be the best choice they could have made. Cuaron's innate understanding of teenage emotions and adolescence are exactly where the Harry Potter series is headed with its young characters and the combination is electric.

As we rejoin our hero Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe), he is back in the world of muggles, living with his awful Aunt and Uncle. This is not the same Harry Potter however who has cowered from his family's unreasonable behavior. Harry is becoming his own man and when a family friend insults Harry's late parents, he exacts a revenge that could get him kicked out of Hogwarts.

After running away from home, including an exciting ride on a ghostly wizard bus, Harry is told that he won't be punished for his illegal use of magic and he will be allowed to return to Hogwarts. The intimation is that Harry's destiny is so closely linked to that of Hogwarts that he can't be kicked out.

Soon, Harry is reunited with his friends Hermione (Emma Watson) and Ron (Rupert Grint). Before the kids leave for school Harry is told that the criminal Sirius Black (Gary Oldman) has escaped Azkaban prison and may be looking for Harry, though it is unclear why.

On the train to Hogwarts, Harry meets one of his new teachers, Professor Lupin (David Thewlis). He also meets an entity called a dementor, a ghostly creature that is supposed to be hunting Sirius Black but whose actions are uncontrollable. Professor Lupin saves Harry from the dementor's soul sucking attack and once on campus at Hogwarts, the Professor becomes a mentor and friend to Harry as Sirius Black looms. Both Lupin and Sirius Black both have links to Harry's parents that are revealed late in the film

The first two Harry Potter films had the feel of self-contained action movies. One could exist without the other. This third film in the series however feels more connected to the series as a whole. There is a transitory feel to the story with more backstory and fleshing out of the characters. This is why the film feels deeper and richer from a character standpoint than the first two films but also why it has less narrative force.

The building of the backstory and characters shove this film’s main plot into the background. The main plot is supposed to be Harry's confrontation with Sirius Black yet Gary Oldman's character only comes into the film in the third act. The thrust of the film is laying out the characters not only for this one episode but also for the future of the series.

There are a number of good things about this film on its own. Alfonso Cuaron's artistic sensibilities bring a more artistic look to the series. His visuals are richer and deeper than ever before. His use of colors reminded me a little of his underappreciated remake of Great Expectations in 1998, a film that used the color green as the third lead character. This is a beautiful looking film and yet the visuals never overwhelm the characters, they deepen and enrich them.

There has been talk that the young actors (Radcliffe, Watson and Grint) may be getting too old for their characters and may be replaced when Mike Newell directs the next film in the series. I hope that isn't true, as each becomes increasingly comfortable as these characters. Especially good is Watson who has stardom in her future. Her spunk and smarts make Hermione shine even brighter than the star in name. Daniel Radcliffe is improving with every outing. While he still at times looks a little overmatched, another film and he could really show us something.

If I were to choose my favorite Potter film, I would say Chamber Of Secrets, which is the most artistic and exciting movie Chris Columbus ever made. That said, Alfonso Cuaron's Prisoner Of Azkaban is the most visually impressive of the three and it's the most deeply emotional. It lacks only the narrative force and adventure of Chamber. If this is the way the Harry Potter series is going to evolve, the best of all may be yet to come.

Movie Review: The Stepford Wives

The Stepford Wives (2004) 

Directed by Frank Oz 

Written by Paul Rudnick 

Starring Nicole Kidman, Matthew Broderick, Bette Midler, Roger Bart, Glenn Close, Christopher Walken

Release Date June 11th, 2004

Published June 12th, 2004 

The troubles of a troubled movie project tend to go public long before the movie itself. Such is the case with the remake of the 1975 domestic horror movie The Stepford Wives. The signs of trouble began with gossip about onset bickering between the stars and director Frank Oz. Then, when the film ballooned from a three-month shoot to a six-month shoot, the gossip turned to outright fact. Finally, there was the kiss of death, the announcement of reshoots to change the ending.

Whatever chance the film had of reaching blockbuster status went out the window when the reshoots were announced. Now the best that the producers can hope for is that the editing, which when added to the time spent shooting brought the project to more than a year's worth of work, could salvage something salable, or even moderately watchable. That they did a little better than that is a miracle.

Nicole Kidman and Matthew Broderick star as Joanna and Walter, a married couple who also work together at a television network. Well, Joanna works, she's the head of the network, Walter works for her. However after an incident with a crazed reality show contestant, Joanna is fired and Walter quits out of sympathy. After Joanna recovers from a minor nervous breakdown, the couple take their kids and move to a gated community in Connecticut called Stepford.

Right off the bat, the place is weird. It's too neat, too orderly, too...clean. Not just clean but frighteningly clean. There is more weirdness as the family meets the Stepford welcoming committee in the form of Mrs. Claire Wellington (Glenn Close). Picture Martha Stewart on a serious caffeine bender. While Walter is shuttled off to the Stepford men's club, Joanna joins Claire at the Stepford day spa where the women of Stepford work out, though not in a way any normal woman works out.

Though her husband takes quickly to Stepford's ‘50s country club feel, Joanna is not completely alone in her alienation. Also new to the neighborhood are another pair of transplanted New Yorkers, Bobbie (Bette Midler) a cynical, slovenly, Jewish writer and Roger (Roger Bart) an outré fashion conscious gay man and well-known architect. Bobbie came to Stepford with her schlubby househusband Dave (Jon Lovitz) and Roger with his barely out of the closet lawyer Jerry (David Marshall Grant).

Being the only three normal people in all of Stepford, they commiserate over the oddity of the woman in Stepford. They all dress like housewives from 50's TV ads. They bake like it were their only job in the world. And strangest of all, these gorgeous woman are all having amazing sex with their doughy, dopey husbands, as the three accidentally witness on an uninvited visit.

Things only grow weirder though when both Roger and Bobbie disappear and then reappear in the Stepford mold with all of their personality sucked out. All of this oddness has something to do with the Stepford men's club and especially it's founder Mike Wellington (Christopher Walken), also Claire's husband. Though most of you know the film’s secret, I don't want to ruin it for the uninitiated. Needless to say, the film comes down to a battle between Joanna, the men's club, and indeed her own husband.

The biggest surprise about this film is not it's twist ending but rather how good the film is until that twist. There are a number of funny moments in Stepford Wives and most come from Kidman, Midler and Roger Bart whose biting comments about the woman of Stepford are very funny. The best scene in the film is when the three attend the Stepford woman's book club where the book of the week is all about Christmas ornaments.

Glenn Close turns in a performance that rivals her turn in Fatal Attraction for it's over the top lunacy. It almost goes without saying that Christopher Walken is good. Yet again, Walken has another of those speeches that only he could deliver. It's not as good as his tooth fairy bit in The Rundown or his masterpiece of death speech in Man on Fire, but for sheer Walken inspired lunacy it's a real highlight.

So what went wrong? Up until maybe the last 15 to 20 minutes Stepford Wives was a pretty funny comedy and then it flew completely off the rails. In his effort to distance this film from the original director Frank Oz makes a decision that is such a complete departure from the original film it's mind-blowing. The twist ending of the original film was what made it so memorable, it's why the film existed, for that one moment of shock. Obviously, that shock isn't going to be as good a second time, but the change made is so radical and so obviously tacked on that it ruins the entire picture.

Nothing of the first 50 or so minutes of the film’s run time makes any sense at all once the twist is introduced. This is a horribly misconceived change that I can't tell you how bad it is, you really have to see it for yourself to see what a garish and obvious mistake it is. So bad you wonder how a major studio and a professional director could make such a mistake.

The original Stepford Wives is a pretty good horror film. It's also very of its time. It's a social satire that drew from the burgeoning women's rights movement and the societal changes that were happening so quickly in the 1970's. When you look back on it this is not a film that should inspire a remake. The new Stepford Wives is not just filled with mistakes in its creation and final product. The idea to make it was probably the biggest mistake of them all.

Movie Review Saved

Saved! (2004) 

Directed by Brian Dannelly 

Written by Brian Dannelly 

Starring Jena Malone, Mary Louise Parker, Macauley Culkin, Patrick Fugit, Heather Matarazzo, Eva Amurri 

Release Date May 28th, 2004

Published May 28th, 2004 

As fans of Kevin Smith’s Dogma can attest, people do not have a great sense of humor about their religion. This makes the teen comedy Saved! a bold endeavor indeed. A religious satire set in a Catholic high school, Saved! is a savagely witty film about piety and acceptance, about being different and fitting in. Mostly though, it's just darn funny.

Jena Malone stars as Mary, a member of her Catholic high school's most popular clique, The Christian Jewels. The leader of the clique is Hillary Faye (Mandy Moore), a teen who takes her love of Christ more seriously than most girls take their first crush. Hillary has a brother, Roland, played by Macauley Culkin, who is in a wheelchair and she can't tell you enough how much she sacrifices to take care of him, whether he needs it or not.

Mary is an only child whose mother Lillian (Mary Louise Parker) is a dedicated Christian, recently named the number one Christian interior designer in the city. Her job takes her away from home often as does her faith. Also, Lillian has weekly meetings with the school's principal Pastor Skip (Martin Donavon). The meetings are poorly disguised trysts. Pastor Skip happens to have a son named Patrick (Patrick Fugit) who's the head of the Christian skateboarding team and has a crush on Mary.

Mary has a boyfriend, Dean (Chad Faust) who is the source of most of her troubles. While hanging out in Mary's pool Dean confides that he thinks he is gay. Shocked, Mary has an accident in the pool and has a vision of Christ that inspires her to try and save Dean. Her idea however is not the best, she thinks that having sex with him will cure him and that since it is in service of Christ, he will forgive her and restore her virginity. Instead she gets pregnant and Dean is sent to a facility that claims to cure homosexuality.

Also in the cast is Eva Amurri as Cassandra. She is the only Jewish girl at this Christian high school, there only because she has been kicked out of every other school. Cassandra is an absolute outcast and revels in her rebellious role and especially enjoys tormenting Hillary Faye. She really gets Hillary when she takes an interest in Roland and the two begin a tentative relationship. When Mary finds out she is pregnant she turns to Cassandra for help.

It's a terrifically funny setup that leads to a surprisingly softhearted ending. A slight disappointment but because the characters are so likable you can forgive the slight schmaltz. In its smart and savage wit the film evokes a little of the classic black comedy Heathers and the more recent teen satire Mean Girls. The religious setting gives the film some rich targets and it hits most of them with smart, funny observations.

This is a very funny cast of teen actors, especially Jena Malone whose indie smarts will guarantee her a long healthy career. Macauley Culkin is also a standout. Finally coming out of his own shadow, Culkin has a relaxed bemused manner and shows that he may still grow into a good actor. Mandy Moore deserves credit for taking a secondary ensemble role, eschewing her star status in order to take on a tough role.

The film’s best performance however comes from Eva Amurri. For a good portion of the film, Amurri is the conduit for the audience of non-Christians who can't stand the constant milquetoast piety thrust upon them. She savagely rips everything and everyone she sees and is hysterical doing it. By the end of the film she has softened a little but overall it's still the best performance in the film.

First-time feature director Brian Donnelly deserves credit for taking on a tough topic. Religious satire is often demonized and marginalized by controversy, Saved! has been lucky thus far not to have aroused the attention of the religious right. Donnelly, with his co-writer Michael Urban, has crafted a very funny teen movie with an edge that provides some very big and controversial targets. The film however does not rely solely on its setting to provide it's humor but smartly relies on it's talented cast to deliver the laughs. 

Movie Review Simone

Simone (2002) 

Directed by Andrew Niccol 

Written by Andrew Niccol 

Starring Al Pacino, Catherine Keener, Pruitt Taylor Vince, Jay Mohr

Release Date August 23rd, 2002

Published August 26th, 2002 

The question of computer-generated actors is a very recent one. It began just last year, with the computer animated Final Fantasy, a colossal failure. It will soon be put to the test to bring Bruce Lee back from the dead. In the new Andrew Niccol satire Simone the topic is spun comedically though with an actual actress portraying the so-called synthespian.

Al Pacino is struggling director Viktor Taransky, whose last three pictures have bombed. His new film is to be his comeback until his temperamental leading lady (played by Winona Ryder) walks of the picture, leaving Viktor unable to complete the film. The head of the studio, who is also Viktor's ex wife, shelves his film and kicks him off the lot.

While packing up, Viktor is accosted by a mad scientist who claims he has solved Viktor's problem with overly temperamental actors. The scientist (Elias Koteas in a cameo) claims he has created an entirely CGI actress. Taransky doesn't believe him, but after the scientist dies and leaves Viktor the computer program, he discovers the scientist wasn't kidding and Simone is created. Viktor uses Simone to complete his film and she is a huge success. She quickly becomes a huge star but her fame grows out of control and soon Viktor begins too lose his grip on his creation.

A guarded secret during the film’s production was the identity of the actress laying the computer simulation, her name is Rachel Stevens and she is fantastic. Though one of the film’s drawbacks is she isn't called on to do very much. I spent most of the film wanting to see more of Simone.

The film has some biting satire of the nature of celebrity and Hollywood in general, however the film never really comes together. Director Andrew Niccol, the man wrote The Truman Show and directed the film Gattaca here combines element of both those films which give the film a strong base but no general direction. Director Niccol never really figures out what point he is trying to make.

Pacino for his part is game; he doesn't get enough credit for his sense of humor. Simone though doesn't have enough humor. What it does have is very funny but it's not enough for the film’s 2 hour plus runtime and by the end it completely runs out of steam. The ending is extremely unsatisfying and undoes a lot what the film had accomplished until then. It's not a bad film but best to wait till it's on the shelf at blockbuster. 

Movie Review Deadly Rhapsody

Deadly Rhapsody (2001) 

Directed by Don Abernathy 

Written by Don Abernathy, Fred Pittman 

Starring Glenn Plummer, Fred Williamson, Freda Payne, Ice T, M.C Hammer, Tone Loc 

Release Date March 15th, 2001 

Published November 10th, 2002 

We have heard of troubled productions before. Films like Waterworld, Batman & Robin and Titanic among many others. However I have never seen a production completely botched from the first frame that was shot all the way to its release. The film Deadly Rhapsody is a complete mess. It's likely you have never heard of this movie. If there is any justice in the world you never will. Take this review as a warning in case this movie ever does see the light of day.

This pathetic production stars Glenn Plummer (South Central, Speed) as Roughneck, a fresh from jail parolee looking to reconnect with his mother (Freda Payne), his Uncle (Fred "The Hammer" Williamson) and his brother who remains unknown. Roughneck also has a score to settle with an ex-friend who got him sent to jail named Jelly, no clue who played this guy either.

None of this plot description means anything because the script direction and overall production of Deadly Rhapsody is something only Ed Wood could appreciate. Scenes are out of frame, there are numerous meaningless scenes of people driving, walking and opening doors. There are numerous unnecessary closeups, gratuitous nudity, and characters introduced at random. In one scene, as Plummer's character is talking to his love interest, the camera begins to just drift away and for a solid minute we stare at empty space while characters are talking.

The film looks as if it were shot on a home video camera by a twelve year old with A.D.D. Despite this ridiculousness the film still attracted recognizable stars including Plummer, Williamson, Freda Payne, Ice T, MC Hammer and Tone Loc. It's as if these stars were tricked into making this movie thinking they were just rehearsing in front of a video camera. The film reminded me of Steve Martin's Bowfinger, especially in Hammer's brief scene where he looks like he's being accosted by film cameras.

The most offensive thing about this film is not just its botched production but also the film being released at all. Deadly Rhapsody is a straight to video cheapie slapped together with recognizable African-American actors to take advantage of an urban market who producers cynically believe will watch anything with a black face on the cover box.

Let us all come together and communally hope that this film is canned forever. And if my review has sparked a need to see this movie just to see how bad it really is, you have to trust me, you don't want to see this.

Movie Review Ray

Ray (2004) 

Directed by Taylor Hackford 

Written by James L. White 

Starring Jamie Foxx, Kerry Washington, Clifton Powell, Harry Lennix, Terrence Howard, Larenz Tate

Release Date October 29th, 2004

There is an odd sort of verisimilitude to this week of reviews as we transition from a horror musical review on Wednesday of Rocky Horror Picture Show into a musical biopic which will remain as our theme headed into Friday when we discuss Bohemian Rhapsody, the new Queen and Freddy Mercury biopic being released nationwide this weekend. It’s rather fascinating to consider that these disparate phenomena, Rocky Horror, Ray Charles and Queen were contemporaries of sorts. Each was a facet of our vast popular culture at the same time, available to the same audience in different ways.

The story told in Ray stops well before the stories for Rocky Horror or Queen even begin but by the time they do arrive, Ray is established as one of the stalwart figures of the music business, a warrior who overcomes disability, racism and a drug habit to become an enduring pop institution. The movie Ray gives us that proverbial ‘warts and all’ look at the life and legend of Ray Charles and while the film is on the shaggy side, Jamie Foxx’s lead performance is one of the great performances of this young century.

Ray tells the story of Ray ‘Charles’ Robinson in a sort of a linear fashion. The film is populated by gauzy flashbacks to Ray’s tragic childhood in Northern Florida in the early 1930’s. In the linear story, we meet Ray as he charms and lies his way onto a bus from Florida to Seattle where he has a gig as a pianist waiting for him. Confusingly, the story flips between Ray’s bus ride to Seattle and the gig that got him the cash to go, playing in a redneck country band.

The structure of Ray at times threatens to derail the movie but Jamie Foxx is so remarkable and the music of Ray Charles so indelible and fascinating that it’s too good even for director Taylor Hackford to screw up. We watch as Ray learns valuable lessons about protecting his money, he insists on being paid in singles to assure that his pay was not shortened. We see him learn how not to be taken advantage of by friends and how they should not underestimate him because of his disability.

Finally, we watch with the most fascination as he creates a legendary catalog of hit music. The studio portions of Ray are magical, filmed with an eye for how historic this moment and time must have been. The cuts to Curtis Armstrong’s Ahmet Ertugen and Richard Schiff’s Jerry Wexler as they witnessed Ray cutting legendary songs in a single take capture the pure creativity that infused the music of Ray Charles. You don’t have to love Ray’s fusion of Jazz, Gospel and Pop to recognize music history in the making, his music crossed all possible boundaries.

If it looks easy it’s because Ray Charles always made it look easy. His blindness didn’t matter, he was one of those rare souls infused with music and an untameable talent for creation. In one of the great moments in the film and in music history, we witness Ray improv what would become one of his all time, bestselling classics, “What’d I Say,” as a way of filling time at the end of a gig that had ended too soon in the eyes of the promoter who threatened not to pay Ray and the band.

Some discount Jamie Foxx’s performance as mere mimicry or a broad impression but I don’t think that is fair. Foxx is stuck with a director in Taylor Hackford who has stuck him with a script that undermines him with a series of pop psych level flashbacks to his childhood that are supposed to infuse him with depth but instead come off as awkward and confused. Foxx overcomes this not by committing to those moments but by busting through those moments to get to the heart of Ray Charles.

Foxx captures both the Ray Charles we know, the gyrating, gesticulating, impish performer and the calculating, paranoid addict side of Ray Charles that the public only glimpsed in headlines. Ray could be cruel when he wanted to be, as demonstrated by his marriage and his relationship with various managers and hangers on, people who thought they were perhaps more than just employees but soon found themselves on the outs.

Foxx is incredible at maintaining our sympathy for Ray even as he does terrible things to himself and to his wife, played by Kerry Washington. It’s not that Ray’s behavior isn’t disappointing, along with director Hackford’s lame attempts to explain his behavior via those pop psych flashbacks, but rather that Foxx gives Ray Charles a vulnerability that not only we find irresistible but we can imagine others found irresistible as well. That’s not an easy trick for any actor to pull off, let alone an actor known at the time for sketch and stand-up comedy.

Foxx’s performance is unquestionably rendered better by comparison to the rest of the movie. Taylor Hackford drags out the story with his stumbling, flashbacks and detours, he spends a good deal of time focusing on the homes Ray Charles bought for his family, admiring the architecture and dwelling on the cost in scenes that are rarely necessary for moving the plot forward.

And then there is the treatment of the women in Ray Charles’ life. Taylor Hackford takes a pair of our most talented African American actresses and gives them little to play beyond cliches of the put-upon wife and the neglected mistress. Kerry Washington and Regina King struggle to bring depth to characters that the director appears to view as roadblocks for Ray to navigate in his redemption arc. Foxx doesn’t see them that way but he has no control over how the edit of the movie robs both actresses of moments where they can grow beyond their function to the story as impediments and aids to Ray’s faults and growth.

Ray is thus a mixed bag as a movie and a music biopic but as a showcase for an actor, it’s a remarkable piece of work. Hackford loves Jamie Foxx, he gives his lead actor every opportunity to exercise his limitless ability to capture the Ray Charles of our imagination and something so very real and true about the man. Foxx bites into the role with fervor and a powerhouse level of star-power and charisma. It took an outsized performance to capture the outsized legend and a remarkable talent to bring him into a real life, sympathetic context beyond the legend.

Movie Review Monster Man

Monster Man (2004)

Directed by Michael Davis

Written by Michael Davis

Starring Eric Jungmann, Justin Urich, Aimee Brooks, Michael Bailey Smith

Release Date February 13th, 2004

There are hundred of films released every year that we never hear of. Some of them may be quite good, some are not worthy of having been released. Many more films are reminiscent of the low budget horror flick Monster Man, from 2004,  a slightly above average little film that not many people have seen or may ever see. You've likely never heard of Monster Man unless you are a hardcore horror movie fan. It's a deep cut, low budget horror movie that gets by on premise and the evident fun in its creation. 

Monster Man stars Eric Jungmann as Adam, a nerdy little guy on a road trip to tell the girl of his dreams that he loves her before she gets married to some other guy. Joining Adam on his trip is Harley (Justin Urich), a former friend who wasn't asked to come along. Harley also had a thing for Adam's girl and even had the fling that Adam never got. That's just one source of tension between the former friends, Harley's over the top obnoxiousness only makes things worse.

In fact, it is Harley's obnoxious behavior in a redneck bar that draws the attention of locals who don't take kindly to out-of-towners. It's not long before the two roadtrippers are being followed by a very pissed off redneck in a monster truck. After escaping the monster truck and hiding out in a hotel, the guys find they have a stowaway; a gorgeous hitchhiker named Sarah (Aimee Brooks). Boy did she pick the wrong car, as the monster truck driver continues his pursuit. Along the way, there are stops in more little redneck bars, gas stations and farmhouses, all with horrifying consequences.

Monster Man is a combination of Jeepers Creepers and Joyride but with a great deal more humor. Writer-Director Michael Davis attempts to do the impossible in Monster Man by combining humor and horror without sacrificing real scares and real laughs. The script is an excellent balance of scatological banter between the leads and disgusting blood and gore from the bad guys. It really is an impressive piece of work.

Unfortunately, the cast of the film isn't up to the task. Jungmann is way too much of a wimp to sell the physical moments of the film. His transformation from wimp to hero never registers. Urich is even less impressive, combining the obnoxiousness of American Pie's Stifler with the disgusting antics of Animal House's Bluto without a modicum of John Belushi's underlying sweetness.

As for Aimee Brooks, the former star of the camp soap opera Passions is a perfect fit for the delicate mixture of humor and horror. Michael Davis shows a real talent for scripting and shooting. With a better cast, he could make a truly terrific film, something he would go on to prove in the action genre with the very fun, very silly Shoot'em Up in 2007 starring Clive Owen. With his work, he elevates this rather unoriginal premise with great humor and plenty of blood, guts and creepiness.

Monster Man is not a great movie but it has the kind of low budget charm and cleverness to make it worth watching for free on a random streaming service. 

Movie Review Rancid Aluminium

Rancid Aluminum (2000) 

Directed by Edward Thomas 

Written by James Hawes 

Starring Rhys Ifans, Joseph Fiennes, Sadie Frost

Release Date January 21st, 2000 

Published May 30th, 2002 

Paging the Hollywood career counselor, call on line 1 from Josef Fiennes.

After starring in a Best Picture winner and seemingly emerging from the shadow of his Oscar nominated brother, Joseph Fiennes has taken it upon himself to do absolutely nothing. I appreciate his willingness to spurn big money Hollywood projects, but Josef is taking this to an extreme that could land him in straight-to-video purgatory. His first major misstep is a pale imitation of a Guy Ritchie movie called Rancid Aluminum.

Rhys Ifans, best known as Hugh Grant's roommate in Notting Hill, stars as Peter, a slacker who, following the death of his father, takes over the family publishing business. Peter's promotion comes at the expense of his far more qualified friend Sean (Fiennes). Sean sets about to get revenge and take over the company by buddying up to the Russian mob.

This is how you know you’re creatively bankrupt, when you need the bad guys of choice for every hack writer in Hollywood, the Russian mob. The hack in this case is first time director Ed Thomas who attempts to incorporate every genre of film he's ever seen, from lame straight-to-video suspense trash, farcical comedy, and even romantic comedy.

Fiennes and Ifans are both awful in this film, especially Fiennes who is saddled with an unspeakably bad Irish accent and looks bored to tears. This film didn’t bore me. I was too busy attempting to decipher the accents and whatever the plot was to be bored. No, for me, Rancid Aluminum isn't a boring film. It was just incoherent, stupid and well, rancid.

Movie Review Pistol Opera

Pistol Opera (2001) 

Directed by Seijun Suzuki 

Written by Kazunori Ito 

Starring Makiko Esumi 

Release Date October 27, 2001 

Published November 27th, 2003 

The title Pistol Opera implies a cool that has become inherent amongst all Asian movies that cross the ocean to America. It's cool that it is well earned by a number of great films from Jackie Chan to John Woo. It's that implied cool that draws art house types like myself to any and every Asian movie that comes my way. Unfortunately, they can't all be cool and though Pistol Opera has its moments it's pretentiousness outweighs it's cool.

It has a story typical of Asian cinema of the last 25 or so years, a story of assassins killing assassins at the behest of a secret organization that employs the killers and ranks them by their successful kill. The film begins with the number two assassin preparing for a kill when he is taken out by the man we believe is the top killer known as One Hundred Eyes. From there we move to the courtyard of the home of the number three killer, a woman known as Stray Cat. She is meeting with a mysterious masked woman from the Assassin’s Guild. The interaction between the women is contentious yet also oddly flirtatious.

A war is breaking out among the killers in the guild with the goal of eliminating competition to become the top ranked killer. Stray Cat must hunt down One Hundred Eyes before he/she kills her. Along the way she is aided by a former number one killer named Dark Horse, who's injuries and age have long since retired him from killing though he says he's still the best ranking himself number zero. Stray Cat is also joined by a young girl named Sayoko who follows her from kill to kill and develops a friendship that has some uncomfortably flirty moments, uncomfortable because Sayoko is maybe no older than 13.

It sounds like something you've seen before but through the directorial eye of Seijun Suzuki, Pistol Opera is as different as anything you've ever seen. It begins with the visuals oddball color patterns, lots of bright colors. Especially odd though is the dialogue that flies off in a number of directions from philosophical to the plot point to the indecipherably scatological. At different points in the film young Sayoko recites a poem by Wordsworth and then performs a song and dance version of Humpty Dumpty. Another character, an old woman that appears for only two scenes has a long rambling soliloquy about a dream she had.

All of these elements make for an impenetrable art piece that is impossible to criticize. If you like the film you must be pretentious beyond words, if you don't like it then you didn't get it. I'll be honest, I didn't get it. I'm as pretentious as the next indie loving film critic but even I have my limits when it comes to pretentiousness. I like almost any film that breaks with the straightforward three act narrative style of every American film released in the last 100 years. That said, I still like a movie that tells a story. Pistol Opera doesn't have a story, it's simply a series of goofy arty visuals. There are some terrific visuals in Pistol Opera but for a nearly two hour film occasional visual flourishes aren't nearly enough to entertain.

Movie Review: American Gangster

American Gangster (2007) 

Directed by Ridley Scott 

Written by Steven Zaillian 

Starring Denzel Washington, Russell Crowe, Clarence Williams III, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Cuba Gooding Jr 

Release Date November 2nd, 2007 

Published November 1st, 2007

The story of Frank Lucas could have found this enterprising, intelligent man as CEO of a fortune 500 company. The man knew how to run a business. He was a retail pioneer at heart who figured a way to cut out the middle man and bring his product directly from the manufacturer, no middle man. He sounds like an electronics dealer with his own chain of wholesale retailers.

The reality, captured in fictional form, in American Gangster is that Frank Lucas was a drug dealer and a murderer who coldly and heartlessly killed hundreds with his product and more with his own gun.

As the driver for legendary Harlem gangster Bumpy Johnson (Clarence Williams III) Frank Lucas learned the business of being a gangster up close and personal. When Bumpy died the city fell into a chaos of crime and violence and Frank Lucas longed to bring back Bumpy's sense of order and profit from it as he did.

Finding a way to get heroin without having to share with the mob and the NYPD, Frank went all the way to Vietnam to get his product which was then smuggled into the country in the coffins of US soldiers returning from the war. The result was a more pure and addictive form of heroin that Frank nicknamed Blue Magic. With his product in place Frank brought his brothers up from North Carolina and the Lucas empire was born.

Unraveling the tangled web of the Lucas drug trade is Richie Roberts (Russell Crowe). A lone good cop in department overflowing with corruption, Richie never took a dime, even when he and his partner stumbled on a million dollars of easily stealable drug money. It's good that Richie has his professional integrity because he has little else. His wife is leaving him and taking his son while his personal life consists of a series of mindless one night stands.

The collision of Frank Lucas and Richie Roberts was inevitable how it arrives and plays out in American Gangster is entirely unpredictable if you haven't already investigated the rise and fall of Frank Lucas. Indeed, Frank was for real. His reign in Harlem lasted nearly a decade. He once had more than 150 million dollars in cash stored in his home. He also murdered enemies in broad daylight in front of dozens of witnesses and was not caught.

Richie Roberts was also for real and the the path of his life through this film is fascinating and the prologue hints that even after getting Frank Lucas his life was colorful and unique. As played by Russell Crowe, Richie Roberts almost steals the picture. Crowe's Richie isn't your typical meatheaded tough guy roughing up suspects to get the information he needs to get the bad guy. Richie was a law student and eventually a prosecutor. He was a thinking man's detective even as he put forth a tough guy front.

This character could not be better suited to Russell Crowe who has played Nobel prize winner John Nash and fictional Gladiator Maximus, each to Oscar level. Don't be surprised if his Richie Roberts gets called on the morning of the Oscar nominations.

There was recently quite a heated debate at MovieCityNews.com over director Ridley Scott. A writer for the site wrote that he felt Scott is overrated as a director. He cited his examples and made some strong points about Scott's resume, which I agree, is somewhat inflated. However, after watching American Gangster I am convinced that Scott is an auteur of the highest order.

Fighting for two years to get American Gangster on the screen, Scott battled studio heads to get his vision of the film as the final product and he succeeded. This is top notch work that plays to Scott's strengths as a director of epics like Gladiator and Alien. Say what you will about Scott's many failings, his American Gangster is a modern film classic.

American Gangster can fairly be called Ridley Scott's Godfather. It is the height of his work thus far and it reflects everything he has accomplished including his earning the loyalty and trust of two of the finest actors of this generation. If Russell Crowe and Denzel Washington love Ridley Scott that's gotta mean he's doing something right.

Denzel Washington remains the king of cool in Hollywood. No one could have played the role of Frank Lucas like Denzel does. The charisma, the elegance, the cold steely intelligence rolls off the screen in waves when Denzel is on camera. His work is so effortless I worry that people will call the performance lazy. There is none of the histrionics of his Oscar winning performance in Training Day , none of the harrumphing bravado that announces a big dramatic performance.

The menace and charm are all played in Denzel's eyes. In fact, much of Denzel's Frank Lucas is in his eyes. There are scenes where that steely gaze could kill whoever it falls upon. There are other scenes, ones with his mother played by Ruby Dee and his wife (Lymari Nadal), where those eyes are as soft and inviting as Denzel in The Preacher's Wife. The entire dichotomy that is Frank Lucas can be found in Denzel's electric gaze.

That is the extraordinary talent of Denzel Washington on display in American Gangster, he makes it look so easy even as he has so much going on. Some will no doubt walk away feeling like they have seen this Denzel before. Cocky and harsh but still charismatic and even charming, there are so many levels to Denzel's performance and he plays them so well that it barely registers until after you've had time to think about, after the performance has already worked on you.

Two extraordinary actors under the direction of a director at the height of his powers creates one hell of a filmgoing experience. American Gangster is the kind of epic filmmaking that so rarely lives up to its ambitions. American Gangster more than lives up to its grand ambitions. A true powerhouse of dramatic filmmaking, American Gangster is a must see for all audiences, but especially those that want to see the movie that will be featured on Oscar night come March.

Movie Review: Deja Vu

Deju Vu (2006) 

Directed by Tony Scott 

Written by Terry Rossio 

Starring Denzel Washington, Val Kilmer, Paula Patton, Bruce Greenwood, Jim Caviezel 

Release Date November 22nd, 2006

Published November 21st, 2006 

The space time continuum seems like simply a Star Trek invention but the fact is many scientists believe time travel is possible. The physics are still unclear but theorists have begun discussing the ethics of time travel and how travelers may effect the history they are visiting. The new sci fi thriller Deja Vu is not a discussion of ethics or science but the film does take vague advantage of the concepts to craft a quick witted action vehicle perfectly suited to the talents of star Denzel Washington and director Tony Scott.

A ferry carrying American soldiers and their families to a party in New Orleans explodes moments after leaving port. Nearly five hundred people are killed including a woman named Claire Kuchaver (Paula Patton). There is something odd about Claire's death however, something that ATF agent Doug Carlin (Denzel Washington) is the first to notice. Claire was not killed in the explosion or the ensuing fire.

Though her body washed ashore with those of the ferry victims, her injuries indicate murder and yet her car is identified as the car that was packed with explosives and placed on the ferry. Convinced that Claire's death is the key to finding the man or men responsible for for the ferry explosion, Carlin is detemined to investigate this case.

His determination and attention to detail catches the eye of FBI agent Pryzwarra (Val Kilmer) who asks Carlin to join his unique investigative unit. Pryzwarra oversees a group of scientists headed up by Dr. Denny (Adam Goldberg) who have invented a device that allows them to peer into the past at a particular moment in time and examine that place in that time from any possible, visible angle.

There are limitations. This time twisting device can only look back four days and twelve hours. It cannot fast forward and it cannot rewind. The key is watching and observing and acting on the details gleaned from observing victims, witnesses and suspects ahead of whatever incident in which they are involved. Carlin leads the team into Claire's life and eventually finds himself chasing Claire and the terrorist through time itself.

To say much more might spoil the fun of this scientifically goofy but modestly entertaining sci fi actioner. Deja Vu toys with the time space continuum and in doing so  reveals a dichotomy in director Tony Scott's telling of the story. On the one hand he has a need to make his story plausible right down to the math. On the other hand is an open admittance of the futility of trying to keep up a realistic timeline. If you can put aside the goofiness and give up on the math, there is a compelling action flick beneath thee convoluted sci fi stuff.

Denzel Washington is a different breed of action hero. He can go hand to hand or gun to gun with the worst of villains but his true talent is as a cerebral presence. His mind cooking behind those blazing eyes is fascinating to climb inside. In Deja Vu we are right there and though he is forced by plot to be clueless at times, he is never made a fool of and in the end he carries us past any questions we might have about the confounding sci fi plot.

The key to enjoying Deja Vu is working hard on the suspension of disbelief. Though it is hard to not get caught up in trying to follow the math of the movie, the folding and unfolding of this unusual timeline, you must realize eventually that the timeline is meaningless and that even the filmmakers could not keep it all straight. Once you can put that aside (if you can put that aside) there is a surprisingly edgy and exciting action picture.

The best scene in Deja Vu is a car chase in which Denzel chases after the bad guy, played by Jesus himself Jim Caviezel, through time. As the bad guy, played by Jim Caviezel, being watched four days in the past, is about to drive out of the range of the equipment, Denzel hops into a modified hummer and chases after him in hopes of keeping his four day old trail in view.

Trust me, this makes complete sense in the movie. The car crashes are big and loud but the context of the chase gives it an extra bit of edge or your seat excitement and what follows plays back into the overall plot in clever ways.

Not alot of Deja Vu makes sense. If you can follow the movie and keep its weird math in some sense of order you will likely watch the film come apart like wet newspaper. Scrtutinize to much and the movie goes to pieces. Watch Deja Vu for the action and for Denzel Washington's always charismatic and compelling presence and you will find much to enjoy in Deja Vu.

Goofy as all get out but still quite entertaining, I'm recommending Deja Vu.

I'm recommending Deja Vu.

Movie Review: Fences

Fences (2016) 

Directed by Denzel Washington

Written by August Wilson 

Starring Denzel Washington, Viola Davis

Release Date December 16th, 2016

Published December 10th, 2016 

"Fences" tells the story of a family that is slowly falling apart. Based on the stage play by August Wilson, "Fences" was Directed by Denzel Washington who also stars as Troy Maxon. Troy is a gregarious man who seems like the life of the party. On closer examination however, the mask comes off and reveals a man whose gregariousness hides a deep well of pain and resentment. The older Troy gets, and the further he gets from his dreams, the more his pain and resentment comes out and is aimed at his family including his wife Rose (Viola Davis) and son Cory (Jovan Adepo). 

Troy is a former Negro Leagues baseball star who was deemed too old by the Major Leagues after Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier. With few options for employment in his adopted hometown of Pittsburgh, Troy took a job as a waste collector, a job he's held for years when we are introduced to him. It's a good job that has put food on the table but the meager $75 a week isn't what gave his family a home and is yet another story of pain and resentment for Troy related to his wounded army veteran brother Gabe (Mykelti Williamson). 

The various resentments and frustrations of Troy Maxon's life are presented by Denzel Washington as lengthy monologues, some filled with metaphoric rage and others where the bitterness rises to the top. The film was directed by Washington from the stage play by August Wilson and Washington's performance reflects the stagebound nature of the story. 

That stagebound quality is the biggest problem with the otherwise compelling "Fences." The transition from stage to the screen is often quite awkward with Washington at times belting his stagy monologues to the back of the nonexistent theater. He's Denzel Washington so most of the time even the belting to the back of the room is compelling but there are still many awkward moments. 

Viola Davis delivers a far less affected performance as Rose. Though Davis is no stranger to stage theatrics, she strikes a more measured and realistic tone for her performance. Davis isn't trying to reach the back of the theater, even her biggest emotional moments, she seems to better understand the intimacy of the film medium more than her director and co-star. 

Washington directs "Fences" as if it were still on the stage. There are a limited number of sets in the film with the family backyard being the main stage and the dingy interior of their modest home the other most prominent space and it's not hard to imagine these sets constructed for the stage. This, much like the heavy monologuing, makes for more than a few awkward, ungainly scenes, especially at the end which nearly tips over into kitsch.

"Fences" is in many ways a fine film. For all of the awkwardness in the transition from stage to screen, it's hard not to be compelled by Washington and Davis and the themes of lost youth, resentment, and betrayal. It is nearly impossible not to feel something deep for Washington as he exposes Troy Maxon's vulnerability while maintaining his vitality and strength. Davis is even more outstanding as Rose whose righteousness drives the final act of the film. 

Perhaps another director might have managed the translation from stage to screen better than Washington. As a huge fan of August Wilson and an actor who can't resist a good monologue, Washington likely fell in love with the stage version too much. A Director without that identification with the stage play likely could have rounded "Fences" into something more cinematic and less awkward. As it is, "Fences" is flawed but compelling.

Movie Review: Unstoppable

Unstoppable (2010) 

Directed by Tony Scott 

Written by Mark Bomback 

Starring Denzel Washington, Chris Pine, Ethan Suplee, Rosario Dawson 

Release Date November 12th, 2010 

Published November 11th, 2010 

“Unstoppable” is the classic mousetrap thriller. Set up, execution and payoff are so swift and efficient that it is nearly impossible to find fault. Director Tony Scott nails every element of “Unstoppable” from the relentless trouble of the train to the casting of mega-star Denzel Washington and up and comer Chris Pine to the elegant, low tech action finale. It’s not Shakespeare but as clapboard thrillers go, “Unstoppable” is pretty awesome.

In Western Pennsylvania Will (Chris Pine) is sleeping on his brother’s couch after a mistake separates him from his wife and child via restraining order. On the bright side, he has a brand new union job as a train conductor. It’s his first day and all he has to do is watch while a veteran Frank (Denzel Washington) shows him the ropes.

Meanwhile, in a train yard on the opposite end of the line a perfect storm of mistakes is unfolding. A dopey yard employee, Dewey (Ethan Suplee), was only supposed to move a train out of the way, a seemingly simple task, one that he’s done before. This time however, Dewey does absolutely everything wrong.

Having forgotten to switch tracks, Dewey jumps off the moving locomotive to hit the switch. While he’s doing this, the train kicks into high gear and takes off without a driver. Now, there is an 80 mile per hour unmanned missile rolling down the tracks. Along the same track is a train filled with kids on a field trip as well as Will and Frank.

I almost forgot to mention that the train cars are filled with toxic chemicals likely to explode if ignited say in a crash. Oh, and there is this giant curve in the track that is not all that far from Will’s wife’s apartment, a curve that an unmanned train going close to 80 MPH will not make. The only solution will involve Will and Frank having to tie their train to the out of control train and drag it to a stop, all at high speed.

If that doesn’t sound like fun to you then clearly you don’t like high adrenaline thrills. “Unstoppable” is a movie for thrill junkies who like big jolting action scenes, loud explosions where stuff ‘blows up good,’ and Denzel Washington in action hero mode. How do you not love this? What kind of person are you?

“Unstoppable” is one of the most unashamedly fun action movies to come along since the last time Denzel Washington teamed with director Tony Scott on the Subway thriller “The Taking of Pelham 123.” Where that film took its fun from John Travolta’s ham-tastic bad guy performance and Denzel’s ferocious everyman charisma, “Unstoppable’s” ham is the train and the way director Tony Scott treats it more like some snarling, escaped animal than as a train.

You may have seen in the trailer for “Unstoppable” a scene where police seem to be firing high powered weapons at the train. That was not an optical illusion; there really is a scene where police shoot at a moving train. There is some kind of explanation but the movie doesn’t linger on it. Rather, Tony Scott seems to enjoy the goofiness of this almost as much as we do.

“Unstoppable” is said to be loosely based on a true story but who cares. You aren’t seeing “Unstoppable” for some documentary recreation of events; you’re seeing “Unstoppable” for Denzel Washington and Captain Kirk battling a snarling beast that happens to be an out of control locomotive. Throw in the wild, over the top bombast of director Tony Scott with his swinging camera and bizarre color palette and you have a recipe for pure, adrenaline fueled fun.

Pardon my pull quote but “Unstoppable” is “Unstoppable” fun. Ha!

Movie Review: The Taking of Pelham 123

The Taking of Pelham 123 (2009) 

Directed by Tony Scott 

Written by Brian Helgeland 

Starring Denzel Washington, John Travolta, John Turturro, Luis Guzman, James Gandolfini 

Release Date June 12th, 2009 

Published June 11th, 2009 

Robert Shaw was three years away from his iconic performance in Jaws. Walter Matthau was a star but certainly no action hero when, in 1974, the two actors teamed for The Taking of Pelham 123. Based on the bestseller by Robert Godey, the story placed this unique acting duo in an unexpected action context and allowed them to create indelible characters. The film has developed something of a cult following amongst hardcore movie nerds.

Now comes a true action remake of the underrated 74 picture. With bigger stars and a much bigger budget, The Taking of Pelham 123 comes into modern times with bells and whistles beyond anything imagined for the original but with it's premise and highly distinct voice intact.

The Taking of Pelham 123 is essentially two guys having a very important conversation. The first guy is Walter played by Denzel Washington. Graying and rumpled, Walter has worked for the New York City Transit Department for years. He was the boss of the Subway system until he was charged with taking a bribe. Now, Walter finds himself back behind a microphone as a train dispatcher. It is in this capacity that Walter meets Ryder played by John Travolta. Ryder is a terrorist who takes a subway car full of New Yorkers hostage and demand 10 million dollars in one hour or he will begin executing people.

The conversation between Walter and Ryder takes place within this intense hour as Ryder demands that Walter first listen to him and then explain himself as they wait for the city, lead by the Mayor (James Gandolfini), to come up with the cash. With topics ranging from religion to Walter's corruption charges, these two very different men connect in ways they never imagined.

The idea of two guys talking probably doesn't set your pulse racing as an action movie fan. However, you've never seen Denzel Washington talk to John Travolta as they are filmed by the hyper-kinetic director Tony Scott. Somehow, through carefully choreographed camera whips and pans and an exceptional supporting cast, lead by Gandolfini and John Turturro, working at the edges, the conversation becomes an intense action of its own and The Taking of Pelham 123 flies on the words of Denzel and Travolta.

If the final act that takes Washington into the tunnels with Travolta fails to match the intensity of their conversation, it is still the only way to wrap up the twist that is the essential ending of The Taking of Pelham 123. It's not a letdown, per se, it's just that things devolve to a rather typical chase scene and it's not as exciting as the dynamic was when they were separated by a microphone. It's how the movie has to end and we just have to accept that. 

Putting reservations aside, The Taking of Pelham 123 radiates with energy, wit and directorial flourish. The talking is fun, the action is fun and, in the end, even the dopey chase scene finish cannot take away from the excitement of the first two acts of The Taking of Pelham 123.