Playing With the Truth: Film in 2010

Based on a true story.

Inspired by actual events. 

I'm not sure if it was an actual trend in 2010 or just a common trait of the few movies that I saw, but phrases like those above seemed to appear on screen in quite a lot of films, including 127 Hours, Conviction, Howl, Carlos, North Face, and even more that I didn't see, such as Made in Dagenham, Casino Jack, Eat Pray Love, I Love You Philip Morris, Mesrine: Killer Instinct & Public Enemy #1, and Nowhere Boy, to name only a few (and to say nothing of the tricky-truthy documentaries like I'm Still Here, Catfish, and Exit Through the Gift Shop).

Are there this many films based on true events every year and I only noticed it in 2010, or is this a newly developing trend? Either possibility would surprise me. If this is common every year, why have I not picked up on it so acutely, particularly considering I usually see twice as many movies as I did in 2010, and that I have a running series about movies based on real life? On the other hand, if this is a newly developing trend - why?

I'm almost positive it's the former, that this is not a new thing at all, but in any case it doesn't matter. I'm always more interested in how these films depict the truth they are meant to represent and, in doing so, how they shape our understanding and perspective on past events. For example, when I ask you to imagine the sinking of the Titanic, what images come to your mind? What about Roman gladiator fighting in the Colosseum? What do you picture when you think of John Smith and Pocahontas, or the Zodiac killer who terrorized San Francisco, or the fate of United Flight 93, or the storming of Omaha Beach on D-Day?

You see where I'm going with this: for many people, films based on true events serve as the primary influence on the subconscious in remembering or imagining those events. If you've seen those movies - Titanic, Gladiator, The New World, Zodiac, United 93, Saving Private Ryan - you bring their images to mind without even realizing it, particularly when a.) the images are astonishingly rendered (Titanic), and b.) there are few other film adaptations, documentaries, or other visual aids to provide alternative images in your mind (United 93). In essence, perception becomes reality; what we see becomes what actually happened, even if it didn't actually happen.

But does it matter when those images and those memories produce a reality that didn't actually exist? Where does the truth end and the dramatization begin, and is the truth ever interesting enough to stand on its own, free of embellishment? I'm sure it's a question as old as film itself - as art itself, really - but I'd like to consider it in the context of five films I saw in the last few months of 2010: The Social Network, The Fighter, Fair Game, The King's Speech, and All Good Things.

MSPIFF 2010: Week 2 Roundup

The final week of MSPIFF 2010 (yes, the one that ended ten days ago...) proved alternately frustrating and fulfilling. I only made it to an additional four films, easily amassing my lowest total since I moved back to Minnesota four years ago. There was a long list of films that I missed, but I prefer to reflect on the fact that nothing I saw was outright terrible.
 

My Only Sunshine - Plans to see the sold-out Today's Special were foiled on a packed-to-the-gills Friday night, so we opted for a Turkish film, My Only Sunshine (an appropriate choice as we'll be on our honeymoon in Turkey in just a few weeks). As breathtaking and vivid as the cinematography was, My Only Sunshine does not make Istanbul a particularly appealing place; maybe compare it to New York City as seen in Chop Shop. On the other hand, it was fascinating to observe the environment and cultural quirks of Istanbul that I'm sure we won't see on our brief and touristy stop to the teeming seaside city of 12 million people. My Only Sunshine is a slice-of-life story as experienced by Hayat (Elit Iscan), an adolescent girl living with her troubled father and dying grandfather (the effects of emphysema caused by smoking have truly never been captured on film as they are captured here). You expect it to develop into a warm coming-of-age tale, but despite a few laughs and a completely tacked-on happy ending, it's an altogether bleak depiction of a lost childhood in Istanbul. Nonetheless, I remained engaged throughout and the production had the decidedly "foreign film" feel that I specifically seek at these festivals.

MSPIFF 2010: Week 1 Roundup

I made it to only three films during the first week of MSPIFF 2010 - significantly fewer than any other year in recent memory, but a major feat nonetheless considering all things (moving, working, wedding planning, etc.). I still have ambitious plans to make it to ten total films before the festival wraps up next Friday, though it may require booting up my time machine or employing the Zack Morris Time-Out.

Thoughts on the first three, in order of viewing:

Bananas!* - That both the exclamation point and asterisk in the title go entirely unexplained during this documentary is a curiosity, as is the fact that it's really not about fruit at all. While Swedish filmmaker (emphasis on Swedish, because this film is produced and titled in a decidedly non-American way) Fredrik Gertten presents an admittedly interesting legal drama about the Dole corporation's use of a controversial pesticide that rendered sterile a significant number of the company's banana farmers in rural Nicaragua, the film is the victim of unfortunate timing as it exists as simply a lesser version of last year's Crude, which had an almost identical story to tell about ExxonMobil and a community in Ecuador (including a championing American lawyer using the "David vs. Goliath" analogy). 

I'm glad I saw Bananas!* because the courtroom scenes are engrossing and issues like this deserve to be shared with the world, but at the same time I don't feel I received a complete picture of the banana industry.The film boasts the already tired claim that we'll "never look at ______ (insert bananas) the same way again", which is partly true. I'll never look at them the same way again without wondering, "why didn't I learn more about bananas from Bananas!*?"

The Oath - Leave an Oscar nomination slot open on your ballot next year for Laura Poitras' riveting documentary about Osama bin Laden's former bodyguard, Abu Jindal, and his ideological struggle to remain loyal to the al-Qaeda oath without advocating terrorism. As I've already mentioned, Poitras was previously nominated for My Country, My Country, an underrated film about an Iraqi doctor in the months following the U.S. invasion in 2003 (Poitras, an American, was reportedly placed on a no-fly list because of the film's critical stance). This is the second film in her planned "trilogy" about Iraq, and I'm here to tell you that the positive buzz out of Sundance in January was warranted. Summarizing the storyline is not really helpful, but suffice to say it is extremely rare that you will see a documentary cover this much material and still remain grounded in its primary subjects.

If you have any interest in international relations, history, war, terrorism, Guantanamo Bay, the Supreme Court, Islam, or the Middle East, The Oath may be considered required viewing. Not surprisingly, it will be broadcast as part of the upcoming P.O.V. season on PBS (My Country, My Country was a selection during the 2006 season). If you miss it theatrically don't miss the chance to see it for free at home. 

Night Catches Us -  I noted in my festival preview that Night Catches Us is an example of a film rarely screened as part of MSPIFF (no doubt the influence of guest programmer Linda Blackaby), and sure enough there were only a couple dozen people at the Wednesday night screening. Oh well, those who missed it missed out. On the surface, Tanya Hamilton's directing debut doesn't necessarily transcend the familiar trappings of other racial-historical dramas, but there's no denying this really is an unique story that lingers in the mind for further reflection. The Hurt Locker standout Anthony Mackie shows impressive leading man potential as a former Black Panther re-acclimating to life in 1976 Philadelphia. Kerry Washington holds her own as his moral compass and love interest, but the film belongs to Mackie whenever he is on screen, almost to a distracting degree. To boot, the cinematography is beautifully absorbing and the original music by Philadelphia natives The Roots adds immediacy and authenticity.

The film does not dive headlong into the history of the Black Panthers, but then this is a film about relationships, not politics. Nonetheless, it's easy to view the Panthers' militant spirit in the context of the brewing social unrest in America in 2010 (earlier in the day I'd listened to a local right-wing conservative radio host justify violence on behalf of the Tea Party by quoting JFK: "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.") . In any case, whatever Tanya Hamilton's motive was in telling this story I hope she receives a deserved amount of attention for it.

Now on DVD: The People Speak

Watching The People Speak, a performance documentary based on the writings of the late historian Howard Zinn (he passed away almost exactly a month ago), is a little like the experience Marty McFly has in Back to the Future II when he goes back to the alterna-1985.

Listening to the diary entries and recorded quotes of several dozen American citizens (vividly brought to life by a talented cast of A-list Hollywood actors) describe the reality of the country around them, you can't help but consider how many different histories this country has (and really every country has). The history you learn from a textbook, the history you learn from your family, and of the course the history you don't hear at all. This is the American history you haven't heard.

Hijacked Creativity: The Taking (and Remaking) of Pelham One Two Three

I challenge anyone to give me a new answer to this simple question: What is the purpose of Tony Scott's remake of Joseph Sargent's The Taking of Pelham of One Two Three?

It's a trick question, of course, because there is no new answer, and there has never been any acceptable answer for the dozens of remakes Hollywood has churned out over the last couple of decades, including the completely ignored (also by me) 1998 version of The Taking of Pelham 123, starring Edward James Olmos and Vincent D'Onofrio.

It's not good enough that Scott's glossy blockbuster is an updated version for "a new generation". It's not good enough that it's an updated version for the fans of the original (or for that matter, a reimagining of the original - everything is the same except the ransom is up to $10 million). And it's certainly not good enough that it's a critic-proof "summer popcorn flick".

This is a movie considered by many people to be one of the great crime dramas of the 1970's. It boasts a unanimous 100% fresh RT rating, and blogging pals Chuck Bowen and Matt Gamble have recently sung its praises. Having also seen it recently, I'll add that it's an effortlessly entertaining thriller featuring great performances in the wholly unique setting of the NYC underground. The general consensus since its release 35 years ago is that, despite some dated technology (and the fact the hijackers only ask for $1 million), The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is an otherwise excellent movie.

So why bother pouring millions of dollars into a remake of a movie that simply doesn't need to be improved upon? What's the rational, and in the absence of any, why not just start remaking other great films? Give The Godfather to Michael Mann; Citizen Kane to Ron Howard, and, sure, Psycho to Gus Van Sant. I'm not being sarcastic - why isn't this happening more frequently with classic movies?

I imagine it's probably just a matter of time. Honestly, at this rate we can expect a Godfather remake any year now, and soon enough remakes of instant classics like No Country for Old Men. It will be like those idiotic "(Genre) Movie" movies that spoof movies still in theaters. Don't believe me that the remake situation is this serious? Check this out, or consider the remakes proposed by Jeff Wells, who unabashedly contends that the new Pelham is better than the original.

Why? Just...why?

Maybe the most recent trend started when dozens of hit British shows - "Britain's Got Talent" (America's Got Talent),"Pop Idol" (American Idol), "The Office," "Life on Mars", "The Weakest Link", "Hell's Kitchen", "Changing Rooms" (Trading Spaces), "Strictly Come Dancing" (Dancing With the Stars), "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" - crossed the pond and became big hits here. Soon enough Hollywood figured out, hey, we can make bigger hits out of foreign shows, so we can probably make bigger hits out of foreign movies, too (hold your nose for the upcoming American remakes of Let the Right One In and Tell No One).

Or maybe it was George Lucas and The Phantom Menace that started Hollywood's decline. If he could dust off a twenty year-old franchise and make millions from it, why couldn't everyone else? In fact, why not just make any new movie (Rush Hour, The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, Paul Blart: Mall Cop) a franchise to begin with?

So here we are at the peak of this trend, and desks and inboxes at production companies and studios in Hollywood are inundated with another 5-10 years worth of remakes, "reboots" (see, we even had to create a new term!), and sequels. And the worst part is, it's really difficult not to be tempted into seeing these new versions (as was the case most recently with Terminator Salvation). When somebody remakes The Godfather, are you telling me you won't end up seeing it? You'll have to see someone's attempt at an impossible feat, if only to see how miserably they fail. And while we're standing in line to watch the latest disaster, filmmakers with fresh, original stories (e.g., Ballast) are basically forced into self-financing and self-distributing their projects. Is this OK?

What's really being hijacked in the remake of The Taking of Pelham One Two Three is not the subway car but the plot of the original film. There's a ransom demanded for the safe return of creativity to Hollywood. Anyone want to chip in? We should start by pooling the money we'll spend at the box office this weekend.

UPDATE: So I ended up seeing it (opening weekend), and can confirm it's one of the worst movies I've seen so far this year. What a waste.

Underrated MOTM: The Siege (1998)

September's Underrated Movie of the Month (MOTM) is another movie that exists not only as a reason why I started this feature, but as a reason why I enjoy writing about movies at all. Last month I outlined how Falling Down was a real-time representation of 1992 Los Angeles. While that movie was of its time, The Siege was ahead of its time. Like eerily, presciently ahead of its time.

I'm tempted to call it one of the most important movies of the last decade, though not necessarily one of the best. In fact, I'm not even going to defend the quality of the film itself here at all, so maybe I should say The Siege is "underappreciated" more so than it's "underrated". I just recommend you see it, even though I know the message will be lost on people if they get distracted by the plot or the acting or the actions of some of the characters.

There's no sense in discussing this movie unless you're able to completely shift your mind's perspective back to 1998. I'll help: the biggest news story of the year was President Bill Clinton's infidelity and impeachment; most of the American public didn't use the internet and a good number of people didn't know what it was; Apple unveiled the iMac; The Offspring were a popular band while Armageddon ruled the box office; gas cost $1.15 a gallon; "Friends" and "ER" were the most popular shows in a television line-up that had yet to know something called "reality TV" (I believe the first "Survivor" was in 1999 or 2000); you could see your friends and family off at the airport all the way to the gate; the U.S. announced the first budget surplus in 30 years; the first infamous school shooting occurred in Jonesboro, AR (Columbine would memorably come on 4/20/99); and for most of the world, what came to mind when people said "terrorist" was the IRA in Northern Ireland.

So now it's the fall of 1998, and a movie called The Siege quietly makes its way into movie theaters. Director Edward Zwick's most important film to date has been Glory and there's some excitement that he is working with Denzel Washington again. Oddly, the original screenplay was written by a New Yorker columnist named Lawrence Wright - his first ever film. Nobody really knows what to expect from this guy.

Opening on November 6, The Siege grosses $13 million at the box office, second to The Waterboy's $40 million - an amount which, coincidentally, will be the total gross earned by The Siege before it fades out of theaters as a critical and commercial failure.

And then September 11, 2001, happens.

And then the The Siege becomes, according to Wright, "the most-rented movie in America."

9/11 created a flood of overwhelming emotions: fear, grief, paranoia, anger, and confusion, among others of course. Those who had seen The Siege three years earlier briefly experienced an additional funny feeling: déjà vu.

"Wait a minute, what?

A major terrorist attack in Manhattan? Local and federal law enforcement agencies are in a state of chaos? The terrorists were thought to be Islamic extremists? They lived and worked in the U.S.? Now the government is detaining and torturing anyone who looks Arab, is Muslim, or has an Arabic-sounding name?

Haven't we seen this before?"

Because it's almost impossible for our minds to forget that 9/11 happened, I have to reemphasize how foreign so much of this was in 1998. Granted, the first World Trade Center attack had occurred and al-Qaeda had just carried out the embassy attacks, but the American public was not in a state of fear. Osama bin Laden was not a household name. We didn't know what a terror alert or an air marshal was and we couldn't point out of Afghanistan on a map of the Middle East (unfortunately I fear that's still the case with most of us). So while terrorism itself was not an original idea for a movie, the attack and response portrayed in The Siege was, like 1994's True Lies, simply not something Americans could connect with on any level because it just seemed too exaggerated.

Hmm, actually, forget that last part. Audiences flocked to see not one but two even more fantastical disasters in New York City just a few months earlier in 1998: the horrendous remake of Godzilla pulled in over $130 million in May, while the aforementioned Armageddon raked in better than $200 million in July. Despite featuring two established stars in their respective second movies of the year - Bruce Willis (who also starred in Armageddon) and Denzel Washington (who carried He Got Game, which happened to open the same weekend as Godzilla) - The Siege pretty much flopped. Why? Bad reviews? Maybe, because there were plenty. But don't a lot of terribly reviewed movies open in the #1 spot at the box office? I think there was another reason people avoided this movie, but to this day I can't really figure out what it was.

Maybe this an appropriate time to include the trailer, then, because I want to get back to hammering home this point about the film's prescience. This is before 9/11, remember. Listen very carefully and tell me the dialogue here doesn't send chills down your spine:

Again, before 9/11 and the "War on Terror" and the Patriot Act and anything else that has since completely changed our daily lives. It's as if this movie was actually used by both the terrorists beforehand and our government afterwards. Is Wright to blame for 9/11? No, I'm obviously not serious at all. It's just that the coincidences in The Siege are so incredible that you almost have to start reaching for completely irrational explanations like that.

Maybe I should just read the book. You see, that unknown screenwriter Lawrence Wright turned out to be a bestselling author after his days at the New Yorker, and in 2007 he won a little award called the Pulitzer Prize for General Nonfiction for his highly acclaimed book, "The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11". I bet it would be fascinating to read that book and compare it to this movie (which I admittedly haven't seen in quite a few years).

No, it's not perfect and yes, it's a little messy, but as the 10 year anniversary of The Siege approaches in another month, I consider it more than worthy of a revisit. I don't even know what it would be like to watch this movie again now. To some people it would probably seem simple minded or offensive or somehow inaccurate with what we now know about so much of its content, but if you haven't seen it and you have any interest in the themes of civil liberties, human rights, interrogation techniques, religious extremism, or military intervention, and if you can successfully take a trip in your mind back to 1998, then The Siege is an absolute must-see.

I Have a Dream: A Worthy MLK, Jr. Biopic

Forty years ago tomorrow, a courageous man was gunned down on a hotel balcony in Memphis, TN. Only 39 years old at the time of his assassination, he dared to dream about a future that seemed unfathomable to America at the time. Really - considering the context of the American culture around him in the 60's, does it register with you how forward-thinking he was? It would be like talking about moon colonies now - conceptually you can imagine it, but come on, not gonna happen, right? Granted, his dream hasn't been fully realized yet either, but we'll keep working at it. In the meantime, I have a dream of my own: a full-length, theatrical feature about this man's life and legacy.

The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was by all accounts enigmatic and extremely self-aware - even withdrawn at times. In other words, he is a layered character from which to develop a biography. As much as he's been celebrated as a martyr and hero, there have been those who've attempted posthumous character assassination as well, pegging him as an unfaithful husband and a political radical. Well, I've certainly revered him during my life for his positive work and bold spirit, but I'm not going to sit here and defend his flaws either, because he wasn't a saint and it doesn't really matter anyway. I've done (I think) some decent things in my years, but if you want to bring me down because I ran a stop sign last January, well I'm very sorry, but there's nothing I can do about that. Anyway, the point is that King is the kind of human (and that's all he was) that you don't meet everyday, and his life is worth another look regardless of what you think of him.

Are you wondering if there has really never been a movie about him? Well, there has - but a made-for-television biopic was produced about John Denver, too (no offense to John Denver fans). I'll admit that I haven't been able to get my hands on "King," the 1978 miniseries that apparently received positive reviews, nor have I seen HBO Films' Boycott from 2001. So yes, it's been done, and maybe those are great, but if Anna Nicole Smith has already had her day on the silver screen (Anna Nicole, coming soon to a theater near you), so should King.

It's not as if the issue has never come up before. Just last year, around the release of the completely underrated Talk to Me, Ann Hornaday of the Washington Post wrote a great piece, "Waiting for 'Action!'," about the overall lack of civil rights-era movies. She gives a nice review of what's been done and what's been proposed, but she only hints at countering the excuses put forth by studio executives: "Black-themed films don't play overseas. African American actors can't open movies. American filmgoers don't like dramas. Multi-character historical dramas are just too expensive." Obviously those are ridiculous reasons, but it still doesn't sound like anyone is stepping up to the plate with a King biopic in the near future.

How about this? I'll find the talent while someone else finds the funding, since that's where this will start and end. In fact, give me a free pass to the premiere and I'll organize a fundraiser, too.

Let's get to work.

When searching for the actor to play King, we have to consider several fundamental criteria. First, the person must not be too well known or already overexposed; we have to be able to see them as King and not as themselves. Secondly, they have to look somewhat like King, so as not to be a constant distraction. Lastly, they actually have to be able to act. Can't forget that. So, who could fully inhabit this man?

Casting Call:
(please excuse spacing issues)

Anthony Anderson - Recent credits include Transformers, The Departed, and Hustle & Flow. You laugh, but dude actually has acting chops, and he's not only good for comic relief. I've heard positive words about his roles in TV's "K-Ville" and "The Shield," though I can't speak from personal observations there. He seems like a nice guy, he might be able to pull it off, and he could use a career boost.


Terrence Howard - Best known in recent years for his hot period that included roles in Ray, Crash, and Hustle & Flow (for which he received a Best Actor Oscar nom), Howard is young and promising, despite his questionable choices in recent years. He actually played King's friend Ralph Abernathy in 2001's Boycott, and he seems like someone who would take the role of King seriously.


Ving Rhames - Yeah, it's a stretch to think Marsellus Wallace could translate to Martin Luther King, Jr., but Rhames has just enough gravitas to do real justice to a dramatic role. He seems to always play a sidekick or otherwise diminished character, but some part of me thinks he could ably handle one of King's rousing pulpit speeches. Eh...maybe. Like I said, it's a stretch.


Jeffrey Wright - After a notable debut in 1996's Basquiat, Wright recently reemerged in Broken Flowers, Syriana, and HBO's "Angels in America." He clearly has talent, but you won't see it on display in two horrifyingly terrible recent movies - 2007's The Invasion and 2006's Lady in the Water. Tragic. Oh yeah, he also won an AFI Award for his role in Boycott. His character? Martin Luther King, Jr.


Bernie Mac - That's right, Bernie Mac. All of his wild comedy aside, I saw just enough of his real acting talent in Bad Santa, Pride, and Spike Lee's Get on the Bus to think that he might be able to pull this off. It would take some real patience on the part of the viewer, but you never know how some actors will fit their part. Did you ever think the star of "The Jamie Foxx Show" would win an Oscar?


Mykelti Williamson - You know him as Bubba from Forrest Gump (and as Baby-O from Con Air - was that the same character?), but you've forgotten that he had impressive turns in Three Kings, Ali, The Assassination of Richard Nixon, and most recently, ATL. If this were a pool of some sort, he would be my sleeper pick.


Cuba Gooding, Jr. - I know. Since his Oscar win in 1996, he's either been blacklisted or he has the worst agent in Hollywood. You'll find his post-Jerry Maguire movies in the movie library at Guantanamo: Instinct, Snow Dogs, Rat Race, Boat Trip, Norbit, Daddy Day Camp - I'll stop. He finally landed a chance in American Gangster last year, but it was unfortunately a flashy, shallow role. Call me certifiably insane, but I still think he has potential.

Chiwetel Ejiofor - I consider his breakthrough Dirty Pretty Things, but he's really come on the scene since Kinky Boots in 2005, maybe Inside Man in 2006. Choose what you like, he's a deserving star on the rise. It's crazy that I've included Ejiofor on this list because I've criticized his poor American accent for years. Fortunately, King had a speaking inflection of his own that Ejiofor could probably pull off, and conveniently, he looks exactly like him.

There are others, of course, that I briefly considered: Will Smith, Martin Lawrence, Cedric the Entertainer, Wesley Snipes, Jamie Foxx, Omar Epps, Donald Faison, Andre Braugher, Eddie Murphy, Laurence Fishburne, Eric La Salle, Larenz Tate, and more, including others that don't look the part (Don Cheadle, Forest Whitaker). Despite the popular vote, you can't consider Samuel L. Jackson, Denzel Washington, or Morgan Freeman. They wouldn't fit at all, they would never take the role, and Denzel's already been robbed once for Malcolm X.

But even after our casting decisions, how do you tell the story? After all, we're talking about one of the most complex public figures in history. Developing a filmable biography of King is not the easiest task Hollywood has faced. Potential screenwriters won't be considered at this time, but it will certainly be a massive project deserving of special attention.

Finally, what about directors? Not as much science here, but equally as important. I'll just throw out some names - Spike Lee (Malcolm X), Robert Zemeckis (Forrest Gump), James Mangold (Walk the Line), Oliver Stone (Nixon, JFK), Taylor Hackford (Ray), Ron Howard (A Beautiful Mind, Cinderella Man), and Julian Schnabel (Basquiat, Before Night Falls, and The Diving Bell and the Butterfly). These are all currently working American directors who have, in my opinion, already proven they can handle a dramatic male character biography. I would also deliberately add African-American directors John Singleton (Boyz 'n the Hood, Rosewood) and Albert and Allen Hughes (Menace II Society, Dead Presidents) to the list, despite the fact that they've done hardly any work of significance in recent years.

So that's it. The hard work is done.

Actually, he did the hard work.

Now it's our turn.

REVIEW: The Great Debaters (B-)

Background: Denzel Washington (American Gangster, Déjà Vu) directs for the second time in his career in The Great Debaters, written by Robert Eisele and based on the true story of the 1935 Wiley College debate team. Starring Nate Parker (Pride), Jurnee Smollett (Gridiron Gang), and the ironically named - and unrelated - Denzel Whitaker (Training Day) as the student debaters, the film also features Washington, Forest Whitaker (The Last King of Scotland), Kimberly Elise (Pride, John Q), and Jon Heard (Sweetland). Despite the star power and feel-good story, the film is sure to get lost in the award competition at this time of the year.

Synopsis: In 1935 at Wiley College in Marshall, TX, professor/debate team coach Melvin B. Talson (Washington) is recruiting for the upcoming season. On the side, he is also helping local sharecroppers form a union, much to the chagrin of local Sheriff Dozier (Heard). The team is selected in predictable fashion, and is anchored by disillusioned cool guy Henry Lowe (Parker), smart and beautiful Samantha Brooke (Smollett), and young yet mature James Farmer, Jr. (D. Whitaker), who is the son of Wiley’s theology professor James Farmer (F. Whitaker). The team rises to prominence while dealing with personal tensions, hormones, Talson’s communist activity, and dangerous racism in the local community. Before long they are off to Harvard for a nationally broadcast debate against the defending champs. Cue every scene from Hoosiers from here through to the end, but replace the basketball court with a debating stage.

I Loved:
+ The relationship between Denzel Whitaker and Forest Whitaker as father and son. It was the best character development in the movie and showed how frighteningly well Forest Whitaker can act.

I Liked:
+ Denzel Whitaker as James Farmer, Jr., who stole every scene he was in. The scene where he confronted a drunk Henry Lowe was especially well done.

I Disliked:
- That the story wasn’t very rich, as interesting story lines were only briefly dipped into, like racism and communism, which only seemed to be there to add some melodrama. But I guess you can only do so much in two hours, and the debate team was the focus.

I Hated:
- The poorly done ending, which was painfully predictable to the point of boredom. After the final speech, you don’t need to draw out the announcement and celebration scenes.

Grade:
Writing - 8
Acting - 9
Production - 7
Emotional Impact - 7
Music - 5
Significance - 5

Total: 41/50= 82% = B-

Last Word: The Great Debaters is a story of redemption and heartwarming triumph, but it lacks the genuine drama that would have made it an excellent movie. I’m pretty disappointed with Denzel Washington’s work as director here. As in the movie, a lot of his production seemed “canned,” most notably at the end, which was lifted straight from any other underdog-to-champion movie. Any creative effort here would have been an improvement, and Denzel showed he could do that when he directed Antwone Fisher. My favorite scenes featured Forest Whitaker, who makes every character believable. Overall, the acting was the strongest component of The Great Debaters, which never fully reaches its potential. I don’t even think it made me sob, which has to mean something wasn’t done right.

REVIEW: American Gangster (B)

Background: Ridley Scott’s (Blade Runner, Gladiator) new film, American Gangster, is based on Mark Jacobson’s New York Magazine article “The Return of Superfly,” which is in turn based on the true story of Frank Lucas, notorious drug kingpin (and king) of 1970’s Harlem. Both Lucas (played by Denzel Washington - Deja Vu) and his former NJ police rival Richie Roberts (Russell Crowe - 3:10 to Yuma) were consultants during production, helping with accuracy and accents. The messy pre-production of the film took several years and scripts, and at different points involved director Antoine Fuqua (Training Day), screenwriter Terry George (Reservation Road), and actors Don Cheadle, Joaquin Phoenix, Ray Liotta, John C. Reilly, and Benicio Del Toro. Of course none of these people ended up working on American Gangster, but Del Toro actually collected a $5 million paycheck before production was shut down the first time. One other interesting piece of trivia - a number of the Thai extras were actually involved in Frank Lucas's real drug-running operation. Must be a statute of limitations for drug-related crimes in Thailand.

Synopsis: Harlem, late 60's. Frank Lucas (Washington) is the successor to local druglord/crimeboss Bumby Johnson. Richie Roberts (Crowe) is a divorced New Jersey cop who is too honest for his line of work. Lucas is committed to monopolizing the booming heroin market in Harlem, and he actually visits the source in Thailand before moving his entire family (including 5 brothers) to Harlem for assistance in the new venture. Before long, junkies all over New York are hooked on his "Blue Magic," and the corrupt NYPD, led by Detective Trupo (Brolin), look the other way while stuffing their pockets. After losing the trust of his fellow officers, Roberts is picked to head a federal taskforce whose only goal is to stop the drug trade at its source. By this time, Lucas has wealth, power, influence, and the reputation as the baddest dude in Harlem. Despite his low profile (quiet suits, simple routines, weekly church-going, etc.), Lucas (and Det. Trupo) eventually attract the attention of Robert and his team. Their surveillance pays off when they learn of one final, massive heroin shipment coming in from Thailand, and a major raid ensues. Lucas is dramatically arrested on his way out of church and forced to either take life in prison or rat out all of his NYPD bedfellows.
I Loved:
+ The production design - great sets, on-location filming, and a believable 70's look to it all.
I Liked:
+ Denzel Washington's ice-cold performance - better and more believable than his silly turn in Training Day.
+ T.I. - he was good in a limited role and shows as much potential as he did in ATL.
+ The RZA - outacting professionals and showing off a Wu-Tang tattoo.
I Disliked:
- Josh Brolin's exaggerated bullying, Russell Crowe's dull indifference, Cuba Gooding, Jr.'s typical spasticity, and Common's boring coolness.
- Chiwetel Ejiofor being miscast as an African-American again (as in Talk to Me and Inside Man) - he's British and excels in roles where he doesn't have to fake an accent or an attitude, like in Dirty Pretty Things and Children of Men.
- Not seeing images/interviews with the real Frank Lucas and Richie Roberts - I know, I know, wait for the DVD. Well I never see DVD's so I'll miss it.
I Hated:
- Nothing, really.
Grade:
Writing - 9
Acting - 7
Production - 8
Emotional Impact - 8
Music - 5
Significance - 4

Total: 42/50= 84% = B

Last Word: With all of the mess in getting this made, where was Spike Lee? I have to believe he would have made a better movie, though he may not have extracted better performances from the cast. American Gangster is not a bad movie, it's just not a very likable one. Basically, it's another shoulder-shrugger. Aside from showing that Denzel Washington can legitimately play a ruthless criminal, not much is accomplished. I didn't know anything about Frank Lucas, and still I have to read the original article and look for more information about him and Roberts. The corruption in the story, from the military to the police, is incredible and should have played a larger role. Although it kept my interest, some scenes could have been trimmed, mostly those involving Roberts' family matters. Speaking of Roberts, I have to stick up for Crowe here regarding his accent. I'm not from North Jersey, but I think Crowe probably got closer than the others (Del Toro, Phoenix) who would have played Roberts. He did fine with the accent, but just didn't seem very passionate about what he was doing. Maybe that's the real Roberts, though. American Gangster was the right idea for an old-school gangster movie, but the final product isn't as dark or as revealing as you'd hope for. Or am I just that desensitized by this point?