levybob

'In the Shadow of the Moon' deals in time travel and, as such, is pretty complicated. I remember when watching the original Star-Trek series on TV that if Captain Kirk or Spock traveled back in time they had to swear not to alter the course of history; they could not interfere with the events then taking place. In a way, Shadow of the Moon is the reverse of all that. It is only through going back in time and interfering with events, that the world as we know it will be saved..

Now I've got a feeling that the explanation of that science-fiction-ish' 'fact' could have been done better than the film presents it. For me, many questions still remained unanswered, some of them very important. And so my review's rating is far lower than the perfect score I would much preferred to award the film.

The overall plot is simple. People are dying by the bushel-load. The police believe they have killed the assassin but nine years later, and every nine years after that, the killer reappears and the killings take place again. What's going on here?

The film's production values are high; this is one good looking movie. The angles through which many scenes are shot are unique and excellently done. Boyd Holbrook as the policeman assigned to the case over its long tenure, is excellent. Like us he is confused. A good man, his motives are pure. But like us he will need convincing when what is going on is finally divulged.

In the Shadow of the Moon is a good watch. In fact, it might well be better if watched for a second time.

I learned to appreciate Billy Joel only after his career was well underway. I believe it was his 'Scenes from an Italian Restaurant' that pushed me over the line to a fuller appreciation of his talents. Before that I found his work derivative; sort of a copy of rock music genres of the past (The Four Seasons, The Tymes, Elvis Costello, and on and on). And I'm not certain that that opinion was undeserved. But I'm willing to say that Joel is a genius. And, since viewing the documentary of his lifce / career, I see it to be a tortured one, at that.

And so I strongly recommend the film to anyone with even the smallest curiosity or opinion. It will be well worth your time. If nothing else, the film links much of Joel's music to the life he was leading at the time. Be it 'Angry Young Man' or 'Just the Way you Are', these songs describe life passages Joel was passing through. A life emotion-filled to the brim.

If there is a hero in the film it might just be Billy's first wife Elizabeth Weber. The extent to which she both influenced and managed his early career is extraordinary; particularly in light of the fact that their marriage failed, and that her brother stole millions from Joel.

Finally, I never found Joel to be a particularly likable person; 'selfish' and 'self centered' are terms that come to mind. And having now viewed his story my feelings are unchanged. But the music and its ties to that personality more than makes up for his personal shortcomings.

Enjoy.

Spike Lee's 'Highest to Lowest' is shockingly bad. For its first hour the viewer is bored to death by lifeless conversations and emotion-free reactions to horrible events. But then there comes the second hour during which, whatever drama might exist gets lost behind a blaring concert with Eddie Palmieri, the concert intercut with the action sequences aboard a racing NYC subway train. I was tempted, during these sequences, to simply get up and leave.

And I should have. Because as the film progresses, as the tension is meant to mount, the viewer is again tossed out of the action by a background music track dead wrong for the moment; a tinkling piano riff as our hero David King (played by Denzel Washington) closes in on the villain. But here is the irony. This is a film about music. Denzel's character is a music mogul. He is the man with the best ears in the music industry. Too bad his character was not consulted about this film's score.

But that only begins to describe what's wrong with this film. The film concerns whether Denzel should pay a 17.5 million dollar ransom in order to free the son of his friend (played by Jeffrey Wright) from kidnappers. But there is not an ounce of emotion in any of the characters involved; not Denzel, not his wooden wife and oh-so-perfect son, not the police, not no one. They seemingly did not care. And if they don't care, Why should I? And I didn't. And that's not good. No. Not at all.

There is a second (sub-plot) story going on, one concerning whether Denzel's mogul should sell his record company. There were moments when it seemed mogul David was about to declare bankruptcy, at other times his resources seemed unlimited. But most important was this; the future of his music company seemed somehow linked with the kidnapping in ways that seemed contrived to say the least. Another way to say it: that David's heroics result in the increase in the company's record sales is flat-out absurd.

Denzel plays mogul David King as twitchy and cautious and suspicious and not especially likable. I believe we're intended to see him as a tough street-corner New York kid now an adult. But I didn't. I saw him only as who he is at present; as though he were placed full grown into the world. As for Jeffrey Wright as his friend/employee Paul, his was a role that called for more than Wright was able to give it. Or more than Director Lee could get from him.

If there is a 'star' in this film it is ASAP Rocky as 'Yung Felon' an aspiring rapper whose face-to-face with David King is the film's most stirring scene; one man just beginning the downside of his life, the other, younger and hungry, willing to do anything to anybody to make his mark.

A pity there was not more in the film like this.