A Rage in Harlem.

Review #2513: A Rage in Harlem.

Cast: 

Forest Whitaker (Jackson), Gregory Hines (Goldy/Sherman), Robin Givens (Imabelle), Zakes Mokae (Big Kathy), Danny Glover (Easy Money), Badja Djola (Slim), John Toles-Bey (Jodie), Tyler Collins (Teena), Ron Taylor (Hank), Samm-Art Williams (Gus Parsons), Stack Pierce (Detective Ed "Coffin Ed" Johnson), Willard E. Pugh (Claude X), Helen Martin (Mrs. Canfield), Wendell Pierce (Louis), T. K. Carter (Smitty), Jalacy Hawkins (Jay "Screamin' Jay" Hawkins), Beatrice Winde (Clerk), and George Wallace (Detective "Gravedigger" Jones) Directed by Bill Duke.

Review: 

“I’m not interested in making ‘Black’ movies. I’m interested in making movies that reflect my reality as I perceive it.”

Honestly, this movie was lightly on my mind for a few years. You might remember that Cotton Comes to Harlem (1970) and Come Back, Charleston Blue (1972) were loosely based on the works of Chester Himes involving Harlem detectives that had Godfrey Cambridge and Raymond St. Jacques as the stars.  But first, let's talk a bit about this being the feature film debut of Bill Duke. Born in Poughkeepsie, New York, Duke was curious about writing from a young age, mainly because he wrote a journal from a young age because in his words, he wasn't a good verbal communicator but his poems were liked by a teacher of his. He attended Dutchess Community College and was encouraged to enroll in drama that saw him want to do acting. He studied at Boston University and subsequently New York University's Tisch School of the Arts before getting a role on Broadway in 1971 with "Ain't Supposed to Die a Natural Death.”  Duke broke into film with Car Wash (1976) before eventually coming onto the need to study film, which he did with the AFI Conservatory. Duke became a director for a variety of television shows in the 1980s that ranged from Falcon Crest to Knots Landing. Duke made his directorial debut with the made-for-PBS The Killing Floor (1984) before moving into film with this movie. William Horberg got the rights to the Himes novel and eventually got the efforts of Stephen Woolley to get the idea of doing a film sold to Miramax Films. John Toles-Bey and Bobby Crawford were credited as having written the film. Apparently, halfway through the production, Woolley claimed that the film was meant to be a comedy and that Duke disagreed with that sentiment. At any rate, the movie made roughly $10 million. Duke's next film was with Deep Cover (1992).

You've got a movie wrapped in the vibrant atmosphere of Harlem (okay it was filmed in Cincinnati but still) that has a carefully wound-up game of wits and oddball characters for a few interesting moments (and, arguably, a few chuckles, so maybe Woolley wasn't too far off). Its tale of lust and larceny isn't too far off from a B-movie or, say, those 70s movies I had mentioned earlier that makes for a decent first effort. It doesn't exactly have every plot beat down to a T, mainly because the chemistry between the characters work far better than any motivations involving gold and sheer hokum. Of course, it also is an off-kilter romance (when not dealing in clash of street/book smart) that basically lends itself to a handful of curious moments of who really is in control of their own desires and sense of self. In that sense, Whitaker and Hines make for a couple of entertaining leads to counteract each other as if one was in a hardboiled buddy film (with perhaps a bit of a coming-of-age sprinkled in, neo-noir style). This was the first prominent film role for Givens, who previously had been featured in Head of the Class for television. She makes for a quality femme fatale, one with sultry grace that manages to have the right time of timing to make the tenuous dynamic between her and Whitaker a compelling one. There are a wide variety of characters to come and go with charm to spare, whether that involves a cross-dresser played by Mokae or with heavies in Glover and Djola (or Williams, but he is only in it for a while). In general, the film is quick on its feet to make its 115-minute runtime feel like a breeze worth passing through to see it play all the way to the finish that manages to hit most of the right notes for a fairly satisfying first effort.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars. 

Another Movie Night Song of the day

Wolfen.

Review #1902: Wolfen.

Cast: 

Albert Finney (Detective Dewey Wilson), Diane Venora (Detective Rebecca Neff), Edward James Olmos (Eddie Holt), Gregory Hines (Coroner Whittington), Tom Noonan (Ferguson), Dick O'Neill (Captain Warren), Dehl Berti (Old Indian), Peter Michael Goetz (Ross), Reginald VelJohnson (Morgue Attendant), James Tolkan ("Baldy", The Medical Examiner), and Donald Symington (Lawyer) Directed by Michael Wadleigh.

Review: 

Sure, it is possible that there is no real big link between a film like this and ones such as The Howling (1981) and An American Werewolf in London (1981). But it is fun to talk about the one thing they do have in common: each are horror movies with killer wolves, with The Howling being released in March before Wolfen was released in July and American Werewolf in London was released in August. Wolfen was the least successful with audiences among the three, not making its $17 million budget back. The movie is an adaptation of The Wolfen, a 1978 novel by Whitley Strieber (a writer of thriller novels and a "non-fiction" book about being abducted...by non-human entities). David M. Eyre, Jr. and Michael Wadleigh were credited for both the screenplay and story while Eric Roth provided un-credited work. Apparently, the book and film share distinct differences, as the book had cops become the opening victims rather than a land developer (with wife and bodyguard in tow) and the climax is also different in how the lead characters handle the Wolfen. The film began shooting in 1979 for a targeted release in the fall of 1980, but delays would arise between Orion Pictures (the production company behind the film, which was distributed by Warner Bros.) and Wadleigh. It got to the point where the Directors Guild of America had a three-week hearing involving the rights of the director, who apparently had a first cut of four hours while complaining of having no budget reported to him (at least he was granted his choice of star with Finney, since Dustin Hoffman pestered him to try and get the role to no avail). The next cut was two hours and 29 minutes, but then the producers made an agreement to let Wadleigh shoot the remainder of things needed to be filmed before Richard Chew was sent to cut the film after Wadleigh was done and let go (John D. Hancock was sent to supervise the ADR sessions). This is how you get a final version of one hour and 54 minutes. This was the feature film debut of Wadleigh, who is best known for his work in documenting the 1969 Woodstock Music Festival, for which he and his crew shot for a documentary that was released in 1970 to great success. At any rate, this is the only non-documentary that Wadleigh has ever shot.

You can tell that this is a movie written to feel four hours long that got hacked into something that is a procedural movie with flashes of horror that ends up with varying results. Man, do I wish that I enjoyed this film more than I did, because honestly, it pales when compared to the aforementioned other wolf films. For one, this film isn't a "werewolf film", because the wolves here are a spirit that may or may not be gods, ones that have walked the Earth for many, many, many years, as explained by a group of Native Americans that exists to defend their territory. So, yes, there isn't a werewolf transformation here, since the concern is really more about looking at urban decay and procedure, since one is trying to guess how folks are being terrorized by something that severs certain body parts without just thinking it is terrorism, complete with nice shots of New York (such as the South Bronx). A good chunk of this is actually fairly interesting (having a thermographic visual for the Wolfen perspective is one), but at a certain point you really are just waiting for them to stop window-dressing and get to the point. Yes, it does keep itself in the realm of seriousness without ridicule, but it only marginally has the element of shock to keep things going. Sometimes you have to cut the cord, and I think this means that we have a film that is watchable but quite average. I think the cast is assembled nicely, because Finney does make a quality leader. He keeps a shaky but composted attitude about what goes on without making it look like it is beneath him. Venora was actually making her film debut with this film after graduating from Juilliard School and stage plays. She does okay here, quiet but serviceable in the procedural element...the chemistry between not so much, but it isn't too corny. Olmos practically chews on the camera in brooding charm, which proves quite compelling. Tap dancer-turned-actor Hines provides a bit of levity to the surroundings as well, making a useful rapport with Finney in minimal moments. Noonan is offbeat and quite watchable in little moments as well, while O'Neill plays the cop beat about how you would expect. I really did want to like the film more, because there is something to brood over with the idea of nature vs. greed, but I think the pacing is a bit uneven to hold things together enough to really make capable thrills. This isn't to say that I wanted an effects show, because the movie does do fine with the perspective shots alongside ones with wolves, but I think a little more "oomph" is required here to make it less like a procedural that just happened to break out into horror, particularly with a low-key ending (again, one that plays to the allure of what is allowed to lurk in the shadows rather than the book's idea about things) - decent for the film's mood but also just okay. I wonder how this would have worked as a four-hour cut or as a miniseries, where you can play out all of the things you want in trying to do a Bronx tale of people getting cut down by wolves that have humans as their prey. In fact, if you want to play semantics about better procedurals, Q, released the following year involving a winged serpent, handled its balance of procedural and creature elements with more reverence than this film (schlock or not, some things work better to others). At any rate, Wolfen is a decent film sandwiched in between other, better, movies involving creatures of the night, which may work out quite well for those who are interested in curiosity pieces among the years of horror.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

History of the World, Part I.

Review #1120: History of the World, Part I.

Cast: 
Mel Brooks (Moses / Comicus / Torquemada / Jacques / King Louis XVI), Dom DeLuise (Emperor Nero), Madeline Kahn (Empress Nympho), Harvey Korman (Count de Monet), Cloris Leachman (Madame Defarge), Ron Carey (Swiftus), Gregory Hines (Josephus), Pamela Stephenson (Mademoiselle Rimbaud), Shecky Greene (Marcus Vindictus), Sid Caesar (Chief Caveman), Mary-Margaret Humes (Miriam), Rudy De Luca (Prehistoric Man / Captain Mucus - The Roman Empire), with Orson Welles (Narrator) Directed by Mel Brooks (#061 - Blazing Saddles, #198 - Spaceballs, #248 - Robin Hood: Men in Tights, #361 - The Producers, #364 - High Anxiety, #623 - Silent Movie, and #655 - Young Frankenstein)

Review: 
History of the World, Part I was the seventh film directed and written by Brooks, with this being an anthology film based around numerous moments in history such as the Stone Age or Rome, making fun of the epics and dramas involving sword and sandals and period costumes. It's easy to say that this is one of his weaker films, particularly when compared to his other parodies such as Blazing Saddles for Westerns or High Anxiety for suspense films. However, this film does have its moments that work despite a disjointed feel in part because of the jokes that get thrown out through its 92 minute run-time. In a sense, it is like a greasy burger (or if you're a vegetarian, a salad I suppose) at a fast-food joint: it's probably not great for you, but it will serve its purpose handy enough and it has some flavor. The film revels in its crude nature and its puns while messing around with the historical situations that it presents, with Welles providing a narration that proves effective each time he is heard on screen. Brooks does a fine job handling himself in playing multiple roles, making each one have their moments of amusement without becoming too much of a caricature. DeLuise has brief time on screen, but he certainly plays off things fine enough. Kahn proves amusing with her expressions and eccentric nature in her third and final collaboration with Brooks. Korman and Leachman also do fine in their brief time on screen. Hines, a dancer-singer in his film debut, does fairly well with his role, eliciting a fine bit of charm. The other actors do fine with what they need to do, with a few cameo appearances from actors such as Bea Arthur and Jackie Mason among others that work out fine. Of the numerous segments of the film, "The Spanish Inquisition" one, involving a song-and-dance number along with stylings of torture devices and aquatic ballet that certainly feels absurd enough for its intent, shines fairly enough. The meat of the movie comes through the segments involving Rome and France, although the former lasts a bit better with its jokes throughout its time. The other segments and bits covered do okay, although the consistency does vary. It is safe to say that this is a movie that can be hit and miss, but it will serve well for anyone in the mindset for something with shades of amusement that won't dull all the senses by the time it is finished.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.