Nothing but a Man.

Review #2182: Nothing but a Man.

Cast: 

Ivan Dixon (Duff Anderson), Abbey Lincoln (Josie Dawson), Julius Harris (Will Anderson), Gloria Foster (Lee), Yaphet Kotto (Jocko), Leonard Parker (Frankie), Stanley Green (Reverend Dawson), Eugene Wood (Johnson), Helen Lounck (Effie Simms), Gertrude Jeannette (Mrs. Dawson), Tom Ligon (Teenager), and William Jordan (Teenager) Directed by Michael Roemer.

Review: 

"I recognized everything. It was immediate. I said, 'Oh, I know this. I know what this feels like.''

Independent films don't always get a fair rap. But history does lend some credit to those that really did make an effort to make something worthwhile. This film was released 60 years ago this year as a fairly naturalistic feature that only made a profit upon a re-release in the 1990s. The film was written by Michael Roemer and Robert M. Young, who also produced the film with Robert Rubin (Young served as cinematographer). Born into a Jewish family in Germany, he had been sent to a Bunce Court School (a boarding school) in England in 1939 by the Kindertransport. After time spent in Bunce Court School in England, he moved to the States in time to attend at college at Harvard University, where he graduated with a degree after doing a bit of filmmaking and also met Young, a good friend of his. Roemer worked with Louis de Rochemont for a number of years in production management along with making a handful of educational films. Young and Roemer got together first to do a documentary called Cortile Cascino that would've been shown on NBC in 1962. It was a film meant to show the lives of people living in a slum (Palermitano) in Palermo, Italy, but the footage was thought of as not suitable for TV. The basis for what became this film was shaped in part by Roemer's upbringing (such as his relationship with his father) along with travels spent with Young for a few months in the American South. The film was shot in New Jersey on a budget over $200,000 as a film where "the most powerful, useful political statement would be a human one" with a handful of music from the Motown label. Lincoln was a singer (with one appearance in film as herself in The Girl Can't Help It) and Harris was a male nurse making his film debut.  Roemer's next film in The Plot Against Harry (1969) couldn't find a distributor because of its perceived failure in comedy before 1989 saw attention given to it at the New York Film Festival. Roemer had shot other documentaries as well, such as Dying, which was from the point of view of those near death. As late as his eighties (Roemer still lives, now 96!), he was a professor at Yale. A television film of his in Haunted (1984) was re-released in theaters as Vengeance is Mine in 2022.

The heart of the film is the timeless quality that comes in hard-edged honesty for 95 minutes. It is a sensitive film that doesn't rely on easy piety or easy outs when it comes to the simple story of how the shadow of life under the grip of prejudice and pre-conceived ideas of what one seems to be can wreak havoc on trying to live at all. The illusion of being free is a hard one to see get stripped away from oneself, whether that involves that illusion of being free in their job or one's love having an illusion of freedom from nasty words or complications. In other words: life is hard, and it is going to stay hard regardless of if you have someone there with you or not, but you just have to face the wind and roll with whatever is there to blow against you. Dixon was evidently proud of his lead performance here (released the year before having a long-running role on Hogan's Heroes and becoming a director himself), and it is easy to see why. He has a smoldering honesty that commands the screen in a way that is easily recognizable for those who have ever experienced some kind of misfortune when it comes to perceptions or in a personal matter. He sees Lincoln and goes from thinking of her as one of just desire to of equals when it comes to not just being a background face in the crowd. His frustrations are our frustrations in a way that draws the viewer to think about within our lives when it comes to what one is and is not in the scheme of things (be it stubborn, proud, or otherwise). The sequence of him seeing his son toil as one away from his parent (and accompanying words of why one hasn't made more of the effort) makes it clear of what one has here in those vulnerabilities and hazards to think about. Lincoln is the tender one that makes a worthwhile pairing with Dixon in whirlwind curiosity and accompanying vulnerability. Harris is the key in shaping the film for such a carefully handled amount of time, a smoldering heap on the last legs of a type of person with unyielding tension that makes one wonder how one really could be that good in their first acting role that quickly.  (Dixon was the most experienced of the main cast, as Foster had her debut in 1964 with The Cool World and this). As a whole, the movie ends on its own terms for one's own imagination when it comes to what it means in the idea of feeling so free and where the road can take them. It plays well for now among curious viewers looking for indie films because it is a story we can all look to in tender natural amazement and smile in its imperfect dealing with a imperfect world.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Trouble Man.

Review #1971: Trouble Man.

Cast: 

Robert Hooks (Mr. T), Paul Winfield ("Chalky" Price), Ralph Waite (Pete Cockrell), William Smithers (Captain Joe Marx), Paula Kelly (Cleo), Julius Harris ("Big"), Bill Henderson (Jimmy), Wayne Storm (Frank), Akili Jones (Billy Chi), and Vince Howard (Preston) Directed by Ivan Dixon (#1804 - The Spook Who Sat by the Door)

Review: 

Admittedly, I should have covered this film by Ivan Dixon before I did his most famous one in The Spook Who Sat by the Door (1973), which will celebrate its 50th anniversary this September. As mentioned earlier, Dixon became a director in 1970 after a handful of acting roles, with the most famous role being Nothing But a Man (1964). He had graduated with a degree in drama from North Carolina Central University in 1954 (the theater troupe of the historically black college now bears Dixon's name). He also studied drama at Case Western Reserve University and the American Theatre Wing before he had gotten into acting. It was his five years on the sitcom Hogan's Heroes where he honed his interest of directing, doing so by asking questions about the process of directing and editing when on set due to not having time for film school. The movie was written by John D. F. Black (who had co-wrote the 1971 adaptation of Shaft with Ernest Tidyman), who also served as co-producer with Joel Freeman. The movie was released by 20th Century Fox, albeit with a cheap budget. This was the first major film role for Hooks, who had a few supporting roles in previous films such as Hurry Sundown (1967) along with a regular role in the TV series N.Y.P.D (1967-69); he was also the co-founder of the Negro Ensemble Company. The music was done by famed singer Marvin Gaye in his one and only soundtrack.

The movie was not a major hit upon release, but I would argue that it deserved better than just being thought of as being in the shadow of Shaft (I kid you not, there was a book written by alleged film writers that called this one of the worst films of all time in 1978 - I say "alleged" because it is clearly obvious how times have changed with taste). Both films featured cool lead characters - one that is "hip" and the other being a benefactor to the community. Shaft had a cool leather suit, and T drives a Lincoln Continental. Shaft just happened to strike the perfect note for the perfect moment that even its sequels couldn't reach, but Trouble Man is dedicated to being a hardboiled adventure and mostly succeeds in that goal. For all the naysayers that came with films in the so-called "blaxploitation" genre, film viewers know one thing: cool movies come in all shapes and sizes, and Hooks for an unflappable pillar of coolness. If it wasn't meant to be replicated with sequels, Hooks sure gave his all in terms of steely charm that is both detective and fixer of the best type, one who isn't merely a "West Coast" Shaft, but instead a man with distinctions and timing that we are always curious through and through.  Both of the adversaries gained notice for feature roles in media besides this film: Waite starred in The Waltons, which premiered on television a couple of months before this film while Winfield gained an Academy Award nomination for Sounder, which premiered the same year as this film. At any rate, they make for capable natural foils to Hooks, conniving without becoming cardboard, while Harris provides the necessary "big bad" energy when required. Jones provides a bit of energy to counter Hooks, while Smithers makes a quality authority foil. The best crime thrillers come from how convincing they seem in actually wanting to show something interesting on screen, and I believe this fits most of the steps needed worth checking out for 99 minutes. Under looked for the time, Trouble Man is a feature with plenty to offer for those looking for a mostly-developed crime thriller with a worthy lead actor and style to go along with it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Next up: Sounder.

Shaft's Big Score!

Review #1045: Shaft's Big Score!

Cast: 
Richard Roundtree (John Shaft), Moses Gunn (Bumpy Jonas), Drew Bundini Brown (Willy), Joseph Mascolo (Gus Mascola), Kathy Imrie (Rita), Wally Taylor (Johnny Kelly), Julius Harris (Capt. Bollin), Rosalind Miles (Arna Asby), and Joe Santos (Pascal) Directed by Gordon Parks (#610 - Shaft (1971))

Review: 
The original Shaft movie was described by me as one with an "epitome of cool", in part due to its title character, action sequences, and its music. It had a style to it that is hard to beat and even harder to replicate, although that doesn't mean the sequel isn't any good. Shaft's Big Score! is fairly entertaining fare, with a cast that does its job with flying colors and some interesting action sequences to push this over the top for the most. Admittedly, the story is a bit sketchy at times with its execution and the pacing isn't as rip-roaring, mostly because the film seems a bit muddy with its motivations (even the title seems to be a bit strange considering what occurs in the film), but it's not a terribly boring movie. Roundtree is the key standout, retaining the confident charisma from the original while also being fairly hip and fairly consistent, resembling James Bond but without the gadgets.

Gunn also returns, although he isn't given too much to do. Taylor also does a pretty fine job in an adversarial role that doesn't go too over the top. Mascolo is the main villain (with Taylor also serving as an adversary), but it takes probably a bit too much time to introduce him and thus his performance is merely just okay. The rest of the cast do their jobs fairly well. The film retains the same director from the original, Gordon Parks (who also provides the music due to Issac Hayes being unavailable) along with Ernest Tidman, writer (along with producer) who had written the book that Shaft was based off of and cinematographer Urs Furrer. The climax scene, which goes from land to sea to air, manages to stand out fairly well due to having a gritty but riveting feel that is executed pretty well. This is the kind of film that has a certain energy and click that is absorbing for a blockbuster like this. On the whole, the movie is a bit uneven at times, but it also is an entertaining kind of action flick that makes for a useful good time.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

King Kong (1976)

Review #726: King Kong.

Cast
Jeff Bridges (Jack Prescott), Charles Grodin (Fred S. Wilson), Jessica Lange (Dwan), John Randolph (Captain Ross), Rene Auberjonois (Roy Bagley), Ed Lauter (Carnahan), Julius Harris (Boan), and Jack O'Halloran (Joe Perko) Directed by John Guillermin.

Review
If you want to promote your remake of a 1933 classic (#283), here's a good tag line: The most exciting original motion picture event of all time. Granted, this movie is about as original as a baloney sandwich trying to call itself a ham sandwich, but it certainly has a good ring to it, especially when produced by Dino De Laurentiis. Let me make this perfectly clear from the beginning: If it's between this and the original film, stick to the original film. But it could be argued that this film knows that going in, so it tries to do something different, with a campier tone, 130 minutes, and actual filming locations instead of stages. Carlo Rambaldi designed the effects for this film, and he helped construct a 40 foot mechanical version of Kong, which shows up (briefly) near the end of the movie. It's clear that the movie wants to show the technical aspect and then build characters around that. In a way, it works, although the end product is not exactly as grand as it could've been. The motivations and plot are updated into a quest for oil, which I suppose is creative, though it ends the same way as the original...At least they include Kong's heartbeat before he dies, so that's something new. How the cast does depends on what you (the viewer) want: If you like the idea of campy infused people interacting around the main attraction (Kong), go for it. For me, they're okay. They just seem to get in the way half of the time, though Bridges and Grodin (all fashion and hair aside) seem to do okay. Bridges' character cheering for Kong taking down the helicopters is strange, considering he's seen Kong throw people off a log into a pit, crush people on the ground, and throwing debris towards people. And yet, he cheers him as if he's done nothing wrong. If you don't want Lange's character to be eaten, then that's a good thing for you. Like the original, this film's effects are a product of their time, and for most of the movie, Kong looks relatively good, without much light shown, anyway. Near the end it looks a little more fake, but the movie doesn't linger too much on that. No, it lingers more on just about everything else, from the oil to Bridges-Lange, etc. John Barry's music is a highlight. Take this movie for what it is: A jumbled flow of effects and 70's style filmmaking that can be hit or miss. For me, it's sometimes enjoyable, but other times it's just okay.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Live and Let Die.

Review #293: Live and Let Die.

Cast
Roger Moore (James Bond), Yaphet Kotto (Dr. Kananga/Mr. Big), Jane Seymour (Solitaire), Julius Harris (Tee Hee Johnson), David Hedison (Felix Leiter), Gloria Hendry (Rosie Carver), Clifton James (J.W. Pepper), Geoffrey Holder (Samedi), Bernard Lee (M), Roy Stewart (Quarrel Jr) Directed by Guy Hamilton (#280 - Diamonds Are Forever, #289 - The Man with the Golden Gun, and #291 - Goldfinger)

Review
This was the eighth Bond film, two years after the love it or hate it Diamonds Are Forever. In a way, this is like a trilogy, three straight films in order by the same director all with James Bond. But is this any better then the other two? Yes...and no. This was Roger Moore's first film as James Bond (Even though this is the third review of him as James Bond, sorry for the reviewing paradox), and he does a reasonable job, making the role slowly turn into his own, away from Connery (and Lazenby), which is a good thing. It's a shame that the film around him isn't exactly "good", though. Its plot lines are weird at points, making me wonder if I watching a Bond film or one of those random 70's films you might find in a cheap DVD pack. And that's another flaw of the film, it's dated at some points. (The fashion, the club locations, even the dialogue at times) What does dated mean exactly? It means that over time a film doesn't look as good as it might've been in its time, instead it looks like only a product of the 70's and not much else. The villain is not very impressive nowadays compared to other villains the Bond series has had (Goldfinger, Blofeld, Klebb, Jaws, even Franz Sanchez), and his henchmen Tee Hee reminds me too much of Dr. No, who wasn't exactly impressive to being with. The leading lady (Also known as the Bond girl, but I thought that would be weird to say) is excellent, having a purpose and being noteworthy enough to escape just being a girl who Bond saves. I'd almost forgotten that Q isn't in this film, and he usually provided some sort of fun, even if it was for one or two scenes. The action is mildly enjoyable. In the end, this film might be a step up or a small misstep for the Bond franchise, not being horrible, but not being very good either. At least Moore would have better opportunities as Bond. I think. Countdown to 300 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7...

Overall, I give it 007 out of 10 stars.