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

Blood Simple.

Review #1063: Blood Simple.

Cast: 
John Getz (Ray), Frances McDormand (Abby), Dan Hedaya (Julian Marty), M. Emmet Walsh (Private detective Lorren Visser), Samm-Art Williams (Meurice), and Deborah Neumann (Debra) Directed by Joel Coen and Ethan Coen (#659 - True Grit (2010) and #765 - Fargo)

Review: 
Blood Simple was the directorial debut of the Coen brothers (although due to guild rules Joel was the one credited as director while Ethan was credited as producer, with both also writing the film), with future director Barry Sonnenfield serving as cinematographer. The film has its edge of darkness and amusing nature, with a fine balance that never comes off as inconsistent nor endless. It's a twisted film that also serves as a good neo-noir that pulls its devious strings of paranoia and guilt with characters that certainly accompany the movie in their own particular ways. Easily the best part of the film is Walsh, who manages to elevate the character onto a sort of legal edge that can be both ruthless and amusing - never coming off as too much of one thing while also being an interesting person to watch on-screen. Getz and McDormand prove to be a fairly decent pairing, being adept at their situations that make this escape of a romance seem right and not out-of-place. Hedaya plays his slimy role comfortably well, doing his role with a sort of relish and emotion that seems right at home for a film like this. The film certainly has a good look to it, having a feel to it that is important to making such a tawdry tale come alive without being glitzy nor overtly muddled. The climax is tense and quick to the point, with a final line that certainly closes the film out on the right note. It is clear that the Coen brothers had a good vision that they wanted to tell on-screen, and they certainly achieve that, weaving a film that succeeds as a piece of noir that manages to hit more times than it misses. They manage to build tension without suffocating the audience in too many cuts or being too long, with this film lasting 96 minutes (with a director's cut that tightens the editing along with shortening certain shots that runs slightly shorter), which feels just right for this movie. Ultimately, this is a fine piece of film-making from the Coen brothers that certainly shows a kind of ingenuity and flair that makes for good entertainment if you're in the mindset for it.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.