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

The Color Purple.

Review #1478: The Color Purple.

Cast:
Danny Glover (Albert "Mister" Johnson), Whoopi Goldberg (Celie), Oprah Winfrey (Sofia), Margaret Avery (Shug Avery, Táta Vega as singing voice), Akosua Busia (Nettie Harris), Adolph Caesar (Old Mister Johnson), Willard E. Pugh (Harpo Johnson), Rae Dawn Chong (Squeak), Laurence Fishburne (Swain), and Carl Anderson (Reverend Samuel) Directed by Steven Spielberg (#126 - Close Encounters of the Third Kind, #168 - Raiders of the Lost Ark, #169 - Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, #170 - Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, #302 - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, #351 - Schindler's List, #480 - Jaws, #563 - The Sugarland Express, #573 - E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, #642 - Jurassic Park, #958 - Always, #1068 - Ready Player One, and #1305 - Catch Me If You Can)

Review:
"Storytelling is the most important aspect of anything I've ever done. It's how the story is told. That's all I've focused on. If something doesn't tell a story or if it's confusing, I either don't shoot it or I cut it out."
"The way I played Celie was to stand back from her. There's a theory that an actor should identify with the character. Well, I loved her, but I didn't identify with her. Celie is so far away from me, it was easy to allow her pain to be there, because her life has so little to do with mine.”

Who better to do a tender and touching in humanity than Steven Spielberg? He grew into a filmmaker through shorts as a teenager with an 8mm camera. His first film that he made released to any sort of cinema was Firelight (1964), a $500 film released in his local cinema made at the age of 17 (made with the help of his family and high school students). His short subject Amblin' (1968) impressed numerous people and led to a deal at Universal in their television department, with the most notable contribution being the second segment of the 1969 Night Gallery pilot "Eyes", and he spent four years doing direction in television, with his theatrical debut being a expanded version of his TV film Duel (1971). Over the course of the next couple of years, Spielberg would generate success in captivating entertainment such as Jaws (1975, often cited as the first blockbuster), Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977, his first sci-fi feature that he also wrote), and Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981, likely one of the greatest adventure films). The two people who helped bring the film to attention and convince Spielberg to do the film was Kathleen Kennedy (who brought the book to his attention) and composer legend Quincy Jones, who helped produced the film with Spielberg, Kennedy, and Frank Marshall while also doing the music composition (however, a dispute came about with certain music aspects that led to eleven musicians being listed as score contributors when it came to a nomination for its score at the Academy Awards). The film was adapted to the screen by Menno Meyjes from the Pulitzer Prize-winning novel of the same name that had been written by Alice Walker in 1982 (I remember Walker from her short story "Everyday Use", which I read in college).

It is a film of resilience and humanity through and through a story that spans several years that features numerous distinct characters that we find quite a bit to resonate with, even with how tragic it might get, a film involving discussion upon race, gender, and class that eventually leads to hope. It makes the most of its 153 minutes in capturing a tale of adversity with a worthy cast. The one who deserves the most credit for making the film come alive on screen is Goldberg, making her second film appearance after having been noticed by Spielberg because of her one-woman Broadway show (1984-85), and she had written a letter to Walker upon reading the novel about appearing in a film version. It is evident from the very first scene she appears on screen that she is going to deliver a touching performance. There is something about her that strikes at our soul with how true the performance seems in running the gamut of developing inner strength with a fully-fledged performance of conviction. Glover, a city administrator-turned-actor in an early prominent role before appearing in further celebrated films, proves just as tremendous on the other side of the coin, one with stark presence of oppression and fear that manages to not escalate into full caricature. News anchor-turned talk show host Winfrey proves just as worthy in striking power, which also applies to the free-spirited and clever Avery in generating riveting moments. Others to appreciate include the distinct Caesar and an interesting Pugh.

It was a film that attracted controversy because of percieved stereotypes against African Americans (which can come from people who either can't or won't face reality when it comes to perceived slights without reading the film further). There were others who thought that the relationship between Shug and Celie was not given enough emphasis, to which the easiest statement to make to that is this: It was 1985, and one can only do so much in a PG-13 film, and it isn't like the two don't kiss or anything (heaven forbid someone try to do subtlely without needing to go explicit). We are talking about a film (and book) that involves pedophilia, incest, and spousal violence, for God's sake - we may not wish to ever have to deal with these problems, but they exist for all races that we as a society have to still confront, with film being an interesting medium to show these problems in a meaningful way. In that sense, I believe the film does fine with making an interesting story about race and gender without falling prey to too much sentimentalism or heavy-handedness. It never feels too long for its own good, instead moving with poetic pace that earns its many moments, with the climatic reunion being especially well done in emotion.

Walker, when asked about the film, generally has stated that while it may not follow her vision, it does have "its own gift", while noting the differences in translation from novel to book, such as the reduced elements of the lesbian relationship of Celie and Shug or with its tinkering of certain elements of its ending. Spielberg himself noted the fact that he was "shy" about depicting some of the aspects of the Shug-Celie relationship without alienating audiences, saying that he may have been the wrong director to do their encounters. I suppose one could also note that the novel was also turned into a musical two decades later, having two runs on Broadway. For what it is worth, while it is not a perfect film, it generally reaches the heights it sets out to do with a stark tale of hope within a period drama that has a captivating cast alongside music and directing that make the grandest of ventures worth seeking out as a fascinating drama that holds its heart strong in what matters most: hope of the human spirit.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Redux: RoboCop 2.

Redux Review #004: RoboCop 2.

Cast
Peter Weller (Alex Murphy/RoboCop), Nancy Allen (Anne Lewis), Belinda Bauer (Dr. Juliette Faxx), Dan O'Herlihy ("The Old Man" / OCP President), Felton Perry (OCP Vice President Donald Johnson), Tom Noonan (Cain), Willard E. Pugh (Mayor Marvin Kuzak), Gabriel Damon (Hob), Galyn Görg (Angie), Stephen Lee (Officer Duffy), and Robert DoQui (Sgt. Reed) Directed by Irvin Kershner (#114 - The Empire Strikes Back)

Review
Welcome to a Redux Review of the original RoboCop 2 film, which is a revised review meant to say more about the movie as a whole. The rating will stay the same, but I feel that this Redux is necessary (which I could say for a good deal the original batch of reviews). Not to worry, there will be new reviews on the way, but I feel that the upcoming Redux Reviews are necessary to help better the evolution of Movie Night, and to help alleviate the unintentional month long hiatus. Enjoy. 

RoboCop 2. For me, it might actually be more disappointing than the third one because of the fact that even though it is better than RoboCop 3, the level of expectations/care is way, way less in that film than in this, a movie that resets Murphy into fighting (internally) the man-or-the-machine conundrum...that had been dealt with in the first film. The mood in this film is significantly more darker, and the violence is certainly more prevalent this time around. I do like the effects, especially with the climax, which is very impressive to watch. The movie does at least retain the Media Break/commercial interludes (my favorite being the one about Sun Block 5000, a blue sunscreen that causes skin cancer with frequent use), but it feels somewhat lacking in the most critical component: RoboCop.

The movie seems to focus more on the impending bankruptcy of Detroit (the movie did at least get one prediction true)...or the police strike...or the building of RoboCop 2...or the rise of Nuke, or pretty much anything that involves RoboCop being not as prominent this time around. Sure, he does get butchered into pieces and promptly gets restored...inputted with so many directives. I understand the idea behind it (example: RoboCop shooting at spots near a dude until he drops his cigarette...actually, that's just weird), but it barely goes anywhere due to RoboCop promptly frying himself and all of his directives. I guess its interesting that he does this willingly, but by that point, I was just waiting for RoboCop to be involved with taking down Nuke...which he does, technically. The movie isn't very enjoyable to watch, because there isn't much to root for, aside from RoboCop. I can't care too much for OCP and their troubles, and I can't care for the city's problems when the mayor resorts to taking drug lord money to pay off a debt...I could care about the police strike, if it wasn't for that it kinda just ends after RoboCop fries himself. The music by Leonard Roseman isn't terrible, but after a riveting score in the first film, having a theme in which a chorus sings out RoboCop's name is a bit much, don't you think? This isn't the 60's Batman theme (which is meant to be campy), you know. At least the movie continues the tradition of being filmed in Texas (this time being filmed in Houston - I guess Texan cities double well for Detroit?).

The acting this time around is fine, and I do like Weller, who seems like he really is trying to make the movie work, although he evidently had gripes with the third act, particularly with the lack of morality, in his words. Bauer is okay, but as for her character...I'll get to that shortly. O'Herlihy gets a chance to ham it up this time around, even yelling "BEHAVE YOURSELVES" to the two RoboCops near the end. It is a bit jarring to see the Old Man turn out to be evil, but I guess the plan of engineering a police strike to make the city default is one you have to conceal very well. Noonan does an alright job, but he doesn't have as much memorability as the previous villain. Granted, he does become RoboCop 2, but by then it's almost too late. And of course there's Gabriel Damon playing a foul-mouthed teenage member of Cain's gang that's also (probably, never counted) a murderer.

The idea of having the character in the movie comes off as both silly and flat-out ridiculously over-the-top stupid, especially when he takes over Cain's "empire" near the end. Actually, the worst scene is his death sequence, a scene that is absurd in the idea that anyone could feel any sympathy for this character - especially after he uses a lunch-box gun against cops. Sure, he's a kid that was killed (by Cain no less), but...nope, the sympathy card doesn't go that far. I'm aware that Frank Miller was hired to write the film, but his script (deemed "unfilmable" by the producers) was changed, though some of his ideas (such as Hob) stayed. I wonder whose idea it was to have RoboCop confront Cain (the second time) and have him play chicken with him on a motorcycle, though. Miller's words on the movie: "Don’t be the writer. The director’s got the power. The screenplay is a fire hydrant, and there’s a row of dogs around the block waiting for it."

My other gripe with the movie is the idea of putting a drug lord's brain into a cyborg body, using the drug as a way of controlling him (?!), because you can totally control someone who's bigger and stronger than you and is completely insane (you'd go insane if you were took off your ventilator and promptly see your head with only your eyes and brain to watch. Because what could go wrong-Yea, everything goes wrong for OCP really fast (what did you expect?!). Sure, the rest of OCP (minus Faxx, who picked the brain) probably didn't expect the result they got, especially after they sent the thing to murder the mayor and a group of city councilmen when trying to make a deal to save the city (I do like  Of course the Old Man displays a canister of Nuke right in front of RoboCop 2 when making a presentation about how the cyborg will rid the drug from the streets...and the crazed robot goes right for it. Logic is dead. Technically you could say the Old Man and Faxx get their comeuppance...in that they might go to jail. Whoopee, because that makes all of this mean-spirited mess worth it. It would be like if Boddicker went to jail instead of getting the sendoff that he got in the previous film (you know, the one that knew how to treat its characters).

For all the times I compare it to the first film, the movie isn't inherently terrible. It's just a very scrambled mess that comes off as too cynical and probably a bit too long (nearly 2 hours), while managing to be only mildly successful. It does have its moments, but it begs to be made with more competent storytelling, and that is the greatest crime of all.

We all know about the third one. And if you don't...you'll see. 
For the record, I didn't intend on writing over 1000 words for an inferior sequel, it just happened.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.