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

Vampire in Brooklyn.

Review #2455: Vampire in Brooklyn.

Cast: 

Eddie Murphy (Maximillian / Preacher Pauly / Guido), Angela Bassett (Detective Rita Veder), Allen Payne (Detective Justice), Kadeem Hardison (Julius Jones), John Witherspoon (Silas Green), Zakes Mokae (Dr. Zeko), Joanna Cassidy (Captain Dewey), W. Earl Brown (Police Officer), and Simbi Khali (Nikki) Directed by Wes Craven (#474 - A Nightmare on Elm Street, #558 - Scream, #633 - Red Eye, #939 - Swamp Thing, #1156 - Wes Craven's New Nightmare, #2135 - The Last House on the Left, #2306 - The Hills Have Eyes)

Review: 

"I don't think it's so unusual. Horror is very close to humor. The thing is I wanted the humor in `Vampire in Brooklyn' to come from the story - from the plot, not from Eddie. I wanted Eddie to be essentially a serious character. What I didn't want was just a black version of `Love at First Bite.' I didn't think `Love at First Bite' was very funny. I didn't want the comedy to be nearly that broad. Maybe my sense of humor is a little dry, or subtle, or whatever, but people seem to get it. I kept encouraging Eddie to play it straight.''

On October 27, 1995, a strange curiosity came into theaters: a Wes Craven movie with Eddie Murphy as the star. The story goes that Eddie Murphy was looking for something to just end his contract with Paramount Pictures and he apparently landed on a script that had been written by his brother Charlie alongside Vernon Lynch. Michael Lucker and Chris Parker were called to work on the script (ironically, they had written an Old West script that had intrigued Murphy but not Paramount). Hired to pitch it to Craven before pitching it to Paramount Pictures and then Murphy, they successfully got it greenlit in a matter of weeks. In an interview about the making of the film, Parker stated that the studio, in the first meeting about the movie, told them they wanted the movie to be funny but that Murphy didn't want to be funny and therefore they had to "trick him into being funny", while Lucker speculated that Craven had a tough time getting Murphy to be serious rather than falling back on doing jokes. The studio apparently cut the budget of the film during shooting to where they could not film the intended action scene for the climax. Amidst a production that its shares of troubles* (some from its star), the movie was only a mild success with audiences at the time, only just making double of its reported $14 million budget.* In 2011, Murphy (who at one point labeled the movie as a transitional one in his career) tried to lay blame on the sight of him with long-haired wig (as designed by makeup artist Toy Van Lierop) that was used in the film and reflected that he had to do something to get to do The Nutty Professor (1996). and later jokingly wondered if there was even an "Appreciation Club" for the film. For his part, Craven found it to be an "interesting experience" despite obvious difficulties and the limited potential that came from script/production challenges; Craven bounced back with his next film as a director with Scream (1996).

I will admit that Vampire in Brooklyn had been a longshot candidate for featuring in the past few years, but the chance to talk about a movie that is now three decades old did sound entertaining. And you know what? I liked this movie. Actually, I liked this misfit type of comedy-horror quite a bit, mainly because there is an odd frenzy to how the movie maneuvers itself that is off-putting yet always involving. Horror movies sometimes get a bum rap for being a bit too vicious and comedies sometimes get the "too low" rap, so it is a bit hard to really win with a horror comedy that has some chuckles to go along with vicious little moments that probably play to the cliches you see from certain vampire movies, which I should've seen coming from the name dropping of Blacula (1972). It starts out with a mysterious boat entering a port with seemingly nobody present, for one. The movie might seem confused for those who assume it will go straight horror or, well, comedy - a riff is fine by me (admittedly, it probably is a bit odd that one needs to get the girl before the full moon as a supposed last of his kind because I assumed you could just convert anyone to a vampire, although I guess maybe he's in the killing business instead anyway). It doesn't even take long for our title character to play puns with literally ripping a person's heart out because why not. The setup to eventually getting Murphy and Bassett in the same place just amuses me mostly because (intentionally or not), the vampire picked one of the worst folks to employ as a ghoul buddy, one who decides to resort to using a mannequin hand by the halfway point. I fail to see the problem with Murphy's hair. Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992) was the far more egregious one, mainly because I still think about that stupid beehive thing from time to time. I just see a cone-shape of hair, focus back to Murphy and move on, to be honest. Besides, the vampire effects utilized from time to time are pretty fascinating to eventually see play out (after the movie shows the various vampire habits, ranging from the wolf thing in the intro to...renovating messy rooms). And then of course there is Murphy and Bassett, who each do pretty well with what they interpret the film to be. Murphy might have had a bit of trepidation of what he really wanted to do with this film, as evidenced by a movie that has him do an opening narration to go along with playing multiple characters (for separate gags). Love it or hate it, you basically get a compromise that has peaks and valleys of humor with some interest in playing a quality villain that I like just fine. 

Bassett holds her own with the clash that arises in oneself being challenged in who they really are beyond what the flesh shows that makes for compelling vulnerability beyond just having her be an object to be moved around. Her parts of the film are basically not too far off from what you might see in a gaslighting thriller, and she makes that count for something, arguably. Hardison and his rapid decay as the toadie fit for the streets is pretty funny in what you can show for a suck-up not too far off from old Renfield, and Witherspoon pops in occasionally to pair off for coarse amusement. Payne makes a fine ordinary performance. In general, I took the movie as just having fun playing with the audience about where it really wants to go in one trying to escape the fate of a doomed race vs having situations as ridiculous as impersonating an Italian to rob a place only to shoot down a cat. I don't even hate the climax, mainly because sure, let's end it in an apartment rather than going all out on a bridge or a church like seemingly any other vampire movie just to really curve things to an offbeat angle. I particularly like the ending, in which you can interpret as playfully saying that the more things change, the more they stay the same, even for creatures of the night. As a whole, Vampire in Brooklyn is a delightfully strange little movie, managing to evoke a sense of joy in its macabre aspects that I thought was a neat ride.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

*Of sadder note is the loss of stuntwoman Sonja Davis, who suffered a horrific accident in November 1994 that saw her die from her injuries during a stunt.

*For reference, more people on opening weekend went to see Powder [1995], a movie made by an actual convicted child sex offender, than Vampire in Brooklyn. 

Not to editorialize, but the Ineligible List includes Jeepers Creepers 1-3 because a pedophile directed those movies.