Furious on Film 03.22.07: Issue 81
Posted by Arnold Furious on 03.22.2007
Pathetic earthlings. Hurling your bodies out into the void, without the slightest inkling of who or what is out here. If you had known anything about the true nature of the universe, anything at all, you would've hidden from it in terror.
Pathetic earthlings. Hurling your bodies out into the void, without the slightest inkling of who or what is out here. If you had known anything about the true nature of the universe, anything at all, you would've hidden from it in terror.
Fuck the intro. You know what I'm about by now. Except I'm now using my teaser line to throw out a classic quote from a film of the past in an attempt to tie it into what I'm talking about in the column. Sort of. Last week was James Brown in the Blues Brothers hearing the "jingle jangle of a thousand lost souls departed from this world". I liked the tie in with word Departed, which was the main film of last week's column. It also reflected the need for finality and a conclusion.
Warning could well contain minor spoilers throughout. Films are rated on a ***** scale. This week we have
United 93, Nacho Libre, Baby Boy, Color of Money
United 93 (2006)
EXPECTATIONS United 93 received a great deal of positive praise on first release. In fact it's the first film in my memory to ever get 10.0 off both its reviewers here at 411. Both Chad Webb and Bryan Kristopowitz gave it the perfect score. Given their choice of films is usually quite different that intrigued me. How can a film get two differing reviewers to come to the same conclusion? Especially a film based on real and very emotional events like United 93. I just couldn't see how it could please all comers. Furthermore director Paul Greengrass received a nomination for best director at the Academy Awards. They don't just hand those out for nothing. Over on Rottentomatoes.com it has a whopping 91%. The only people who bashed it didn't want to see it in the first place. Surely, these reviewers knew what they were letting themselves in for? For those who don't here are some hints.
TRAILER
PLOT Based on the events of 9/11 and centred on United flight 93, which was the only plane hijacked on that fateful day not to hit its target. Director Paul Greengrass takes a look at the events in real time visiting in on the air traffic controllers, those in charge of American airspace and the US air force as well as the interior of flight 93.
OPINION Watching United 93 brought a lot of memories flowing back. As with everyone else in the world I remember where I was when I heard about the World Trade Center being hit by a plane. It's the event of our generation that compares to the moon landing or the day JFK was shot. It overshadows Princess Diana's death or anything else in my lifetime. I remember first hearing about 9/11 when my best friend Andy rang me up. Unlike in America it wasn't early morning but rather into the afternoon because of the time difference. He told me to turn on my TV, which I couldn't because I was at work, so I switched on the radio instead. The coverage was much the same with them talking in great detail about what had happened. I was running a branch of Thresher at the time and every customer that came in stopped that little bit longer to listen to the radio. Things like this don't just happen. Multiple hijackings in one day. It doesn't happen. It shouldn't ever be allowed to happen. Paul Greengrass attempted something very difficult when he made United 93. He wanted to recreate the tension and the emotions of that day. Some people wouldn't be ready for it but he felt that enough people were ready. I remember thinking back in 2001 that 9/11 was like watching a movie because planes don't just crash into skyscrapers and bring them down in the middle of New York. And I felt that the World Trade Center would be the central figure of any film when it was eventually made. So Greengrass' choice to make his film around United 93 almost didn't make sense. But as the story unfolds it makes perfect sense. Of all the bad things that happened on 9/11 the one positive was the crew and passengers of United 93 coming together and standing up for their country. Their attempts to take control back of the plane are the defining moments of the day. They stopped another attack on innocent civilians on the ground. With United 93 headed towards Washington and the capital building there's every chance they could have killed thousands of innocent people on the ground. The people on that plane, while they intended to survive, made sure that their lives weren't lost for nothing. Greengrass made one major important decision during his filming as well. The decision to film United 93 in real time, like the hit TV show 24, gives a sense of tension that's simply incredible. The tension kicks in watching the terrorists preparing to strike. You know that they will but seeing them sit there with beads of sweat forming on their heads makes for incredible tension. Then we get the same tension from the air traffic controllers as they follow the hijacked planes. As a viewer we know where they're headed but the air traffic controllers don't. The tension is almost unbearable as you want to scream out that the planes are headed for New York. They're going to hit Manhattan. If that part of the film is unbearable, and incredibly distressing (look at the reactions of everyone when the planes hit) that's nothing on the film's conclusion. Its tension that is to strong I had to remind myself to breath. I found my fists clenched as the passengers stormed the cockpit. As the ground spiralled into view my heart was in mouth. United 93 isn't so much a film as an experience. There's nothing else like it and I'm almost glad that's the case. It's hard to take on board. I felt very emotionally crushed after watching it and as a result I watched all the documentaries attached to see how people had reacted the film. Seeing the actors and the passengers families interact was cathartic. I don't think I'd have slept that night without it. United 93 may not have the best acting or even the best directing in the world but what it does have is feeling. It's incredibly powerful. There's no other film like it.
BEST BIT The storming of the cockpit. The tension that had built up for over an hour was finally being released but not completely because they still needed to gain control of the plane. The defiance of the terrorists was there until the end without them ever being portrayed as stereotypical bad guys. The fight in the cockpit was horrifying. The sense of doom hung in the air.
RATING - *****. While I think it's impossible to rate the full whack seems justified. It's a film that lingers in the memory for days much like the original events did back in 2001. It may be the most tension filled film in the entire history of cinema and is one of the most important films ever made as a result. Just writing about it has left me with an unpleasant feeling in my gut. It'll be a long time before I'll be able to watch it or think about it again.
Sidenote if you're looking for a slightly lighter note I found a post in the midst of a race argument on IMDB.com; "I just can't believe that a plane with Sledgehammer on board got hijacked." Thanks to New Zealand based poster "dudekarma" for that one.
Nacho Libre (2006)
EXPECTATIONS I've always enjoyed Jack Black's work. In particular the two Tenacious D albums, which I must have heard a thousand times. In acting terms he seems to be finding it hard to make an impact because everyone already has a pre-conceived idea of who Jack Black is before the film starts. There are many cases in point; Saving Silverman, Orange County, Envy. Jack has occasionally gone against type in an attempt to diversify himself somewhat but both of those fell short. He played a relatively straight character in Shallow Hal, which sucked something fierce. He also went straight for King Kong, in which he faired somewhat better but he tended to play second fiddle to the special effects. I'd say Jack's best cinematic effort to date is School of Rock. It combined the essence of Jack Black with things he enjoys like rock music. It helped that it was written by his friend Mike White. Encouragingly White is also the writer on Nacho Libre along with the director of Napoleon Dynamite, Jared Hess. He's looking to avoid a sophomore jinx while Jack looks to establish himself as a legitimate film star. If you consider School of Rock the only real lead performance from Jack then he works the box office. School of Rock took home $81M at the US Box Office. The big question is whether Jack can escape his own shadow and make films that show some depth (like Jim Carrey rather than say, Pauly Shore). Or will he always be the smartass clerk in High Fidelity?
Sidenote God, I love High Fidelity. Apart from the bit with Catherine Zeta-Jones in. I always skip that part. But everything with Jack Black in is pure gold. "We're no longer called Sonic Death Monkey. We're on the verge of becoming Kathleen Turner Overdrive, but just for tonight, we are Barry Jive and his Uptown Five".
TRAILER
PLOT Friar Ignacio (Jack Black) is frustrated with his life as a cook at an orphanage. He sees his life as one long failure and seeks to be a luchadore by night donning a mask and the name Nacho. For this he persuades a street beggar Esqueleto (Hector Gimenez) to become his tag team partner and they begin their careers in the ring.
OPINION Nacho Libre rides entirely on whether you like Jack Black. Every gag is derived from his appearance (with Kevin Keegan bubble perm and 80's Hispanic moustache) and how ridiculous he looks dressed as a luchadore. Napoleon Dynamite director Jared Hess doesn't really do much. It seems the script was a combination of him and Mike White and I can't help but think the funny gags are probably Mike's. He knows what Jack Black can do and so tailors gags to suit the star. The script is certainly thrown together and lacks any kind of fluidity. The Ignacio character seems to drift all over the place rarely exhibiting the kind of behaviour you'd expect from a friar. I know that being ludicrous is normally not an issue when talking about comedies but I find, unless it's a spoof like Airplane, that keeping yourself grounded in reality is often funnier than having a central character who changes to accommodate the gags. Which is why School of Rock is funny. The script allows Jack to be one character throughout and yet maintain a series of strong gags. Nacho Libre has not one but a multitude of uneven characters. There's no build up to the big gags and ultimately an unfunny script can't be saved by all the efforts of Jack Black. And that is the one positive about this. Nacho Libre is essentially a failure but Jack Black busted his ass to try and make it happen. It's not his fault the director failed. It's not his fault the script wasn't good enough. Hess, to be fair, seems more focused on the actual mechanics of film making here rather than the artistic side and Nacho Libre is probably a better looking film that Napoleon Dynamite but creatively it's a bomb. If it had a less energetic star it could have been a disaster of epic proportions but I just find it hard to dislike Jack Black in anything, Shallow Hal aside. Here's a little aside for you. Back in the 80's there was this film called Night of the Comet. It came out in 1984. I saw it on TV for the first time a few years later. It was one of my favourites growing up and I had it on tape. But I saw it the other night and it really doesn't hold up. It's a nice idea but the actual execution is average at best. Sure, it starred Robert "Chakotay" Beltran but beyond that the acting was pretty weak. I imagine there will be dozens of kids who grow up loving Nacho Libre. It's the kind of film that has enough good bits that the memory will carpet over the lack of consistency. But that doesn't mean I have to like it.
BEST BIT the surprise baptism. The only really, really laugh out loud gag in the film.
RATING - **. I was disappointed by Nacho Libre. It isn't funny enough. It isn't consistent enough. It doesn't build characters well. It doesn't have a realistic theme or conclusion. The only pleasing moment was Jack busting out La Majistral for the pin at the end. But the rules of wrestling don't seem to apply to the matches. That killed the any interest I had in the wrestling aspect. In particular Nacho losing his first match by taking a dropkick to the back of the head. No pin. No count out. No submission. The one guy hits a dropkick and therefore he wins. Yeah. I've lost a lot of interest in Jared Hess thanks to this. Interestingly this also took $80M at the US box office showing that people will give something a try regardless of reviews. The problem for everyone involved is that they're less likely to come back after seeing it.
Baby Boy (2001)
EXPECTATIONS Last week I watched Four Brothers and noted I'd missed out on Baby Boy, another John Singleton movie, and low and behold it arrives on rental the next week. Starring two of my favourite underground and unknown stars in Tyrese Gibson and Hustle & Flow's Taraji P. Henson I thought I couldn't go wrong. It was sold on the name value of support player Snoop Doggy Dogg although he isn't in the film that much. But it also has another big star in Ving Rhames (of Pulp Fiction, Mission Impossible and Con Air).
TRAILER A fan made one for a change
PLOT Jody (Tyrese Gibson) is an unemployed slacker with two kids by two different women. The current girlfriend Yvette (Taraji P. Henson) is getting frustrated with Jody's refusal to leave his Mom's house. Jody's desire to stay at home becomes more intense after his Mom's new boyfriend and ex-jailbird Melvin (Ving Rhames) moves in and starting cooking in the nude. Jody thinks Mel is bad news and will start beating on his Mom if he leaves her alone. But matters are pushed to a head when Yvette's ex-boyfriend Rodney (Snoop Dogg) gets released from prison and moves back into her apartment.
OPINION My first problem with Baby Boy was that I hated every character in it. Seriously now. Who am I rooting for here? I would assume it's meant to be Jody but the man is lazy, unmotivated, disrespectful, idle, wasting his time and talent and being a bad father to two different babies. And not being a responsible adult. My contempt for the character grew as the film progressed and he spent more and more time hanging out with his buddy Sweetpea (Omar Gooding). He's truly a worthless piece of crap if ever I've seen one. He alternates his time between shouting at his woman and playing video games. Then there's Rodney who is frankly a total scumbag in every respect. The influenza virus has a more likeable personality than this guy. Mel is a violent bastard. Jody's Mom is psychotic with horrendous mood swings. I thought I'd end up rooting for Yvette because of how badly she gets dumped on during the film but she acts like a complete possessive bitch half the time. It's a nightmare. Someone really needed to be thinking about the script before shooting it and thinking about how horribly unlikeable all the characters are. While I like where Melvin goes during the course of the film and a much lesser extent Jody also that's not enough to redeem them. They don't make big changes. They make enough of a change to stop them being scum. That's about it. And they're still not likeable people even after that. Rodney is acceptable because he's supposed to be a bad guy but his character is just so ridiculous it's insane to watch. It makes no sense. He gets threatened by a call to a parole officer and that stops him raping Yvette but then he attempts a drive by ten minutes later. What the fuck? So he doesn't mind going to prison for murder but rape would be too much? It's not like he even has any justification for attacking anyone. He's been allowed back out into civilised society and cheated to do so and yet seems like that gives him a licence to act like a total jerk. While all of this could be considered a strong social commentary, and I've certainly heard that as an excuse, those people should try comparing Baby Boy to Boyz n the Hood. The power of the latter is way above what's being presented here. In Boyz n the Hood everyone was trapped in South Central and some of the more likeable characters were trying to get out of it. That led to some real heartbreak and a great story. But in Baby Boy the character who's supposed to be improving his lot in life, Jody, is a lazy fucker. He just wants things to be dropped into his lap. His only attempts at making money are the grifty fast buck approach. He needs to get his ass a job to try and pay for the two kids he's carelessly dumped into the world. The only really strong performance in Baby Boy is Ving Rhames who oozes class in every scene. It's just a pity his character isn't more consistently likeable. But then of all the cast Rhames is the one I most identified with as he tries to talk some sense into Jody. Who naturally doesn't listen because he thinks he knows it all. What a prick.
BEST BIT Melvin's "guns and butter" monologue.
RATING - **1/2. Promised much but delivered very little. Most of the cast is wasted in one dimensional and often nonsensical roles. Worse still, Baby Boy is never any fun. In fact worse than that, it comes off as preachy and repetitive.
Top Ten Films by Decade
Oh lordy. 1970's. This was tough. For starters I had six films that could have been #1. Putting them in some sort of order was incredibly hard. Then I had another ten after those that belonged in a top ten. Great decade for cinema for the 1970's. I had to leave out Star Wars (I know, I was upset myself but I figured everyone has seen it anyway), Live & Let Die (one of my favourite Bond films), Westworld (one of my personal favourites), Life of Brian, Deer Hunter, Alien, Apocalypse Now, Manhattan and Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore. Not to mention one of the best kung-fu films ever, Snake in the Eagles Shadow. Ultimately I felt they weren't as good as the top ten. When I was left originally with 11 it was Star Wars v One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest for the last spot. Well, Star Wars did get the box office. I'll be nice to Milos Forman. Believe it or not it doesn't get any easier. The 80's and 90's countdowns had me moving stuff around constantly and chances are the lists will change again before next week. When I get up past 2000 I think it'll have to be a top ten by year, which could well make for better reading.
1970's
1. Chinatown
2. The Godfather Part II
3. Network
4. The Godfather
5. MASH
6. Patton
7. Annie Hall
8. Close Encounters of the Third Kind
9. Monty Python and the Holy Grail
10. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
The Color of Money (1986)
EXPECTATIONS Martin Scorsese attempted to spread his wings somewhat during the 1980's. While he stuck to New York (write what you know) his films was less gangster orientated. Take Raging Bull, After Hours and King of Comedy. After Color of Money he took on his most ambitious project with the Last Temptation of Christ. The Color of Money is the sequel to 1961's The Hustler. Scorsese only needed one member of the original cast, the titular hustler Fast Eddie, Paul Newman. The Color of Money would be a sequel where Newman's Eddie sought out a replacement at the table for himself. Much like Newman himself sought out a replacement in terms of movie star. The answer to both was Tom Cruise. He was a star very much on the rise. Coming off Risky Business, All the Right Moves and Legend the producers of Color of Money had to good fortune to cast Cruise in a film to be released shortly after Cruise's next project Top Gun. Cruise was about to become one of Hollywood's biggest stars so the timing of this film was excellent.
TRAILER Er, I have nothing here.
PLOT Fast Eddie (Newman) is a liquor salesman although he still incorporates a good deal of hustling into his job. He doesn't realise it but he'd like to get back into the world of hustling. He finds the perfect opportunity when he bumps into hot shot pool player Vincent Lauria (Tom Cruise) and his girlfriend/manager Carmen (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio).
OPINION As much as I'm a mark for Scorsese this sequel pales in comparison next to the sharp and well defined characters of the Hustler. Although Paul Newman shows up on form he's alone in that respect and the script has his brilliant character weaving all over the place. Whenever Fast Eddie was annoyed or upset in The Hustler it was with good reason. In the Color of Money he seems to get wound up at the slightest minor irritation and then pouts off in a hissy fit like a big girl. This lack of quality is even more surprising from a film directed by Martin Scorsese. He almost glides through this on autopilot throwing in some cute close up's of pool balls slamming into pockets that have none of majesty and style of Robert Rossen's original film. Yeah, Color of Money is probably a slightly more attractive looking film but it doesn't capture the ambiance and stark reality of the game like the Hustler did. Moreover it's an unnecessary sequel. Fast Eddie doesn't need the remainder of his story telling. He was fine finishing up the way he did at the end of the Hustler. He didn't need this bullshit second coming. Obviously Scorsese feels he does and who am I to argue with him? Much like with Baby Boy I really don't end up wanting success for any of the people involved in this whole situation though. Fast Eddie has already been there and done that and walked away. Vincent is a jerk and always will be and doesn't even begin to see how he's a jerk and why it's an issue. You get the feeling he'll end up being a jerk for the entire rest of his life. And Carmen will probably put up with it because she's a first degree gold-digger who's attached herself to someone capable of making her rich. The only thing that surprises me is she didn't push him harder before Fast Eddie shows up. The thing that would worry me is that Fast Eddie isn't an interesting the second time around because he went through so much in the Hustler. There's only so much a man can go through. The only really good scene in the Color of Money features a cameo from Forest Whitaker as a hustler called Amos. He shows the kind of talent in five minutes that Cruise lacks throughout the entire film and plays off Paul Newman beautifully in the process. His character might be well written but it's Whitaker that gives it heart. It amazes me that it's taken Hollywood this long to figure out how good he really is. That scene has some reasonable flow and sense to it. The rest of the film is badly lacking in that and in anything approaching tension. Like the obvious conclusion of pitting Newman against Cruise in a legitimate hearts on the line battle. The master versus the student. And that's a scene that never happens. It could have easily redeemed the Color of Money. But maybe there was more money in leaving that out for another time and another money making sequel.
BEST BIT Forest Whitaker's Amos comes across as a loveable loser facing off against the veteran pool player Fast Eddie who thrashes him for a while. That could have been a dynamic I'd have enjoyed seeing across the entire film. Rather than the bland teacher-student thing that Newman & Cruise had going on.
RATING - ***. While I didn't dislike the Color of Money I was subconsciously comparing it to the Hustler throughout because of how recently I'd seen the original. And it simply doesn't stand up to the level of performances in that film. Tom Cruise really bit off more than he could chew at that stage of his career although Paul Newman is strong throughout and won an Oscar because of it. It's good but considering who's onboard for this flick it should have been great. Timeless even.
Sidenote I can't help but feel that the powerful nature of United 93 left it overriding everything else I saw this week. It's no coincidence that after watching the Color of Money I've left a four day stint open with no films in whatsoever. I feel the need to cleanse my palate somewhat.
ELSEWHERE
Chad Webb has the Big Screen Bulletin. Hmm, wonder if he'd like a preview of the 100th Furious on Film.
Leonard Hayhurst has Ask 411 Movies. What's with Americans getting drunk on green beer for St Patrick's Day? Why not just drink Guinness? That's what us Brits do.
Will Helm once again looks at Dune because it's so fucking long it didn't fit in one column. I still hate Dune. Not the Frank Herbert book mind you, just the film.
Finally George Sirois talks A Few Good Men in Scene Anatomy.
NEXT Syriana, 36, 8 ½ and Jurassic Park 2 in Furious on Film #82.
