Recently in Denzel Washington Category

Starring: Denzel Washington, Mila Kunis, Gary Oldman, Jennifer Beals, MIchael Gambon, Malcolm McDowell. Directed by The Hughes Brothers.Sci-Fi, Adventure. Synopsis: A wise and grizzled traveler makes his way westward on foot for years in a post apocalyptic and desolate American landscape, alll the while carrying and guarding a mysterious book.

Now, this one was a little bit different. The setting has been done before, post apocalypse/ nuclear war America, but I thought the flow of the story, not to mention the not-so-subtle underlying theme was kind of unique.

Eli (Denzel Washington The Manchurian Candidate  Inside Man) is a traveler who is walking across the country, going westward on foot, as he has been for the thirty or so years after "the flash", which is what everyone calls the huge event that, apparently, has made life what is at this time: desolate,  unforgiving and ravaged landscape with no rule of law or real societal structure. Many seemingly do not even seem to recall what life was like prior to the flash.

And, why is our protagonist trudging on foot? Well, the primary reason is that he has heard a calling to do so and he is a man of immense faith. The other is that the days of public transportation and in tact highways and biways are long gone. Eli carries with him a book, a large leather bound one and he is, to say the least, extremely protective of it. It seems obvious that some people would go to any lengths to get it. 

As you might surmise, such a breakdown in society will foster lawlessness and Eli has to fight off marauders and looters often...even when he comes to a town that appears to be relatively civilized.  

The town is run, effectively, by tough guy Carnegie (Gary Oldman Air Force One, The Contender)  who takes a very keen interest in obtaining Eli's book. He'll apparently stop at nothing, to the point of attempting to use his paramour, Claudia (Jennifer Beals Break A Leg Desolation Sound).  Attempts to pry the book, or any real information about it, from Eli prove unsuccessful, but Claudia's daughter, Solaris (Mila Kunis Extract Max Payne) is so fascinated by the mysterious Eli that she drops everything to follow him.

Eli, despite saving Solaris's life, is none to pleased to have her tag along but he eventually goes along with her presence reluctantly, though he is just as admant about not letting her look or touch the book nor will he tell her what it is or teach her to read. 

The Book of Eli is, in many ways, a very dark movie. The Hughes brothers do a great job of visually showing us a stark and decimated landscape where many people still bear the physical scars of what we presume was a nuclear holocaust, as well as some of the cultural and emotional ones as well.

For example, three decades after the "flash" there are a significant number of people who can't read, many of the younger ones have never seen a book.  Why is Eli's book so important and what will Carnegie do if/when he is able to get his hands on it?

There is a major reveal at the conclusion of the movie and, in my humble opinion, how you feel about the way the reveal is set up will likely be how you feel about the flick as a whole. For me, this is a good, not great film. I do think some might be turned off by the strong spiritual undertones of the film but, to be honest, in my opinion you can pretty much tell from the title what you're in for with this flick.  I'll probably never fully understand those who are so threatened by people who feel there things bigger-much bigger...incomprehensibly bigger...than  themselves and their immediate desires and needs.

Oh well, what the hell do I know, I just blog about flicks!

'    

Starring: Howard Rollins, Aldoph Caesar, Art Evans, Denzel Washington, Larry Riley, Trey Wilson, Robert Townsend, David Alan Grier, Wings Hauser, William Allen Young, John Hancock,  Dennis Liscomb, David Harris, Scott Paulin. Directed by Norman Jewison. Drama/Military/Historical Synopsis: An African American officer/lawyer is sent to an Army base in 1944 Louisiana to investigate the unsolved murder of antagonistic African American sergeant.

Seeing this one on DVD recently brought back some good memories of seeing it in the theater back in the day and I remember thinking that this Washington guy might have a chance to do some more movies, he seemed pretty good. But, truthfully, I remember thinking that this was just a hell of a good story, and it still is 25 years later.

Set against the backdrop of World War II in the segregated South with the segregated Army of the time, the story is told primarily in flashback, but starts with an obviously intoxicated Sergeant Waters (Aldophy Caesar The Color Purple) walking from a saloon back to base.

Notwithstanding the uniform he has on his drunken state  and, more importantly, the color of his skin make him less than impressive to the locals. In the next frame he is on his knees on a lonely road, bleeding and laughing at his (unseen) tormentor before he is shot in the chest.

And, from there, we have our movie. An army lawyer, who is also an officer (Howard Rollins Ragtime) is sent to investigate the crime and, boy, if you think an African American officer acting with authority raises some eyebrows nin 1944 Louisiana well, you're quite right, as we see from the moment the pleasantly surprised Corporal Ellis (Robert Townsend Hollywood Shuffle) picks him up until the time he meets the commanding officer of the all black company (Dennis Lipscomb Under Siege) and his questioning of all of the members of the company who knew the sergeant and also who might have wanted him dead.

The ensemble cast is excellent, with soldiers in the company being played by Art Evans (Fright Night), Larry Riley (Crackers), David Alan Grier (The Poker House), William Allen Young (District 9 Fear X), David Harris (Brubaker), and, of course Denzel Washington (The Book Of Eli). Also look for notable character actors John Hancock (Bonfire Of The Vanities),Trey Wilson (Rasing Arizona), and Wings Hauser (Tales From The Hood)

The story is well told, in flashback like I mentioned earlier, but we see who the killer of Sergeant Waters is as it's figured out/revealed to our protagonist, Captain Davenport (Rollins). I especially like how the story is nuanced, and told at several different levels. When doing a flick with old time segregationist/racist underlying theme, it would be easy to do it in a one-dimensional way, but that's not done here.

One thing that I really liked about the story is that it is told-completely-from the perspective of the African American characters and, as I indicated, its nuanced and multi-dimensional. If you really think about it, that makes this flick relatively rare when it comes to films dealing largely with some aspect of the African-American experience. Usually, the African American characters are regulated to window dressing status, if not outright buffonery. (See Mississippi Burning)

In this flick, you have the dual pleasure of a pretty good 'whodunnit?' along with a story about the social mores of the time and how much has changed since then. I think the flow of the story and its crisp telling onscreen has to be credited largely to director Jewison (In The Heat Of The Night), understanding he had an extremely talented cast of actors to work with.

One of my faves and, in my humble opinion, one of the best World War II themed American movies ever made.

Check it out and see if you agree.   

Well, you expect a flick with these two lead actors, not to mention a hefty supporting cast, to be pretty good and entertaining, and it is. I just don't that The Taking of Pelham 123  is going to meet your expectations because, I guessing you're like me and had very, very lofty expectations. Maybe a little too high.

The story is pretty straight forward, a fast talking and borderline psychotic mastermind who calls himself Ryder (John Travolta Pulp Fiction) and his group of henchmen (most prominently featuring Luis Guzman Q & A ) aggressively take control of an NYC subway train with the designation, as you might guess, of Pelham 1-2-3. The hold it and the passengers hostage, demanding 10 million in ransom within the hour. The thing is, they first guy the get on the line, again as you might guess, is the subway controller, Garber (Denzel Washington The Pelican Brief)  . But, Ryder is so impressed with Garver that he insists on speaking only with him during the negotiations, much to the chagrin of the lead detective on the case (John Turturro Secret Window) as well as ultimately some of the passengers.

With the lives of so many at stake and do little time-1 hour- to satisfy the demands given by Ryder the action and adrenaline getx pumping pretty fast. I thought the film did a pretty good job of injecting realism into the story: we have one of the hostages streaming the whole thing live to his girlfriend from his laptop, and when the mayor (James Gandolfini Get Shorty) is called in we see that he has the human flaws we all know powerful politicians have, but for the most part they pretend they don't, expemplified by the mayor's self assessment, "Rudy Guliani I ain't."

I refuse to be a spoiler, but I will tell you that the hijacking is not just what it appears to be from the outset, but the 'twist' is nothing to write home about, let's just say the fairly unpopular financial community takes one on the chin again.

To me, what makes Pelman 123 work to the extent it does is simply, the performance of the actors. Denzel is good in his familiar role as the good guy we all love to love, and Travolta is very good as the psychopathic criminal that, despite our best nature, we kind of like. I know we've seen John as a bad guy before, but not like this, he's really unhinged and it works, in my opinion, adding yet another layer to the depth of this great actor.

I also have to give a special shout out to Gandolfini, an actor of immense talent who will, fairly or not, always be Tony Soprano to many of us, in a role about as far from Tony (save some allegations of philandering) as you can get.

I don't have too much in the negative to say about the flick, other than it struck me as unlikely that criminals who had such a sophisticated plan for taking the subway would have such an ordinary 'get away' plan. I guess its like the New York Yankees in baseball. When you have the type of lineup they have, anything less than a World Series victory is disappointing, being merely good is an abject failure. Not fair or entirely logical, but true nevertheless. So, if I can stick with the baseball analogy, Pelham 123 has a lineup that makes you expect World Series win, but I think all you get is making the playoffs, which is good, but I think for some, won't be quite good enough.           

Directed by Spike Lee. Starring Denzel Washington, Clive Owen, Jodie Foster, Christopher Plummer, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Willem Dafoe. Drama/Action.

Synopsis: A seasoned hostage negotiator, under suspicion of wrongdoing himself, is assigned to a very unusual and drawn out robbery and hostage situation at a tony bank in Manhattan. However, it gradually becomes apparent that this bank heist is not what it seems, and there are interests at work other than just the money in the bank and the hostages whose freedom has been taken.

This film is a different type of movie from what you would expect on two fronts: its a "heist" movie, but set forth in a much different, non-chronological way; and it is another different type of movie for filmmaker Spike Lee.

A quick glance at any trailer or dvd box cover will tell you that this is an extrememly heavyweight cast, headed by a couple of Oscar Winners who can make arguments as to being the best actor/actress, respectively, of their generations, not to mention box office gurantees, and they are not the have of it, as the entire primary cast, even those in subordinate roles, is filled by top shelf actors/stars.

Inside Man doesn't waste any time getting into the plot and, in what some may find a negative, does not spend much time on background to both major and minor plot points, keeping the story fast paced. I don't know that this is really an action movie, it may really be a character driven drama/mystery in action film's clothing.

The main protagonist of the story is Det. Frazier (Denzel Washington Man on Fire, Remember The Titans), a hostage negotiation specialist who we find out may be under the gun for embesslement of some funds, though we don't ever hear the details of this, nor is it ever visited in any way other than reference by the characters. His partner is Detective Mitchell (Chiwetel Ejiofor Four Brothers, Amistad), and the receive a call that a bank in tony Manhattan is in the process of being robbed. Viewing this as both their job and a chance at redempetion before its needed, they head out there only to find that it is not the traditional kind of a bank robbery.

For starters, the robbers don't seem to be in any particular hurry, and also seem to have thought of every possible factor, including police procedure, prior to going in. The movie unfolds for us, of course, in a divided way, some scenes with the cops, other with the robbers who, at the very beginning of the heist, make all of the customers and bank employees disrobe and then dress in the same clothing...which also matches that of the robbers. Clearly we see, as do the cops, that these folks are just a little bit different.

As viewers, we never really see all of the robbers, except the leader, Dalton Russell (Clive Owen), but even he is hidden behind sunglasses and a hood for a good part of the film. A key side story to the heist is the founder of the bank, Arthur Chase (Christopher Plummer Malcolm X, Somewhere In Time), who is way more worried about a personal belonging(s) he has in a safe deposit box than he is about any possible theft to his bank or injury to his employees & customers (presumably he has insurance). To help secure his personal and secret interest, he recruits a high octane, yet shadowy figure (Jodie Foster Contact, Silence of the Lambs ) whose job is best describe as a fixer of problems...for the rich and powerful.

Thought this side story is interesting and key to the film, it, again, is not really developed or fully explained, nor do I think that was an accident, ommission, or victim of editing. I got the feeling that the story was intended to come off as, in an interesting way, somewhat vague and mysterious. There is enough, however, for the viewer to full in the holes with his/her own interpretation of swome things and motivations. I will say that I found one big hole in the plot, though. Without spoiling it for the uninitiated into this flick, the object that Chase is worried about keeping secret is evidence of his dealing with some pretty big criminals from a long time ago. In fact, it is implied that those dealings gave him some "seed money" to start the bank and do a lot of his philantrhroic deeds. I know you're with me on this one: why not just destroy the evidence? Keeping it, anywhere, no matter how safe you might think it is, means that it is possible it will be discovered. Also, the robbers seem to have knowledge of this item...how did they know about it and is it really their desired intention in robbing the bank? Again, not crystal clear from the script, and kind of murky to figure out on our own with what we are given.

The story does not always follow a chronological order, but its not the last/first/middle type concept that say, Tarantino does in many of his flicks, but the tactic of interspersing flashforwards that are the detectives interviews with some of the bank customers-which obviously had to occur after the heist was over- with the unfolding of the heist and the story itself. You see, again not to be a spolier, but the way it unfolds, some of the robbers come out in the end with the customers/employees, but due to the way that the heist unfolded, and the sharp techniques employed by the robbers...the detectives are not sure who is who, and neither is almost anyone else.

The acting, as you might guess, is subperb, with special props having to go to Owen. How many big stars would take a role where their face is covered 2/3 of the time they are onscreen? Further to that, he does a great job as the smart, cool, suave mastermind. Denzel is wonderful in a somewhat familiar role for him, and his scenes with Jodie Foster are very good, as two actors who have to be known in the industry for making their coutnerparts disappear on screen face off for some good give and take. Christopher Plummer was born to play Chase. 

I do feel the talents of Ejiofor and Willem Dafoe (Spiderman, Platoon) were underutilized, but when you have this many good actors, all who are capable and have, carried a major film on their own, some are going to be less important, its still good to see them and they don't disappoint.

Suprisingly, Inside Man is also heavy on the laughs for its genre, with plenty of one liners, some of them they type that you might say, "I've got to remember that one".  This is a very different type of movie that is well acted, directed, and pays noticeable homage to the king of the genre, Dog Day Afternoon.   I think this flick will work for a lot of people, but will be flameout for others, especially those who , for whatever reason, have a problem with the director or feel he should only do certain types of films.

It worked for me.

For what that's worth. 

Directed by Jonathan Demme. Starring Denzel Washington, Meryl Streep, Liev Schrieber, Jon Voight, Jeffrey Wright, Vera Farmiga, Kimberly Elise. Sci/Fi/Drama.  Synopsis: An Army officer with disturbing dreams after the Gulf War finds that his curious memories of one major incident are exactly the same as other soldiers who were there, particularly one former soldier who was awarded the Medal of Honor for his heroics and is now on the short list for Vice President. But, is the memory real, or was it somehow planted in all of them for political purposes?

My first disclosure is that I have never seen the original of this film, which I know is considered by many to be a classic. Clearly, it is not a complete remake since it is modernized to the present day and the antagonists are not a foreign communist power but a seedy, greedy corporation...named Manchurian.

In this version of the story, a Gulf War combat veteran officer (Denzel Washington Inside Man) is doing public relations for the Army, in particular telling people about the Congressional Medal of Honor, the nation's highest. This is of particular relevance because one of the soldiers (Liev Schreiber The Omen) who served under him in Kuwait is no a representative from the State of New York who is a dark horse candidate to land a spot on the presidential ticket in the Vice-President slot.

He also happens to be the son of a very influential and manipulative Senator (Meryl Streep The Devil Wears Prada)  Now, all of this sounds just fine, but some of the other member of the unit who are still alive when their hero comrade makes his run for office realize that they share the exact same memories of that fateful night in Kuwait...and now share the same nightmares all these years later.

As you might predict, Denzel's character is the one who takes it the furthest, coming to believe that he and his fellow soldiers have been the victim of some kind of brain washing experiment, maybe even to put one of them into the White House.

I know this movie did not do as well as expected at the box office, given the Hall of Fame cast and the fact that the original film was such a classic. I don't know, maybe you can't go home again, but I don't think the story is dated in the way we might have thought if it had been released in, say, 1998, when the biggest threat to our security-at least publicly-was seen to be a oversexed Commander in Chief and a loose intern. No, the story is not dated and it works for me, with the required suspension of disbelief.

The performances of the actors is wonderful as you would expect. To me, the definition of "wasting time" is to actually spend minutes on a blog saying that Streep and Washington are outstanding as the leads...what else am I going to "tell" you? That the sun will rise in the East?

Schreiber is real good here, too, and he has to be, since the film really revolves around the viewer feeling some empathy for him, as he is not really the bad guy here. Who is? Well, I'm no spoiler, but I will give a hint to those who have not seen the film. The term "bad guy" should not be taken too literally.

So, I liked it, though I would be interested to hear the views of people who have seen and enjoyed the original with Frank Sinatra. That would be interesting.