THE COTTON CLUB

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Francis Ford Coppola

Year: 1984

Cast: Richard Gere, Diane Lane, Gregory Hines

Genre: Crime/Drama/Music
MPAA Rating: R

        Francis Ford Coppola is quoted as saying, "I have genius but no talent". Honestly, I think he has both. But with his December 1984 release The Cotton Club, he unfortunately loses a little of this talent by failing to format a somewhat cohesive storyline.  If you ignore that sort of minor flaw, you still get a splashy mob flick that is highly stylized, highly energized, and done with mounds of real panache.

        Taking place in 1930's Harlem (ah the good old days) and projecting itself as a movie that tries to cram in 2-3 stories in a two hour period, "Cotton Club" tells the tale (or tales) of musician Dixie Dwyer (played by Richard Gere who has amazing screen presence here), his uncontrollable resistance to move up the mob chain, and the resorting-to-murder brother he has to look out for (played with gusto by Nicolas Cage). The film also examines the life of a racially discriminated tap dancer (Gregory Hines) who struts his stuff at where else, The Cotton Club.

         Projecting itself as a sped up version of Coppola's masterpiece The Godfather (there's a scene toward the end that pays complete homage to it), this vehicle has a fantastic look (very accurate for the time period and not too overdone), brilliant acting by Richard Gere (Dwyer) and Nicolas Cage (Dwyer's brother Vincent), and well choreographed, exhilarating tap dance sequences. Coppola, who is in total command of the camera (and his craft) wants to make sure the viewer is worn out by the time the credits roll. He is accurate, doesn't give an inch (he's a perfectionist, all you gotta do is watch the Heart of Darkness documentary), but seems too busy filling the screen with an overload of indelible images. I guess he insists on doing this instead of keeping the viewer focused on exactly what's going on with this talented cast (boy, do they give it their all!). Try as I might though, I can't fault him. Entertaining and never boring, The Cotton Club excels at making the audience feel unsafe (just like the actual characters in the movie) and it's at least, in my mind, a moderate success. This veritable gangster movie is the equivalent of a sugar rush (in a good way of course). It's one "club" you might want to check out.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

MO' BETTER BLUES

Cole's Rating: ★★★

Director: Spike Lee
Year: 1990
Cast: Denzel Washington, Wesley Snipes, Spike Lee
Genre: Drama/Music
MPAA Rating: R

        Director Spike Lee explores different atypical portions of reality in each one of his films. In 25th Hour, he dove into post 9/11, crime riddled NYC. In Clockers, he divulged life of 24 hour drug pushers and cops in “the projects”. In Mo’ Better Blues, he introduces the life of a self-centered jazz player who tends to have problems with relationships. I went into this movie thinking I was going to enjoy it (if for no other reason) because I, too, am a jazz musician. When I realized that this film isn’t about jazz at all, I was taken aback but I wasn’t aggravated. I was interested. Mo’ Better Blues clearly isn’t the most entertaining film and it definitely has a lot of flaws. Despite this, it is a thoughtful, relatively well done character study that manages to incorporate a lot of immersive musicality (kudos' to Lee’s father) and one that packs in a great performance. That’s why I like and recommend Mo’ Better Blues.

        It's evident why Spike Lee is known as a director and not an actor. Every scene that he was in suffered unless Denzel Washington took over (which he did quite a bit). He either tries to overplay his role, or just doesn’t know how to do it at all because the scenes that centered mainly around his character were just plain laughable. If I were him, I would’ve muttered my line, and looked over at Denzel to finish up, because Lee lacks serious acting chops. But then, one of the flaws of this film, besides Lee’s attempt to act, is how the story relies on Washington to do the heavy lifting. Recasting (Lee) or getting some other heavy-hitting actors to carry out some scenes were all options to better this film by a great deal.

        But overall, this movie is one that requires a lot of thought for the main character. Though his actions may not make sense at times, I felt like I knew Bleak (Washington) very well. The movie does a nice job of not making him come off as a total jerk; I felt like he was victimized. I empathized with him. That’s more than what I can say for other of Lee’s works that, while they may be less flawed, aren’t necessarily better. While it does take a little while to get there, the conclusion to this thing is a brilliant correspondence with the opening scene; it provokes thought, comparison, and wonder. It resonates, to be sure. It isn’t a big twist, but it sure is enough to cap off a solid entry into Spike Lee’s filmmaking endeavors.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

SATURDAY NIGHT FEVER (Written Review & Video Review)

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Cole's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: John Badham

Year: 1977

Cast: John Travolta, Karen Lynn Gorney, Barry Miller

Genre: Drama/Music
MPAA Rating: R

        Saturday Night Fever is more than just an American dance film (as in disco dancing). It's an intense drama, a restless character study, and overall, a movie of its time. Yes, it's obviously a little outdated and John Badham's direction is somewhat sporadic (some of the sequences veer into a sort of broken narrative). However, there is an urgency and accuracy in the culture this exercise depicts. Last but not least, you have John Travolta in a performance that, in 1977, shot him into the stratosphere of acting prowess. Yes, he was excellent later on in Pulp Fiction, but in "Fever", his star shines as bright as anyone in the Hollywood galaxy. It's been over 35 years since the film's release and Travolta has not come close to the brooding, anxious brilliance (he probably can dance just as good now, who knows?) that he displayed as Tony Manero ("the king" or as one character notes, "the best").

        Not necessarily as plot driven as it is more driven by ideas and characters, Saturday Night Fever's concept is loosely based on a small article in New York Magazine (circa 1976). The article by Nik Cohn, is entitled "Tribal Rights of the new Saturday night". As far as storytelling goes, "Fever" takes the bare bones of Cohn writings and walks you through the trials and tribulations of some Brooklyn 20-somethings which are on full display throughout the 2 hour-plus running time. Their leader, Tony Manero, looks forward to his weekends where he can strut his stuff on the dance floor to the powerful and seducing music brought to you by The Bee Gees. Throughout the proceedings, he is caught in a tensioned love triangle (actresses Karen Lynn Gorney and Donna Pescow are two dancers he gets involved with, and they are excellent in their roles as well), hangs with his buddies (he refers to them as "the faces") at the Brooklyn club 2001 A Space Odyssey (I'm serious), and feuds with his misunderstood parents who don't really know him as a person. As many critics note (this critic as well), the central theme of Saturday Night Fever is bent on looking into Manero's rough and irrelevant existence made only tolerable by snippets of glory here and there on the dance floor (and at a dance contest). I think what made the sequel (Staying Alive) such a mess (it was entertaining though, go figure), was how it failed to effectively put this aspect into motion. Sly Stallone directed Staying Alive and I think he missed the boat on Badham's initial touch with atmosphere and grittiness. Plus, it works better when Travolta's character stays away from doing shows on Broadway.

        Something also to note on "Fever": On the heels of what was written in the aforementioned article, production started in early 1977. Badham wasn't initially the director, mind you. The original man behind the camera was John Advildsen (he directed Rocky). According to a documentary on the anniversary DVD, he was fired early on due to his initial vision of having Travolta's title role being portrayed as a quote unquote, "a nice guy who does good things for people in the neighborhood". The studios (along with the star's input, I'm certain) wanted a harder edge to Manero's persona and I believe this is what makes this flick work (don't expect something like Grease, or his kooky, lovable tough guy from Welcome Back Kotter). You like Manero even though he is remarkably unlikable. This is due to Travolta's high level of charisma and ability to cater to the mental and highly physical demands of the role. In fact, most of Travolta's cronies in the film (unknown actors at the time but very natural on screen) also kind of exhibit this quality. And as in many great feats of cinema (including this one), they stay with you long after the closing credits appear.

        To wrap things up, the aspect about "Fever" that makes it one of the best films of the 70's is its realism. The characters don't sugarcoat their actions. There is a cynical nature about all of them (especially Manero). Granted, this is not a cheerful dance production number where everyone has a good time at the club and then goes home to a happy life. These people (Tony's family, friends, and even himself) have problems and an extreme need to break away from their banal existence. Saturday Night Fever, focusing mainly on Travolta's plight, can be catagorized as a snapshot of a young man's pride in his craft (shining at the disco) and the sad/troubling moments in between. It's raw, reckless filmmaking that dares you to embrace it's rough edges. Truth be told, you come away from this film with memorabe sounds, bright images, and unavoidable mental train wrecks. The look of its poster with Travolta and Gorney holding hands in the middle of the dance floor doesn't quite tell the whole story. You know there is more to "Fever" than just disco dancing. At the end of a scene taking place on the Verranzano-Narrows Bridge (connects Brooklyn to Staten Island), Travolta (Manero) says, "can you dig it? I knew that you could." Yeah its safe to say, that I can utlimately dig this landmark film.  

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Cole's Thoughts: If we’re talking about how well a film captures its time, Saturday Night Fever is the Mean Streets equivalency of dance, sexual promiscuity, and angst in the big city. Whereas the ’74 release divulged life in the small-time mafia (and did a better job than this film), the ‘77 is a basic, yet thoughtful character study that takes us into the life of Tony Manero, a rowdy, mixed up, misunderstood, also talented, and deep-down good young boy growing up in Brooklyn in the late 70’s. Saturday Night Fever’s main fault is the hesitation that is sensed by the director, John Badham. The film is sloppy; it’s all over the place, and as a result, it never quite develops its main focus. He chooses to brush over numerous aspects, including dancing, ultimately making each one slightly superficial. But Travolta charismatically dominates the film (if he’s at all over the top) and makes this movie one heck of a ride. Upon initial viewing, I only gave this film three stars. Here’s why I changed my mind: for the following week, the irresistibly remarkable 70’s soundtrack—that happens to be one of the best-selling of all time—lingered behind my thoughts of Travolta’s resounding performance and the several subject matters the movie tackled (even if it wasn’t to the extent I would’ve liked it to be). After a week of that, I popped the DVD in, and the first words I exclaimed were "this movie is just downright awesome". In hindsight, Saturday Night Fever is one of America’s most cherished films, to those of every taste. Enjoy it for all it has to offer, as I know I did. If you haven’t yet seen Dog Day Afternoon, look for one of Al Pacino’s most famous lines!

-- Click HERE To Watch The Video On YouTube --

THE DOORS

Jesse's Rating: ★★★
Cole's Rating: ★★ ½

Director: Oliver Stone

Year: 1991

Cast: Val Kilmer, Meg Ryan, Frank Whaley, Kevin Dillon

Genre: Biography/Drama/Music

MPAA Rating: R

        After winning two best director Oscars (Born on the Fourth of July and Platoon respectively) at the Academy Awards, Oliver Stone could pretty much do whatever he wanted. So given his affection for 60's nostalgia, he decided to helm this 1991 biopic on one of rock and roll's all time greatest bands (one of my favorite rock groups as well). The Doors is a prime example of what a filmmaker can do if the vision of what's on screen is entirely his (not necessarily what the remaining members of The Doors themselves had intended). With as much clout as any major voice in Hollywood, Stone made an exercise that veers almost completely away from the storytelling of the band, and instead concentrates on the madness and mystery of lead singer Jim Morrison. The result is a fiery, yet saturated, powerful, yet overwhelming, and sad, yet involving portrait of a musical icon who passed over much too early. Now I gotta warn ya, this thing is over 2 hours long and it's exhausting. It's also an ambitious mess (don't worry, this is a compliment) that's filled with every Stone nuance in the book (you almost have to wear dark sunglasses to tackle the look of it). But it's saddled with a brilliant performance by Val Kilmer as the lead. And he anchors this kaleidoscope of late 60's culture bent on entertaining you if you let it. So to make things clear, I am to this day, a huge fan of Oliver Stone's 90's endeavors. He has calmed down a bit as a director these days. And don't get me wrong, I still think he knows what he's doing behind the camera, but I kinda wish the maverick in him would come back (a la The Doors). There is too much control with his technique in present day. I kinda hate it to be honest.

        Anyway, this movie tells the story of the band going from heralded beginnings (guitarist Robbie Kreiger and Jim Morrison were students who met at UCLA film school) to virtual stardom, and then to an eventual break up with the lead vocalist (the drummer, keyboard player, and lead guitarist continued on but the film ends with Jim's death). The Doors chronicles the years 1965 to 1971. Two to three aspects are driven home by Stone to get his point across. One is Morrison's alienation from the other band members (Kevin Dillon as John Densmore, Kyle MacLachlan as Ray Manzarek, Frank Whaley as Robbie Krieger) through his relentless drug/alcohol abuse during their tenure. Second, we get a sort of unclear spiritual journey that Kilmer (Morrison) goes through in the form of flashbacks caused by a drug fueled haze-type behavior. Lastly, Stone puts emphasis on Morrison's relationship with his hippie girlfriend Pamela (Meg Ryan). Their love affair is volatile and dangerous. Just watching them together makes you think that they would not, and could not live very much longer. Finally, there is the music. The concert and studio recording scenes are so well filmed and seem so real (that's because the actors actually learned to play the instruments from what I understand), you get the sense that Mr. Stone really took his time to get the right attention to detail. Oh, and I almost forgot, look for Crispin Glover doing an Andy Warhol impersonation (In the film, Jim meets him at a party). With Velvet Underground's music in the background, it's a wallop of a scene in terms of sensory overload.

        To put it all into perspective, if you are a fan of the music of The Doors and don't mind a film that's rough around the edges, this is something worth checking out. The performances are adequate and Kilmer's turn as rock and roll's misunderstood poet is downright Oscar worthy (the reason he got snubbed could have been the film's early release in March). Yes, the overall structure of what's on screen is choppy and somewhat of a downer, but there is a storytelling light at the end of the tunnel. And as usual, Stone likes to wrap things up rather quickly. Is it justifiable after two hours and twenty minutes? Yeah, why not? By then, the audience has embraced the bruised heart of a fallen legend. Morrison is dead, but the music of The Doors lives on forever. This film is a raw, battering interpretation of a band who's sound could never be copied. At close to the two hour mark, Frank Whaley (Robbie Krieger) says to Jim, "You said you like pain. Well, you run from it every chance you get." Well, I plan on viewing The Doors again and again and believe me, no matter how intense Stone's vision gets, I certainly won't run from it. That's a guarantee.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Cole's Thoughts: If creating a fitted atmosphere and having a devoted cast were all it took to maker a good film, then The Doors would be one of the best I’ve ever seen. From the get go, Oliver Stone does a great job recreating Jim Morrison’s early days of playing music with his band, all the while deciding if he truly wanted to be a filmmaker (that’s what he was in college for at the time). The set design is impeccable and the extras (especially in the concert scenes) are used to the movie’s full benefit. When you watch it, you really get a feel of what life was like—in some parts—of his life because of all this. Some of the scenes that flesh out his euphoria and drunken hazes are so well done that you feel a bit delirious yourself. What’s unfortunate is that the movie never quite makes you empathize with him. It never lets you understand him because it feels as if the script doesn’t understand him itself. Morrison is portrayed as an ugly drug abuser, and barely anything more. His poetry, his interest in film, his kind side, and his struggles are pushed aside. Instead, the film stands open arms accepting his end result. It doesn’t do what other music biopics like Almost Famous did, and that is present the musician in a way that is fair to him, and to us as the viewers.

WALK THE LINE

Cole's Rating: ★★★ 1/2
Jesse's Rating: ★★★ 1/2

Director: James Mangold

Year: 2005

Cast: Joaquin Pheonix, Reese Witherspoon, Ginnifer Goodwin

Genre: Biography/Drama/Music

MPAA Rating: PG-13

        Walk The Line is undoubtedly one of the best biopics I have ever seen. You can quote me on that; and I’ve never been more confident in a quote of mine than I am about this. Fortunately, this film doesn’t only expose us to the life story of Johnny Cash, but also June Carter, two of the finest musicians of their time, and how they interacted over the course of their careers.

        Too many times biographies drag, and lack entertainment and the ability to edit themselves as far as surplus content go; and Walk The Line is no exception, as there are a few scenes that if standing alone would qualify it as such. But really, I didn’t feel bored, or deprived of entertainment whatsoever. I was fascinated with Cash’s drug dependency, and marital problems, and persistence; I felt a sense of rawness. Protagonists are often portrayed as flawless, or nearly flawless characters that overcome challenges easily. Not here. Johnny Cash was no saint, just like the rest of the population; and nothing was sugarcoated.


        I think that one of the main reasons that Walk The Line played out so well is because it was riddled with good performances. As Roger Ebert said it, “The music is great. The drama is great. The writing is great. The performances are great. I love it!”. Well said, Ebert. Reese Witherspoon has numerous movies. And let me say that they’re not all good (This Means War). But I never really saw her an incredible actress until this movie. Sure, I was persuaded by Water For Elephants. But this was the deciding factor; it’s her best movie by far. And the same goes for Joaquin Phoenix. Although I seem to be the only critic that loves The Village, I believed that his performance was just ordinary. And Gladiator, the same, despite the fact that he won an Oscar. But once again, this movie is the best of him. These extraordinary performances fueled the film to good measure; it never ran out of gas.

        One of the best things about Walk The Line in my opinion, was the opening introduction to the death of his brother, and what influenced his lifelong dream. That’s what I think a lot of biopics lack, a moving backstory; it isn’t missing here. His relationship with his static parents (another set of good performances) never end from his childhood, throughout his fame, and thereafter. We’re aware of that as viewers, also.   

        All in all, there is an overwhelming sense of reality here. Walk The Line is as real as movies get. Sci-fi lovers beware, you’ll get quite a bit of real life in this movie.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Jesse's Thoughts: Walk The Line is a biopic that entertains and tells a darn good story. You really get to know the life of a rock legend in Johnny Cash. You also get insight into his strained relationship with his dad, his sadness for the loss of his brother, and his yearning to win the heart of the woman he loves in June Carter. It's a wonderful movie with top notch performances. Easily one of the best films of 2005.