Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice

     There are so many things that were done right in ‘Batman v Superman’ that it makes no sense to me that I didn’t like the end product.  The characters were treated with respect and authenticity to the source material.  The casting of Ben Affleck and Gil Gadot turned out to be perfect choices for Batman and Wonder Woman respectively (we can debate Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor later). Storylines and even actual dialogue were adapted faithfully from Frank Miller and other well know DC storylines.  The battle itself was everything one could hope for and, once again, loyal to the epic comic book source material of ‘The Dark Knight Returns’.  So how could a movie with all of this going right be a film that didn’t deliver?  I’m sure there will be countless meetings in the Warner Bros studios among execs to determine exactly why this didn’t click the way Marvel movies do, but they will have consolation, because despite being almost universally panned by the critics and audiences, despite a dismal score of 31% on Rotten Tomatoes, ‘Batman v Superman’ is set to break Box Office records for a pre-May opening.  They are estimating a $171 million take over the Easter weekend.

Sure there wasn’t much competition this weekend (I’m not going to count ‘My Big Fat Greek wedding 2’)  and there was a 36 month advance marketing blitzkrieg that never lost its’ steam, but this was something comic book fans have been craving for decades.  And despite what critics want to believe, the public is a long way away from the super hero fatigue that they all predict will happen. So, what didn’t I like about it?  What does Marvel do so well that DC hasn’t been able to capture?  The answer: Marvel is able to make their intellectual property accessible to the general masses.  Marvel is able to take something non-comic book lovers originally thought of as silly and immature, i.e., super heroes, and give it a gravitas and relateability that has allowed it to cross over to mainstream audiences.  They give us stories with depth, but never lose sight of what made comic books magical to us as kids:  they are fun.  Director Zack Snyder lost sight of that fact and while he infuses these mythical characters with a seriousness, he takes it too far.  Snyder’s vision is dark and gloomy and lacks any of the wonder and joy associated with superheroes; especially franchises like Superman.  This movie is dark almost to the point of gothic.  

Another complaint I had was in defense of non-initiated super hero movie goers.  Marvel is able to deftly have story and plot lines that ones doesn’t need to be familiar with in order to enjoy.  This film tried to cram so much stuff in that I felt the layman would be left confused and with their head spinning.  One semi-dream/vision sequence in particular involved the ‘Flashpoint’ storyline.  This was complete with a post apocalyptic world where Batman battles para demons and The Flash coming back to warn Batman about Superman.  After the sequence, I wondered how anyone who wasn’t familiar with all those storylines would even know what’s going on.  That’s called alienating of your audience. Sure, it made all the fanboys giddy (and in fairness there are more and more of them), but you need that cross appeal to make the stories accessible to all.  I think this film lacked that.

The writing and editing were sloppy.  I can’t go into too much detail without giving away spoilers, but the only character whose motivations I understood were Batman’s.  There were so many holes in the story that were never explained and upon closer examination made no sense.  Characters that were actually intriguing were not developed in any way.  Lex Luthor (another controversial casting of Jesse Eisenberg) was an interesting modernization of the character to a malevolent Mark Zuckerberg style villain, but had motivations that were never really explained. We never understood why he was so desperate to destroy Superman.  Jeremy Irons reinvented the role of Alfred (even if much of his dialogue was taken straight from the ‘Dark Knight Returns’ comic series).  He was woefully underutilized.  Wonder Woman (controversially, but perfectly cast) is an un-named character in this movie. Even though we know she is the Princess Diana, it is never explained who she is or why she is involved or why she even cares to show up and help Superman and Batman.  Despite this, she was the most magnetic part of the final fight with Doomsday. Her performance makes me excited for the upcoming Wonder Woman movie, but that was it.  

I don’t mind new or alternate takes on franchises.  I even enjoy controversial re -imaginings, but one thing a super hero movie must have is excitement and wonder.  I felt despite all the great pieces and parts, ‘Batman vs Superman’ lacked that essential magical ingredient.  I’ll go so far as to say I respect the accomplishment that is this film.  Unfortunately, as much as I wanted to love this film, I just didn’t.  I feel I am being kinder to it in hindsight, but I must be honest with myself and felt something was missing when I was watching it.  There is no way I can talk myself out of that.  The odd thing is that I’m going to recommend seeing it.  It is a good introduction to the new DC extended universe that hopes to compete with Marvel.  My personal opinion is that, while I consider Zack Snyder an exceptional Director, his style and vision is not the one to go forward in this new universe. Warner Bros studios should regroup and try to find the magic elsewhere.  Despite my misgivings, this film has whetted my appetite for more.

  I give this film ** stars

Batman vs Superman

Deadpool

        With one of the biggest multi social media marketing campaigns that I can remember seeing for a mid-budget action movie, I approached ‘Deadpool’ with some trepidation.  I was never a fan of the comic book character and the R-rating gave studio execs heartburn for possibly alienating the traditional family market for super heroes.  Also, given Ryan Reynold’s previous disastrous outings in super hero movies (one playing Deadpool in a supporting role), I smelled box office bomb all the way to the theatre.  Fortunately and happily, I was mistaken.  Not only did ‘Deadpool' capture the essence of the comic book character, but it also gave me an appreciation for the character I never had before.  I won’t say it merited the $150 million dollar opening weekend it took in, but it was a fun time at the movies (assuming you aren’t easily offended).  Ryan Reynolds campaigned for this movie to be made for years and I’m glad it finally paid off.

The story of ‘Deadpool' centers around Wade Wilson, a wise cracking mercenary just trying to make his way through life as a low level enforcer for hire.  He finds love with the proverbial prostitute with a heart of gold, Vanessa (played by the stunning Morena Baccarin) and starts to build a life, until everything comes to a grinding halt when he discovers that he has terminal cancer. Grasping for straws at a cryptic offer from a mysterious man, he signs up for an experimental therapy for ex-soldiers.  He soon discovers the horrible mistake he has made when the lead scientist on the project named Ajax reveals the true purpose of the project; to awaken the dormant mutant genes of subjects through intensive chemical and torture therapy in order to create super powered soldiers… if they survive.  Wade does survive but at a horrible disfiguring cost.  Sounds like the basis for a great comedy right?  Believe it or not, it is a comedy and a funny one at that.

Quick uncomfortable fact about Deadpool is that he is actually plagiarized from a DC villain named Deathstroke, who just happened to be named Slade Wilson.  How was Marvel not sued over this?  Even though the character was a plagiarism (right down to double swords and uniform), Deadpool took a more comedic turn, even violating the comic book taboo of breaking the ‘Fourth Wall’.  That is where the character acknowledges the audience and recognizes that he is in a comic book story.  Much of the comedy is Deadpool addressing the audience with quips about his predicament.  While this seems like it could be distracting or even cheesy, it provides much of the charm of the film.  ‘Deadpool' is a spinoff from the X-men series, which tends to be more dramatic than comedic.  While the only well know X-man to appear in this film is Colossus, frequent mentions to the X-men world are made and the audience enjoys the juxtaposition of the comedic over the dramatic.  

The film itself is very light on plot.  In fact, there are really only two scenes in the whole film which are peppered with flashback sequences.  The movie relies on the over the top violence and wincing R-rated humor to drive the enjoyment.  I’m ashamed to say they succeeded.  I respect the chance studio execs took by breaking the successful template formula of previous super hero movies and giving a twice failed actor another chance at being a super hero.  Still, everyone must realize that the gold rush on super hero movies will eventually dry up and studios must find new and different formulas in order to keep the genre fresh.  This proves that R-rated humor and violence will find enough of an audience to make a movie financially viable.  

The comic book geek in me wonders if they will attempt to cross ‘Deadpool' over into the mainstream X-men movies.  I doubt it and I’m fine with that. I think Deadpool works better on his own as an alternative take on the dramatic super hero world.   It was interesting to see them have a different, albeit more source faithful, take on Colossus while interweaving the story with the main X-men universe.  Perhaps the now certain ‘Deadpool' franchise might be a great way to introduce more unique and unknown X-men to see if they have commercial appeal.  The most exciting thing about ‘Deadpool' is that it opens up all new possibilities in the genre now

Is this an R-rated movie for excessive graphic violence, crude humor, and sex?  Yes it is, but the way it is delivered reminds one more of a Road Runner cartoon than anything truly offensive.  I hope movies studios don’t obsess over creating blockbusters every time out.  There are smaller stories in the super hero world worth being told.  This is an example of how a studio took a chance and it paid off big.  There will be chances that don’t pay off as big, but I think the risk is worth it in order to provide us with a variety of story types.  Dead pool is a good time at the movies.

I give this film *** 1/2 stars

http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi2290004505?ref_=ttvi_vi_imdb_8

Tad's 2016 Oscar Predictions

The 2016 Tad’s Movie Crawl 

Oscar Predictions 

This year I  must confess that I didn’t see all the nominated pictures.  A first for me.  In order to have a more educated guess I sought the assistance of my brother-in-law Mark.  We’ll see how close the two of us can get

Once again I emphasize, my predictions are who I think will win, not necessarily who I think should  win. So here goes:

BEST PICTURE

The Big Short

Bridge of Spies

Brooklyn

Mad Max: Fury Road

The Martian

The Revenant:  All the mojo and buzz is behind this film this year

Room

Spotlight

ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE

Bryan Cranston, Trumbo

Matt Damon, The Martian

Leonardo DiCaprio, The Revenant: I think this is Leo’s year

Michael Fassbender, Steve Jobs

Eddie Redmayne, The Danish Girl

ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE

Cate Blanchett, Carol

Brie Larson, Room:  It won’t be Jennifer Lawrence again.  This small film created enough of a buzz to be a winner in this category

Jennifer Lawrence, Joy

Charlotte Rampling, 45 Years

Saoirse Ronan, Brooklyn

ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

Christian Bale, The Big Short

Tom Hardy, The Revenant

Mark Ruffalo, Spotlight

Mark Rylance, Bridge of Spies

Sylvester Stallone, Creed:  While I think Tom Hardy deserves it, so does Sly.  I think he will get it

ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

Jennifer Jason Leigh, The Hateful Eight

Rooney Mara, Carol

Rachel MacAdams, Spotlight

Alicia Vikander, The Danish Girl:  I’ll admit it.  This one is a complete guess for me

Kate Winslet, Steve Jobs

DIRECTING

The Big Short

Mad Max: Fury Road

The RevenantL  It’s going to be a ‘two years in a row’ for Alejandro

Room

Spotlight

There you go, my predictions once again.  We’ll see where they land

The Revenant

       Where do I start with ‘The Revenant’?  I have so many biases for and against the movie, I’m mixed up on how to review it.  My pro bias is that I am a great admirer of Director Alejandro González Iñárritu (fresh off his Oscar win last year).  His movie ‘Birdman’ was a fantastic and innovative film among all the cookie cutter Hollywood blockbusters.  My con bias is that I am not a fan of what I consider “Made-for-Oscar” films.  This film has that written all over it, relying on shock values and intensity over anything else.  I also have another bias in which I will go out on a limb.  I don’t like when filmmakers try to mirror other Director’s artistic style. This film had the feel of a Terrence Malik film, without the preponderance of poetic themes.  Malik’s films (The New World, Tree of Life, The Thin Red Line) have garnered immense respect for their artistic value amongst Hollywood Directors even if they rarely reflect in box office receipts. ‘The Revenant’ had the same feel of Malik’s visual aesthetics and minimalist dialogue.  What it did lack was Malik’s permeating ethereal qualities (which ‘The Revenant’ did attempt in a few scenes, but lacked his poetic effectiveness). I did admire Iñárritu’s ability to capture vast wilderness landscapes, but all I could think of after seeing similar scenery in Tarantino’s ‘The Hateful Eight’ is that I wish he would have shot this film in 70 mm in order to better capture the majesty.

While I acknowledge that this film will be this year’s Oscar darling, I’m not going to jump on the bandwagon and proclaim this a great film.  I admire Leonardo DiCaprio’s dedication to his art, but I found the film to be more an exercise in human survival and suffering than anything else.  The plot was a simple revenge plot and the scenery was breathtaking, but other than that, I didn’t find much to sink my teeth into.  Leonardo Di Caprio brings an intense and respectable performance to the story of Hugh Glass, a trapper guide who is left for dead after a vicious bear attack, only to survive and face great hardships as he works his way back to civilization to exact revenge on the man he holds responsible. The bear scene which everyone talked about was brutal to be sure, but hardly worth the buzz it has been generating. This felt more like an endurance marathon of seeing how much trail and tribulation one man can endure and still survive.  After one finishes wincing at all the gore and trials of pain, I’m not sure what else this film has to offer.  

Despite my lackluster appraisal, I will say that Tom Hardy is the true stand out of this film.  He plays the antagonist John Fitzgerald and has received a well deserved Oscar nomination for the performance.  I’m always impressed when an Englishman can do an undetectable American accent, but Hardy nails a turn-of-two-centuries ago Texas woodsman accent so well that I didn’t even realize it was Tom Hardy playing this character until the credits.  I think he, along with Michael Fassbender, are the two greatest actors out there today.  I have mixed feelings because i want Stallone to win the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor, but Hardy clearly displays a superior performance.  Fitzgerald makes questionable and arguably immoral choices, but in the context of what is happening, the viewer understands why Fitzgerald is making these choices.  I think this makes a better villain as the viewer wonders what choices they would make in a similar situation.  Now that I can sink my teeth into.

Back to the story, I find it hard to know what else to say.  As I have stated, with such minimal dialogue and plot, I don’t know where else to go with the film.  It’s beautifully shot and Leo is intense, but that about sums it up.  Shock value is not something that impresses me.  I also think Iñárritu is an incredible artist and his attempt to mirror another Director’s style does himself a disservice (my opinion of course).  I often judge a film, fairly or unfairly, if I am waiting for it to end or if I’m disappointed that it’s ending.  I found myself looking at my watch throughout, so if that tells you something… I have no desire to see this film again or recommend it to someone else.  I’m going to give this film a star greater than I think it deserves, because I won’t take away from the artistic aesthetics that Iñárritu has given us, but that’s the best i can do.  I’ll probably be shown to have an opinion in the minority when this film sweeps at the Oscars, but I need to be honest in my opinion.

I give this film *** stars

The Revenant trailer

The Hateful Eight

       Say what you want about Quentin Tarantino, but he is probably one of the most unique and daring Directors out there.  By now we know what to expect from his films; gratuitous violence and over the top vulgarity combined with a love of retro pop culture and actors.  We feel we shouldn’t like his films, but he presents such a visceral film experience that we can’t help but get over our political correctness and hold on for the ride of his cinematic visions.  In addition, his love of cinema, especially the movie going experience from the 60’s and 70’s is infectious and he tries to recreate that magic in all his films.  ‘The Hateful Eight’ is Tarantino’s eighth film and I won’t say its ground breaking, but it is an ode to the Westerns of the 60’s and 70’s.  Tarantino used 70mm film, which hasn’t been used since back in that time period and I’m glad he did.  I forgot how wonderfully it captures the expanses and landscapes so much more than film today.  Again, he tries to recreate that movie going experience from our childhood and he succeeds.

Another thing that Tarantino is not afraid to do is take his time in rolling out a story.  “The Hateful Eight’ is a simple old fashion whodunnit story that takes place in a remote way station in Wisconsin, but the film is 3 hours long.  I can already hear the groans, but the story moves such that it doesn’t feel that long and the film is divided into two overlapping stories that is divided by an actual 15 minute Intermission.  When was the last time you went to a movie that had an actual Intermission? Tarantino has a love of overlapping stories that reveals and enhances the perspective of the overall story.  ‘The Hateful Eight’ is a more straightforward, where he only has two intertwined stories that happen sequentially.  Still, it is visually enthralling to watch and Tarantino’s usual band of actors are back.

I would have to say there are co-leads in the film.  New-comer to Tarantino films, yet a veteran actor, Kurt Russel plays John ‘The Hangman’ Ruth.  He is a bounty hunter who is collecting the prize on a mysterious prisoner named Daisy Domergue (another veteran actor, Jennifer Jason Leigh).  Trying to beat an incoming blizzard on his way to collect the bounty, he runs across another bounty hunter, former Yankee Major Maquis Warren (Samuel L Jackson) and later a man who claims to be the Sheriff of the town they are going to, former Confederate soldier Chris Mannix (Walter Goggins).  Knowing that they will not be able to outrun the blizzard, the men stop at the nearest way station they find with the plan to hunker down until the storm passes.  The inn is not empty and contains another group of men with the same plan to wait out the storm.  Major Warren is familiar with the proprietor of the station, who is missing, and both he and Ruth realize at least one of the people there has done something nefarious to the owner and has plans to rescue Daisy Domergue.  The race is on to find out which one it is and to save themselves from someone who is almost assuredly going to kill them to rescue Daisy.

Tarantino is a master a spreading out tension as well as explosive and graphic fight scenes. We know that everyone staying at the station is unsavory and Tarantino reveals just enough of their backstories to be excruciating as we try to figure out which one is the culprit…or is it more than one?  Russell has a swagger that befits his acting style and is the immediate presence and center of the story.  While wary of Major Marquis, he finds that he is the only one in which he has the smallest amount of trust.  Systematically, both Ruth and Marquis try to pry out each person’s backstory to determine if the coincidence that brought them all together is just that… a coincidence.

I won’t say that this is one of Tarantino’s greatest films.  I am also disappointed that most of the film takes place indoors as one of the reasons to use 70 mm film is to show vast landscapes.  That being said, the movie is a beautiful visual feast and Tarantino has an eye for frames like no other.  As always, his use of vulgarity is over the top, even for someone like me who is not offended by that.  When the action starts, the violence is brutal and even the most hardened film goer will wince at the gratuitousness.  For fans of Quentin, he doesn’t disappoint.  It’s not your typical Western, but Tarantino doesn’t make typical movies.  Despite everything I listed, it is a nostalgic return to the films of the 60’s and 70’s which I believe is Tarantino’s ultimate goal.  I won’t say go see it, but I think if you do go you will enjoy it for what it is.  I’ll qualify that with, if you are a film enthusiast, definitely go see it as it is a beautifully made film.

  I give this film *** stars

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3460252/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Star Wars: The Force Awakens

       ‘Star Wars: The Force Awakens’ (heard of it?)is probably one of the most anticipated sequels in recent memory and it is finally here.  With all the hype surrounding it, was it possible to live up to the hype and expectations?  Well, it did a pretty good job.  ‘Star Wars’ is probably one of the most beloved franchises of all time and among the first movies that ushered in the era of the modern blockbuster.  Critics have always been mixed on the quality of the films that have spanned 40 years, but the fans have never wavered over generations.  What added to the anticipation is that this is the first in a series of films in which George Lucas is not involved.  Director and Star Wars geek J.J. Abrams was tapped to continue the vision and I have to say that he captured all the magic of ‘Star Wars’ and continued the journey even if he did fall back upon themes and stories we have seen before. 

The story takes place three decades after the original trilogy.  The Galactic Empire has fallen, but the Dark Side has arisen in the form of The First Order.  Once again, there is a Death Star style weapon that must be stopped by the Resistance.  A story we have seen more than once in the trilogy, but Abrams is still able to keep the excitement and wonder that made the original so memorable.  This time around we are introduced to two new protagonists with Rey (Daisy Ridley) a scavenger on the planet of Jakku and Finn (John Bodega) a Storm Trooper who has defected from the First Order over a guilty conscience.  However, The true stand out for me is the antagonist; Kylo Ren (played by an actor with whom I was never impressed with before; Adam Driver).  Kylo is our look into the Dark Side, yet not as developed or with the confidence and reserve that Darth Vader possessed, which makes him all the more interesting. Kylo is given to fits of rage when things go wrong and is full of self doubt, which gives him an air of unpredictability that keeps one guessing on which way the story will unfold.

Of course, half the fun is seeing all the original actors portray their former roles.  Harrison Ford is still the wise cracking Hans Solo if not a bit more wizened.  Carrie Fisher is now General Lea (isn’t that a demotion from ‘Princess’?) As she leads what is left of the Rebellion.  Of course, the big mystery is Mark Hamill as Luke Skywalker.  He has been absent in all the promotional material and pre release pictures of him have been as rare and fuzzy as Bigfoot sightings.  The reason is clear as the film wishes to unveil him and I will leave it at that.  Smiles are had all around as we are reintroduced to C3-PO and R2-D2 and even brief voice cameos from Yoda and Obi-wan.  Just enough to thrill the seasoned fans, yet not alienate a younger and newer audience.

The film does rehash and remix well known story lines from previous films, but the magic is still there.  At its’ heart, ‘Star Wars’ was never a deep and thought provoking piece of Science Fiction, rather is was a swashbuckling and epic piece of Space Opera, with all the disfunction and Freudian themes that go along with it.  It was an epic reproduction and grand enlargement of the serials that George Lucas fell in love with as a boy and, as I’ve said repeatedly, it captures the magic we felt in childhood over stories that seem silly and mundane in our adulthood.   I’ve never thought George Lucas was a good writer (I’m not alone), but he was an epic storyteller.  There is a difference.  A writer is about strong and engaging dialogue, where a storyteller creates a world into which we are swept.  Lucas had grand visions and an unparalleled ability to capture wonder and fun.  Where I think ‘Star Wars: The Force Awakens’ steps up is that the dialogue is tighter and the engagement much more sincere.  It will never achieve the level of the first ‘Star Wars’, but that is only because it follows it.  I think if this new trilogy can find a way to say something new, instead of rehash old themes, then it could truly stand greatly on its’ own.

So the original question was “Did ‘Star Wars: The Force Awakens’, live up to expectations”?  The answer turns out to be ‘Yes’ and ‘No’.  J.J. Abrams was the perfect choice to helm this and did a masterful job at replicating and continuing and impossible task.  A new audience will discover a franchise that has been a worldwide phenomena for most of my life.  However; while some new characters were introduced, not much new in way of ideas or innovation in story was presented.  I have to say that it’s a fantastic time at the movies and well worth the wait.  I would never take that from then new trilogy.  I anxiously await the next one, so that says pretty much everything that needs to be said about if it was good.

I give this film *** 1/2 stars

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2488496/?ref_=ttcrv_crv_tt

Chi-Raq

          This movie is a challenge for me to review.  It’s a film about my beloved Chicago, so there was no way I wasn’t going to see it.  It is also a Spike Lee joint and I have a variety of conflicting opinions of him as a Director.  First and most importantly, Spike Lee offers unique and artistic films and, while one may or may not agree with his social messages, he always provides thought provoking visions.  As a film enthusiast, what more could I ask for?  That being said, even though all the above is true, I also find his film making amateurish at times and his dialogue and character interaction to be wooden and often caricatures instead of fully developed  multi-dimensional people.  Such is the case with ‘Chi-Raq’: an examination of gun and gang violence in south Chicago.  For some reason, which I’m still not sure why, Spike Lee decided to present this essay in the form of a Greek play.  By that I mean, there are narrators and choruses.  Every character has a Greek name and most bewildering, if not annoying, the entire movie is done in rhyme (I’m not skilled enough to know if it was in Iambic pentameter, but it seemed like it).  This did not add to my artistic appreciation, rather it ended up being distracting and taking away from the gravitas of the subject matter.  

If one can get past that, it is difficult to get by the premise which he takes from the Greek play ‘Lysistrata’.  A beautiful protagonist, not coincidentally named Lysistrata (played by the seductive Teyonah Parris), is tired of the death and devastation caused by the gang violence in her neighborhood.  Given that her boyfriend Chi-Raq, (played by an unconvincing Nick Cannon) is a big part of the problem, Lysistrata decides to do something about it.  After seeing a news report about a group of women  in a village in Uganda withholding sex from their husbands until the war stopped, Lysistrata decides to implement a similar plan in Chicago.  Suspending the disbelief, logistics, and practicality that something of this scope could be accomplished in a city the size of Chicago, I found the whole idea offensive and a step back in the women’s movement as the film suggests that only men are in charge and women’s only weapon is their sexuality.  Spike Lee has been known for his misogyny in past films, but this takes it to a whole new level. Further, most of Spike Lee’s use of sexual blackmail seemed adolescent and played to racial stereotypes.  In one scene, Lysistrata seduces the Confederate general who guards the Chicago armory which he has adorned with Confederate flags…Really?  Heavy handed and playing to social and racial fears which don’t even exist in this part of the country.  

The mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, has come out against this film and I can see why.  It portrays the government establishment as the problem.  D.B. Sweeney plays Mayor McCloud, but it is a thinly veiled caricature of Rahm Emanuel and not very flattering.  I would be offended too if I were him.  Despite that, Chicago is considered one of the most corrupt cities in the country and Spike Lee is right to exploit that fact as part of the overall picture.  Given my own tastes, I find Lee’s extreme exaggerations hurt his argument rather than enhance it.  Hyperbole is usually dismissed when used as support.

Despite all of this, I took much from this film and it did have a voice worth hearing.  The gang violence and it’s consequences were sobering.  In one particularly moving scene, a single mother (played by an intentionally unglamorous Jennifer Hudson), loses her only child in a gang cross fire.  Her anguish was palpable and made all the more moving to anyone who knows that Jennifer Hudson lost many of her family members to gang violence on the same streets in Chicago.  Her search for justice was powerful and difficult to watch.  John Cussak plays Father Corridon with intensity.  Usually films portray flamboyant preachers as villains, but Father Corridon is sincere in wanting to serve the community he was born to.  His faith and love never waivers even as he despairs at the violence all around him.  Anger and faith all rolled into one. I’m still not sure how to process one of my favorite actors, Samuel L Jackson who is the narrator Dolmedes.  He infuses the classic Greek tradition of narration with a south side Chicago persona.  He does it flawlessly, but I found the whole concept and character distracting and disrupting to the gravitas Spike Lee was trying to create.

I felt the point Spike Lee was trying to make was made early and the film disintegrated into absurdness by the third act.  I’m not sure what type of mid-life crisis Spike Lee is going through, but the film obsessed on sexual situations and behaviors we giggled at in middle school.  Lee’s misogyny and homophobia took away from his very insightful examinations of the plight of south side Chicago.  The film solves nothing, but does give a glimpse into an intolerable situation that one would expect to find in the Middle East and not in our own country.  Lots of cameos by familiar stars (no offense Wesley Snipes, but you are a little old to be playing a gang member) (Dave Chapelle, you are still awesome!!) and lots of topics that will have you talking after you see it.  While I can’t say i thought it was a good film, it is an artistic vision which I always respect.

I give this film ** stars

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4594834/?ref_=ttmi_tt