Movie news on your iPhone today!
Advertisement
Sign in
Username   Password         Forgot password?
Wanna join? Sign up
Find movies you'll love

jjgittes Blog

  • Jump Tomorrow on Reel 13

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Jump Tomorrow  (2001)

    Every April, I go to NYU's First Run Festival, their annual primary showcase of their student's best works. That's where I first saw FIVE FEET HIGH AND RISING, which was later made into the feature RAISING VICTOR VARGAS. One year before that (1997), I saw a delightful short called JORGE about a very tall, very awkward African-American man looking for love in all the wrong places. I knew the short did well, but I didn't know it later led to yet another feature for an NYU alum. I was thrilled to discover that UMP TOMORROW, an October Indie on Reel 13, resurrects the character of Jorge, still played by filmmaker **** actor Tunde Adebimpe, in yet another romantic adventure.

    Director Joel Hopkins adds some other elements to the mix this time around, including French comic actor Hippolyte Girardot, Hispanic beauty Natalie Verbeke and the stuffy Brit actor James Wilby. However, they really just fill out the edges of the feature. What really made Jorge and Jump Tomorrow tick was the presence of Tunde. As I alluded to earlier, Tunde is not a trained actor. He was actually a fellow film student of London-born Hopkins. Hopkins saw his natural comic ability and proceeded to craft both the short and the feature around his assets. In spite of his tall, imposing physique, the magic of Jorge is how Tunde transforms him into a quiet, shy figure and yet he remains consistently charismatic. He doesn't say much, which is fine because Tunde's blank expression tends to speak volumes. Furthermore, his physical comedic ability is on par with a (much taller) modern day Buster Keaton. Adebimpe uses his large frame to maximum comic potential and the results are truly joyous.

    Hopkins, as a director, has a little more to offer than just discovering unusual talent. His style is very playful, like something out of the late 60's, and this serves the film well. He manufactures great, plausible comic situations for his traveling duo of Jorge and Girard (Girardot) that he helps work even more with a solid pace. More often than not, independent comedies are killed by their directors and editors letting scenes linger on too long, which diffuses their jokes. Hopkins and his team know just when to cut and truly seem to understand comic timing for film. The frames are consistently well chosen, some of them almost Wes Anderson-esque in their straight-on approach and the light, good-humored music is perfect fit for the light, good-humored narrative.

    The actual story isn't the strong suit of the film. Contrivances are abundant and the plot is essentially familiar: Jorge meets someone special on route to his arranged wedding and she is also engaged to someone else. However, Jump Tomorrow doesn't try to be groundbreaking. It rests its laurels on its (and particularly Tunde's) charm and its almost absurdist style. In that sense, it is a hugely successful enterprise because in spite of its flaws, it never ceases to be amusing, entertaining and simply lovely. Hopkins next film, LAST CHANCE HARVEY, comes out this year starring Emma Thompson and Dustin Hoffman. After seeing JUMP TOMORROW, I know that I plan to be at the multiplex opening weekend to catch his follow up.

    (For more on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)


  • Oliver Twist on Reel 13

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Oliver Twist  (1948)

    I think my appreciation for OLIVER TWIST as a story by Dickens was dulled a little bit by the lame musical version, made into an Oscar-winning film in 1968 by Sir Carol Reed. It's the version by another knighted filmmaker – Sir David Lean – from 1948 that made me respect it again and I have to once again thank Reel 13 for bringing it to us this past October.

    Lean uses a very similar approach to Dickens that he used in GREAT EXPECTATIONS two years prior. Same Gothic-style production design, luscious high contrast cinematography and a brisk, efficient pace. He even brings back many of the same actors as if he had a Dickens repertory troupe of some kind. Perhaps his wisest decision was increasing the screen time for Alec Guinness, who played a minor supporting role in EXPECTATIONS, but here gets to chew scenery as Fagin. Sir Alec, as you might expect, does not disappoint. He disappears into the character behind a wig, a sneer and a great deal of make-up. The character is fascinating to begin with, but Guinness adds layer upon layer to help create a three-dimensional portrait of greed with an ounce or two of compassion. Modern audiences might be offended by the gigantic prosthetic hooknose (to suggest his Jewish heritage) he dons, but these were less sensitive times. Similar devices were frequently used at the Old Vic and such for "The Merchant of Venice", et al, so no harm was meant.

    I would still argue that GREAT EXPECTATIONS (aired on Reel 13 in April) is a slightly better film than OLIVER TWIST, but I think the primary reason for that is that EXPECTATIONS is just a stronger story than TWIST. In terms of filmic interpretation, Lean does a masterful job in both instances, on his way to becoming one of the finest filmmakers we've ever known.

    (For more on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)


  • Conventioneers on Reel 13

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Conventioneers  (2005)

    I happen to be a voter for the annual IFP Independent Spirit Awards and first saw this film as a candidate for the 2006 John Cassavettes Award, honoring the best film made for under $500,000. Though I certainly did not vote for it (though the other nominees were not that much stronger), CONVENTIONEERS walked away with the award, much to my chagrin. To this day, I maintain that its victory was not based on merit, but instead on politics and therein lies my problems with the film.

    Many of my readers have picked up on some conservative leanings in my posts in the past, which isn't entirely false, but it's not entirely true either. I'm no Pat Buchanan, but I'm no Karl Marx either. Even if I were more liberal, I think I still would have taken issue with the way conservatives are portrayed in this film. The film had some potential as it centers around a torrid affair between a leftist protestor and a Republican delegate, both in town for the 2004 RNC in NYC. They had went to Dartmouth together and the reunion sparks their long-gestating attraction to one another, in spite of their political differences. That was interesting enough and I thought it might be leading to a bi-partisan message, but instead it devolves into a story about how Republicans are two-dimensional evil demons on par with Nazis. Regardless of whether or not you agree with that assessment, you have to admit that didactic preaching never makes for a very interesting narrative.

    The highlight of the film is actually the performance of the leftist protestor, as played by Woodwyn Koons. Even though I don't agree with her character's politics, I am able to recognize that the actor is a very commanding presence on-screen. She is attractive, but in a very unusual way, which makes her seem more real and feel relatable. Her choices help to make a character that is full of rage, but still has a sense of humor and irony. Out of all the characters we've been introduced to on Reel 13, she is among a select few that feel so genuine that it's as if she might be on the same subway as you or passing you on the street. In other words, she is an extremely human character. Unfortunately, the screenplay wants to paint her into a political symbol.

    I think the primary reason for the extent of my animosity for CONVENTIONEERS is the missed opportunity - it had the groundwork for a really good film. The filmmakers definitely know how to tell a story, the handheld cinematography is mostly adept and as I mentioned, the lead female is outstanding (the male lead isn't as good…). However, instead of using their talents and assets to tell a fair and balanced story, they use the opportunity to get on their soapbox. And that's when I tune out.

    (For more information on this film or other Reel 13 films, check out their website at www.reel13.org)


  • Wall Street on Reel 13

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Wall Street  (1987)

    I tend to be down on Oliver Stone films. More often than not, they emphasize style over substance - flashy camera work or editing to mask an inability to tell a story effectively. I think one notable exception is WALL STREET, the Reel 13 Classic from the first Saturday in October. While there are occasional moments that Stone makes his presence felt (zooms that feel so wrong, occasional whip pans and of course, the old dolly-in/zoom-out that filmmakers love to overuse), for the most part, he lets the story unfold on its own. He (generally) doesn't force matters, which is unusual for him and allows, to my mind, for a more effective and interesting narrative.

    And so, it's the script that's front and center in WALL STREET and that is what I think is the key to the film's effectiveness. Stone, along with co-writer Stanley Weiser, craft a very detailed and well-structured story with terrific, snappy dialogue that is clever without being overly so and therefore, remains believable. This gives the cast something meaty to work with and most of the ensemble doesn't disappoint. Of course, Michael Douglas' portrayal of Gordon Gekko is now legendary and quite possibly, deservedly so. He exudes both confidence and menace at all times, but occasionally reveals glimpses of vulnerability and humanity that make the character three-dimensional. It's never enough to diminish his on-screen authority, but just enough to round out Gekko. Even Charlie Sheen is quite strong through most of the movie, that is, until he gets truly tested in the third act. In other words, he nails ambition, greed and confidence. When he has to play betrayed, embarrassed, angry, devastated and hurt, he falters greatly.

    It may come as no surprise that the one member of the cast that is a complete waste of space is Daryl Hannah as the femme fatale caught in the middle. She doesn't even look good (though that may be my 2008 sensibility speaking), let alone present an interesting character that we might actually root for. Her scenes are like nails on a chalkboard and add absolutely nothing to the narrative. Perhaps the character's storyline might have worked with another actor (I know that Diane Lane was around then…), but as it stands, you mentally plead with Sheen's Bud Fox to dump her ass as soon as possible so we can return to the real story.

    This is just another of a handful of flaws that prevent WALL STREET from being a wholly satisfying experience. Hannah, Stone's sporadic stylistic flights of fancy and the unnecessary coda at the end all fall into that category, but ultimately they are overshadowed by the strength of the story and script. There is enough quality within the narrative to keep the viewer invested, in spite of the intermittent hiccups along the way.

    (For more information on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)


 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<November 2008>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
2627282930311
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30123456


Categories
 


Advertisement