ReelReal Reviews

Stomp the Yard (2007)

a really solid film ... but it's a real shame

[3 June 2007]

The real shame is that someone might come to IMDb, see that this film is rated 2.6, think it's a legitimate rating, and not see this film. This is truly a solid film.

Yes, the film is predictable, and at times cliché. Most of these inspirational films aimed at young people are. But this film rises above most others. It hits it's notes very well, and the direction and choreography are on point. The performances - acting and dancing - were very good.

It's a shame that so many people have such hatred in their hearts that they won't expand their own minds by learning of cultures outside of their own. It's a shame that so many people who have obviously never seen this film used their time and energy to rate this film a 1. How pathetic is that? I'm glad that this film was a financial success, despite the "haters". I just feel sorry for the kinds of people who would make spreading hatred a part of their lives.

You can see by some of the comments made by some of the IMDb commentators, so to speak, that they never saw this film. It's also obvious that they know nothing of the subject of this film, stepping. These are the people who might want to see this film and learn of something new.

I, for one, am not big fan of "Greek" organizations. Still, I thought that the messages in, the performances in, and the overall execution of this film was better than any in this recent group of college age/friendship genre films.

I enjoy films of all types, and I can honestly say that this is a solid film for this genre. Also, it's new in subject matter, which makes it different from it's peer films.

If you're on the fence about seeing this film. You should see it. It's pretty much what you think it is from the trailers, but it's a very well made version.

I'd give the film a strong 7/10. For it's genre, however, it's as good as there is.

American History X (1998)

Tremendous performance ... dangerous ending

[19 April 2007]

This film has always bothered me as deeply as any I've seen, and I've seen thousands. I'm a film buff, and have been from the time I was a youngster watching old films with my mother. Many films have impacted my life, much the way they have a lot of people, and that's why it's important that filmmakers (real filmmakers) put deep thought into what they put on the big screen.

I saw AHX when it was first released. I saw it again a number of times since, mainly because I have tried to come to terms with the ending. Had it been a lesser film, I would have just labeled the ending thoughtless racism, as is in a lot of films, and moved on. But this film is so thoughtful in other ways that I have to believe that the filmmakers thought as deeply about the ending - often considered the most important part of a movie - of their film.

I've accepted that the white characters in the film were deep and layered characters, and the black characters, for the most part, were one dimensional stereotypes because the film is from the point of view of Edward Norton's character, and his family are the supporting characters. The black characters are secondary. That is until the end.

When the black kid shoots Daniel in the end, it makes him a much more important character to the story. And, we haven't seen enough of this character to understand his motivation. So, he just becomes some black kid who overreacted and killed a white main character who the audience loved and who was changing for the better. To me, that would go to make some in the white audience despise this kid, and be more sympathetic to Derek's point of view.

The filmmakers can't even argue that they were just giving a look at real life in this situation, as the scene does not at all fit what we know, or knew about violence among youth. (Excuse me for the upcoming generalizations, but race is the topic of the film, and I'm simplifying for time's sake.) We know we've had the school shootings by the outcast white kids, and we've had a number of inner city shootings by underprivileged black kids. The white kids have, in general, gone after the kids who made them feel like outcasts, and the inner city shootings have been part of gangs or the drug trade, where the intended victims are involved in the same. The issue of a black kid shooting a white kid because of some racist spat is just not reality.

So, we have a one dimensional black kid shooting a audience favorite character in an unrealistic scene. This is at the end of an otherwise well made film containing a thought provoking discussion dominated by a very intelligent and convincing skinhead character (played by the dynamic Edward Norton).

We've all heard that this film is praised by racists as well as "non-racists". So, I can't help but to wonder what the intentions of the filmmakers were.

Some might say that you can't dismiss the rest of this well made film because of the end. And I agree wholeheartedly. In fact, it's the poignancy and quality of the rest of the film that gives the ending such power. The ending of a film often brings together the themes and point of view of the film. So again, what were the intentions? I find the ending of this film to be out of place. Otherwise, this film is well made, well acted and so well respected across the board, and that may make it dangerous.

Crash (I) (2004)

contrived, racist melodrama ... with good intentions

[18 April 2007]

I know that there are many who love "Crash", and who would take offense to any discrediting of this film. I'd ask that they take a closer, open-minded look. I believe that the film was so greatly praised and received only because there is a lack of any real in depth discussion about the topic and many people wanted to like and praise this film before they ever saw it. But, let's look at the characters.

The character that stands out the most for a majority of the audience is that of Officer Ryan, played convincingly by Matt Dillon. This character is racist, not only in thought but in action. And, with the power his badge gives him, he is allowed to get away with practicing his racism without immediate consequence. We see him commit the heinous act of sexually abusing a woman. To make the act more deplorable, he uses it to not only hurt and debase the woman, but to emasculate her husband who has to watch, knowing that he could be jailed or even killed were he to step in. The ramifications of something like this are barely touched upon in the film, but I think any reasonable person can agree that this act was deplorable with long reaching effects.

As the film goes on we find out that this man is taking care of an ill father. This is supposed to give the audience a feeling of compassion for this man. Later, in what is one of the most contrived scenes I've seen in a movie that has reached this status, the officer has the chance to save the same woman he victimized from possible death due to a car accident and an impending explosion. He is redeemed.

Wait. A police officer DOES HIS JOB, so he is redeemed for a CRIME that destroys the life and self esteem of this woman. So, a racist of this level, in this position, should be excused because there is good and bad in everyone , and we don't know what this man has to go through in his life at home. Only someone who has never been affected by this sort of racism would dare try to redeem this guy in such a way. (And yes, redemption was the obvious goal.) Lives are changed and destroyed by instances like the one in which he molested this woman. Some communities are in dishevel, in part, because even the majority of the community who are good citizens are more afraid of police abusing their power than they are of the illegal criminals. There are deep issues within these men, and we need to see this character come to terms with them or know that he will continue to destroy lives.

Next, there is Sandra Bullock's character. She represents an upper middle class woman who has an ingrained fear of young black men, as many do. Still, judging by this film, you certainly can't blame her. After all, her fear was confirmed when she was carjacked by the same men she feared. She even had a monologue where she admitted that she was afraid that night, but she didn't want to look like a racist so she said nothing. Then, she's jacked. Message? I won't go through every character, though there is a skewed point of view about every one. But, there is one more character that I must mention.

Ludicrous plays a character named Anthony. This guy was a carjacker. (I'm not complaining about the thug black character because I understand the reason for that character in the film.) What was appalling to me is how this writer/director, who wanted to show redemption in everyone, chose to use the scenario of human trade in the situation of Anthony. Anthony's redemption comes when we see that he doesn't take money, from an obvious scumbag, for a truck load of human beings. What??? What kind of monster is Anthony that we would believe he would have sold human beings to this guy? It was simply human to make the right decision. It's as if the audience was to think so lowly of this young black man as to think he would do such and egregious thing. Nothing in his character showed him to be that kind of person. But being a young black man we were supposed to think him that monstrous.

What's the message? This movie says to me that: racism by white people is either warranted or should be excused, because after all they really are good people; people of color, even professionals, have an uncontrollable rage in them that will cause them to kill (store owner) or lash out until they are killed (Terrence Howard's character) themselves; and yes, young black men may be criminal, but maybe they are not the absolute monsters that some believe ... just watch your stuff.

I've heard Paul Haggis speak on more than one occasion. I believe that he had the best intentions at heart when he made this film, and it was those intentions that likely attracted Don Cheadle as producer and much of the cast. The problem is that Haggis, like most of us, has his own internal racism and preconceived notions. Instead of recognizing that and realizing that he could not likely write a balanced film on the subject by himself, he took on a task too big for most to handle. He should have either written a film that was intentionally from a white man's point of view, or collaborated on the film with writers from varying backgrounds in order to truly get a more balanced view. He had such an opportunity with this film. And unless his goal was the numerous awards bestowed in largest part by other white men with his point of view, he missed the boat.

The Birth of a Nation (1915)

technically overrated, and historically laughable

[18 April 2007]

The technical: It's amazing how so many throw out their own common sense and swallow an idea if it's fed to them enough. So many people use the defense that this film was so innovative in order to excuse the extreme racism in depicts. First of all, there is still a dispute as to whether Griffith did indeed "invent" the close up shot and cross-cutting of scenes. But even if you accept that, so what? The film was made in 1915, during the very early stages of film-making. Just like with any industry, film-making was progressing, and such obvious shots were only a matter of time. To say that Griffith was ahead of his time is not saying much considering the youth of the industry. The film, even technically, does not stand the test of time. If it did, we would not have to continually be reminded that the film was made in 1915, and that's why we should be impressed. Citizen Kane was made in 1939, and it was truly ahead of it's time. The shots in that film wow me to this day. It just so happens that this film, BOAN, was the first to use simple techniques that were inevitable. (Some of which are believed to have been suggested by the cameraman, and not Griffith himself).

The history (Reconstruction): For those who argue that this film is historically accurate, I can only guess that you have another agenda, much like those who argued the same at the time. The debate about the reconstruction will never end because there was not the technology and a media capable of recording the events in a clear and unbiased way. The written accounts are widely varied, and debated. But again, let's use common sense. Of course there was violence and I'm sure some amount of treachery after the civil war. You have a new "regime" coming into a place full of strong feelings and tradition. Reconstruction would of course have meant getting rid of old leaders and old traditions, and it would have been met with opposition. Still, had the reconstruction been anywhere near as it was depicted in this film, the country would not have recovered and rebuilt as quickly as it did. I've read too much from both sides about the reconstruction to buy this extreme point of view.

We are in a rough time in this country right now. Should an anti-Bush filmmaker make a film about this time 50 years from now in the same vein as BOAN, it would depict this administration as Nazi-like extreme rightist who peer through citizens' window, randomly imprison Muslim-Americans and attack all underdeveloped Muslim countries with oil on their land. The whole administration would look like sinister villains and Bush would be a dopey puppet like imbecile. Of course, if it wasn't for us having the technology to record today's news, anyone with an anti-Bush agenda would rally behind the film and argue that it is historically accurate. Some might even believe it. Pro-Bush folks would argue that it had no validity at all. But like anything, it's more complicated than either extreme will admit.

This film was a racist satire of Reconstruction at best.

Quick response to volksgeist, from Canada: I've read all of your "reviews" and they are nothing more than quotes by historical racists and anti-Semites. Your agenda if obvious. Still, since your non-review made it on the site, I'd like to take the time and respond briefly to your quote. It is indeed an interesting quote. But, like this film, it's from a particular point of view with a particular agenda. Yes, Africans did walk among diamonds for generations. Yes they did have abundant natural resources. And, that remained true until they were invaded.

Perhaps, it was out of wisdom that they chose not to destroy the resources for wealth, but to live among them in balance with nature. Diamonds, after all, are not food or shelter. They are used mainly as symbols of status because they are "pretty". And now, people lose their lives over these pretty stones. Where is the wisdom in that? The natural resources of Africa have been diminished to almost nothing, and the continent is in shambles due to the "progressive" thinkers such as yourself. Maybe, just maybe, your ideas of progress are simply different from those of the natives of Africa. And considering where we are headed now, I'd argue that they were wiser.

Also, since that quote, it has been proved that Africans did indeed travel across the seas. In fact they visited the "Americas" long before Columbus "discovered" them. All your quote proves, to me, is that racists can be eloquent, but it doesn't make them any less wrong.

Norbit (2007)

Sickening

[9 February 2007]

Any points that Eddie Murphy might have gained from his performance in Dreamgirls was surely negated, and even trumped by this vile concoction of distasteful images and vulgarly offensive "comedy" that is Norbit. There's not much else to be said about the film.

I would expect this type of buffoonery from the Wayans brothers (it was no shock that Marlon was a character in this). And Katt Williams has made his whole career as a comedian by playing on a racial stereotype and performing self hating and degrading comedy. But I figured Eddie Murphy for much more class than this.

My sister has pointed out to me on a number of occasions that Eddie Murphy has a dark skin complexion complex. She has noticed his choices of leading women, and even his tendency to make darker skinned women the "bad guy" in his films while lighter skinned women are the desirable women of the main character's dreams. I'd argue with her, but I was never convinced of my own stance. Today I say she's right. (And I tell you, I feel terrible for that girl who played Young Rasputia.) ...

I found this film to be every bit as offensive as Soul Plane, and likely more damaging. Soul Plane was nothing more than a 90 minute skit based on stereotypes. The people in that film didn't have a lot of choices as far as their film careers go, so they did that piece of crap. But Norbit is a film that is legitimized by the presence of a true star with choices. And though I found it to be very offensive as a black man, I thought that it was much more abusive to overweight people and to people who don't fit a certain ideal of beauty.

The film is sickening.