Trailer Breakdown: DJANGO UNCHAINED

It's been three years since his last film, but Quentin Tarantino looks to come back with a vengeance with the Christmas 2012 release of Django Unchained. The first trailer for the film has finally been released, and I've taken the liberty of watching it a few times through to try to get a decent sense of what we may be getting once the film hits theaters. For starters, let's take a look at the trailer itself, shall we?

And now, let's talk about it a bit. I've come up with a few questions that came to mind while watching the trailer, and I'll do my best to answer them as accurately as I can. 

1. What is Django Unchained?

Although I'm sure many of you already know the basic plot outline, I'll recap what we're given from the trailer: 

A bounty hunter (Christoph Waltz) enlists the help of a former slave (Jamie Foxx) to find a number of slave owners with bounties on their heads. In return, the bounty hunter will help the former slave free his wife (Kerry Washington) from the clutches of an evil plantation owner (Leonardo DiCaprio) who now holds her captive. 

Knowing Tarantino, there's definitely going to be a bit more to the plot than that, but there's a good starting point for those of you curious about the film's storyline. The film is inspired by the 1966 spaghetti western Django.

2. What's up with the music in the trailer?

The first thing I noticed is that the trailer holds quite a bit of more contemporary music than one would imagine for a film of this genre. Normally, I'd think nothing of it considering Tarantino's normally brilliant music selections, but after his 2009 film Inglourious Basterds, which utilized a number of more rustic scores for the soundtrack, I had a feeling he might be going down that road again this time around. Still, this is only the trailer, and we'll have to wait and see just what Tarantino has in store for the film's soundtrack, but we can be sure it'll fit seamlessly into his storyline. 

3. Christoph Waltz is back. Is this the start of an ongoing Tarantino/Waltz collaboration?

Christoph Waltz has been acting for years and years, but most of his work prior to 2009 took place in either Germany or his native Austria. His supporting role in Inglourious Basterds, which landed him an Academy Award, revitalized his career and brought him into the international mainstream. Since then, he's appeared in sub-par films like The Green Hornet, The Three Musketeers and Water for Elephants as well as the stellar Carnage, but his role in Django Unchained looks like it might rival the one he crafted for his Oscar-winning turn. And we all know that Tarantino has a penchant for keeping some actors around his films. We can see Tim Roth and Steve Buscemi in both Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. And I think everyone knows about the continued collaboration between Tarantino and Samuel L. Jackson, who will also appear in Django Unchained. So, if Waltz wants to continue working with the director, I honestly have no problem with it.

4. Will this film revitalize Jamie Foxx's career?

I've generally liked what Jamie Foxx has managed to do as an actor, but since his Oscar-winning turn as Ray Charles in 2004's Ray, he's had much less success in garnering critical praise despite appearing in larger films like 2005's Jarhead and 2006's Dreamgirls. His last role was in 2011's Horrible Bosses where he portrayed a man named - and I kid you not - Dean 'Motherf---er' Jones. If anybody is in desperate need of a push, it's Foxx, and hopefully the role of Django can help push him back over the hill.

5. Is Leonardo DiCaprio playing a villain? 

All signs point to yes, although this isn't exactly a revelation. Tarantino hasn't been shy about letting the world know he's bringing the three-time Oscar nominee into the fray as the film's antagonist, and everything I've seen thus far makes it seem as though this could prove to be one of DiCaprio's best roles yet. It will also mark the first time in his acting career that he'll have portrayed a film's villain. Sure, he's played shady characters before, but to be the outright bad guy is something a little out of his area of expertise. But with his talents and with Tarantino's direction, this could be the surprise performance of the film.

6. What genre will Django Unchained fall under?

That's actually a pretty good question. It's currently being listed as a dramatic western, but if the trailer is any basis, then there should be an ample amount of comedy. Tarantino's screenplays often hold a legitimate level of humor, and that's part of what makes his films so entertaining and engaging. For example, the trailer shows two clips that offer the following two lines uttered by Foxx's Django: 

(when asked whether he enjoys bounty hunting)

"Kill white folks, and they pay you for it? What's not to like?

(when asked his name)

"Django. The 'D' is silent."

So I would say be prepared to laugh. At the same time, however, there should also be quite a bit of action. Django, the film that inspired this particular venture, was once billed as the most violent film of all time, and we all know just how much bloodshed Tarantino is willing to spill. Is it going to be the most violent film of all time? Certainly not; however, I would be prepared for a rootin', shootin' romp through the Southern countryside. 

*****

Ultimately, none of us will know just how good or bad the film might be until it hits theaters this Christmas. That being said, I personally have to say that I'm ecstatic to see this film. Having only in recent years come to the see the brilliance of Quentin Tarantino's filmmaking, I'm sure that Django Unchained will fit right into the canon of his filmography. I simply cannot wait.

Movie Review: JACKIE BROWN

JACKIE BROWN

1997

R

"Half a million dollars will always be missed."

-- Max Cherry

Jackie Brown is a 1997 crime drama written and directed by Quentin Tarantino that served as the follow-up to his 1994 smash hit, Pulp Fiction. When flight attendant Jackie Brown (Pam Grier) is stopped by A.T.F. detectives Ray Nicolette (Michael Keaton) and Mark Dargus (Michael Bowen), they desperately try to press her for information regarding a small arms dealer named Ordell Robbie (Samuel L. Jackson), for whom she traffics money. Initially, she gives them nothing in terms of intel, and the two men ensure she's imprisoned. Ordell posts her bail, and after meeting with her, the two devise a plan that will allow her to bring the rest of his money - over half a million dollars - back into the country from Mexico. At the same time, however, Jackie makes a deal with the A.T.F. agents that will keep her out of prison as long as she can give them Ordell. In addition, she teams with her bail bondsman Max Cherry (Robert Forster) so that they can reap the rewards and bring home the money for themselves. As all three factions put their plans into play, a number of things go wrong for each side, only leading to further complications.

If someone would have asked me my thoughts on Quentin Tarantino only a few years ago, I probably would have dismissed his work as ridiculous and too far off the mainstream. It took his 2009 film Inglourious Basterds to bring me around to his style of filmmaking, and after giving a few of his other ventures another viewing - namely, Pulp Fiction and 1992's Reservoir Dogs - I have to say that I've come full circle and can now call myself a full-fledged fan of the director. That being said, I had always wanted to give Jackie Brown a view, and I've only now been able to do just that.

The first thing I have to say is that one should not expect this film to measure up to some of Tarantino's greater films. As the first film post-Pulp Fiction, Tarantino had set quite a bar for himself, and it was going to be difficult to reach that lofty goal regardless of the type of film he created. It garnered generally positive critical reviews upon its release, and it currently holds an eighty-six percent approval rating on Rottentomatoes.com, where one can find the following consensus:

Tarantino's third film, fashioned as a comeback for star Pam Grier, offers typical wit and charm -- and is typically overstuffed.

What comes out of Jackie Brown is a legitimate film that still stands head-and-shoulders over most of what hits theaters nowadays, but in relation to the director's other efforts, this one's definitely on the lower end of the spectrum. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have its merits.

The film's screenplay proves to be engaging and entertaining, and although it's lacking in the profundity that some of Tarantino's other films enjoy, it still offers a few twists and turns to keep the audience guessing. We're given our nearly-obligatory scenes of mixed-and-matched timeline, but it's not quite as fresh as it has been in other films. Still, I have to say that there were a few moments where I thought I knew what was going to happen and was quickly proven incorrect. And for that, I have to commend Tarantino for not falling into the rote ideas that Hollywood had by that time established. Instead, he made a realistic film in which the bad guy often manages to take home the cake.

The film's cast proves to be decent, but I think we could've gotten a little bit more from some of the stars here. Grier has never been known for her acting prowess, but she does well as our lead in this one. She managed to nab a nomination at the Golden Globes for her performance, so that's saying something, I suppose. Jackson is fine as our central villain, but he's definitely been better before and since. Robert Forster might be the best on the screen this time around, as is evidenced by his Academy Award nomination for Best Supporting Actor. Also be on the watch for some bigger names like Keaton, Chris Tucker and Robert De Niro to offer some interesting turns.

At the end of the day, Jackie Brown is a serviceable film that proves to be entertaining, but it just doesn't quite have that Tarantino "feel" to it. In a way, Tarantino almost seems "Tarantino-esque" this time around, almost as though he's trying to mimic himself in the hopes of crafting something extraordinary. It doesn't quite fire on all cylinders, but you'll still manage to be entertained throughout. That's why I say it's worth a watch, if only if you need to kill a few hours.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: B

Should You See It? Yes

Movie Review: THE AVENGERS

THE AVENGERS

2012

PG-13

"You think you're the only hero in the world?"

-- Nick Fury

The Avengers is a 2012 superhero action film directed by Joss Whedon that brings together the Marvel super-team for which the film is named. It serves as a type of sequel to a number of Marvel-centric films that have been released in the past four years. This film centers around an object known as the Tesseract, an energy source with an unknown amount of potential, which is stolen in the opening scenes by the banished Asgardian Loki (Tom Hiddleston). Because he perceives this as a threat and an act of war, S.H.I.E.L.D. director Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) chooses to assemble the Avengers in the hopes of bringing them together to stop Loki's nefarious plot. After pulling some strings, he manages to bring together Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.), Steve Rogers (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo) and Natasha Romanoff (Scarlett Johansson), but they initially have a bit of trouble getting along. Loki, with the help of Dr. Erik Selvig (Stellan Skarsgård) and Clint Barton (Jeremy Renner), makes a successful attack against S.H.I.E.L.D., and the ensuing battle helps pull the Avengers into a more cohesive unit. Armed and ready, they prepare to square off against Loki and his army of Chitauri who aim to conquer the Earth.

I would like to start this review by saying that I am by no means a die-hard Marvel comics fan. In fact, I'm not quite sure whether I've actually read an Marvel superhero comic, let alone one that's Avengers-centric. Anything I know about the Avengers Initiative stems from the films that have been released over the past few years. Still, I found myself becoming increasingly excited about the potential for The Avengers despite my relatively positive review of Captain America: The First Avenger and my so-so review of Thor. However, when the film started to garner extremely positive reviews, I definitely started to pay a little more attention. At the writing of this review, The Avengers currently holds a ninety-two percent approval rating on Rottentomatoes.com, and it holds the following critical consensus:

With a script that never forgets its heroes' humanity and no shortage of superpowered set pieces, The Avengers lives up to its hype - and raises the bar for Marvel at the movies.

I'd have to say that I agree wholeheartedly.

Part of the reason the film works so well is the creative genius that is Joss Whedon. Those of you who read my review for The Cabin in the Woods will know that I think very highly of Whedon's talents as a screenwriter, and I personally think he's rather deft behind the camera as well. While this film doesn't necessarily feel like your typical Joss Whedon fare, it certainly has the pitch-perfect dialogue that fills his work. And what's truly great about the screenplay is that Whedon was able to flesh out the characters incredibly well despite the fact that there's so many different personalities dominating the screen. One of my biggest fears entering this film was whether the high number of A-list actors might overcrowd the film as they all jockey for position. With Whedon at the helm, however, each character is given exactly the right amount of screen-time, and just the right amount of touch is given to each of their personalities. While we may have been introduced to the characters in their own respective films, their relationships with one another in The Avengers are the facets that truly start to humanize each individual, making them more likable both individually and as a whole. This is where I thought the film succeeded most, by establishing each member of the Avengers as an individual with a specific set of emotions that ultimately makes them more easily relatable.

I also think that the dialogue and screenplay allowed for each of the actors to step up their game. Now, it was going to be tough for Downey Jr. to top his performances as Tony Stark/Iron Man from his two films, but I thought he did a fantastic job at least staying on par. I thought both Chris Evans and Chris Hemsworth stepped it up a notch and brought more thoughtful and emotional characters to the screen this time around. It was also nice to get a little more of a back-story on Johansson and Renner's characters. The real surprise, however, was Tom Hiddleston as the devious Loki. As I previously mentioned, I was not a huge fan of the film Thor, and part of the reason it was so off-putting was that I didn't feel the need to root against Loki, who was also the villain in that film. This time around, there's something much more sinister about him, and I honestly thought Hiddleston brought his A-game. It's a truly fantastic performance, and I have to say that he should be applauded. Also be on the watch for some great smaller performances from the likes of Clark Gregg and Cobie Smulders, as well as vocal performances from Paul Bettany and Lou Ferrigno.

Oh, and some of the film's intangible qualities are top-notch as well. The special effects are utterly fantastic, and I was continually wowed by just how great the visual aspect of the film continued to be. On a personal note, I think they finally found a way to convey the Hulk properly, but that's just my own opinion. Some of the special effects are so beautifully intricate that you'll have a hard time believing that it's actually computer-generated. It's just that good. I'd also like to applaud Alan Silvestri for the score he composed for the film. It fit perfectly, and it might be one of the more memorable scores I've heard of late. Here's a snippet for your listening pleasure:

(Oh, and as with any Marvel film, make sure you stay all the way through the credits. There's a scene - or two - left there for your viewing pleasure.)

At the end of the day, The Avengers is one of the most honestly entertaining films I've seen in quite a while. I laughed and cheered along with the rest of the midnight audience, and it's easily one of the better movie-going experiences I've had in recent memory. I heard a few people already calling it the "best superhero movie" they'd ever seen, and although I can't quite place it on that high a pedestal just yet - The Dark Knight still holds that spot, and The Dark Knight Rises looms on the horizon - I'd say The Avengers definitely has to be in the conversation. It's just a fantastically-made film that's sure to keep a smile on your face.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: A

Should You See It? Yes

Happy Birthday, Samuel L. Jackson!

Today, we're celebrating the 63rd birthday of Academy Award-nominated actor Samuel L. Jackson. He got his acting start in the 1972 film Together for Days, but it wasn't until his small role 1988's Coming to America that really started to put him on the Hollywood map. From there, he landed a supporting role in Spike Lee's 1989 venture, Do the Right Thing, as well as a bit part in Martin Scorsese's 1990 film, Goodfellas. Jackson nabbed his most famous role in 1994 with his inclusion in Pulp Fiction, a role that ultimately landed him his sole Oscar nomination. Since then, he's appeared in such high-feature films as the Star Wars prequels, 2000's Unbreakable, and 2006's Snakes on a Plane. So, to celebrate his birthday, I've created a bit of a tribute post for Sam Jackson, listing my five favorite of his performances. I hope you enjoy the videos I've found. Once again, happy birthday, Mr. Jackson!

5. Zeus Carver
Die Hard: With a Vengeance (1995)


*****

4. Elijah Price
Unbreakable (2000)


*****

3. Ray Arnold
Jurassic Park (1993)


*****

2. Mister Señor Love Daddy
Do the Right Thing (1989)


*****

1. Jules Winnfield
Pulp Fiction (1994)

DVD Challenge #25: 1408

1408
2007
PG-13
Run-time: 1 hour, 44 minutes

Directed by: Mikael Håfström
Starring: John Cusack, Samuel L. Jackson, Mary McCormack, Jasmine Jessica Anthony, Tony Shalhoub


I can't quite remember what drew me to the theater for 1408 back in 2007, but I do remember with whom I saw the film originally. My friends and I sat near the front of the theater - I can't remember if it was crowded or not - and were ready to find something rather laughable. The film, however, proved to be an effective thriller that also served as the first movie ever to make one of my friends scream. And let me tell you, what a scream it was! But I digress...

There are two things working well within this particular film, and they both revolve around the screenplay. Let's start with the actual story: we're getting a man named Mike Enslin (Cusack) who makes his living by debunking allegedly haunted locales. He's taken up this profession after the loss of his daughter, and although he claims not to believe in a God or an afterlife, he subconsciously hopes to have some sort of otherworldly encounter in order to restore his faith. Still, his travels have never produced anything of the sort. Then one day, he receives a mysterious postcard from a Dolphin Hotel in New York City that reads only "Don't enter 1408." Intrigued, Enslin decides to stay the night in the room, and after a lengthy discussion with the hotel's manager (Jackson), he's able to do so. That's when the fun begins. Olin had said that the room itself was evil, and it's as though it can seep into Enslin's subconscious in order to get to him. We see the gradual breakdown of a man seemingly unable to be rattled, and it's quite the ride.

The second facet of the film that works exceptionally well is the performance of Cusack himself. Because he's on-screen for nearly every scene, a lot of the film's success was going to rely on his ability to remain believable as his character slowly loses his mind. It takes two complementary pieces - Cusack's performance and the writing - to create the character of Mike Enslin. It almost seems as though Enslin was written with Cusack in mind because I can't think of another actor better suited to take on this particular individual. He's a well-read individual with a calm and cool demeanor, but Cusack is able to take us into the insanity that follows as the room continues its barrage of torture. It's an incredibly powerful performance, showing the wide range of emotions that Cusack is able to embody, so kudos should be given where kudos are due.

Ultimately, I found 1408 to be a rather splendid film, and most critics tended to feel the same way. The critical consensus on the online review aggregate Rottentomatoes.com reads, "Relying on psychological tension rather than overt violence and gore, 1408 is a genuinely creepy thriller." Sure, you're not going to jump out of your seat a dozen times during this one, but I can guarantee you'll be enthralled with its premise and its lead performer. Get wrapped up in the suspense; that's way better than the cheap thrills.


Rankings
Best Horror/Thriller: #34

Awards
2007: Nominee - Best Horror/Thriller

Movie Review: UNBREAKABLE

UNBREAKABLE

2000
PG-13

Unbreakable is a 2000 dramatic mystery film directed by M. Night Shyamalan. The film opens on David Dunn (Bruce Willis), a married man on his way home from New York on a train that derails, killing everyone on-board - except him. Somehow, David walks away from the crash unscathed, causing everyone around him to wonder just how he managed to do so. After leaving a memorial service for all those killed in the crash, David finds a note stuck under his car's windshield asking him how many times he had been sick in his life. The question quickly becomes an obsession, and with the help of his wife Audrey (Robin Wright), David realizes that he had never once been sick in his life. He traces the note to a special art gallery where he meets Elijah Price (Samuel L. Jackson), a man who was born with a type of brittle bone syndrome. After conversing for a little while, Elijah believes that David may be "unbreakable," in that he cannot be injured. He starts to attempt to convince David that the world may need a person like him - a protector, so to speak. David shrugs off the notion, but as time goes by, he starts to wonder whether Elijah may actually be correct.

Now, I watched this film last night but was too tired afterward to write the review, so bear with me if this sounds a little jumbled. I had been meaning to watch this film ever since I watched The Sixth Sense because many people had told me it's actually good Shyamalan fare. And in comparison to some of his recent efforts (i.e., 2008's The Happening and 2010's The Last Airbender), Unbreakable is damn near brilliant. However, compared to the annals of the rest of film history, it simply falls into the "quite good" category. I had a very interesting viewing of this film, considering it's one of the only Shyamalan films I've seen in which I did not know the ultimate twist going into watching it. The Sixth Sense and The Village (which I have yet to watch) were both spoiled for me before I had the chance to see them, so they proved to be a little lackluster (although, the power of The Sixth Sense still ranks it at #142 on my all-time list). That being said, let's get to the actual review of the film...

We actually have a pretty good screenplay, although it literally makes you wait until the very last scene to punch everything home. This seems to be Shyamalan's sole purpose in making film - to make the audience wait until the final moments to garner some resolution. I have to say that I wasn't entirely expecting the final outcome, but as I thought about it as I drifted off to sleep, I realized how obvious it had been. I should have picked up on it a lot sooner, but perhaps I was tired from a long day of movies (in case you didn't notice, check out my other review from yesterday: Insidious; Source Code; Win Win). We've basically got a superhero story on our hands here, but it's not really packaged as such throughout the film. The story really focuses on Dunn's inner struggle as he tries to figure out just what's "wrong" with him. In a way, I guess you can say this is like an origins story of a superhero. The fact that it's all encased within this comic book universe that Elijah so craves makes it all the more dashing. My only real issue with the screenplay was that it moved so slowly that it never lets you properly hook into what's going on. Again, that could've just been me trying to watch it as I slowly succumbed to the wonders of dreamland - maybe I'll have to give this one another view on a fully functional day.

The acting is good, in a very subtle sort of way. I loved Bruce Willis in The Sixth Sense, and I wanted desperately to love him here as well, but I came away merely liking the character. However, his collaboration with Shyamalan helped to bring out the actor in Willis, rather than the comedic action junkie we had all grown to know and love. His roles in both The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable are so glaringly different from roles he's taken on in the past that it's a little awkward to see him as such. That doesn't take away the fact that he is a very good actor, though. Aside from Willis, there's really no one else to talk about except Samuel L. Jackson. It took me a little while for his character to grow on me, but eventually, I was able to fall into his warped sense of reality. Jackson plays him well, with an outward subtlety that almost masks the manic energy floating around inside Elijah's skull. It's quite a sight to behold, actually.

I'd also like to take a moment and give credit to James Newton Howard, who composed the score for the film. Although it's not quite as good as his composition for The Sixth Sense, it's still quite good and fits the film very well. Here's a little taste of the score, in case you're curious to hear it:

Overall, I think I'm going to have to go back and watch Unbreakable again in a few weeks. The more I think about the film, the more I like it, but I might want to give it another go just to prove that my feelings are warranted. In a day and age when Shyamalan has become a bit of a laughing stock in Hollywood, everything he does has to be taken with a grain of salt. However, Unbreakable might actually be one of his better films, and although it's not quite reaching The Sixth Sense, it could very easily come close.

Movie Review Summary:

Grade: B-
1.5 Thumbs Up

Movie Review: DIE HARD: WITH A VENGEANCE

DIE HARD: WITH A VENGEANCE

1995
R


You can watch the trailer here

Any time you get a chance to watch Bruce Willis as his alter-ego John McClane, you're definitely in for a treat. Although the latest installment in the Die Hard franchise (2007's Live Free or Die Hard) was a bit of a step down, it can't take away from the series as a whole. Die Hard: With a Vengeance was the only film I had yet to see, but now I can say that I have seen, and am a fan, of the entire Die Hard saga. John McTiernan took this film and ran with it.

The story this time around doesn't take place at Christmastime like the other three films. Instead, we see a suspended McClane brought back into active service when a madman with an explosive edge demands that he lead the investigation. Speaking merely in rhymes and riddles, our villain sends McClane and a "good Samaritan" named Zeus (Samuel L. Jackson) around New York City looking for bombs placed at various locations. However, through all of the turmoil, a deeper plot is uncovered, and the identity of the villain becomes a piece of the puzzle. I won't give away that little twist, but it happens early enough in the film that it's hardly a spoiler. Anyways, gratuitous and sometimes ridiculous action ensues, and the rest can be left to the imagination.

The screenplay this time around is decent, but it's nothing truly spectacular. Granted, it would be tough to oust the original Die Hard film (which I believe is one of the greatest action films of all time), but this film definitely carries its own weight. The story starts off incredibly well, with a clever foe leading our heroes on a wild goose chase throughout the big city streets. The clues are thought-provoking and fascinating, and the villain is painted as a worthy adversary for our mostly-brute-but-sometimes-brains McClane. However, as soon as we finally see the bad guy, things start to spiral into your standard action flick, and it loses a little bit of its cleverness along the way. Still, it is just an action movie, so you can't knock it too much.

I don't have any complaints about the acting. Bruce Willis is Bruce Willis; I mean, he's taking a stab at a character he's already played twice, so I don't think there was really much contemplation about changing the psyche of John McClane. However, there are a couple interesting additions to the cast list that prove very effective. Jeremy Irons is great as our villain (a familiar role for him, if you take a glance at his filmography). He doesn't have a terribly large amount of screen-time, but he makes the most of the time he's given. If the Die Hard franchise does anything extremely well, it's that they present villains who aren't psychologically disturbed or absolute nutcases; rather, they give us brilliant individuals capable of developing mastermind schemes while keeping a sense of calm about them. Irons does well to continue this tradition. The second standout addition this time around is that of Samuel L. Jackson as our "good Samaritan." He saves McClane early in the film then becomes caught up in the action, much to his chagrine. Jackson plays a good character opposite Willis, and their banter throughout the film gives a rise in the tension as well as provide the occasional comic relief.

If I had any real beef with the film, it was just the overuse of the march, "When Johnny Comes Marching Home." It seemed a little out of place in the movie, and it was used over and over again. I constantly found myself taken out of the film just to think about why they put that instrumental bit into the movie. Then again, that's just personal preference; maybe you won't even notice it.

Personally, I think Die Hard: With a Vengeance stands as the second-best film from the franchise, barely squeaking ahead of its immediate predecessor. Obviously nothing will beat the original, but this is still a fun little movie if you're itching for some action.

Grade: B
Thumb... Up

Movie Review: DO THE RIGHT THING

DO THE RIGHT THING
1989

TRAILER

Rating: R (for adult content, adult language and violence)

Directed by: Spike Lee

Starring: Spike Lee, Danny Aiello, Ossie Davis, Ruby Dee, Giancarlo Esposito, John Turturro, Bill Nunn, Samuel L. Jackson

Analysis: Like most of his work, Spike Lee's 1989 joint focuses heavily on race relations in New York. In Do the Right Thing, we see Lee himself in a starring role as a young, black man working for an Italian-American pizzeria in his own neighborhood. On one particularly hot day, tempers begin to flare (flaring tempers in the heat? shocking), ultimately culminating in a dramatic, rage-filled finale that only Spike Lee could effectively create.

Watching Lee's films is always a little bit of a stretch for me. The list of his work that I've seen is short (25th Hour, Inside Man, Miracle at St. Anna, and now Do the Right Thing), and from those, I've only truly loved Inside Man, probably because it didn't really rely on race. I didn't outright hate any of his films, but because I'm a young, white man, I'm definitely not the audience Lee is looking for. The films are solid and well-made, but I personally just can't relate to the message he's trying to send.

In the case of Do the Right Thing, I don't really have anything bad to say. The script is tight and well-written, and it worked well enough to keep me engaged throughout the movie. The acting is also solid, with special mentions for Esposito, Turturro and Jackson, who make the most of their limited screen time. I also like the choice of music, especially the use of Public Enemy's "Fight the Power," which almost served as a theme or an anthem for the film. It's almost constantly playing throughout, and it was stuck so deep into my consciousness that I felt like I could still hear it even when it wasn't actually there.

Just because I couldn't find a way to relate to Do the Right Thing doesn't take away from it's quality: it's definitely a film worth watching, especially if you're interested in seeing one of Spike Lee's earlier attempts at showing race relations. It was critically acclaimed and Oscar-nominated, so that should add some credence to its overall quality.

Movie Review Summary:
Score: 7.5/10
Grade: B


Should You Watch It? If you want a good look at race relations