Archives for October 2009

Star Trek Enterprise: Season 3

It’s been a long haul for the Star Trek series.

The crew returns for another season of outer space escapades.

The crew returns for another season of outer space escapades.

The first incarnation of Star Trek, though its opening credits had a voiceover with William Shatner extolling the “five-year mission” of the ship, only lasted three seasons.  The first Star Trek movie barely made it off the ground, so to speak, but was popular enough to spawn a multitude of sequels (some of questionable quality).  Star Trek: The Next Generation revitalized the ailing franchise, though, and became the most popular syndicated television show of its time.  Its spinoffs, devoid of the imagination and human insight of Trek creator Gene Roddenberry, foundered in concepts as well as ratings.  Deep Space Nine and Voyager were interesting, the former being much better in its twilight years than many people give it credit for, but too often relied on tired clichés and political wranglings set in motion by Jean-Luc Picard and company.

Enterprise aimed to reboot the series in the minds of fans as well as the general public, and spent its first two seasons adrift in a sea of high-minded but poorly-executed storylines that tried to capture the outrageously science fiction, yet uniquely human, essence of the original show.  Mediocre conflicts with Souliban, Vulcan, Klingon, and numerous other alien species, a smattering of half-baked character backstories, and a few ship-in-peril episodes thrown in for good measure, weren’t enough to raise the show to more than a mere curiosity for most Trek fans, and a last-resort DVR viewing for everyone else.

With season 3 of Enterprise, the creators must have smelled a bit of lemon on their hands, as they threw everything from the first two seasons to the wind and launched the ship, and the series, in a whole new direction (literally and figuratively) while setting up an Earth-in-peril plotline of epic proportions that spanned the entire season.  And while I applaud the minds behind the show for trying something new and different (effectively going for a fouth-down conversion on Enterprise’s own 10-yard line), the end result is another just-beyond-mediocre chapter of a show that once carried so much promise.

Xindi come in five flavors, two of which are named Insectoid and Aquatic. Can you guess which is which?

Xindi come in five flavors, two of which are named "Insectoid" and "Aquatic." Can you guess which is which?

The season begins with earth being attacked by an entirely heretofore unknown race called the Xindi.  A small probe burns a wide channel in Earth’s crust from Florida down to Argentina, killing 7 million people in the process.  Enterprise, having arrived back on Earth at the end of Season 2, is sent into the also heretofore unknown region of space called the Delphic Expanse–a stellar Bermuda Triangle of sorts from which no Vulcan ship has ever come back intact–to investigate the probe’s origins and stop any further destruction.

We soon find out that the probe was sent by the Xindi because they believe earth is going to be responsible for destroying their planet at some point in the future.  As such, all five species of Xindi band together to plan a pre-emptive strike against the humans, and ultimately ensure their own survival by constructing a giant circular weapon to blow up our planet.  The probe, you see, was merely a foretaste of the Xindi feast to come.

It’s clear that Rick Berman and Brannon Braga, the minds behind this as well as much of the other Trek spinoffs, had lofty goals in mind here.  And I appreciate the epic nature of what they are trying to do:  send Enterprise on a thousand-to-one-odds mission, into an uncharted region of space, to stop the planet from being annihilated.  But that sort of paper-thin cocktail napkin premise requires a massive amount of story in order to span an entire season, and too often the result is a plot that is mired in strange twists and deus-ex-machina resolutions that stretch the limits of credibility.  Even the basic idea seems like something out of an Austin Powers movie:  an megalomaniac wants to blow up the planet, and it’s up to one man ship to stop it.  Pardon me while I yawn.

Death Star? Borg ship from First Contact? No, this is WAY different. Its a Xindi Superweapon. Guess what it does? It destroys planets!

Death Star? Borg ship from First Contact? No, this is WAY different. It's a "Xindi Superweapon." Guess what it does? It destroys planets!

Still, the season does have its high points, and I must give credit where credit is due.  “Twilight” hearkens to one of the best episodes of any TV show ever, “The Inner Light,” and does a good job of showcasing the type of alternate-reality future that often goes over well in Trek mythology.  I appreciate the character development given to T’pol, as she struggles with a loss of emotional control through an addiction to a psychoactive chemical, but her romantic relationship with Trip is about as forced and unbelievable as they come.  “Similitude” and “Hatchery” delve into some moral choices that are the hallmark of good science fiction,  and E2 reminds me of one of the best TNG episodes, “Yesterday’s Enterprise” in both concept and execution.

What’s missing throughout this season, though, is the same thing that’s been missing since the inception of Enterprise: characterization.  After more than 70 episodes of the show, I still don’t have much of an idea of who these spacefaring crew members really are.  Hoshi continues to brandish her superpower of language translation whenever it’s required.  Mayweather dutifully embodies the straight-faced version of his Galaxy Quest counterpart Tommy Webber, but nobody told Mayweather that his counterpart was meant to be a caricature.  The list continues, and few characters are ever lifted beyond the base level of cardboard cutout.  One 20-minute episode of Arrested Development has more personality than the entire Season 3 of Enterprise, largely because these individuals exist as jobs that need individuals (“Weapons Officer,” “Engineer“) as opposed to individuals (“Smart but socially akward guy“, “Charismatic womanizer,” “Brilliant, overworked widow“) who hold given positions on the ship.

Tpol does get some decent character development too, but it feels a bit too contrived.

T'Pol also gets some decent character development, but it feels a bit too contrived.

Some attempts to flesh out these people are made, the most notable being Trip as he deals with his sister’s death at the hand of the Xindi when the probe attacked earth, and later, in an inexplicable breach of established characterization, falls in love with T’pol, as if to fulfil a “Show needs more romance” checkbox on a focus group feedback form. But most of the series is riddled with one-off attempts at characterization that exist in isolated episodes rather than being woven into the fabric of the show as a whole.

The ideas that show up throught Season 3 are impressive:  giant spheres constructed milennia ago that cause gravometric distortions throughout the Delphic Expanse, the various political wranglings of the five distinct Xindi species, and the moral choices that must be made by Captain Archer get into some pretty heavy territory. But too often the show sacrifices the essence of Science Fiction on the altar of fanciful CGI effects.

Here’s hoping the best for Season 4.

Rating: [Rating:3/5]

Live Free or Die Hard (Video Review)

Rating: [Rating:4/5]

Nanny Diaries

TND posterIt’s hard to put my finger on why I like The Nanny Diaries. There isn’t a single shootout, car wreck, or fist fight in the entire thing; not even one punch thrown to accent a dramatic moment. Not only that, but (male audience members be warned) this is very much a chick flick – be prepared for a lot of whining by several characters about how hard it is to be a woman.

I guess it boils down to two reasons: first, for all its fashion tips and feminism, Diaries is ultimately a movie about kids and family life, two areas that are just as important in the end to men as they are to women, whether we like it or not. And second, it is one of those few movies that succeeds in telling a very engaging story with nothing more than everyday life.

The lead, Annie Braddock (Scarlet Johansson) graduates from college with honors in business. Her mother, a nurse, has spent the last 22 years pulling extra shifts, in between raising Annie alone. (Just for the record, in the book, the protagonist, Nanny, or “Nan,” had a very involved father, who, being a teacher, was a key part of her life and a mentor in her career as a nanny.) She has done this to give Annie something better than what she had, and wants her to go on to an illustrious career in finance.

Annie’s first love is anthropology. Her mother’s reaction, of course, is “how are you going to make a living at that?” Grudgingly, Annie accepts an interview at the prestigious Goldman, Sachs firm, but gags when the interviewer asks her “who is Annie Braddock?” She suddenly realizes she doesn’t know. She rushes out of the interview and into Central Park, where she saves a child from being run over. The mother, Mrs. X (Laura Linny), breathlessly runs up and showers her with thanks. Annie introduces herself as “Annie” and Mrs. X blurts out “Did you say you were a nanny??” Annie immediately finds herself buried in the calling cards of moms from the Upper-East-Side of Manhattan, including Mrs. X.

Repulsed by the finance profession, Annie decides to adopt the persona of

The "ideal specimen of an Upper-East-Side female" pushing her son out of the way.

The "ideal specimen of an Upper-East-Side female" pushing her son out of the way.

an Upper-East-Side nanny for a summer and treat the experience as an anthropological case study. She narrates the rest of the movie as though dictating a field diary. She finds herself being wined and dined by moms all over Manhattan until she accepts the job with Mrs. X. She tells her mother she’s gotten a finance job and moves to the city.

Much like with a human trafficking syndicate however, once a Manhattan family has a nanny hooked, the sweet talk is over. As Annie arrives at the Xs’ Fifth Avenue apartment, expecting a fun, easy job, she suddenly finds herself stuffed into a bedroom that is more like a closet, and expected to learn to cook and work 24 hours, single handedly raising the X’s five-year-old son, Grayer (Nicholas Art). The first thing Grayer does on seeing her is kick her in the shin and scream “I hate you I want Bertie! (The last nanny).” Annie battles through the next several scenes, trying to find a way to Grayer’s heart, reminding herself that anthropologist “Margarette Mead didn’t run home every time she contracted malaria.”

Grayer soon becomes the least of Annie’s worries, however, as an Upper-East-Side Nanny must also serve as the punching bag for an Upper-East-Side mother’s anxiety, anguish and insecurity. Mrs. X loads Annie down with non-child-related errands to give herself time for shopping, and vents her pain over Mr. X’s infidelity on her. In one scene, she barges into Annie’s room holding a negligee, and demands “This is not mine so it must be yours, right? Right??”

Annie observes “Male monogamy remains an elusive … practice throughout the world. In many Bedouin tribes, powerful men are encouraged to take multiple wives. In contemporary France, mistresses are de rigour and quietly tolerated. But for the women of the Upper-East-Side, adultery is pathologically ignored.”

It takes a while for the audience to meet Mr. X (Paul Giamatti), who the authors of the book describe as a common example of an Upper-East-Side Male, who is “bashing his brains out on Wall Street, so that his wife can have thousand dollar curtains … but he’s missing out on what he has … a wife who craves his attention, and a son who thinks he hung the moon.”

"Nanny" is singing to Grayer in French when he drops the "L" bomb.

"Nanny" is singing to Grayer in French when he drops the "L" bomb.

With the strife between his parents, Grayer transfers his affection to his Nanny. In a pivotal scene (above), Annie narrates that “three little words made it a thousand times harder to leave” the job she has learned to hate.

One darkly comic scene was eerily reminiscent of my experience at a “Bar Bench Conference,” where lawyers and judges are “allowed” to voice their grievances against each other. Of course, with things going back to normal the next day, you can probably guess how much the lawyers had to say. Likewise, Mrs. X takes Annie to a Mother-Nanny Conflict Resolution meeting, where Annie joins a collection of third-world women standing against the wall who know better than to say anything.

"Nanny" assists the tyrant queen in her chamber.

"Nanny" assists the tyrant queen in her chamber.

Laura Linny has a glare that can truly freeze the blood. After awhile, Annie starts jumping in fear every time Mrs. X comes around a corner. One of the most memorable scenes in the movie is when Grayer gets upset and runs straight past his open-armed mother, throwing his arms around Annie. Mrs. X is starring daggers at Annie while Annie frantically begs Grayer “Go to your mom! Go to your mom!”

Having also read the book, I know that it just begged to be put on the screen. Believe it or not, director Robert Pulcini asked the authors of the book if he could make a movie out of it a year before the book was even published. I’d have to say the changes that he made to it are for the better. He starts it off with a fantasy sequence of Annie wandering through the museum of natural history looking at dioramas that depict child-rearing customs from all over the world – coming eventually to dioramas of Manhattan life, where they have “the most prosperous, but idiosyncratic social structure in the world.” In the book, Nan was a veteran nanny, explaining the field to the reader. As she is, Annie is more of the audience’s character, discovering the world of the Upper-East-Side the same time we are. Pulcini also flavors the soundtrack a bit with a few throwbacks to Mary Poppins, and plays jungle sounds and tribal drums over several scenes to emphasize the bizarreness of the rituals Annie encounters.

Johansson plays the role well, involving the audience in her reactions to this bizarre world, and entertaining us with her native New Yorker acting. Giamatti is creepy and devilish as Mr. X, and for a child actor, Art is very impressive. The rest of the cast also does a great job. Pulcini definitely paints a bleak picture of our world, but illustrates a number of excellent points, including that being rich doesn’t guarantee any happiness. Unfortunately, after doing such a great job with the darkness, he feels the need to force in a text-book happy ending in the last five minutes of the movie.

Overall, The Nanny Diaries is an excellent film about an unusual and very thought-provoking subject. And despite the fact that it’s a chick flick, I have to admit it is genuinely touching.

Rating: [Rating:4/5]

Heroes: Season 2

Penning a worthy second act to a fantastic story, whether in print, film, TV, theatre, or other storytelling medium, is always a tricky business.  When writers strike paydirt and resonate with their audiences on such a fundamental level as the first season of Heroes, the question so eloquently put by Nigel Tufnel is obvious:  where can you go from there? After the mind-bending, high-concept first season of Heroes ended, viewers were left with several questions to ponder and a few cliffhangers to mull over during the summer months.  The writing team, in crafting the storylines that would show up in Heroes: Season 2, were faced with not only the dilemma of answering those questions but creating new threads to follow, crafting more intricate conflicts, developing more interesting characters, and generally ratcheting things up a notch or two in order to follow in the footsteps of the mostly brilliant Season 1.

Unfortunately, like Neo on his first jump off a building, Season 2 mostly falls flat on its face.

I suspect the underlying problem comes not from trying to create characters and conflicts that are inherently interesting and compelling, but pulling a “24” and trying to knock everyone’s socks off just for the sake of outdoing the first season.  What we are left with is a slew of new characters that feel hollow, special abilities that are contrived as all get out, and to top things off, a writer’s strike in the middle of the season that effectively stopped the show in its heroic little tracks.

Things start off on a bit of an interesting note as we see what amounts to the aftermath of the events at the end of Season 1.  Mohinder is lecturing on super powers and human DNA, but is brought to work for Primatech by a shady guy named Bob (note to screenwriters:  never use Ned Reyerson as your main villain.  He’s just not that evil.) who apparently runs things over at the company.  Parkman broke up with his cheater wife and is helping Mohinder raise the telepathic girl Molly from Season 1.  Two new characters, Maya and her twin brother Alejandro, are fleeing South America because Maya accidentally kills people when she gets stressed about stuff.  Old favorites like Nikki, Micah, Noah, Nathan, as well as various supporting characters, are all back to join in the fun, whether they have a purpose in the Season 2 storyline or not.  Worse yet, Peter was apparently not killed and (can you guess the cliché?) wakes up with amnesia (I knew you could!) far away from home.

Note to ABC: Noah Bennett is not Jack Bauer.  Dont use him to pander to the 24 audience.

Note to ABC: Noah Bennett is not Jack Bauer. Don't use him to pander to the 24 audience.

All these characters had a purpose in Season 1, as there was a story arc that was brilliantly and carefully laid out for almost the entire show.  But now with Season 2, the cast is all dressed up with nowhere to go, and apocalyptic scenarios seem passé by this time:  instead of a city-destroying explosion, there’s a world-destroying virus (like we haven’t seen that before). Abilities go from inventive and horrifying to silly and absurd:  characters in Season 2 can learn any skill demonstrated on TV, shoot lightning from their fingertips, and create portable black holes that suck stuff in really fast.  Subplot upon subplot is thrust upon the viewers, some with connections to earlier events, some that foreshadow future happenings, and some that have no point whatsoever.

At the end of Season 1 we knew that two key characters, Sylar and Hiro, had both survived.  One of the highlights of Season 2 is seeing Sylar repair himself from a severe case of PTSD, come to develop his powers all over again, and watch his character become much more fleshed out than in Season 1.  However, without question the worst part of Season 2 is the protracted subplot involving Hiro, who is stuck in medieval Japan, and the childhood hero of his dreams who turns out to be more of a crackpot than an actual hero.  What seemed like a good idea at the cliffhanger ending of Season 1 ended up being a boring mess that took some fantastic leaps in logic to become even remotely connected to the rest of the Heroes storyline.

Perhaps the biggest sin of Season 2 is when it falls back on brief moments that worked in Season 1 to try and redeem itself.  Hiro shouts “Great-o Scott-o” at one point, and while this worked as an awesome sci-fi in-joke when he said it in an episode of Season 1, but here it feels like a desperate attempt to recycle once-solid material.  Same goes for the out-of-nowhere guest appearance by Nichelle Nichols, whose character is entirely extraneous.  It was cool when Star Trek alum George Takei appeared in Season 1, but throwing another Trek veteran in a show doesn’t automatically make the show cool.

I don’t mean to be so harsh on the show, and in a way I feel kind of bad writing so many negative things in this review.  The season wasn’t all bad, and there was enough to keep me at least interested until the premature end, which came about as a direct result of the writer’s strike.  But it felt like the show was getting too big for its britches.  It had become a Bryan Singer show suddenly trying to appeal to a Michael Bay audience.

Rating: [Rating:2.5/5]

Surrogates

Surrogates posterBruce Willis has spent a lot of his career kicking in doors, but I bet this is the first time he’s had to do it just to get his wife out of bed. Surrogates is a disturbing story of man kind’s dependence on technology and susceptibility to control by fear.  In the not-too-distant future, mid-Sunday A.D., 98% of all humans live vicariously through life-like robots. They lie in chairs that look like the offspring of a La-Z-Boy and a virtual reality entertainment center (“stem chairs”), and rarely leave their homes. Their work, and all other interaction, is done by their “surrogates,” androids connected to their brain stems.

You may, of course, choose your own “surry.” You can be whatever gender, race, body type, or hair color strikes your fancy. It’s sort of a universal Stepford Wives. You see what your surry sees, and feel what it feels (except the pain, of course).

In the future, all murder scenes will look like this.

In the future, all murder scenes will look like this.

Needless to say, the casting crew had their work cut out for them on this one, even by Hollywood standards, searching for enough perfect-faced, perfect-bodied people to fill out the future streets full of sculpted robots. These, of course, are to be contrasted with the recluses controlling them from home, who have really let themselves go. Willis plays Tom Greer (and his surrogate), an FBI agent whose wife refuses to even set foot outside her bedroom “in the flesh.”

Greer plugs into a stem chair.

Greer plugs into a stem chair.

Greer has bigger problems, however, because early in the movie, what starts as a routine vandalism investigation (below), soon appears to be a double homicide – the first two homicides in the western world in several years. It seems that someone has developed a weapon capable of sending a signal through a surry that not only destroys the surry, but liquefies the brain of the user.

Robocop meets CSI. Got enough crackers for all that cheese?

Robocop meets CSI. Got enough crackers for all that cheese?

The initial theory is that this is subversive action by “Dreddies,” members of a colony where surrogates are outlawed. The Dreddies follow the leadership of  “The Prophet” (Ving Rhames, below), claim sovereignty over a small patch of ground, and spurn all advanced technology, using horses and buggies, and the like.

Ving Rhames, trying way too hard.

Ving Rhames, trying way too hard.

In chasing his man, Greer narrowly survives, and has his surry destroyed. The FBI takes him off the case and refuses to issue him a new one. Now, for the first time in years, he must leave his home and track the killer (you didn’t really think he’d obey his captain and stay off the case?) with only his own weak flesh at his command. His investigation takes him first to the Dreddie colony. But is The Prophet what he seems? (I’ll give you a hint: I brought it up.)

Would you tell this it wasn't your wife? Some guys are just never happy.

Would you tell this it wasn't your wife? Some guys are just never happy.

Willis could have earned a lot of kudos for this film if he’d allowed the makeup department to make his human self ugly. It appears however, that his agent fought not to lower his image one bit. Everyone else is hideous, giving a realistic portrayal of people who haven’t shaved, showered or brushed their teeth for several days. Willis’ acting is passable. His most memorable scene is probably one where he begs his wife, through the eyes of her surry, (Rosamund Pike) to let him see her again (above). The best acting in the movie is probably done by Rhada Mitchell, as the blond, buxom surry of Greer’s homely (work) partner, Peters. I say this because this surry is taken over by several different people in the course of the movie, so she’s always switching characters. She also gets a scene where she runs at incredible speed through the street, doing flips over cars, and so forth. Which raises a question that the movie never resolves: if the streets are now populated with super-strong, super-fast robots, why are there still so many cars?

It’s hard to say more without spoiling a decent flick. I’ll just say if you like sci-fi, or crime stories, Surrogates is worth a look. Not a classic, but exciting, involving and thought-provoking.

Rating: [Rating:3/5]

Land of the Lost

landoflostOne of the worst moviegoing experiences I’ve endured this year has to be Brad Silberling’s 2009 bomb “Land of the Lost.”  What a waste of talent, resources, time and budget (at $100 million).  Now, I haven’t seen the classic TV-show.  Subsequently, I have no basis for the film’s comparison, but I can’t imagine I would have been thrilled by the TV series after seeing the film, even if it is only vaguely reminiscent.

Will Ferrell continues his losing streak after “Semi-Pro,” “Step Brothers,” and now this botched movie.  He plays Rick Marshall, a scientist with a theory involving multiple dimensions in the universe that meet in a distant space-time continuum.  He explains that rather than time-travel moving forward and backwards, it moves side to side, creating a dimension where past, present and future collide at once.

The movie kicks off with a stranded astronaut being hunted by a T-Rex in this other dimension, which the movie never follows up on.  After the title credit, Ferrell’s character Rick gets a brain slap and a boot of embarrassment from NBC Today’s Matt Lauer.  Fast forward three years and Ferrell finishes his boombox time-warp machine that transplants him and two others in another dimension with dinosaurs, primate ancestors, and several other creatures.  Rick shouts, “Matt Lauer can suck it.” Of course, Rick and friends must somehow prevent the disturbances of this other-world from resulting in planet Earth’s demise, and also find an exit from the alternate world to their own.

Humor is not the film’s strong suit, and Ferrell is constantly the brunt of sight gags that have him covering himself in dinosaur urine, consistently failing to outsmart a T-Rex, and idiotic banter with the primate.  The special effects in the movie also wreak.  The creatures and dinosaurs look terrible, and much of the action sequences fall apart.  “Land of the Lost” would have been easier to forgive as a kid’s film, but with the profanity, sexual humor, drug-related scenes, and some scary creatures–it doesn’t exactly cater to youngsters.  Regardless, the movie is really an exercise in wasted time and money.  It’s one of the year’s worst films.

[Rating:0.5/5]


Danny Deckchair

If I had to describe this movie in one word, it would be simple.  There’s nothing complicated here, nothing that will change your perceptions, challenge your ideas, or leave you with any real sense of wonderment.  The plot is straightforward and painfully predictable, the characters are cobbled together from the bargain bin of Hollywood cardboard cutouts, and the message isn’t anything beyond what most people have heard since third grade.  And yet, the movie is ultimately more than the sum of its parts, and proves to be, if nothing else, good old-fashioned entertainment: the kind of check-your-brain-at-the-door moviegoing experience that is tailor-made for a Friday night rental, provided it is accompanied by a good date and a bucket of buttery popcorn.

(click for trailer)

(click for trailer)

The entire premise of the movie can be surmised from the poster:  average  dude floats away on a lawn chair and starts his life over.  Despite the fact that this idea has actually been tried by real people, it’s still kind of an interesting premise and makes one wonder why more people don’t pull a Peter Gibbons (or, in this case, a Danny Morgan) and just try something new for a change.  Danny, played by quintessential “that one guy” Rhys Ifans (better known as the wiry guy from The Replacements), is a construction worker in Sydney, Australia, with an unappreciative girlfriend and a head full of odd ideas that never quite come to fruition.  One day he decides that he can escape his problems by floating away on a chair tied to several helium balloons, and he ends up in a town where no one knows him and he essentially gets a second chance at life.

There’s nothing here we haven’t seen before in all kinds of fish-out-of-water movies, and the entire story after Danny lands in the small town of Clarence is a paint-by-numbers exercise in Hollywood deja vu.  Danny meets a girl, fails to explain who he really is, and begins living a double life as someone he is not.  The entire town is fooled, he becomes a local hero, but ultimately the truth comes out and Danny must deal with the mess he has created.  Not exactly an Alfonso Cuarón work, folks.

Danny and his friend-girl Glenda share a tender moment.

Danny and his friend-girl Glenda share a tender moment.

And yet, the movie ends up being rather enjoyable due in large part to the incredible charm of Ifans.  Sort of a skinny, blonde, Australian version of Vince Vaughan, he is the type of everyday guy most of us can relate to.  His bumbling, deer-in-the-headlights character who manages to succeed at unwittingly convincing an entire town that he really is a good, honest, salt-of-the-earth guy in spite of himself is eminently endearing and enjoyable.  Miranda Otto, the spitting image of Laura Linney, does a great job at playing the straight-laced parking cop Glenda who turns out to have a more adventurous and carefree side that is (betcha didn’t see this coming) brought out the more she gets to know Danny.

This movie sort of caught me by surprise, and I was struck at how little of the storyline actually revolves around Danny and his deckchair.  The chair is simply a brief means of transportation and ultimately has almost nothing to do with the movie as a whole.  Massive stretches of logic are required just to watch it, too:  if the entire town of Sydney is looking for Danny after he floats away, why does no one in the town of Clarence realize that the mystery man who appeared in town the same night the man from Sydney floated is, in fact, Danny?  Does no one in Clarence watch the news?  A subplot involving Danny kind of exposing a local politician for being somewhat of a fraud is entirely dropped with no resolution, and Danny’s girlfriend Trudy is about as cliché as they come.  But let’s not miss the forest for the trees here:  it’s a fun movie in spite of itself, and just by reading the title you should probably be expecting just about what you’re getting.

Rating: [Rating:3.5/5]

Glory Road

GR posterHistory has often shown us the power of sports to inflame people’s passions and sway their opinions. Hollywood, of course, wouldn’t miss a chance to cash-in on this fact. One such attempt is Glory Road.

The movie is a good illustration, however, of just how hard it is for movies to do what sports do. They rarely do anything to challenge our views, but rather reinforce our comfort in what we already assume. Ironically, they have a habit of acting as if they are saying something revolutionary. Consider, for instance, the end of Remember the Titans, from Jerry Bruckheimer, also the producer of Glory Road. The end of the film jumps to several years later, at a funeral, when the narrator, Sheryl Yoast, says “They say it can’t work, black and white. But when they do, we remember the Titans.” I found myself wondering “Just who are ‘they’?”

Glory Road sets the same mood as Titans, starting off at about the same time (mid-sixties) when schools, and therefore sports, were generally segregated. Josh Lucas of Secondhand Lions becomes a white Denzel Washington as Texas Western’s head basketball coach. What do you call a white man surrounded by five black men?

Frustrated with the lack of good players who want to play for TW, Lucas’ Don Haskins combs the ghettos and recruits seven black players for the team. This gives rise to the film’s first really cheesy line: “I don’t see color; I see skill and I see quick.” In the predictable spirit of Titans, for the most part, all black schools and black basketball teams seem to disappear, so the unsympathetic characters are all white (although they meet one team with a few black players midway through the movie). They win consistently, until the black players, angry over a graffiti incident, refuse to pass to the white ones, resulting in the season’s only loss. In spite of this, or maybe because of it, Haskins decides to play only black players in the national championship game, and they go on to narrowly beat the all-white Kentucky team. So the question becomes, is Bruckheimer trying to convey the message that he was in Titans that the discipline brought on by working through racial tension builds strength, or is he simply saying that black guys play basketball better than white guys?

Either way, it’s nothing we haven’t heard before. It’s never been any secret that competitive basketball became widely black as skill began to show through prejudice, and then became almost exclusively black when television took over and skill took a backseat to image. Ironically, the film has to establish a mentor-student relationship. Consequently, there are a few scenes of Haskins schooling black players on the court.

Glory-Road-movie-05

Let’s look at some of Hollywood’s other efforts to cross-breed sports and race. In 1992, The Mighty Ducks was released. A hot shot attorney (Emilio Estevez) is caught driving drunk and has to do the community service of coaching a washed-up athletic team from a poor district. In the tradition of Hollywood happy endings, he turns the team around completely and they win the league championship. At the championship, they meet the team that haunts Estevez’s memory – his childhood team, sponsored by a wealthy district. The players on this team are all essentially identical to one another, forming a single character more than a team of individuals. The Ducks, conversely, represent a schmorgasboard of cultures and personalities and provide the colorful characters that every movie needs (and that sports teams tend to suppress for unity).

It was no accident, of course, that Disney chose the sport of hockey as a setting for this story. It was the only sport where the “bad” team could be all white with any credibility. Once hockey was used up, Little Giants and The Big Green couldn’t present quite the same hegemony. I always looked forward to a similar movie about basketball. It figures that when one finally came, it would be set in the sixties.

I’ve been around the block enough that I’m comfortable saying a lot of black people will not find Glory Road particularly inspiring. Average black people have often complained  that the most athletic members of their culture hog the spotlight, leading their young men away from solid careers in a hopeless bid for stardom.                                                              Coach C poster

To round out my perspective I rented another basketball movie, Coach Carter, which addresses exactly that concern. Quite different from Road’s images of grandeur and triumph, Coach Carter ends with crushing defeat – on the court. But the epilogue shows success in much more important areas. Coach Carter is also more fun, because the team has a token white guy.

Here’s an idea for a basketball movie that would follow the standard formula, and would be a lot more fun. Start with a black coach in a ghetto neighborhood. Have him get pegged as an “Oreo,” or otherwise ostracized from the community. So he has to put his team together from neighborhoods outside his own. Naturally, this would involve including some white, Asian, and Hispanic members. Throw a few women onto the team just to shake things up. When his team goes up against a district full of all black, all male teams, no one would expect them to win – but hey, it’s a movie! Now you just need to figure out a way for the fate of the universe to hang on the championship game, and you’re set.

Can a basketball game really change the world? If it does, count on Hollywood to pretend they got there first. Perhaps the line from the Texas Western assistant coach rings true: “This is just proof that knuckle heads come in all shapes, sizes and colors.”

[Rating:1.5/5]