End of Watch Official Site

www.endofwatchthefilm.com

End of Watch, a Movie Review by Michael L. Johnson

Buddy-buddy cop movies, especially those set in Los Angeles, have been done to death.  However, in cinematic terms, End of Watch is not a dead man walking. It’s fresh.  That surprised me, almost as much as the easy parking space I found in Georgetown when I went to check out David Ayers’ latest movie at the AMC Loews Georgetown 14 over the weekend. It was a good day. It’s the time of year when mercenary mosquitoes in this part of DC (next to the C&O Canal) are heading to bed for a time. It’s fall.  Happiness.  What was also happiness was the popcorn I bought (without whining about it). What can I say?  I gave in to the call of the corn, the salt, the butter and the tub.  

The good: Gifted actors.  Jake Gyllenhaal (of Brokeback Mountain) and Michael Peña (from Crash) have great chemistry, charisma and magnetism on screen. They play cops, teamed together (arguably adrenaline junkies) who are working to do well in the neighborhood.  Police work, especially police work in high crime areas, is a very dangerous thing. That’s widely known.  I have nothing but respect and admiration for them. Its ranks are filled with heroes (not all of them, but many of them).  They often risk their lives to help others and face the possibility of death as an everyday part of their jobs. End of Watch successfully places viewers emotionally in and out of the squad car with its protagonists as they face ever-present danger.  It is clear that Ayers has a knack for creating exciting action films that are full of drama and suspense.  He can add this one to the list.

What is also cool about this movie is its “shake n bake” (intentionally unsteady) camera work.  It is reminiscent of Look, a 2010 TV series that followed the lives of ordinary people who were being recorded, mostly without their knowledge, because video cameras are so much a part of our twenty-first century lives. Ayers riffs on this idea in his film. And although the title of his movie is, ironically, End of Watch, he makes the point that there is no “end” of surveillance in most aspects of contemporary human existence, whether that filming is self-imposed, or imposed on us.  

Another subtext of End of Watch is the suggestion that heterosexual affection between men is a commonly accepted thing when that love is framed in fields of battle (brotherhood).  And in the context of battle, Ayers further makes the point that bonds of love displayed between men, whether heterosexual or homosexual, have much in common.  This subject matter is not something often seen in film (and the casting choice of Gyllenhaal, who is so closely related to another story about love between men, could not have been lost on Ayers, in this regard).  

What Ayers does for the men, he also does for the women in this movie. Most of them are very strong, some lesbian, some straight.  All are accepted as equal, without judgment (whether in gangs or in law enforcement), as long as they are good soldiers, show heart and loyalty in the war-zones of the street.  Again, this is something fresh to witness in a mainstream film.

The bad: Stereotypes.  Stereotypes.  Stereotypes.  To quote a recent Bill Clinton DNC speech, when I saw Ayers’ characterization of blacks and Latinos in this movie, “I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry.”  If you didn’t know better, you would think that every shiftless person, or horrible crime that is committed in South Central is committed by black and brown people (and that the LAPD is a band of angels).  Such a depiction of reality is kind of like suggesting that the late Rodney King was given flowers by the police who stopped him for speeding in 1991.  End of Watch does an excellent job of demonizing all people of color (despite Peña’s presence in the flick).   In that way Ayers’ End of Watch is, unfortunately, very much like Training Day.  This part of the film is straight-up racist, cliché and reflects a lapse into lazy screenwriting.

Also, the ending of the film is anticlimactic.  I saw several people throw up their hands at the conclusion of the movie, as if to say, “Is this really it?” “Is this all?” I hate it when that happens.

The Most Important Question: Was it a good movie?

Yes.  Jake Gyllenhaal and Michael Peña are two of the finest actors working. Even in imperfect films, their performances shine.  Their in-car dialog makes the movie.  I think it’s fair to say the same of David Ayers' writing and directing, even if some of his characters tend to be predictable stick figures.  It’s good, not great. If I were asked to give the film a rating, numbered from 1-5 with 5 being the best, I'd give it a 3.75.  That said, I must offer a bit of a disclaimer.  This film has some extremely gruesome sequences.  If ever there were a film intended for grown folks, this is definitely one. However, police work is violent work.  Any movie that aims to capture that world will not be a wide screen of pixies and rainbows.

--MLJ

So let it be written, so let it be said. My reviews are working class. I go to see what I like based on what I can afford. And so, more reviews are definitely on the horizon, but honestly, there is nothing out I really want to see--and that includes "2016: Obama's America," not unless the Republican Party is giving away free tickets.

--MLJ

If you're a filmmaker in the Wasington Metropolitan Area and you'd like me to review your movie, just drop me a line with information about where to catch your film, and I'll do my best to catch it. 
---Michael L. Johnson

Feel free to drop me a line at missionroadmoviereviews@gmail.com



http://thepossessionmovie.com/index.html#/home

The Possession, a Movie Review by Michael L. Johnson

Okay, so it’s fair to say that I’m not really crazy about horror flicks, but with all the buzz going round about this new film that just came out called The Possession, I had to see for myself if the movie lived up to the hype.  The film is directed by Ole Bornedal, and co-produced by Sam Raimi.  This week,  Snowden Square Stadium 14 in Columbia, Maryland was the venue of choice.  It’s one of Regal’s theaters, located in a shopping center that has a Boston Chicken right across from the movie house. For about ten bucks I got a good-sized meal. Sorry popcorn, with your prices being what they are, I didn't miss you that much.

The good: The acting of the cast is excellent.  Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Kyra Sedgwick, Madison Davenport and Natasha Calis (who plays the possessed child “Em”) all give good performances.  What I also liked about The Possession is that it is the kind of horror film that does not rely on relentlessly bloody scenes to keep your attention (although there is plenty of violence in the movie). The film actually has a decent script. In this story (which is supposed to be based on a “true” story), a father buys his young daughter an antique wooden box with Hebrew etchings at a yard sale, only to discover some type of evil spirit is trying to take over her mind and body, because she opened the box. 

Even though the film has a slightly slow start, that slow start makes sense, as it helps to build the story line (and also build suspense). The family dynamics that frame the narrative are complicated. Complication takes time to make clear.  (The family that experiences the paranormal events is dysfunctional, two adults balancing the visitation of two children after a messy divorce.)

What is also interesting is the subject of demonic possession, as it’s depicted within Judaism. That is not something often seen on screen.  Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, what most horror moviegoers want to see in any good horror picture is something that scares you and something that scares you a whole hell of a lot.  On that subject, The Possession has its moments.     

The bad: The movie doesn’t possess enough of those scary moments.  Also, when the film starts off by letting us know that it is “Based on True Story,” I was expecting a work that felt, at the very least, as if it were closely retelling some actual events—something original.  I was disappointed on both fronts.  Maybe an alarm should go off anytime a movie starts with the words “True Story” at the beginning. And maybe that alarm should signal to moviegoers that what they are about to see is probably less true than straight out fiction.  I say that because The Possession’s plot felt highly contrived for dramatic effect.  If, in fact, this movie was inspired by a true story, that true story was The Exorcist’s screenplay. If you've seen The Exorcist, then you've seen this movie. It’s that derivative and predictable.  Once the evil starts you almost know what is going to happen next (except for when people die just for the sake of violence, and their deaths seem to make absolutely no sense).

The Most Important Question: Was it a good movie?

The Possession is a fairly good film.  If you like horror movies, you’ve got to keep up with this one.  If I were asked to give the film a rating, numbered from 1-5 with 5 being the best, I'd give it a 3. At one point when I was watching the film, a guy in the row in front of me almost jumped out of his seat. That’s got to count for something.

--MLJ

Sparkle Official Site
http://sparkle-movie.com/site/

Sparkle, a Movie Review by Michael L. Johnson

It took a while before I could finally plant myself in a seat to see the much talked about remake of Sparkle, featuring the late Whitney Houston. Life is real.  That said, Labor Day Weekend finally gave me that chance.  I saw the movie at the Cinemark Egyptian 24 Multiplex in Hanover, Maryland, at Arundel Mills Mall.  A matinee ticket for $6.50 was a good thing to hold. I can’t say the same thing about the little bags of popcorn they sell as large bags of popcorn for $8.00.  But after the lights went down in the movie theater and the previews started, I tried not to think about that too much. The film is directed by Salim Akil. Its screenplay is written by Mara Brock Akil, and adapted, of course, from the original story written by Joel Schumacher and Howard Rosenman.  If what they say is true about “many hands making light work,” it looks like a lot of folks helped to bear the cash burden of making this version of Sparkle.  The film is produced by Debra Martin Chase, T.D. Jakes, Salim Akil, Mara Brock Akil, and Curtis Wallace. Cool.

The good: Any time you get a chance to hear a lot of Curtis Mayfield’s music, you have been blessed.  Any time you get to hear Whitney Houston sing, you have been blessed.  The Mayfield music in this movie operates like a main character. For those old enough to have seen the first Sparkle movie, it is this character that is the draw. And, for the most part, this second Sparkle doesn’t disappoint in the Mayfield music department.  In fact, the overall musical performances in the film are fantastic. 

And, without a doubt, the overall casting choices in this film are also great.  Carmen Ejogo, as Sister, scintillates, Jordan Sparks, as Sparkle, is inspired, Tika Sumpter as Dolores (the third, and arguably strongest of the sisters) is magnetic, Derek Luke, as Stix, is superb. Mike Epps is impressive and almost steals the show when he shows off his dramatic range. Omari Hardwick, as Levi, is riveting, and CeeLo Green, as Black, also very good.  

The bad: Some things you shouldn’t mess with and a masterpiece is one of them. The original 1976 Sparkle, directed by Sam O’Steen, is one of them. Like most remakes, the Sparkle remake struggles to be better than the original movie.  In this way, it places itself in a no-win situation.  To follow Phillip Michael Thomas, Irene Cara, Lonnette McKee, Dwan Smith, Mary Alice, and Dorian Harewood (just to name a few from that original cast), is an impossible thing to do.  The first film had a charm that this film just doesn’t have.  It’s not even close.  Perhaps, if Mara Brock Akil had followed more closely the original screenplay model, the remake would have been better. At the very least, I think the ending of her Sparkle script would have been stronger, had she taken this approach.

Also, there are problems this remake has with creating the right look and feel of the period in which the film is set (1968 Detroit). The Sparkle character in this remake starts out as a backup singer for the Supremes (kind of) and ends up as Alicia Keys.  One gets the feeling that the director is trying to accomplish to things: appeal to a contemporary black audience, while remaining faithful to the classic Sparkle film. That adds a weight of anachronism to the film that can be distracting for anyone who is black and came of age in that era. 

The end of 60’s was a turbulent time and a time of intense civil unrest in America. Expressions of black self-awareness and social activism pervaded black culture.  Profoundly significant numbers of young black folks wore afros in those days.  The story in the Sparkle remake takes place the same year that black Olympians John Carlos and Tommie Smith raised their fists in the Black Power salute at the Mexico City Olympic Games (and only one year after the 1967 Detroit riots).  In 1968, Dr. King was assassinated and the majority of young black women from coast to coast were trying to look like Angela Davis, to be sure.

In spite of that fact, signs of the explosion of black awareness that dominated urban America are virtually invisible in the 2012 rekindling of the Sparkle story.  When images of black awareness (afros) do appear in the film, they are belittled as abnormalities. That was sad to see. 

The Most Important Question: Was it a good movie?

Sparkle is a pretty good movie. Its strength is Curtis Mayfield’s music (which is often not given its proper due) and, without question, Whitney Houston’s last musical performance on the big screen.  In light of her recent passing, her work in this movie is spellbinding. It almost feels like she is singing for her own funeral. That part of the movie is stirring beyond words.  And so, if I had to choose, I would not wait for this movie to come to cable. If you love Whitney Houston, you owe it to yourself to experience her larger than life talent on a larger than life screen (while you still can). If I were asked to give the film a rating, numbered from 1-5 with 5 being the best, I'd give it a 3.5.  It is definitely worth seeing.

--MLJ