The Lone Ranger (aka Pirates of the Bulshit), a Movie Preview Review by Michael L. Johnson

The Lone Ranger (aka Pirates of the Bulshit),
a Movie Preview Review by Michael L. Johnson

Okay, although The Lone Ranger movie has not been released yet.  However, based on recent previews, I feel compelled to give it an early "Preview Review." And that, most notably, is WTF?  Such a remake is an incredibly stupid, racist idea.  Johnny Depp, who is about as Native American as Mitt Romney, plays Tonto?  Even if a Native American actor were cast as the sidekick in this film, my feeling is that this stink-bomb of a story should have remained flushed and buried.

The Good:  There has been no word yet about Hollywood planning to remake Amos and Andy (although I wouldn't rule it out).

The Bad:  The Ranger (white character) is still cast as the leader/master and Tonto (the Native American) as the loyal follower/slave.  Given the history of genocide against Native Americans (at the hands of white people) that frames the founding of this nation, this 2012  Uncle Tom tale is grossly insulting to Native American people (and to anybody else with a lick of sense and conscience).  Btw, tonto is Spanish for "stupid" or "fool."

The Most Important Question: Is it a Good Film?

Hell no. On a scale of 1 to 5 where 5 is golden, this one gets panned as a "Hi, Ho, [Zero], Away."

--MLJ

Lincoln, a Movie Review by Michael L. Johnson

Film Information

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0443272/

Lincoln, a Movie Review by Michael L. Johnson

Steven Spielberg's name on a movie project carries a certain gravitas and the expectation of high-level film-making. Spielberg is an amazing director. That's no secret. The buzz about his latest directorial effort, Lincoln, is also no secret. It has been going around for months. As a black film reviewer, this biographical movie of “the great emancipator,” has greatly interested me. I couldn't wait to see it. In the area of of master film-making, Spielberg didn't disappoint. Lincoln ranks among his best works. The film follows four months of the great President’s life during the Civil War, the worst war in our country's history. Lincoln is also very much about the dirty business of 19th century congressional politics, with regard to events leading up to the passage of the 13th Amendment (which outlawed slavery, on paper, in America). Lincoln is an Oscar worthy film, to be sure.

My journey to see the movie was a quest. I rolled up to the AMC Columbia 14 with my Raisinets money ready, but no luck. It was sold out there. However, thanks to the power of a Smartphone, and a championship desire to both see this picture and get my popcorn tubbing on, I finally found success. I was able to cop a ticket just down the street, at the UA Snowden Square Stadium 14 (which is actually a lot cheaper than AMC and strategically located not from from Boston Market,as I may have mentioned in an previous review). Anyway, cool. God bless my phone, fast cars and matinée prices.

The Damn Good: Daniel Day-Lewis as Lincoln, Sally Fields as Mary Todd Lincoln, Tommy Lee Jones as Thaddeus Stevens, and the almost extra terrestrial excellence of Spielberg in the role of director. Phenomenal performances. Gloria Reuben, best known for her role as “Jeanie Boulet” on the popular medical drama ER, is as outstanding, beautiful and charismatic as ever. What is also good is that Lincoln is less about “Saint Lincoln,” than the man, the husband, the father, the human being. He is not a vampire killer who walks on water with superhuman hand/eye coordination (unlike some other flicks I won't mention). He is only a man: a gangly, walking contradiction, although one of great brilliance, eloquence, and vision. Spielberg captures Lincoln's strength, juxtaposing it with his wry, disarming, humor as only Spielberg can. That was refreshing to see.

The portrait of Lincoln's family dynamics, particularly his relationship with his wife, Mary Todd “Molly” Lincoln is equally moving. The inequality of women is yet another theme that runs the course of the film. People (politicians) who often see themselves as great champions of equality are often blind the equality of others. This contradiction comes through very clearly in Lincoln. President Lincoln was not deeply and ethically attached to abolishment of slavery because slavery was wrong. However, as a result of his efforts to save the Union, the legal dismantling of slavery is permanently attached to him. That statue-sized historic contradiction greatly impacted Lincoln's life—and, sadly, got him killed. It is as real as the benefit of emancipation on black people in America. For the most part, Spielberg doesn't downplay either reality.

Certainly, the movie doesn’t sugar-coat the racism rampant in Congress, in the context of the debate about ending slavery. That was refreshing to see. Then as now, the process of getting bills passed in Congress that help poor folks in general, and people of color specially, is a dirty business of political battle. The historic “dirt” associated with the passage of the 13th Amendment isn't scrubbed from this biopic to make it more palatable for audiences. I dug that. Great art is as messy, disturbing and complicated as are great heroes. Lincoln highlights the slavery ending work of many flawed heroes and heroines. It accomplishes this as it makes the point that one person's vote, or ethical standard, can change history. In light of the historic re-election of America's first black president, this point is especially poignant.

One of my favourite scenes in the movie is when President Lincoln is talking with Union Troops (black and white) from a rail-road platform and the troops start to recite the Gettysburg Address. This freedom fighting affirmation is moving. It resonates with hope, much as Spielberg's film does, because it reminds us of the costs, power, and rewards resident in fighting for what is right in the world. Indeed, it serves as inspiration in the ongoing battle against racism and injustice in America.

The Bad: Steven Spielberg had to know that a ton of black folks would be giving his Lincoln biopic a very close look to see if he portrays him as he was or some Jesus-like slavery abolitionist. President Lincoln was a great politician, but an ambivalent emancipator, at best. In a letter he wrote to Horace Greely in 1862, he writes, “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it...”1 Greely was an American newspaper editor, a founder of the Liberal Republican Party, a reformer, a politician, and an actual outspoken opponent of slavery. Although the Lincoln film does address his lack of deep conviction against the evil of slavery, the tone of Spielberg's portrayal of him, certainly suggests that he possessed such convictions, smouldering in his core (maybe under his top hat). He is lit in the film to look heavenly. And one character in the movie refers to him as “the purest man in America.” I'm not sure how anyone who is of two minds on the subject of slavery could be considered “pure.” That seems to me to be an irritation on the skin of history.

Another historical irritation with Lincoln has to do with Frederick Douglass' absence in the story. One of the most important friendships that developed during the Civil War was the one between President Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass.2 Douglass (abolitionist, orator, scholar, and former slave) was a definitely on the scene and a frequent visitor to the Lincoln's White House. His absence in the movie is curious.

The Most Important Question: Was it a Good Movie?

It is a great film. In fact, on the Oscar tip, my prediction is this: Daniel Day-Lewis (best actor); Sally Fields (best actress), Tommy Lee Jones (best supporting actor); Steven Spielberg (best director); and of course, Lincoln (best film). If I were a betting man, I could win some money. Although, I would probably just settle for some extremely good popcorn. On a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is best and blessed, 4.8. Absolutely.

1 "Abraham Lincoln to Horace Greeley, Friday, August 22, 1862" (Clipping from Aug. 23, 1862 New York Tribune).
http://condor.depaul.edu/tps/Abraham_Lincoln_an_Abolitionist_Abraham_Lincoln_Horace%20Greeley_1862.htm

2 "Mr. Lincoln's White House." http://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org/inside.asp?ID=38&subjectID=2

-MLJ

Skyfall, a Movie Review by Michael L. Johnson

 

Official Site

http://www.007.com/skyfall/

Skyfall, a Movie Review by Michael L. Johnson

Skyfall may be a James Bond film, but it has the dark edge of a Batman movie. It is action saturated. 007 has one spellbinding adventure after another, and that’s exactly want you want to see in a Bond picture. I filled my popcorn box at the wonderfully glittery Regal Theater in Silver Spring, Maryland, this week. The film synopsis rolls like this: A master list of agents and their true identities are stolen from MI6. The release of this list would put these agents in great danger. Consequently, the recapture of this list becomes a top priority for the British government. Bond is called to track it down.

The Good: Daniel Craig in the role of James Bond was great, and a fresh, smart, approach to the reinvention of Bond by director, Sam Mendes was unexpectedly good. The villain in this 007 movie is not after the world (which has been done do death), but somebody's head. The target of the antagonist's wrath is the iconic character, Bond's boss, known simply as “M.” You see the closeness Bond has for M (played wonderfully well by Judi Dench), as he works his secret agent mojo to protect her. Usually, Bond films are all about Bond. This is a refreshing twist in the saga. Audiences also meet a young “Q” (the inventor of all of Bond's cool tools, portrayed by Ben Whishaw), in this film. That focus on the 007 team, once again, is a big cinematic payoff. There are many other surprises, as well. Most of them are unbelievable and unbelievably entertaining (which is, again, what we expect to see in any good 007 movie).

As is the case in all Bond films, the women are beautiful in Skyfall. This is good. And did I mention that the cars are cool?  The cars are very very cool in this movie.  That is also good.  The locations are beautiful. Some scenes will usher breath from your body, to be sure.

The Bad: I've seen a million movies with chase scenes running into fruit stands or fruit carts. To encounter them in Skyfall didn't fill me with joy.  The villain, played by Raoul Silva, is not particularly weighty, or scary and is a bit of a boiler plate character. He is not the late Heath Ledger, who captivated us as the Joker with his complications and charisma in the Dark Knight. He is certainly not as frightening as Anthony Hopkins playing Hannibal Lecter.  Since the director went in the direction of a much more dark Bond film, this time around, I was hoping for a better bad guy.

The most important question: Is it a good movie?

This is a good film in a month when many other good films are opening, I am happy to say. 1-5, I would give it a 4.5. Even if you don’t like the old James Bond films, because he was in the sack with every women he met, and had some cute little saying for every situation, this is not one of those movies.  Skyfall falls fresh.

--MLJ

Flight, a Movie Review by Michael L. Johnson

Official Site

http://www.paramount.com/flight/

Flight, a Movie Review by Michael L. Johnson

I've been away from the movies for a couple of weeks, caught up in the best drama to captivate audiences in years: the 2012 Presidential Election.  Make no mistake about it, that competition between President Obama and Governor Romney was a 5 on a scale where 5 is blessed and best.  Now that it's over, it's popcorn time in the big city. Just yesterday, I flew in to see Flight, the new Robert Zemickus movie featuring Denzel Washington, and was not disappointed by the journey. The plot is as follows: "A seasoned airline pilot (a character named "Whip," played by Washington), miraculously lands his plane after a mid-air catastrophe, and saves nearly every soul on board.  After the crash, Whip is hailed as a hero, but as more is learned, something troubling is revealed." Dun dun dun dunnnn. That's pretty much all that Paramount gives away about the movie and I'll reveal little more. This one is worth seeing.  I filled a seat in the Montgomery Royal Theatres in Wheaton, Maryland this time 'round.  The popcorn was fresh and wouldn't let go of my hands.  Good times.

The Good: Denzel Washington all day long.  His performance is superb.  It is not exactly Oscar winning material (to be honest), but it is an excellent performance.  The supporting cast is also compelling (especially Kelly Reilly, John Goodman, Don Cheadle, Bruce Greenwood and Tamara Tunie). Robert Zemeckis directs the film in a way that pulls audiences into the heart of the story without sentimentality--for the most part.  And without sentimentality, the film moves you because it rings true to the real life struggles of flawed, yet heroic, people. It's quite funny in places and that humor is unexpected, but it helps to balance the mood of a film that deals with some very painful subject matter.  The special effects are magnificent--and frightening, particularly if you plan on flying any time soon.

The Bad:  The ending is a bit too neat.  Life is not neat.  It does not always work out so that heroes (even seemingly perfect ones) find peace and enlightenment after coming through a struggle. As much as I was rooting for this to happen for the "Whip" character, when it happened, the film waxed into cliche'.

The Most Important Question: Was it a Good Movie?

Oh hell yes, it was good. People were clappin, crying, and saying "Wow" at the movie's end. That's always a good sign.  Some folks stayed seated an extra long time after the film ended almost out of reverence for the movie and stayed to watch the credits roll.  On a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is best, Flight is 4.5. Absolutely. 

--MLJ