Movie Preview: 12

In general I despise remakes. This is most directly true of any movie were the word ‘revisioned’ is in any way attached. As has been obvious to most movie-goers over the last decade or 2, more often than not such a film is not only a waste of time but usually an insult to the audience.

Now given my state of mind on this issue, I am faced with a dilemma of sorts. Does the remake philosophy I have hold up with films that are redone in another nation? And I’m not talking about a one time lucky break. I mean a film that has been done more than once, and is now being adapted to fit a world with war, and terrorism?

That ultimately is the question facing anyone who wishes to see 12. This is a remake of the great film 12 Angry Men with Henry Fonda. The story is simple and well known. A jury debates what may be an open and shut case. Only 1 juror believes that the defendant is innocent. Thus he goes on a journey in pursuit of justice, with a life in the balance.



Is the young man innocent? Is there reason to have doubt in a war torn section of Russia? Does one life getting justice matter? Can 12 strangers live with the consequences of their decisions? Consequences that go far beyond the courtroom.

I do not know the Russian actors in this film. Nor do I know the director. But I have learned a bit about the film. And it not only takes us through the drama that Fonda first portrayed on the big screen, but it adds the next level of the story – the what next.

This is an interesting take on an old classic. It’s a remake, and a sort of revision, but at it’s heart it is faithful and dedicated to the original. That’s the difference in any language. Like the original film, I would suggest seeing this one.

Will Smith vindicated - 2.22.2008.1

Well here is something else that you probably won’t see in the news in the U.S. today. Not long ago I wrote a post in regard to the well publicized article of one reporter claiming that Will Smith thought Hitler was a ‘good guy’ in essence. The major news media focused on this like vultures, in another example of what I believe is their deep seated need to promote negative images of successful African Americans.

At the time I stated

“This applies to the Will Smith lead character Neville in I am Legend. For those that are not familiar with the original book, or the prior 3 movies, Neville is the bad guy. He is the monster in the night that kills people in their sleep. He is the Dracula, or Frankenstein’s monster. He is the thing under the bed. Net result, he is the bad guy that the people of the world fear, and speak of in legends and ghost stories late at night…

There is no reason to slap the image and personal character of Will Smith. It’s an affront I have never seen made of any other actor. I have heard dozens of actors of note that have made similar statements when portraying questionable or reviled characters. None have ever been accused of promoting the base nature of the character they portray.

You have never heard say Kevin Kline advocating animal cruelty or violence (Fish Called Wanda), or Al Pacino advocating devil worship (The Devil’s Advocate). How about Al Pacino being a role model for cocaine use (Scarface), Sir Anthony Hopkins being Hannibal Lecter (Silence of the Lambs), or Henry Fonda as an assassin for hire (Once Upon a Time in the West). Of course not. To claim such a thing is ridiculous. But if you look at each character you can see where they have a motivation that is positive (from the bad guys perspective) and that makes the character engaging and deeper.”

But the major media never once made a similar connection or observation. I never noted this commentary in cable or television news and celebritiy telezine shows. They left the commentary, in general, that the comment made by Will Smith was odd and that he was upset. Thankfully they at least mentioned his statement about the article.

But a casual glance will show you that NOONE is covering the fact that a court has awarded Will Smith damages, vindicating his point that this article was misleading, damaging, and an embarrassment. He will also be receiving a public apology, not that the U.S. media is going to cover a second of this.

How do I know this? Because I found this news on Haaretz.com. Not on yahoo or via a cable news channel. The major U.S. media is too busy discussing how unfair and inaccurate the NY Times article against Senator McCain was (and I agree).

Is this different in any way the media covered ther Wesley Snipes trial, who was similarly vindicated? No. Was it different in the way the media ignored the Jena 6? Or the brutal and vile toture, rape, sexual abuse, and kidnapping of Megan Williams of West Virginia – or the fact that 3 of the 6 White men and women arrested for these crimes that covered an entire week have already plead guilty as charged.

I hate that examples like this exist. That discussion of the Oscar Awards, for movies the average American has not seen and an event that is not cared about this year, takes precidence. That the media wasted no time nor money in each of these events to glorify the negative view of African Americans, even if that view failed to convey the true facts and full scope of events.

Well I will simply say this. Congratulations Will Smith. I hope that the public apology will be able to be found here in the U.S. (if any of my readers in Britian see it, please forward me the link) and I will happily republish it. The major news media may not be able to cover the positive news related to African Americans (entertainers, celebrities or otherwise) – as they are too busy covering the birthday of Ashton Kuchner and obviously don’t employ enough people – but I will!