Movie Review: Sherlock Holmes

There was a buzz among some when it was suggested that Robert Downey Jr. was going to play the classic Holmes. I and several of my friends were hopeful for a film that would honor the books, and still touch upon the proper English nature that Basil Rathbone presented so well.

Then news that Moriarity would not be in the film. Then came the movie trailers. Full of displays of fighting and raw brute strength without a hint of the supreme logic that defines Holmes. And hopes were dimmed.

The fact that the film came out in December for the holidays was an oddity. One that became clear once the film is seen. It also explains why the film was not the stellar financial success than many other films featuring Downey and Jude Law have been.

Sherlock Holmes is the intellectual, logic bound, British character brought to the screen in the modern age. The essence of the books and the Rathbone portrayal has endured, and dare I say modernized just a touch.

There is of course CGI in the film. I don't think a film today can be made without it. But unlike most films where the CGI is meant to envision the fantastical, and endeavor that if unsuccessful ruins the film, here it is meant to add to the atmosphere. How else might we get to see London Bridge as it looked while being built?

In fact the set designs are spot on. The film captures the gritty, crowded, and lesser quality of life that the masses in Old London faces so many years ago. The washed out colors and general grays, add to the feel of the film, almost giving it a Black and White film feel, a touch of the classic. Which all sets the mood in a delightful way, so that you are absorbed into the world of the film and not jarred by it.

The plot also has to be commended. There are no obvious loopholes, no unexplainable events that mystically occur - due solely to the inability of a writer to think, a director to direct, and/or the interference of studios that just want to save a buck to maximize profit while providing the least enertainment possible. This film makes sense all the way through, and clues you in just when you need it to.

They even were able to fit in some humor and fights. Nothing so gratuitous as to be a Schwarzenegger film, but enough to justify the movie trailers that mislead action fans into seeing a thinking film. They even turned the tables and provided a mostly naked Downey for the females in the audience, while only hinting at the curves of the lovely Rachel McAdams.

So we must give some credit to the director Guy Ritchie. It's been quite some time since he had a film of the enjoyment of Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels. If he was looking for critical acceptance, and commercial success this film finally provides both.

The actors though are the real gems of this film. Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law mesh perfectly as the bickering, odd couple of partners that are inseperable on a case. The 2 banter and move like friends that have known each other too long. And they provide in their scenes the physical and emotional respect and admiration Holmes and Watson share.

Rachel McAdams really shines as Irene Adler. She brings as much wit as flair to the role. A woman that is instantly remarkable for her intellect as much as for her looks. McAdams strides the line as a powerful female character that never crosses into a bitchy or shrieking annoyance most mistakenly view as a powerful lead.

I really love one other thing. Professor Moriarty is not revealed, either by sight, name, or voice. He is an unknown that might, possibly, be revealed in the second film of what could become a series of films much like in the 1930's or James Bond. Which would also mean that Mycroft could also turn up at some point.

I recommend this film if you are tired of all the movies that go boom from start to end. There's nothing wrong with a good action film, but on occasion being able to engrosse the more mature and thinking parts of the mind never hurts either. This film provides that fix.

**Side note - if we must see Moriarty (which I think is best never shown fully if possible since there are liberties being taken to change aspects of the characters) who would be best? Some are whispering Brad Pitt which I think would be deadly to the series. Someone more refined, and possibly a bit older but dashing. Perhaps George Clooney (if he can do the accent). If not him then maybe John Simms.

The latest Iron Man 2 movie trailer

Well it seems that I may be wrong on several aspects of the new Iron Man 2 movie due out in the summer of 2010. According to the latest movie trailer my thoughts about Whiplash are mostly incorrect.



Still my theory about the Black Widow seems to be on firm footing. Also my thoughts about War Machine seem to still be very plausible if not dead on the mark.

One of the best things about this new film seems to be what I have been hoping since the original film. That the War Machine character would be as kick ass as in the comic books all of this is based on. Between the first trailer and this one I imagine that War Machine will be stealing the limelight from Stark.

Given all of that, I still find the Whiplash character the weak link of the film (with no offense to Mickey Rourke - I mean the plot). This guy is so smart that he can make his own design of the "unique" energy coil Stark uses to keep himself alive? A technology that was beyond all of the scientists at Stark Internantional combined in the first film, and now this guy can make his own version in a relative garage?

That aside, it looks like this film might be worthwhile. It might just match all the hype and expectations. Which would be a great change of pace for movies these days. Now if they could just get something in there about Titanium Man.

Iron Man 2 - update and story theories

So it's nearly here. The Iron Man 2 movie. And best of all is the fact that War Machine will be in the film. And it seems he may have a very large role in the movie.

The latest news on the movie is that War Machine is featured on the poster with Iron Man. The positioning of the characters is leading to some debate.



Because they are back to back the question is are they friends fighting off a horde of bad guys? Or are they pissed off at each other and at odds?

If you know the history of the 2 characters, from the comic books, they both options are available. For a while War Machine and Iron man, while still good guys, shared no love. Tony Stark and James Rhodes were at each others throat before they eventually became friends again. Part of that problem was the alcoholism of Tony Stark.

Now in the first Iron Man movie it did touch on the fact that Stark (played by Robert Downey Jr) was constantly drinking. Essentially he is a functional alcoholic, so due to his success and wealth few ever mention his problem. But what if he goes on a bender due to stress (like the world knowing he is Iron Man) and there is a need for the superhero?

That's where War Machine should step in. But based on the video trailer from Comic Con I think the real story will go something like this:



Warning!!! - though I don't know what the script is, I do know how movies get written. The following information will likely contain a lot of spoilers.

Stark is pulled before Congress where demamds are made for his new ultra-technology. He refuses to sell it. The Government decides that everything he has is eminient domain and try to take everything. Stark, either through his security/computer Jarvis or by his hand, destroys all of his lab. That includes the War Machine suit we saw with Terrence Howard in the first movie. Then Stark flies off to hide in the only other remaining suit.

Under orders Rhodes takes the War Machine suit as another Government weapons manufacturer comes in to fix it. As we see from 4:27 on, Rhodes takes the opportunity to not only rebuild the suit, but to add on a few extra perks. Now the Government has it's own version of the Iron Man suit. But there is a problem.

The arms dealer, Justin Hammer I believe, is hardly a good guy. Having worked on the suit he know has the technology too. And starts selling it to everyone who can afford it. Thus an assassin that prefers using whips gets to incorporate some of the tech into a new laser based whip weapon. And a bunch of other baddies creat tons of robots that War Machine has to take out.

Meanwhile, Stark is pissed. His greatest life work is stolen, and much - if not all - of his money is gone. His company is bought out from him, and he is drinking way too much. He get pissed off and decides to get rid of the other technology based on his design. Thus he and Rhodes are battling in full metal glory.

At some point before all that The Black Widow, a Russian spy extrodinare steals the plans from Hammer. Why buy it if you can steal it, and it's not like Russia is rolling in money. So expect a possible scene of Titanium Man for Iron Man 3. (And I think that should have been the villan in this film anyway)

But back to the fight. Eventually the 2 get interupted by some baddy bots. They fight them off, but need to work together to survive. The battle and co-operation make them understand they are really still friends.

Then comes in Whiplash (the assassin mentioned earlier played by Mickey Rourke). He get the suprise on Rhodes and disables his suit. Stark is left by himself to fend off the attack. Which he eventually does.

Left without a suit, the Government decides to forgive Stark and gives him back everything they took (mostly). It is revealed that S.H.I.E.L.D. intervened to help out Stark in exchange for his work on the Avenger Initiative (ie The Avengers comic book).

Overall that is the movie. I'm missing details of course, but I would bet that I just covered 80% of the film. The big question is if it can do what I just wrote with style. Like the look and feel for the first film?

If the scene with War Machine is any indication, he will be back and possibly in his own movie. And if he is that popular, I hope that Don Cheadle screws Marvel with a huge salary demand. After changing the character once, with huge fan disapproval, they don't dare change him again.

The top (and worst) actors per dollar in 2009

In Hollywood it is often said that

you are only as good as your last film.

While still somewhat true, there are those that are worth the money they make on each film and then there are those that are not. Generally, the quality of the actor often matches the box office bucks they generate.

But every year the best and worst actors per dollar they bring to the box office is figured out. Still Hollywood doesn't always pay attention.

So here are the very worst actors that money can buy

Will Ferrell - he was great in Elf. Then he kept doing the same character in every subsequent film - most recently in the bomb Land of the Lost revisioning. At this point his films are just really long, and bad, Saturday Night live skits. Of course he keeps getting paid too well not to be stuck in the mud. He generated $3.29 for every dollar he made.

Ewan McGregor - was a decent Obi Wan. Too bad he hasn't used the force to read any of the scripts of the films he has done since. He brought in $3.75 per dollar to him.

Billy Bob Thornton - been a while since that name was attached to something anyone saw. It's also been a while since his movies brought in a profit. I guess the mojo of Angelina Jolie's blood has worn off. $4 per dollar he made.

Eddie Murphy - was a superstar when he was young. Now, if you are under 15 you probably still think he is great. But his box office numbers look like somebody's allowance. His $4.43 per dollar he earned almost pays for a DVD of Meet Dave.

Ice Cube - not really an actor, but getting there. He's still earning his chops but it seems that his rap fans won't stick around in theaters to watch the lessons. I can't say I blame them. He made $4.77 in the box office for what he got paid.

Tom Cruise - yep, believe it or not he is overpaid. Thank goodness he has his own studio. Of course if he keeps making films like Lions for Lambs he will earn a permanent place on the overpaid list. But MI:4 might help him out. $7.18 per dolloar he got overpaid.

Drew Barrymore - there had to be at least one girl on the list. Yes she is pretty, and seems like a nice person. But none of that seems to matter when she is in a film like Lucky You. Too bad producing a film is not counted otherwise she might have brought in more than $7.43

Leonardo DiCaprio - overpaid and overhyped. You don't have to agree but more do than don't. The proof is in the $7.52 he brought to the box office versus what he got.

Samuel L. Jackson - it hurts me to have him on this list. Still my personal like of the actor and some of his work does not prevent Snakes on a Plane and Soul Man from happening. He made $8.59 in box office for every dollar paid to him. Not good.

And the final top 10 overpaid actor is Jim Carrey. He just made it to the list, but with good reason. Either his movies are huge hits, like The Grinch, or they are bombs like Number 23. Considering how much he gets paid per film I'm sure Hollywood execs were hoping for better than $8.62 at the box office.

Ok, now that you have suffered the pain and if you are still with me, here are the best actors per dolloar. But again, don't assume quality with earnings.

Shai LeBeouf - proof that ability has little to do with anything. He was in all the right films and tops the list with $160 brought in for every dollar he earned. Expect this to go way down since there's only so many Transformer movies that can be made - I pray.

James McAvoy - Not familiar with the name? Well he filled theaters when WANTED came out - or was that because of the scene with a bare backed Jolie? Either way he brought studios $114 for every dollar they brought him.

Michael Cera - not one of the leading male actors in looks, but he brings home the bacon at the box office. Even with films like Year One, he still pulled off $102 per dollar he got paid. But can he do it 2 years in a row?

Daniel Radcliffe - is still riding high off of Harry Potter. That franchise alone put him almost at the top with $93 in the box office for what he earned. Considering he's almost all grown now, will he keep the young girls swooning in his roles after Hogwarts? Maybe.

Robert Downey Jr - Probably the best actor on the list. He is phenomenal when he is sober, and better than most when he isn't. Possibly the only actor to be stuck in a proverbial can and still out earn most any film where you can see the acting. He brought in $78 at the box office for every dollar, and would have done better if he didn't get roped into Tropic Thunder. Iron Man 2 and Sherlock Holmes can't come out fast enough.

Javier Bardem - don't know his name? Well like Cera you went to see him, over and over again. To the tune of making $73 at the box office for what he was paid. Maybe you'll remember his name next time since he will likely get a lot more films.

Ryan Reynolds - I'm glad he made the list. He's just a funny guy, that can do action at least as well as anyone on this list. And who didn't want to see him in X-Men Origins: Wolverine after watching the movie trailer (too bad the film was a waste of time). Expect higher numbers than the $61 in the box office for his pay once Green Lantern and Deadpool hit screens in 20011-12.

Christian Bale - he terminated the competition as a Dark Knight. The franchises have been good to him and to the box office of Hollywood. $55 for his every dollar. And more sequels are coming.

Aaron Eckhart - he doesn't make big bucks himself, but compared to what his movies bring in... Suffice to say that even with PC Hollywood he made smoking interesting again. $45 to the box office for ever dollar getting him on-screen.

Dennis Quaid is the old man of the list. He brought in $43 for every wrinkled dollar he earned. Lucky for him The Day After Tomorrow was not part of the calculations.

Well that's the lists. Love it or hate it, there you are. I'm glad Forbes made the list because figuring it all out just takes too long.

Movie Preview: Sherlock Holmes

As is wont of so many movies these days, the film Sherlock Holmes – starring Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law – is a physical take on an old theme. At least that is what the trailer is displaying at this moment.



I find it odd that one of the more classic and noted intellectuals of literary work has now become a brawling less thinking more ordinary hero in the hands of Guy Ritchie. I suppose that in this “revisioning” of the character is targeted to the Hollywood mentality that explosions beat thought. Or they just want to draw more younger fans that have never seen a movie based on this character let alone ever read a book about him.

My questions about the film all lie in the depiction the trailer presents and Guy Ritchie. They seem to be emphasizing the many notable flaws that Sherlock Holmes certainly has, and downplaying the deductive reasoning that made the character a master detective. Which is a real letdown.

Of course I have to mention that the accent by Robert Downey Jr. appears to be less than convincing, which is a surprise. In the past Sherlock has always had the distinctive British accent one would expect from an Englishman. But Downey is very American, and his accent betrays a weakness in the portrayal. I would hope it was just that the scenes selected were less important and not a complete picture of the accent employed. Not that many scenes in the movie trailer are speaking scenes.

Guy Ritchie tends to focus on the physical in his movies. He likes the ferocity of combat, and the motion of chaos as I have observed (which is hardly a complete vision of all his films). Thus I expect that much of what makes Holmes indelible will be lost due to no fault of the actors. How modern movie audiences will react is hard to say.

This is a period piece film. Yet the movie trailer flows more like a Dark Knight video clip than you would imagine. You can almost feel a Batmobile ready to pop out of a street corner.

I am comparing this a lot to the latest Batman revisioning. Not because I dislike the Christian Bale version (other than the Joker) but because it too generally ignores the deductive though and detective work (basically all the thinking of the character), replacing them with action. It works well, and audiences like it, but that does not mean that the character is being given the full depth it can have.

Thus I see Sherlock Holmes in a similar manner under the guidance of Ritchie. Bravado and flash, daring do vs. understanding of the situation. It can work well, and be a good film. But somehow I see Law and Downey being under used for such a film.

This is of course the first trailers for the film. This is a tease and as such we cannot be really sure what the actual film will comprise. But we can be sure there is a bit of titillation for the ladies, and action for the guys. Lots of on location scenes, and a bit of the classic British flare. But will there be a mind to the film, a piece of the soul found in the books? Maybe the next set of trailers will tell.

So until we can see more, I think this will be a decent film. I think it will do well in the box office. It will be worth the time spent in the theater, and for many that’s all that matter in the end.

Terrence Howard still upset about Iron Man 2

As I have mentioned before, Terrence Howard will not be returning in the sequel for Iron Man. He is going to be replaced by Don Cheadle. That was a decision by Marvel Comics, reportedly because of a pay dispute.

But more information has come out about the whole situation. It seems that Marvel didn’t just toss Howard out with the bath water, they also decided to give Gwyneth Paltrow the shaft without so much as a thank you. At least that’s what Howard is stating

“They produced a great bounty with the first one, but they put it all in the storehouse and you were not allowed in," he says. "They did the same thing with Gwyneth Paltrow, from what I've been told.”

Now there is no question of the ability of Don Cheadle. Still I am upset. The character of Rhodes, Tony Stark’s (Robert Downey Jr.’s character) best friend and right-hand man, has been established. There was a chemistry between the leads and it worked. And Marvel made tons because all the pieces fit perfectly.

Do I think Cheadle will do a good job? I sure do. In fact Howard is not upset with Cheadle. He said

"I'm definitely looking forward to seeing the movie. I want to see Don Cheadle become me. No, I want him to do better than me. That's what I really want to see. Don Cheadle was the reason I got Crash, so I have a lot of love for him."

One thing seems clear to me, Marvel is hurting its potential franchise over greed. Movie makers generally jump through hoops to keep winning casts. Because they bring in the money. But when a movie studio’s greed starts to mess with such a basic and fundamental factor as returning actors, in a genre that relies heavily on fans of the source material, you have to question what else will be changed. Will they wind up with an Ang Lee version of the Hulk? Will sequels go down the path of Alien vs. Predator? Could this start a revolving door like as in the Punisher movies?

Marvel may have a host of storylines and characters to build on. They may have tons of money to pour into CGI effects and ad campaigns. But if they turn the movies into soap operas with character changes in each movie, they are building a tower in the sand.

I’ll still go to see Iron Man 2. I will support Don Cheadle and give him a chance in Howard’s role. But I now have a growing doubt about the film. The movie trailers better be spectacular or it will end up being a very costly decision.

Sherlock Holmes - the action movie

Sherlock Holmes is renown for may things. He is an addict, an intellectual, a musician, the foremost detective in the world, and by some accounts the inspiration of Batman. He is even the comic foil of his smarter brother Sigerson Holmes (Gene Wilder).

That's a lot for the creation of author Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in over a century. This one character has been portrayed in numerous ways by over 71 actors in 201 films, and most have been widely accepted. Perhaps his best portrayals to date are some of the oldest, done by Basil Rathbone. But in modern times we have the ability to 'revision' classics and as they say in Hollywood "get it done the right way".

Thus Sherlock Holmes, friend of Scotland Yard is now an action hero. Yes, an action hero. Forget deductive reasoning, deep thought, and immense knowledge. This time Holmes is a womanizing brawny man. Move over Die Hard, a new era has begun.

I know the people of England are bitter and twisted.

The good news in all of this is that Robert Downey Jr. is the person playing the British master sleuth. The bad news is that the director is Guy Ritchie, and we will see Holmes naked and handcuffed to a bed. The film will be a departure of extreme from the novels and every other portrayal of the character on screen or in the theater.

Can Downey pull this off? I have to say that if there is any actor that could do this it has to be Downey can. I believe that he has the ability to make this departure work. in fact he has stated

"Past screen adaptations of Holmes stories "just never had the money to do it right," Downey said"

At the very least we all will have until Christmas to figure out if this 'revisioned' Sherlock Holmes is more Pinky or the Brain.

Movie inspires feeding the hungry

Here’s a story I saw the other day that I wanted to mention. It covers the music, a movie and people who are having a difficult time right now. It’s a message of the better nature we all can have.

The movie is The Soloist. This is a film that I think will be huge. It was originally supposed to come out in 2008 but instead will open in April. I can only hope that it has been delayed so that it can capture the bigger spring-summer market.

The film is based on the true story of an exceptional cellist who becomes homeless, and an L.A. reporter who befriends him. It’s a very uplifting story, and stars Robert Downey Jr. and Jamie Foxx. Based on the trailers I have seen it will be an early contender for Oscar nominations next year.

But it is this movie that has inspired orchestras across the nation to reach out and help the communities they are parts of. There are some 163 orchestras that are currently planning food drives just prior to the release of the film. The food is to be distributed locally to Americans in need by Feeding America.

Orchestras that will be involved, and dates of specific events include:

• Rhode Island Philharmonic and Music School on March 19 and 21
  
• Detroit Symphony on March 27
  
• New York Philharmonic on March 28
  
• Gemini Youth Orchestras on April 19
  
• Louisiana Philharmonic on April 22
  

Considering that orchestras in 45 states are involved in this drive to help those in need, I expect that there is likely an event coming up near most of my American readers. So if you have the ability, I hope you can become involved. No family should ever have to starve, especially children.

Iron Man 2: update

OK, while I am still highly upset over the Oscar Grant murder the fact is that there are other things I can write about. Perhaps I can let my blood pressure come down for a bit. But have no doubt that I will still be following this case.

But while I was away some news came out on a movie I am looking forward to. Iron Man 2.

We already know that Terrence Howard has been replace in the sequel, which is a shame as I thought he would make a wonderful War Machine, and he is an accomplished actor. He is to be replace by Don Cheadle. So in the least it can be said that the role has not gone to a slouch or less talented actor.

But the latest news is on the villain front. No matter how wonderful a comic book character is, no matter how good or powerful the hero, they are nothing without a proper villain. In the first movie the real villain was the best source of all, Tony Stark himself. Obidia Stane was just a second-tier villain that we could watch get pummeled (or do the pummeling).

In this next movie I expect to see more of Tony Stark's issues with his womanizing and drinking. This character is truly realistic and flawed like few others. He has problems as big as, and more dangerous than, any of the enemies he faces. Robert Downey Jr understands that kind of life and thus he should continue to be perfect in this role.

Still this film is action based, so the internal conflict has to be externalized. And who better to visualize pain and suffering than Mickey Rourke. He is to play Whiplash, an old enemy in the comic books. This villain uses technology enhanced coils as whips that can break steel girders. It's not the best villain for Iron Man, but since the Titanium Man theme was sort of hit upon in the first film I understand why they don't want to go back to that right away. But this give Rourke a chance to get physical with Downey, via their characters. It will be a real mano a mano type of fight.

Backing up Whiplash, and no doubt supplying his equipment, will be Sam Rockwell as Justin Hammer. Hammer is another multi-billionaire that competes with Stark, and happens to hate him for being smarter. That envy, and slightly smaller checkbook is the fuel of various schemes by Hammer to embezzell, steal, kill, embarrass, and otherwise harm the reputation and life of Tony Start and Iron Man.

Rockwell is an interesting actor. He looks rather snake-oil ish. I see him and think of a black hat. And many of his roles reflect that. One of his better performances was his con artist in Matchstick Men opposite Nicolas Cage. But in this film Rockwell will be up front, and a crucial lynchpin for the credibility of Whiplash - I believe. I'm not sure if he can pull off such a role. Especially when confronted with the caliber of acting that Downey and Rourke bring.

I still think the film will do well in theaters. I'm a little less confident now that the acting in the second film will be as good. There is no question that the CGI and visuals will be extraordinary.

Lest I hear otherwise this still will be a great film for 2010. And it will be a busy year for Rourke who is also in The Expendables that year.

The best, most popular, and different posts of 2008 on Black Entertainment USA

For my last post of 2008 I wanted to look back and see what were some of the most popular posts I had written, and what I consider some of favorites. I know I am highly critical of things that displease me, so I thought I'd turn that same critical eye towards myself for a change.

I must say that in looking over the hundreds of posts I wrote on Black Entertainment USA alone this year, some just don't belong here. Some of the comments are far more political than anything else. And I can't use the excuse I have no where else to have said these things - I do own a political blog as well.

And I admit to having a few posts where I was just far too tired. I should have gone to sleep. Or taken that vacation all my friends have heard me speak about over the last 15 years (I've had 2 vacations in my life, none exceeding a week or involving travel). But instead I must apologize because they were really sub-par, even for a bad day.

Still overall I will say that roughly 80% or more of my posts were relevant and interesting. Many are topical and focused on the events of the day. Looking back some are not as important as I first thought they were, and others far more than I would give credit. And several posts were popular that I would not have expected to be.

Some of the top Black Entertainment USA posts of 2008, as viewed and/or commented by you my readers were:

So there is a Black guy in an elevator...
Audi television commercial says we are all not the same
OJ Simpson convicted - kangaroo court closed
OJ Simpson trial - injustice unreported
The new 90210 - is it cancelled yet?
NASCAR, Mauricia Grant, and my opinion
Is Robert Downey Jr funny as an African American?
Duane ‘Dog’ Chapman to return to cable television
VH1’s Top 100 of rap music celebrates the positives of the genre

It's an interesting group of posts indeed. And I think that I got it right in those posts. Not that everyone agreed with my view, just that they felt something after reading it. And that ultimately is one of my goals.

But I looked over the entire year and I saw a couple of other posts that I thought were very important, and/or meant something to me directly. Not all of them were relevant, given, but they said something important. And I want to present them again. Again you may not agree with my view, but I hope my top 10 will motivate some reaction. [Oh since 3 of my top 10 are in the above list that you my readers have found of interest, I will substitute 3 others]

NJ considers apology for slavery (part 1, 2, 3, 4)
Tiger Woods comment impacts Dr. Martin Luther King birthday (part 1, 2)
President Bush and Darfur now - not the movie
R Kelly - next stop Neverland Ranch
Janet Jackson: Intelligence, success, and fame are not enough
Black Americans - commodity, criminals, or something much more
Do you know enough about the 2008 Presidential election?
1st Annual Memorial Pig Roast for Madden A. Cordero - please read and donate if you can
50 cent sells a new opiate to the masses
Movie Review Iron Man

I also found the time to champion a couple of other causes that aren't the most popular or widely held:
Boycott 33 variations - Hanoi Jane Fonda
Levi's 501 jeans - promoting HIV and AIDS?

Found a video on Youtube I really liked - Try This with an Xbox360 or PS3 - and one I though was an abysmal joke - Snoop Dogg in Country Music: a bad experiment

And I achieved a great step forward for my company as well:
M V Consulting, Inc and TV One Announce Collaboration - Press Release
Introducing the first 2009 model Ashley

And of course I found the time to pick a fight:
Viacom (and maybe Jon Stewart) doesn't like Black Entertainment USA. Maybe.

So I wasn't just speaking about entertainment this year. But considering all the things that were going on, all the changes, and the things I felt mattered, I think I covered a lot of what you wanted to read about.

In 2009 I will try to stay on point a bit more. But as always I will share with you my thoughts and views about the important topics affecting all our lives as well as our entertainment. And I always look forward to your comments [yes even the dissenting views that are thought out beyond just cursing me out] about what I present.

2008 has been a tough year, no matter what country race or whatever you may be. 2009 will be different, and I hope that all of my readers, and those that will become my readers, their families and friends will share in a prosperous and peaceful year.

Entertainers and the USO - giving to our troops

In the discussion of Iraq, Afghanistan and U.S. military forces there have been many things said over the years. During the early part of the Primaries, particularly the Democratic Primaries, it was a focal point of public interest as well as political campaigns. But for all this commentary one of the things that was often missed were the troops themselves.

I must admit that I too failed on this point. So much discussion focused on the how and when of ending the wars little was spoken about how the troops were and what was being done for our returning soldiers.

I was reminded of this most recently when I received information about an ongoing USO tour. The USO gives back to our troops that are stationed overseas and fighting on behalf of our nation. No matter the political interests of all of us here at home, we all should appreciate the voluntary service that our troops provide for us.

This USO tour is a small piece of that appreciation, but for our troops it is an important one. And in this tour Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. Marine General James E. Cartwright, the Ying Yang Twins, model/singer Mayra Veronica and comedians Gabriel Iglesias and Edwin San Juan are all taking part.

“It’s incredibly difficult to be stationed far away from family and friends,” said General Cartwright. “The goal of this USO tour is to bring a touch of home to those serving around the world, to put smiles on our troops’ faces and to provide great memories that will last a lifetime.”

In addition to appearing in the USO tour, the Ying Yang Twins will also be releasing a new song on i-Tunes – Wild Out. Proceeds collected from the sale of this song will be donated to the Brooke Army Medical Center, to help veterans.

I for one am glad to hear of these entertainers and their efforts to give to our troops. The above group joins a long line of celebrities and entertainers that have met our troops, overseas and at home, for decades via the USO. Some recent entertainers that have joined USO tours include:

Ben Stiller, Jack Black, Robert Downey Jr., Trace Adkins, Baby Bash and Anna Kournikova, Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders, Boyz II Men, Gary Sinise, Brad Garrett, Dennis Haysbert, Michael Irby, Max Martini and Robert Patrick, Toby Keith, Tichina Arnold, Miss USA 2007 Rachel Smith, Miss Teen USA 2007 Hilary Cruz, Scarlett Johansson among many others.

Celebrating and honoring our troops is not a political act but one of honest appreciation and thanks. For that I think every entertainer that joins a USO tour needs to be acknowledged. I don’t have space for that here but you can go to the USO’s website to learn more. www.uso.org

And I should mention one other thing. The USO is at its core made up of volunteers that give their time to support our men and women in uniform. They work 24-hours a day, seven-days a week, and the majority of them are not as visible as the celebrities and entertainers mentioned above. It is through that work, and the donations of people like you and me, that events like the above are possible.

War Machine no more - Terence Howard out, Don Cheadle in

What the hell was Marvel thinking? If you are like me, you are unaware of the news that apparently came out last week in Hollywood. This news deals with the sequel to the hit film Iron Man.

The cast of Iron Man included Robert Downey Jr. and Oscar-nominee Terence Howard. This film has been a massive hit in theaters and the DVD sales have been brisk. Expectations for the obviously hinted sequel have been high. In fact, Iron Man and the Tony Stark character play prominently into the upcoming Avengers and other Marvel comic book film adaptations.

Marvel did a great job of conveying the character flaws from written form to movie. And the acting of Robert Downey Jr. was instrumental. But as important was the acting of Terence Howard as Stark’s best friend Jim Rhodes. It is the Rhodes character that Stark relies upon throughout the comic book, and is the only person he is willing to entrust his upgraded technology to. That new armor suit is called War machine, and it lives up to its name well.

In the movie Howard looks to the new armor and mentions “next time”. But it seems that it will never come as he has now been dropped from the sequel. I find that to be horrendous. Howard is an exceptional actor, and capable of a range of roles as his career shows.

Not only has Howard been replaced, by the equally talented – but far too short – Don Cheadle, Marvel did not have the balls to tell Howard beforehand. According to reports the excuse is a failure to come to terms on pay. But according to Howard

“…And I read something in the trades that implicated it was about money... but apparently the contracts that we write and sign aren't worth the paper that they're printed on sometimes. And promises aren't kept, and good faith negotiations aren't always held up.”

I like Don Cheadle. He is a great actor. But I don’t see him as Rhodes. It just doesn’t work for me. And now the new dynamic of the actors is very different than what was expected or as existed in the first film. There is a chance that Marvel may have shot themselves in the foot as it seemed that the second film was going to focus on War Machine and Rhodes.

It appears that Marvel is going the route of Disney, which is reported to be a tightwad and miserable to work for. The actions of Disney cost it an animation department and hundreds of millions in animated film revenues. Marvel seems ready to follow that same path, which was also the cause of the creation of Imagine Comics, and gave growth to several underground comics that ate away a large portion of their readership in the 1990’s.

Perhaps the next Iron Man movie will be fine. All the actors are phenomenal so you wouldn’t expect different. But I think that the future comic book adaptations may be in danger of failure. And just before Captain America can make it to the silver screen. It would be a shame.

Hollywood has its issues, and they are seeping into Marvel apparently. The loss of Terence Howard is a bad sign, hopefully it just remains that. And I hope that Marvel comes back to Howard with a sweetheart deal to make up for this public and unwarranted slap in the face.

And I really hope this does not cause a fued between Howard and Cheadle. They are too good, and there are too few quality roles for African Americans for that to happen.

Who really belongs on the Top 40 most Influential Men of 2008 list

Everybody loves a list of top anything. You just can’t resist seeing what got rated and how high things were ranked. Everyone has an opinion, this was too high or that was too low. At Askmen.com they have just released their Top 49 Most Influential Men of 2008.

Over 200,000 people voted to establish the men and ranks on this list. That’s pretty impressive. Going through the list I found it interesting not only who and what rank some men were ranked, but also why. This years list includes a bit of a bio and the reasons for the influence of the person. Amazingly, some on the list were ranked for the most inane reasons, in my opinion.

#48 – Lil Wayne. Ranked with an overall score of 73.3 his claim to fame this year was the plethora of songs he has released over his career, and the fact that he was arrested and charged with 4 felonies. Being a rapper there was no surprise in that the charges are related to drugs. So drug addicts (and definitely his drug dealer) are sure to have been impressed that he could get arrested with a massive amount of drugs, remain out of jail, and release an album.

#47 – Criss Angel. Ranked at 73.4. He makes people believe as only Houdinni and David Blaine have. If you don’t see him in Vegas, check out his show on cable television. Amazing.

#46 – Alex Rodriguez. Ranked with a score of 73.9. A real trend setter A-Rod was influential for all the men that want to divorce their wife and hook up with the wife of another guy (who subsequently is also getting a divorce). You might have expected him to have been ranked because of his success as a baseball player, but then again where did the Yankees finish?

#44 – Ryan Seacrest. Ranked in a tie with A-Rod at 73.9, you just have to be impressed that he made the list. The only claim to fame for this guy is American Idol. He must be influential to someone because he is making a career out of the least skill intensive career separate of being a judge on American Idol.

#41 – Lewis Hamilton. Ranked a mere 75.5. The first Black man to break the race barrier in Formula 1 racing, and the best in the world right now (possibly disputable). He has made Formula 1 racing exciting again and is a rage throughout Europe. Considering the reasons some are on this list, how he was not ranked higher escapes me.

#40 – Brett Farve. Ranked 75.9 you just have to love his spirit. He has come back out of retirement and brought life into the Jets game. This has been huge for the fans and changed up all the expectations in the NFL. Perhaps the only people that want this ranked lower are in Green Bay.

#39 – Heath Ledger. Ranked with a solid 77, he’s doing quite well for being dead. His big accomplishments were dying form a drug overdose/mix and his performance as the Joker in the latest Batman movie. Honestly I have never been impressed with his acting, and even less so with his rendition of the Joker. Where was the joke? Maybe that his death catapulted the movie higher than it ever could be if he lived and it was reviewed fairly?

#33 – Brad Pitt. Ranked with a 79.5, and you just have to wonder why. His film Burn After Reading got burned in theaters (he’s done much better). He hasn’t done much else this year except be a dad, which is reason enough to get credit. The big draw for him on the list – his wife Angelina Jolie.

#32 – Harvey Levin. Ranked at 79.5 with Brad Pitt. He is the man responsible for all the news you don’t care to know about Lindsey Lohan and Britney Spears. His gossip website, TMZ.com, is the spot for news that used to only be fit for the Globe. Influencing bathroom reading every day.

#28 – Arnold Schwarzenegger. Ranked 80.8 and the Guvernator. He has made almost as much of an impact on politics as he has in his movies. His influence was felt this year as he endorsed Senator McCain for President over Rudy Giuliani. Up to this point he is the only man on the list that is both well-known and actually influential for something.

#26 – Jimmy Kimmel. Ranked 81.4. Hey you just have to cheer for the success of this guy. And he got ranked above the Guvernator! Good for him.

#25 – David Beckham. Ranked 81.8 and the saviour of the L.A. Galaxy. The man is still a great soccer (futbol in the rest of the world) player and definitely the best playing in the U.S. today. His introduction to U.S. soccer has helped to lift the sport and got the Galaxy to finish above .500 which takes doing. Plus a 70 yard goal is damn hard to do.

#22 – George Clooney. Ranked 83 and far above pal Brad Pitt. Like Pitt I like the acting of Clooney. But he is an outspoken advocate of many causes. He was named a Messenger of Peace by the U.N. this year. His work dealing with Darfur (along with Pitt) is only exceeded by Don Cheadle. Too bad he’s not a Republican.

#21 – Usain Bolt. Ranked 83.2 for his performance at the 2008 Olympics. And it was a performance. Perhaps I was the only one a bit off-put by his showboating especially in the 100 meter race. Yes he’s fast, but if he wants to act he should get a different career.

#19 – Ben Bernanke. Ranked 83.5. Generally everyone on this list was ranked for their positive influence. Bernanke is the only person that I would absolutely say influenced the world with his negative actions. He failed in his monetary policy, his late rate cuts and abysmal attention to the span of the mortgage crisis. Influential and nearly deserving of a jail sentence, he makes Paul Volker look like a smart guy.

#17 – Kanye West. Overranked at 84.2 this performer is only overshadowed by his ego. I mean really, above Bernanke, Beckham, Hamilton, Clooney? Why is he even on the list? What did he influence?

#15 – Jon Stewart. Ranked at 85 he is one of the most important faces of politics today. That is both funny and sad because he is a comedian making fun of what is happening. Considering that he is reported to be watch by more aged 30 and under than regular news for the news it’s little surprise that so many are leaning left in this next election. But he’s just so funny.

#10 – Senator John McCain. Ranked 86.2 you would expect that one of the Presidential candidates would be ranked higher. I’m sure it’s a far-left internet plot (sarcasm if you didn’t guess). Still as one of the men that would run the nation, and with the best outlook for America – in my opinion – and an American hero (indisputable) he should be rated higher.

#9 - Cristiano Ronaldo. Ranked 86.2 he is an international futbol superstar. He had a good year with Manchester United, scoring his first hat trick and won the UEFA Champions League. He had 8 goals for Portugal, including one in the quarterfinals, as Portugal qualifies for the next World Cup.

#7 – Christian Bale. Ranked an astounding 89. Are they serious? I like him as Bruce Wayne, and he was one of the few saving graces in The Dark Knight but let’s be serious. More influence than Senator McCain? Bigger than Jon Stewart? Better than Lewis Hamilton? I think not.

#5 – Stephen Colbert. Can you believe that he is only ranked 89.9? I bet he can’t. And his gut will tell him it was a typo and really is 98.8 only behind Senator McCain. He is the best at parsing politics and being ingenuine in the very ingenuine field of politics. You know he is funny when Republicans watch his fake Republican rants and laugh. (and he is a great Phil Ken Sebin – Harvey Birdman Attorney at Law – Ha!ha)

#4 – Robert Downey Jr. Ranked a cool 90.4 he is the king of the hill right now. Iron Man, the upcoming The Soloist with Jamie Foxx. He is an actor that can make movies like Tropic Thunder look good, and can be huge in anything else. He gives hope that even the worst junkie has a touch of grace, and the ability to overcome any downfall.

#1 – Senator Barack Obama. His rank of 93.1 will likely shock some since it’s not 100%. He is the first African American to have a serious shot at being President. He is intelligent, an orator without current par, young (as politics go) and determined. Even if you don’t like his political positions (and I don’t) you have to respect his rise and ability to bring so many from the apathy most Presidential races fall into. Win or lose the election, he is the face of where politics will be going soon (in 4 years I think he can’t help but win the election).

There are others on the list that some might feel are of note. And some might not agree with the reasons, or lack thereof, for the rankings – or my interpretations. But if I had to list the aforementioned the top 5 would have to be:

• Senator Barack Obama
  
• Senator John McCain
  
• Robert Downey Jr.
  
• Stephen Colbert
  
• Lewis Hamilton
  

And on the list of infamy and negative influence, which should be a separate list:

Ben Bernanke
Harry Paulson
Barney Frank
Chris Dodd
Harry Reid
Nancy Pelosi

Each and every one of them for allowing the mortgage crisis which has created the credit crunch and damaging America.

Movie Preview: The Soloist

Movies are the pictures of stories in our minds brought to life. They can be inspirational, or allow us to escape our daily lives. They can also be boring, and waste our time. Great stories and great actors often can combine with solid direction to provide a film that can withstand the test of time. To those films that achieve the greatest of these accomplishments an award, the Oscar, is presented (though sometimes Hollywood politics interfere with what and who actually wins). I believe that The Soloist may be of that kind of caliber.



In just watching that video clip I feel you have to be moved. If the film is only half as good as the whispers and the trailer infer then this is an Oscar worthy movie.

Some movies inspire our lives, and sometimes life inspires a movie. In this case we have the latter. Real men that have embodied the best parts of the human condition. And to portray that this film has combined 2 of the best actors in this generation.

There is no question that Robert Downey Jr. is a great actor. He has been able to portray drug addicts to comic book super heroes with a sense of honesty and credibility so consistently that you can believe each was not just a character but him in his daily life. He has the almost unseen ability to add to each film he is in and make it better with his presence.

Jamie Foxx has come into his own in the acting world. He has astounded many that could not see his potential back in his days on the television show Livin Color. He has been able to perform along side some of the best (Al Pacino) and most popular (Tom Cruise) and hold his own to say the least. He is only now starting to get the respect and roles a leading man of his caliber deserves.

Both of these men have been able to convey the lives of great people to the world. Downey in Chaplin, Foxx in Ray. They gave a piece of themselves and the results were riveting experiences that you could not take your eyes away from. So when I see that these great talents are working together, again taking true lives and presenting them in a larger than life format while rooting it in the essence of life we all live, I get excited.



I have only one fear about this film at the moment. I believe that if I am correct, and the trailer is what it is supposed to be – a tease – then we are looking at the hands down Oscar winner for the year. The fear then is that both Robert Downey Jr. and Jamie Foxx will both be nominated for the Best Actor award, and I cannot imagine choosing between the 2.

If I have to guess, and I am correct in what I have postulated, then I have to say that Robert Downey Jr. wins. Not because he is better, or that either actor is not at the best of their performances, but because of Hollywood politics. Because Jamie Foxx has won an Oscar already, and Downey has not, he gets the nod this time. If I am right, or wrong, I cannot say that I will be disappointed as both are deserving.

I’ve said a lot in favor of this film. I am a harsh critic and can often tell if a film is worthy of watching or not just by the trailer. Not everyone will agree with me, but I’ve noticed that the box office’s tend to match my feelings. So I am not fearful that if you see this film you will not be mislead. But either way I will review the film in November when it comes out and give you my honest opinion, even if it means I need to eat crow.

Reader comment: Jorge on Tropic Thunder and Robin Kassner

This comment comes from Jorge at Black and White Blog, where I am co-author. In his comment I am questioned on my thoughts about Robert Downey Jr., the movie Tropic Thunder, and the event involving Robin Kassner at the Regan National Airport.

Jorge's comment verbatim is:

You ask for people to understand that double standard here is OK but in your article about the lady in the airport you’re outraged at the double standard. Sorry. Doesn’t work that way.

You either condemn all double standards based on race or you have to accept them all.

It is ridiculous to say that blacks air exempt of criticism or parody because of history but they can make fun of white lifestyles, mannerisms, and looks. Again, either accept the fact that like all double standards, such as those based on gender, racist double standards are a double edged swords and you cannot pick and choose which parts are convenient to you and which aren’t.

My response is:

Jorge,

I’m glad to see that you are an avid reader of my posts. I thank you for that and your comment.

It’s important for me to be honest and consistent in what I write. I don’t do this to create shock (though I admit that some of the things I say may shock some readers) or for self-aggrandizement. I speak my thoughts and often comment on the racial complexities that is race in America. So I went back and re-read every post on Tropic Thunder (Is Robert Downey Jr funny as an African American? - 3.5.2008.1 and Tropic Thunder draws questions of racism - 3.12.2008.1), and my comments about Robin Kassner.

Now you state that I

“...ask for people to understand that double standard here is OK but in your article about the lady in the airport you’re outraged at the double standard. Sorry. Doesn’t work that way.”

In fact my comments about Tropic Thunder are not to accept the double standard but to highlight it. And I did not ask anyone to accept anything, other than the history of the work by actor Robert Downey Jr. has consistently been quality work which is a positive towards a movie that I feel unease about.

“This could be like the absurdity of Gene Wilder in Silver Streak. Or it could be Al Jolson. When you add in the nudge against Eddie Murphy, the undertone is not quite so positive.”

I have no problem with an actor portraying a character of a different race, if it is done with respect and done well. But I also do understand that far too often Hollywood has avoided using highly qualified and available actors of color, insteasd using sub-standard White actors in a manner that is degrading.

“A Black entertainer making a bad portrayal of Whites is seen as a failure on the entertainer’s part. A White entertainer in the reverse position (for most of the history of Hollywood) had been seen as making an honest attempt at portraying Negroes, which were considered below them. That’s the history of the situation.”

The question is the intent of the portrayal. Too often it has been to embarrass or humiliate those being imitated. Too often it has been an act of White privilege to presume they can accurately portray other races, and that their depiction was more than fair. That is where I have conflict.

But in regard to Robin Kassner the issue is how the media portrays reality. This is not a film, there are no characters. The reality is that Kassner was treated in a manner that many Muslims and people of color have experiences since 9/11 in airports across the nation. But instead of taking the same lazie faire attitude that has come from the media, or blaming those persecuted, the major news media has taken sympathy on her plight.

That is a different double standard.

Either Kassner was presenting a danger to the public interest, as was the excuse for the reaction when Muslims and people of color were treated in this manner, or all the other victims were over-reacted against and deserve the same sympathy and funds claimed in her lawsuit.

Whether it’s the presumption of innocence as in the Duke rape case, or the avoidance of the topic like in the Megan Williams case, or the near total absence of fact like in the number of reported missing Black, Hispanic, Asian children in the nation the major media is playing a double standard that is not only unfair but potentially damaging.

When I highlighted that fact how is it the same as questioning the ability of an actor to make a respectful portrayal?

When Eddie Murphy made a portrayal of a White man on Saturday Night Live, was that wrong or funny? I say funny because it was honest and respectful. When Joel Grey played a Korean it was honest and respectful and he got a Golden Globe nomination for it. When the Wayan brothers portrayed 2 White girls it was stupid and ignorant. When Gene Wilder tried the Black face in Silver Streak it was funny because it was an admission of absurdity and the ignorance (stupidity) of some people.

Robin Kassner was either being treated like a threat or abused. There was no respect, humor, social commentary in it. The news media coverage of the event was biased, but in similar events the bias goes in the opposite direction.

How am I wrong to point that out? How is that like questioning if the storyline in a movie is respectful and humorous? How is pointing out when the news media identifies Blacks in chest high flood waters as looters the same double standard as questioning the script a White actor in make-up follows?

Hollywood has long believed that a White actor can portray another race in any manner and it’s ok – which I disagree with. The media has long believed that people of color, especially African Americans, can be portrayed as dregs of society – which I disagree with. I believe my posts highlight those views.

If I am incorrect, please do show me where I was wrong.

Review Iron Man

I was wrong about Iron Man. The movie isn’t good. It’s a great movie, made all the better by Robert Downey Jr.’s acting and Jon Faverau’s directing vision. Seriously I think this film is the best in the superhero comic book to movie genre to date.

So why is it so good?

Well they stick greatly to the wealth of the storylines of the comicbook to start with. Tony Stark is a multi-billionaire genius with a penchant for women and liquor. He is a selfish, self-centered cad. And Downey embodies the character perfectly. You can easily relate to Stark’s wild lavish lifestyle of private jets with retractable stripper poles and stewardesses to match. You can also believe his staunch commitment to creating weapons for the protection of America.

At many points in the movie it’s the transition that gets you. Whether its physical, emotional or moral. And unlike failure films like the Ang Lee Hulk (thank god a superior version is about to come to the movies) the morale content is not spoon-fed to you, but allowed to develop in the movie.

Pacifists and ultra-liberals will enjoy the movie and take away an ant-war feel. Which isn’t exactly right. The goal is anti-abuse of the weapons needed to make the world better. And it’s about one man finding his own way to improve the world, growing beyond the shadow of his father.

The visuals in the film are spot on. The suit is believable and stylish. With just enough ostentation to fit a former billionaire will-o-wisp. Many feared this movie wouldn’t connect with moviegoers because you can’t see Downey behind the mask. Well several closeups ‘within the mask’ are more than enough to keep you in touch with the humanity of Stark, and his movements is the suits are anything but robotic.

And I think you just have to love the handy but bumbling helper robot of Stark’s. Never fear a fire when he is near. Though lighting a cigarette or falling down may also get the same result.

The supporting cast include Terrence Howard in a small but beneficial role of Randy Rhodes. He is the second closest person to Stark besides Pepper Potts. He is Stark’s longtime friend and military liason. He is also the man that may one day (in the movies) become the 2nd man in the iron suit – War Machine. Terrence Howard portrays a high ranking Air Force pilot with respect and authority.

Gwenneth Paltrow is the ever present and consistent Pepper Potts. Whether it’s “taking out the garbage” or blowing up the corporate office she is the woman you want. And Paltrow is very good at being dutiful. Thankfully her character gets about the same kind of emotional release as does Evey from V For Vendetta.

In terms of the music, well there is one song you just want to hear from the previews – but on that you will be disappointed. Otherwise the music, and sound is well done.

I’m trying hard not to give away anything more than the basics that you can see in a preview or from a casual perusal on Google of Iron Man. You want to see this film. I want to see it again. I want the DVD.

One of the best things about the film may be the fact that there just has to be a sequel, and Downey will be in it. Or perhaps that this one superhero is the only one that every single one of us could imagine being able to do, and having a hell of a rush doing it.

Expect crowds to see this film, unless you live in a small town like Binghamton and are in the theater at 4ish.

Tropic Thunder draws questions of racism - 3.12.2008.1

I find it interesting that the question over the movie Tropic Thunder is quickly becoming an issue of whether or not a White man can play a Black man. How this became the case is not really the issue I expected, rather I was considering the question of whether this would be a funny portrayal and a decent movie.

I feel that Robert Downey Jr. is a great actor. I think he is dedicated to his roles. So I believe he will try to make this role as positive as possible. But a bad director and/or writer can kill a great film and performances by entertainers. That’s a fact. Thus I am concerned about what Ben Stiller is going to do, in his role as director. Because I think he is the weak link of every film he has ever been in.

But around the web I’m seeing the argument become, ‘Why can’t a White man play an African American?’

Some comments on it include

“I can totally see the outrage over this, I mean with all the white, young blonde actresses trying to get a break in Hollywood, how could these guys possibly be so racist as to take work away from who could be the next two big starlets of Tinseltown? I mean... um, what?... You mean this isn't all about White Chicks? There was no outcry over the race reversal in that movie?”

and

“How about Eddie Murphy playing an old white man in the excellent Coming To America? Or Eddie Murphy going undercover as a white man for Saturday Night Live? Both classic cases of just having fun, both some of the funniest films or TV moments from Murphy's career. (He was ROBBED at last year's Oscars!!)”

and

“Typical nonsense, the usual double standard. It's the same thing with black comedians ripping on white people, total acceptable, but lets see a white comedian tear into black people and listen to the out-cry. Eddie Murphy has made a career out of playing stereotypes for humor and no one says a word. Whether they be fat, white, Jewish, Asian, whatever, he has done it all and nothing is said.”

I can agree with the concept that acting ability is not limited to any one race. I have no doubt that a qualified and professional entertainer, with the proper tools can portray any race with respect.

At the same time I realize that there is a double edged sword in America. In the name of humor and jokes African Americans have long been ridiculed and minimized. The white actors portraying Amos n Andy, blackface, C Thomas Howell in Soul Man, and so many more are examples of bad representation. And there are those that are sensitive to this fact.

What’s the difference?

A Black entertainer making a bad portrayal of Whites is seen as a failure on the entertainer’s part. A White entertainer in the reverse position (for most of the history of Hollywood) had been seen as making an honest attempt at portraying Negroes, which were considered below them. That’s the history of the situation.

So I agree there is a double standard, and it is a matter of sensitivity. The double standard wasn’t created today, but is based in the past. While many Americans today don’t want to address or acknowledge the openly racist past (nor the quietly racist current day) of America, it does not change the wound that is there or its effects. To be aware of that is not to be alarmist, though some to go to that extreme.

The past cannot be ignored if one wants to make this movie a discussion or comparison of what race can or should play another. And the character that Jack Black has in this movie sounds exactly like a take on Eddie Murphy, so I do see that concern.

But I don’t think that should be the point.

Based on the storyline, and the roles that Robert Downey Jr. has had, I don’t think the intent is bad. But as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Still the movie deserves to at least present its trailers before any conclusions are made.

The question here should simply be are they making a funny movie without degrading to laughter based on, or built upon, stereotypes. Without seeing what has been done, none of us can say.

Yet, to argue that other movies having an entertainer portraying another race and were done well means that all movies with such a device are ok is ludicrous. American memories are very short, and at times willfully so. But everyone remembers pain, and often there are questions asked that are embarrassing.

Like why in almost all westerns were the roles of Native American Indians played by Whites? In older movies Whites also played Asians too. And none of those roles were positive. Is that ok?

I recall when the movie Remo Williams came out. There was a huge outcry when the lead character of Chiun was given to Joel Grey (who was nominated for a Golden Globe for his portrayal). Chiun was supposed to be an old Korean and Grey made the character realistic and was respectful in his portrayal. I see no reason why Robert Downey Jr. cannot do the same thing.

If this film becomes an equivalent of Soul Plane, then all involved deserve to be ostracized. If it is the equivalent of Remo Williams they should be lauded. But to simplify the big issue no one wants to talk about, the elephant in the room so to speak, to they did it so we can too and it’s all ok is to say that Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons because France has them.

Not the best analogy but you get my point.

Is Robert Downey Jr funny as an African American? - 3.5.2008.1

On March 17th America will have its first chance to decide on what may become one of the largest bets made in the entire year. I don’t mean a Democratic Primary race. But it does cut along similar lines. What is it? Tropical Thunder.

Name doesn’t ring a bell? Me either. Until I saw a post at Slashfilm.com. Then I found out something I’m still not sure how I feel about.

Tropic Thunder is a film, directed and starring Ben Stiller. Generally I don’t like his films. Starsky and Hutch was a flop, Zoolander was ignorant, and so on. He isn’t funny and constantly plays the same dumb character in each film. Perhaps the only film I liked him in was The Royal Tanembaums, which I recommend, and he was the worst actor in the film.

The film is a spoof/satire on Hollywood actors. Specifically the prima dona set. A remake of Apocalypse Now stars several major actors that all have issues. Thus the director and writer place them in a real war scenario that they don’t realize is real. Cue the laugh track.

There are 2 things that may work for the film, and several that work against it. The biggest negative is Ben Stiller, as I mentioned. But on the positives there is the fact that Jack Black and Robert Downey Jr. are in the film. Both can be great comedic characters and are quite successful at it. They are entertainers that usually get it right.

But Jack Black is playing a character that

“portrays a comedian known for performing multiple roles in a single film — his latest is called The Fatties: Fart 2.”

Sound familiar? That actor is Eddie Murphy. So we know that Stiller is directly taking on an Oscar nominee, an acclaimed stand-up comedian, and an actor that has more successful films than Stiller has been in. Now the fact they are making fun of Eddie Murphy is not necessarily a bad thing. Given the ability of Jack Black, it may even be a funny and well-done send up. But there is another component to the film that changes the tone of this characterization.

Robert Downey Jr is a great entertainer. He commits well to his roles and is able to play a huge range of roles. He dedicates himself to his character and makes them authentic. That’s the good thing. It makes me pause when I understand that his character is faking being Black. Not Jack Black, but African American.

Look at the photo. The person in the circle is Downey. He is not in black face, but in full make-up. His character in this film

“Kirk Lazarus, a very serious Oscar-winning actor cast in the most expensive Vietnam War film ever. Problem is, Lazarus's character, Sgt. Osiris, was originally written as black. So Lazarus decides to dye his skin and play Osiris, um, authentically.”

So we have a White man, playing as an African American, in a film making fun of actors. This is the razor’s edge indeed.

Can this be funny? Maybe. Some audiences so far have seen portions of the film and it is testing well, they say. Given the commitment of Downey, I can see the satire in it. But I don’t trust Stiller’s ability to direct or act. I’m not confident in the writing.

Most of all, I’m not sure how I feel about it.

This could be like the absurdity of Gene Wilder in Silver Streak. Or it could be Al Jolson. When you add in the nudge against Eddie Murphy, the undertone is not quite so positive.

On the 17th video clips and trailers will be released. Already Robert Downey Jr. has said

“At the end of the day, it's always about how well you commit to the character," he says. "I dove in with both feet. If I didn't feel it was morally sound, or that it would be easily misinterpreted that I'm just C. Thomas Howell in [Soul Man], I would've stayed home."

So given that we have yet to see more than the above picture, I wonder what you think.

Iron Man, Dark Knight, Hitman and more movie previews - 11.3.2007.1

It’s time to talk about movies again. With the end of the year quickly approaching, movie studios are trying to capture the holiday shoppers with a distraction from all the sales at the mall, and prepare us for the fare coming in 2008. There are several films that are upcoming that have my attention already. I won’t bother with the fluff that will obviously fail.

I’ve already mentioned the Iron Man film. From the trailer you can see that the dialogue sounds good. The casting of Mr. Robert Downey Jr. is perfection. The fact that Mr. Terrence Howard is involved as well is another indication of the potential quality of the film. And the red and gold suit is a page out of the comic books. Plan for that in May and pray it’s not another Ghost Rider / Hulk fiasco. I truly doubt that it will come to that.



Another film for 2008 is The Dark Knight. This is the sequel to Batman Begins, featuring Mr. Christian Bale as our dark hero. This is a far darker vision of Batman and it hits the mark. I expect the sequel will be equal to the first film, and hopefully better. The main villain is the Joker, which was hinted at in the first film. Mr. Heath Ledger is slated to take on this role.

I know that I initially had reservations about Mr. Bale being able to pull off his portrayal of the Batman. He did an excellent job though. Yet I find myself having reservations again, though this time it is the role of the Joker. I have difficultly seeing Mr. Ledger as the Joker. It’s a critical role. Not only is the acting ability crucial, the look is absolutely vital. While Batman has a suit that creates a large part of his presence onscreen, the Joker is always in costume. If his look misses, his character fails the same as if the acting was bad. Like Mr. Jack Nicholson, or even Cesar Romero, the look is the character and sets the tone of the whole thing. Hopefully the fact that the Joker’s image is still a solid secret means they got it right. If not, this will fail miserably.

Looking at more up coming films there is Hitman, which is based on the video game of the same name. I loved the calculating and thoughtful premise of the game. More than a mere shoot ‘em up, deliberate thought is required. The storyline was well planned and made a lot of sense. It should easily transfer to the big screen of movie theaters. Lots of gun fights, explosions and action. I expect this to do well. I just hope they stick with the classical music in the background as the trailers seem to indicate. It really makes the mood.

Another film of interest is the Golden Compass. Think of this film as a cross of several fantasy genres, most notably The Lord of the Rings. Of course it looks like this film is geared more towards children a la Harry Potter. But the animation of the armored polar bears is interesting. Given the look of the film, it may well be the first film in quite some time that Nicole Kidman is involved with that will do well. Witches, magic, talking polar bears and familiars are all contained in this film, and heavy CGI use. But the trailer looks interesting. This one I call 50/50.



Continued in part 2...