Last Vegas

Directed by John Turteltaub.

2013. Rated PG-13, 105 minutes.

Cast:

Robert De Niro

Michael Douglas

Morgan Freeman

Kevin Kline

Mary Steenburgen

Romany Malco

Jerry Ferrara

Michael Ealy

Joanna Gleason

Curtis "50 Cent" Jackson

The Flatbush Four are a quartet of guys who grew up together in Brooklyn and have become life long friends despite having moved away from each other. Now they're all senior citizens and are going to get together for one more big blowout. The occasion is that Billy (Douglas), seventy years young, is getting married to his thirty-two year old girlfriend. His buddies decide a trip to Vegas to throw him a bachelor party is in order. First on board is Sam (Kline). He's been married for years, but is apparently unhappy. At the very least, he's bored. His wife encourages him to go. She even lets him know he can truly be free this weekend because, as we know, what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. Next is Archie (Freeman). He is on a laundry list of medication and doesn't get much more excitement than hanging out with his infant grandson. Therefore, he's chomping at the bit to feel alive again. The one reluctant party is Paddy (De Niro). He and Billy (Douglas) had a falling out years ago that he's never gotten over. The Sam and Archie manage to talk him into going, but he isn't happy about it one bit. Since we wouldn't have a movie if everything went according to plan, they don't. The Hangover for the AARP crowd ensues.

Early on, the movie has lots of fun establishing characters and exploring their various personal situations. Both Kline and Freeman display wonderful comic timing and deliver all of their punchlines perfectly, both verbal and physical. Both appear to be having a blast with their roles. The tone is then set that these two will carry most of the load in the comedy department. They are assisted in fairly regular intervals by Romany Malco who plays their host while in Vegas. Meanwhile, the emotional heft falls on the shoulders of Michael Douglas and Robert De Niro. Between them, there is much bickering that, in De Niro's case comes from a place of pain making him to lash out at the one who caused it. Mary Steenburgen gives a very nice performance as essentially the link between the two men. As for the other two, Douglas seems to be on cruise control, but De Niro does something interesting. Perhaps it's just because I've recently seen him in Grudge Match, but it was fascinating to see him play this particular part. This character maintains the hatred for someone else that as his part in Grudge Match, but completely changes motivations. In that movie, he was the one who caused the pain. Here he is on the receiving end. Admittedly, he doesn't do anything spectacular with it, but he does make it at least a little bit compelling watching this guy fail to let go of the past.

Like a lot of comedies, Last Vegas loses some steam when it turns to resolving its plot. Things get sappy between our warring buddies. Again, this movie mirrors Grudge Match. The love triangle is cleared up in similar fashion, leaving those of us who've seen both with a been there, done that feeling. The way the subplots play out involving Kline and Freeman are predictable, but play out a little better. In fact, everything that involves Kline and Freeman is a little better than the stuff with Douglas and De Niro. They're given more things to do besides trying to mend a friendship and engage us more. When their stories wrap up, it's easier to roll with whatever it is they're selling because we had a good time watching them. That isn't to say things are bad in regards to Douglas and De Niro, just more of the same stuff we've seen playing out in the same manner as it has in dozens of other films, whether you've seen Grudge Match, or not.

By the end, we have a movie that is actually pretty funny thanks to the effort of all the supporting players that slows down a bit whenever the focus is on the main plot. Thankfully, that isn't as often as it could have been since it wisely affords equal time to our four stars. It knows that it has two amazing performers in Kevin Kline and Morgan Freeman and doesn't waste them. While it certainly falls short of turning the movie over to them, it definitely gives them room to operate. They do so very well. That storyline involving the other two names is adequate, but is certainly the inferior part of the film. Still, the ultimate criteria for a comedy is whether or not it makes me laugh. It did.

Underworld Awakening

Directed by Måns Mårlind and Björn Stein.

2012. Rated R, 88 minutes.

Cast:

Kate Beckinsale

Stephen Rea

Michael Ealy

India Eisley

Theo James

Kris Holden-Ried

Charles Dance

Scott Speedman

The awakening takes place right at the beginning. Well, that’s not quite true. We start this adventure like we normally do, with our host vampire, Selene (Beckinsale), giving us a quick history lesson. I’ll be as succinct as possible for those of you who already know the scoop. The vampires have been at war with the lycans (werewolves) for over 600 years. Most of that time, Selene has been a frontline soldier on a unit called The Death Dealers. Recently, as in during the franchise’s first movie, she fell in love with Michael who becomes a hybrid of the two species. Both sides now hunt the couple.

For this installment, there is an added dimension. Humans have discovered the existence of vampires and werewolves and go about exterminating both. Michael and Selene are captured and cryogenically frozen due to his unique condition. She “awakens” twelve years later when another ‘subject’ helps her escape. Of course, she sets out to find her beloved Michael.

Aside from what’s mentioned above, nothing else really happens. Okay, there is one development early involving the subject that freed Selene and one twist late that’s not really surprising. Most of what’s in between is gory but shoddily staged action sequences showing our heroes (Selene, a young girl and a male vampire) fighting cgi lycans. If that’s going to be the bulk of your movie, a better effort should be made to make it somewhat believable. The lycans look better than in Awakening’s woeful predecessor, Rise of the Lycans, but still have no weight to them. A six and a half or seven foot muscled and hairy beast should at least disturb vehicles a little bit when it leaps from one to another. Since this happens early on, it’s hard to shake the feeling we’re looking at anything but a collection of pixels.

This is all the more frustrating because I am actually a big fan of the first movie in the series. I like the way the story develops. I like how the two iconic movie monsters are viewed through the prism of The Matrix. Finally, I like that it introduces us to Selene, one of the most intriguing female vampires in cinematic history. I enjoyed the second movie (Evolution), though quite a bit less. Awakening marks the second straight Underworld movie I think is absolutely horrible. Rise of the Lycans is just another in a long line of poorly executed prequels and didn’t involve the franchise’s main protagonist. This brings her back and gives us some interesting developments early on but does nothing with them. Instead, it’s content to show us a steady stream of scene showing Selene killing lycans. In the nooks and crannies of downtime she does little more than whine about Michael. It’s as if the filmmakers believed that a good idea is good enough on its own and needs no fleshing out.

Admittedly, my expectations were low for a fourth movie in a franchise that seems to peter out about midway through the second installment. Still, it’s a disappointing entry because the potential for an exhilarating tale is there. The first five minutes or so is spectacular movie-making, revealing an intriguing premise with numerous possibilities. In lieu of journeying down any of the possible avenues opened, Awakening simply tries to hide its lazy writing with a succession of not-always-so-nicely-rendered battle scenes. That, my friends, should be punishable by two shots to the chest and one to the head with ultra-violet or silver nitrate rounds, depending on which side of the monster ledger you think we’re dealing with.

MY SCORE: 4/10

Think Like a Man

Directed by Tim Story.

2012. Rated PG-13, 122 minutes.
Cast:
Taraji P. Henson
Gabrielle Union

Kevin Hart
Meagan Good

Regina Hall
Michael Ealy
Jerry Ferrara
Romany Malco
Terrence J
Gary Owen
La La Anthony
Chris Brown
Arielle Kebbel
Morris Chestnut

The battle of the sexes rages on. Think Like a Man takes the phrase quite literally. It’s based on the relationship advice book for women Act Like a Lady, Think Like a Man by famed comedian and “Family Feud” host Steve Harvey. It never lets you forget this fun fact. More on that later. The movie focuses on a group of young men and women at various stages of their love lives. The guys are a tight knit bunch who discuss their successes and failures with women over many games of basketball. Rest assured, there is far more chit-chat than basketball. Afterwards, they continue their conversation at their favorite bar. The women are broken into three sets of two. One woman from two of those sets and one of the guys is totally irrelevant. The ladies that matter see Steve Harvey dropping pearls of wisdom during a television interview and decide to go out and purchase his book. It must be a real page turner because it seems they all have it read moments after coming into its possession. Armed with the knowledge Mr. Harvey has imparted upon them, they wage war on the men in their lives in hopes of straightening them up. Of course, all of their guys belong to that tight knit group. Keep up.

There are a good deal of laughs to be had. Almost all of them come courtesy of Cedric (Hart). Ironically, he’s one of the least relevant male characters as it pertains to plot. However, he has to be here because he provides the overwhelming majority of the comedy in this romantic comedy. His character is nearing the finalization of his divorce. He bad mouths his ex, hangs out at strip clubs and warns his buddies about dealing with their woman. He also serves as one of the narrators. In this role, he provides a running commentary on all the goings-on.

Everyone else handles the romance. The girls quote passages from the book, plot and make their next move. The boys are caught off guard and react poorly to what the ladies are doing. Eventually they discover the book for themselves and form their own strategies. Most of this unfolds in an enjoyable, if predictable manner. Like most rom-coms it has an air of inevitability about it because we know that no matter how contentious things get all of our princes and princesses will live happily ever after. It’s when the movie transitions from warfare to reconciliation that it drags badly. This is mostly due to the large number of storylines to be wrapped up. After all, we have to see that magic moment when a couple realizes they can’t live without each other play out five times.

The bigger problem with the movie is all the narration. Kevin Hart is only one of the people fulfilling the role of narrator. Steve Harvey himself serves as the second. He pops up every so often on a TV screen to quote his own work and set us up for the next scene. The effect is two-fold. First, it becomes a film that doesn’t trust its audience to follow the action on its own. Viewers are spoon-fed everything the film wants us to know from beginning to end. Second, it begins to feel like a long commercial for the book. Honestly, it gets more screen time than most of the actors and never more than a few moments pass before someone explicitly mentions it.

Beneath the issues, there is a fun but predictable movie. It never really threatens to be anything more. However, it is also nothing less. It earns extra-credit from me for a couple of jokes at Tyler Perry’s expense even though several of the performers here have appeared at least one of that director's films. TLaM is one of the increasingly rare movies to feature a predominantly black cast and not have his name attached. As such, it offers a different perspective on black life and a different style of storytelling. It’s no more or less valid than Perry’s work but a desperately needed complement. Hopefully, this will inspire Hollywood to widen the spectrum on what types of stories are produced not only about blacks but about other ethnicities, as well. Of course, the danger here is that powers that be will do what they always do and simply start cloning a few successful films. On that, my fingers are crossed but I’m not holding my breath.

For Colored Girls

Directed by Tyler Perry.
2010. Rated R, 133 minutes.
Cast:
Kimberly Elise
Loretta Devine
Thandie Newton
Janet Jackson
Anika Noni Rose
Kerry Washington
Phylicia Rashad
Whoopi Goldberg
Michael Ealy
Omari Hardwick
Hill Harper
Macy Gray

Three troubled women live next to one another in a walk-up apartment building. Crystal (Elise) has a live-in baby daddy who is just home from “the war." Apparently suffering from severe PTSD, he drinks all day long and slaps her and the kids around. Tangie (Newton) literally brings a different man home every night from the bar she works in, has a religious fanatic mom (Goldberg) who pops up from time to time demanding money, and a little sister she can’t stand. Gilda (Rashad) is the least troubled, but tries her best to help the younger ladies and doesn’t seem to be having much success.

Very quickly, we meet some more ladies with problems. There’s Jo (Jackson), a magazine tycoon who is suffering through a bad marriage and some sort of health problem. If you’ve paid any attention to Tyler Perry’s previous work, you should figure out what’s wrong with her in about ten minutes. Kelly (Washington) is a social worker married to a cop and has a health issue of her own. Juanita (Devine) has a part-time boyfriend who moves in and out of her apartment at will, or more accurately, at the whim of his other woman. Then there’s Yasmine (Rose), the local dance teacher. She appears to be worry free. How long do you think that will last?

The ladies struggle with their issues and often have heart-wrenching moments. These moments will lead to many to hail it as Perry’s crowning achievement, artistically. That really isn’t saying much, but the point is taken. The director takes a more adult approach to his material and actually goes straight for drama. The bit of humor that is sprinkled in is much more derived from the human condition than his usual over the top slapstick. The overzealous attempts at comedy present in his other films never show up here. There are no buffoons in loud clothing, no old people smoking weed and thankfully no signs of Perry in drag. What we’re left with are these women and their pain.

Their pain drives the movie. It’s the crutch Perry leans on, rather effectively I might add. This part is easy for him because he’s always had two things going for him. First, he knows his target audience. It is no secret that target is African-American females. He has a good feel for what moves them emotionally and how to concoct just the right amount of melodrama to rile enough of them up. Second, he always elicits strong work from his cast. Across the board, the performances are fantastic.

In For Colored Girls, Perry is a skilled illusionist. As one powerfully acted scene after another depicts painful occurrences he knows many in his audience relate to, all too well, the illusion is we’re watching a great movie. The fact is all these wonderful scenes don’t quite gel into a cohesive unit. They’re short snippets of people, mostly women, pouring their hearts out quite literally through their tear ducts. Yes, there is lots of crying. The actors eagerly and earnestly attack their lines, leaving us and them exhausted from the effort. Unfortunately, the story the scenes combine to tell is predictable and uninspired man-bashing. Far in advance, we can see what’s coming. This stems from something the Tyler Perry canon is plagued by. It seems that in his world, Black men who aren’t the embodiment of pure evil are a rare commodity, except for the clowns of his other movies, of course. What happens is the scenes eventually devolve into a string of tragedies with hardly enough triumph to notice. To help us with this as much as possible, Perry eschews his normal all curing trip to church with another chick-flick cliché remedy, the group hug. Seriously.

As much formula is evident, there is some serious ambition with regards to dialogue. The first thing is the free-flowing of four, seven and twelve letter words that earn ‘R’ ratings. For most, this is not a big deal in any way. For Perry, it runs the serious risk of alienating his most ardent fans. Within the rather large and diverse population of Black women, the seemingly unshakeable core of his audience is those who regularly attend church. His work is seen as religious, with a secular slant. This brazenly flips the agenda.

The other risk is with how much he incorporates the source material. For those that don’t know, FCG is based on the play “For Colored Girls Who Have Considered Suicide When the Rainbow is Enuf.” Written by Ntozake Shange, it’s really a collection of poems centered around several characters. It had a pretty decent run onstage in the mid-seventies, even being nominated for the “Best Play” Tony and winning a number of other awards. I was intrigued going in because even though I’ve never seen the play, I have read it. Though that’s been long enough ago to forget most of it, I was curious to see how it could translate to the big screen. It’s a wonderful piece of writing that anyone interested in poetry should give a chance. Indeed, large chunks of Shange’s work are directly inserted into the screenplay. Characters talk normally, then suddenly break out in verse. Occasionally, this works to perfection as in the scene in which we’re treated to a cameo by Macy Gray. Its perfect mix of persona and content provides us with a truly frightening two minutes. Other times, this tactic feels a bit off, or just plain odd. Still, I give him kudos for trying.

FCG is a most difficult movie for me to gauge. So much of it works, I’m tempted to join the ranks of those who swear by it. However, just as much doesn’t work. It reminds me I am a member of the “Tyler Perry Must Be Stopped” club. Approach this with guarded optimism.

Takers

Seven Pounds

Seven Pounds
2008. Rated PG-13, 118 minutes.
Director: Gabriele Muccino. Starring Will Smith, Rosario Dawson, Barry Pepper, Woody Harrelson, Michael Ealy.

Plot: An obviously troubled man (Smith) is on a self-imposed mission to help others and unexpectedly falls in love.

The Good: It effectively strings us along. We're never quite sure exactly what our hero is up to until very late in the proceedings and the movie likes it like that way. Will Smith is solid but Rosario Dawson is outstanding. She very much makes us believe she's a woman who has missed out on things most of us take for granted and increasingly anxious about the time, or lack of time she has left.

The Bad: It's a little too cryptic. Why our hero is troubled is hinted at throughout so it was anticlimactic instead of being the huge revelation it wants to be. Showing this earlier may have helped his pain resonate with the audience more. The movie also takes itself way too seriously. Moments that could've been humorous and lightened the mood are enveloped by our hero's grim greater purpose, a destination he not only trudges toward but drags others with him.

The Ugly: Why he keeps the jellyfish.

Recommendation: The big problem seems to be how shamelessly it campaigned for the Oscars when it was being released. The commercials told us how it was being touted by some critics as a Best Picture candidate with a mind-blowing twist. Since it's not quite that, it became the chic movie to hate. I don't think it's nearly as bad as everyone says. In fact, I thought it was pretty good, even if it is overly self-important.

The Opposite View: Rawlin, VSN

What the Internet Says: 7.6/10 on imdb.com, 28% on rottentomatoes.com, 36/100 on metacritic.com

MY SCORE: 7/10