Bonus - Dave Chappelle's Block Party

Dave Chappelle's Block Party (2006) directed by Michel Gondry

Remember when Dave Chappelle was the effing man? This was what seems like way in the day when Chappelle's Show was all the rage and everybody was yelling "I'm Rick James bitch!" He was perhaps the funniest man in America at the time, had a hit TV show and just signed a $50 million contract. Then he just walked away from it all. The pressure got to him and everybody says he went crazy. But they were wrong, he didn't go crazy, even as crazy as turning down $50 million might seem. As it turns out, money can't but you happiness. He was much more content on being a normal dude without all the money and fame. Fast forward a couple months later and Chappelle threw a hip hop concert block party in New York City, maybe as a way to tell everyone he was still around and kicking, but more likely to finally be able to do something he's always wanted to do. As he reflects in the documentary, "This is the single best day of my entire career" and seems to genuinely mean it.

I was listening to iTunes and a song from the soundtrack came up and it got me thinking back to this movie and suddenly I was in the mood to watch some bits and pieces from it. Block Party holds a special place in my heart because it features a bunch of my favorite rappers, Mos Def, Talib Kweli, Common, and The Roots, a who's who of socially conscience emcees along with mega stars Kanye West and the Fugees. So it was much to my delight that Dave Chappelle and I share the same appreciation in rap music. Combine my favorite rappers with my favorite comedian in one package, how could you go wrong?

As soon as I put in the DVD and pressed play, I was taken back by just how cool Dave Chappelle is. Some celebrities you'd think would act like celebrities, distanced and unapproachable, but Chappelle seems like a genuinely humble down to earth guy. There is this hypothetical question that asks, "If you can hang out with any celebrity for a day who would you pick?" Typical answers would be George Clooney or Brad Pitt, the megastars. But I generally think those are poor answers because just because these guys are rich and mega famous, how fun would they be to actually hang out with once you get past the glitz and glamor? Dave Chappelle would be near the top of my list. He just seems like a really cool dude. Oh, and he's funny as hell.

I was reminded by how funny he was with his bits of spontaneous comedy and jokes in the film. He has little nuggets of gold sprinkled throughout. But the funny man is also surprisingly insightful and reflective.

One observation he makes is that all comedians want to be musicians and all musicians think they are funny. This film is a perfect blend of both worlds, funny bits sprinkled in with great music. The concert footage doesn't disappoint. It helps that these are basically my favorite rappers of all time, but I get the feeling that people who say they don't like rap music would like this film. Chappelle even goes out of his way to make sure to invite people who say they don't like rap music, from old white folks from his hometown in Ohio to free loving hippies living in the Bed Stuy projects the concert is to take place in.

Block Party is a wonderful little documentary film about Dave Chappelle's desire to put on a good show for everyone to appreciate, really no different from what he wanted to create with the famous show he walked away from, but only this time it seems it was more for himself than anything. A man should be allowed to do what he loves.

Grade: A-

Day 84 - Crimes and Misdemeanors

Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989) directed by Woody Allen

What an utterly dark and bleak movie. This is not to be confused with another great Woody Allen film, Matchpoint, in which a character also kills a woman with whom he is having an affair with. That film briefly touched upon the notions of luck and fate and worked as a more conventional crime film. In this earlier Allen film, fate does not play a role at all and acts as a more philosophical journey. You make your own fate, you are a sum of your choices and in Crimes and Misdemeanors, Judah, played wonderfully by Martin Landau, coldly and calmly justifies squashing this woman like a bug. Of course, he is indignant at the idea at first, but even in his protestations to the idea, you can see the gears turning in his mind to the idea.

Certainly this isn't the first movie where a man kills his lover and it wouldn't be the last either, but very few have dealt with the moral dilemma as well as this film. Judah, the son of a rabbi, is told as a child that "the eyes of God are always watching." Even if he gets away with the murder in the real world, what of the kingdom of God? He justifies it by saying "God is a luxury I cannot afford." He has too much to lose. He is a man of wealth and prestige, a family man with a loyal wife and kids who idolize him. In his heart he wants to believe in a higher moral order, but in reality he cannot believe in it, at least if it does not convenience him. But suddenly when the deed is done, he is stricken with this guilt and the realization that perhaps God is indeed watching him.

That is the heavy part of the film, now on to the comedy. Woody Allen once again plays his poor self, a pitiful kind of man resentful of the world around him and perhaps his own life. His story is told parallel to Judah's and also deals with morality. He is unhappily married and meets a woman that he becomes smitten with. It is a light hearted kind of quasi-romance but is it any less meaningful or sinful as Judah's decision to kill his mistress? I don't think Allen is trying to suggest that they are equal, but at the same time he points out that these decisions can weigh equally heavily on any person. One person may feel guilty for killing another person, another may feel distraught over forgetting to leave a tip at lunch. Or conversely, the killer may feel nothing at all. Levels of sin and guilt are all relative to the people doing the crimes and misdemeanors. (See what I did there?)

SPOILER:
So what does Allen say when Judah gets away with it free and clear? While he admits to feeling a dark cloud of guilt and despair, one day he wakes up and the sun is shining, life is good, his family loves him and this weight has been lifted off his shoulders. Meanwhile, the generally good meaning Cliff (Allen) is left out in the cold. He doesn't get the girl and instead sees her engaged with a man he totally despises. In a way, it is a challenge to God asking why is evil rewarded. Cliff argues that even if a man got away with murder, he must live with it for the rest of his life. Judah, who once had notions of being a moral man forgoes God, and does indeed live with it.
END SPOILER


Crimes and Misdemeanors is dark and cynical. It challenges you and makes you uncomfortable with the implications. Above it all, it is also a fine piece of film making by Woody Allen.

Grade: A

Day 83 - The Italian Job (1969)

The Italian Job (1969) directed by Peter Collinson

Remakes have been as old as film itself, as there simply aren't that many original stories to tell. As Nas raps, "No idea's original, there's nothing new under the sun/ It's never what you do, but how it's done."

Luckily for many of today's film makers, many older films have been lost in the wake and most people don't even realize what they're watching is a remake. For instance, I actually did not know that the 2003 The Italian Job starring Mark Wahlberg was a remake of this 1969 film starring Michael Caine until the other day when I saw it available to stream on Netflix. That being said, the newer Italian Job is a loose remake that borrows elements from the original rather than being a straight retelling. Fans of the original however will be glad to know that the famous Mini Coopers are here, as is the obligatory chase sequence, the stealing of gold, and of course Italy itself. (Though remember that in the 2003 version, the title is only a reference to the job in the very beginning of the movie in Italy. The rest of that film actually takes place in Los Angeles.)

Despite the obvious similarities, it was much to my surprise just how much better the newer version is. Part of it has to do with modern action sequences, but the other is the overall tone of the two films. The 2003 version is a straight heist action movie with comedic elements, this 1969 version can almost be classified as a straight comedy. It is rather whimsical and almost campy in nature, but unfortunately it's not really as funny as it intends to be. I did really like this line though that Michael Caine delivers to his British crew, "Just remember this - in this country they drive on the wrong side of the road."

I found much of the story rather bland and the plotting and preparation scenes, the staple of all heist movies, to be a tad on the light side. It wasn't all that compelling. Also there is no real assembling of the team, they sort of just show up with limited characterization, though to be fair this isn't necessarily an ensemble cast, it is definitely a Michael Caine vehicle. Speaking of which, I can't remember a movie where Michael Caine was the lead star. In recent years I remember him for his supporting roles, particularly in Christopher Nolan movies and as Austin Powers' father. I don't feel like he was given much to work with in this character, though his wacky British charm and humor does get the chance to occasionally shine through.

The chase scene in the end is nice, but unfortunately a case of too little too late. The ending, however, is a little unexpected and I love how it leaves off on a cliff hanger, literally and figuratively.

Grade: C+

Day 82 - Super Fly

Super Fly (1972) directed by Gordon Parks Jr.

"Said that I would've stop before I even started/ When I get to one brick, then the game I would depart with/ Got to one brick then I looked to the sky/ Like, sorry God I lied but give me one more try."

"The irony of selling drugs is sort of like you using it/ Guess there's two sides to what substance abuse is." - Jay-Z (Fallin')

Is the life of crime a means to an end or is it the life that you chose for yourself? Can you escape who you really are? Can people change? Priest seems to think that you can. One last score he says, then he's out. Ever hear that one before? His partner Eddie is far more pragmatic, or pessimistic, however you want to put it. Hustling is the way of life, it's the American dream.

"When I get out what am I gonna do? I don't know nothing else but dope, baby. Takin' it, sellin' it, bankrollin' some other small time pusher. Ya know, you've got this fantasy in your head about gettin' out of the life and setting that other world on its ear. What the F*CK are you gonna do except hustle?"

It's easy to gloss over a movie like Super Fly and just see a world of drugs and violence and to be fair, the world of Super Fly, the ghettos of 1970's NYC, is filled with drugs and violence, but the film doesn't attempt to glamorize these aspects. It is simply a part of life in the streets. Certainly Priest is a cool dude, ghetto fabulous if you will, a true to life hustler with a Cadillac, girlfriends, money, penthouses, and all the coke you could ever snort. But he is a product of his environment, thrust into a lifestyle that was more a process of evolution than personal choice. There is a telling point in the film where members of a black power movement try to recruit him and he responds, "You go get a gun and all these black folks you keep doin' so much talking about get guns, and come back ready to go down, then I'll be right down front killin' whitey. But until you can do that, you go sing your marching songs some place else. Now we're through talkin.'"

The Civil Rights movement didn't do shit for guys like Priest and Eddie. Its issues have no relevance in the urban decay of their lives; the prostitutes, the pimps, the hustlers, the drugs, the guns, the corrupt police. It is a completely separate world with its own set of rules. But this film doesn't try to glamorize the life style. Through Priest, it attempts to understand it. It's not about selling drugs, it's about surviving it. The truth is that selling drugs can be just as damaging as taking them, as soon as you start, you're stuck in that life forever. But not Priest. He has grand plans to escape the life even though everyone around him tells him he can't.

Aside from being an entertaining film, Super Fly is interesting in that there are moments of great insight, something you wouldn't expect out of a blaxploitation flick. It would be easy for characters to be caricatures but everyone is well thought out and have unexpected dimensions, particularly the character of Eddie, Priest's long time partner. While many of the actors give uneven performances, Eddie (Carl Lee) is always on point throughout especially during his monologues and words of wisdom. He knows that life is short on the streets, but he intends to make the most out of it.

Priest, played by Ron O'Neal, may come across as naive in his dreams, but he is no fool. He knows exactly the difficulties of achieving his dreams and will do everything he can to do so. O'Neal  wasn't a great actor, but he was perfectly cast as the charismatic and utterly believable Priest. Unfortunately, like many actors who gained notoriety for one role, O'Neal would be typecast into similar roles for the rest of his career.

Perhaps the most remarkable thing about Super Fly is its music. The soundtrack, put together by none other than Curtis Mayfield, is perfect in its funk and soul. I just love this kind of music. Every song seems to be waiting for Kanye West to sample for a beat. (The soundtrack for Super Fly would actually outsell the movie itself.) Also the film does a great job in capturing the atmosphere of the inner cities. It is grimy, dingy and full of life. I enjoyed watching the different little locations in the beginning when Priest chases the mugger through the ghettoes.

Grade: B+

Day 81 - Peeping Tom

Peeping Tom (1960) directed by Michael Powell

It's kind of crazy to think that one movie can effectively kill someone's career, but that is pretty much what Peeping Tom did to Michael Powell (The Red Shoes). It was universally reviled upon its release and only gained its classic status years later, too late to fix Powell's broken reputation. The director noted in his biography, "I make a film that nobody wants to see and then, thirty years later, everybody has either seen it or wants to see it." Incidentally the film that Peeping Tom is most often compared to, Psycho, which came out only months later, would gain instant success and critical acclaim, further bolstering Alfred Hitchcock's status, while Powell and his film would languish in the shadows for years. It's been a while since I've seen Psycho, but Peeping Tom compares favorably to it and is a victim of the unfortunate but common theme of being misunderstood in its time. (Though to be clear, Psycho is a better movie.)

There are similarities in both Peeping Tom and Psycho, like having a serial killer as the protagonist and also in how they are portrayed. Both killers are soft spoken and seemingly harmless. Both have traumatic childhoods by the hands of a parent, Norman Bates with his overbearing mother and Mark Lewis with his father who performed psychological experiments on him as a child.

However, thematically, I think Peeping Tom is much closer to another Hitchcock classic, Rear Window, namely in the ideas of voyeurism and how it relates to the movie watching process. In both films, we get to watch people who like to watch other people. Serial killer Mark Lewis (Carl Boehm) likes to film his victim's reactions of fear when killing them. We become not just the audience to the movie Peeping Tom, but to his personal snuff films as well. It is like watching a world within a world; Powell allows us to peer into this fictional world, but it is Mark that is the true director of this movie and brings the viewer much closer, perhaps uncomfortably so, to the action. When people ask him what he's doing with his camera, he responds by saying that he is shooting a documentary.

In a way, we are watching the movie as Mark would want us to. We effectively become him or at the very least we watch uncomfortably beside him in his dark room as he relives his kills that he's filmed. In a way, Peeping Tom is more about making and watching movies than it is about killing people. Martin Scorsese has said that this film, along with Federico Fellini's 8 1/2, contains all that can be said about directing:

"I have always felt that Peeping Tom and 8 1/2 say everything that can be said about film-making, about the process of dealing with film, the objectivity and subjectivity of it and the confusion between the two. 8 1/2 captures the glamour and enjoyment of film-making, while Peeping Tom shows the aggression of it, how the camera violates... From studying them you can discover everything about people who make films, or at least people who express themselves through films." (Thanks Wikipedia!)

Okay, all boring film theory stuff aside, this film is also a good character study of a serial killer. Underneath that mild mannered and shy exterior, he is a monster, but it is also important you understand why he is that way. Perhaps you will feel sorry for him after learning that his father performed all sorts of cruel experiments on him or maybe you'll still find him equally repulsive. Either way, like in Fritz Lang's M, you are at least invited to the psychology of the killer.

I've also seen enough episodes of CSI and Criminal Minds to know that there is a link between sexuality and violence and Peeping Tom makes a blatant connection between the two. Perhaps that is one of the things that turned critics off to this film. They just weren't ready for something this suggestive. There is a definite sexual link between Mark and his camera, as a means for his voyeurism and as an actual weapon. He slowly lifts one of the legs of the tripod up and towards his victim like a penis and penetrates them with its sharpened end.

Anyways, there is also a good amount of suspense and genuine horror in the film as well. It doesn't go for the cheap thrills of modern day slasher films, but the build up of scenes and situations makes the shrieks on screen all the more believable.

I think Psycho, which has arguably even more controversial subject matter, benefited greatly by being released after Peeping Tom which absorbed much of the general shock (and scorn) of the public for these kind of movies. Viewed in a modern light, it is kind of hard to see what the big fuss was about. Then again half of all PG-13 movies nowadays would have been rated R back then and two thirds of rated R movies would have been rated X. The other third would have been ordered to be destroyed and the directors hanged. Michael Powell was just a victim of the times.

Grade: B+

Day 80 - Bob le Flambeur

Bob le Flambeur (1955) directed by Jean-Pierre Melville

Bob is a pro gambler and ex-con. He is widely respected in the neighborhood, everybody knows his name, and even the head of police, Inspector Ledru, is friends with him after Bob saved his life all those years ago. He is also a gentleman with morals and a generous heart. He helped a friend open up a bar by lending her money, he took in a friend's son in as his protege, and tries to guide a girl away from a life on the streets. Yet for all the help he gives to others, he cannot seem to help himself. As cool and calm as he looks, there is a sense of desperation in Bob, the need to put it all on the line. He's been gambling for a long time yet doesn't seem to have things figured out for himself. He's never had that big run. He seems to be in no better shape now than he was twenty years ago. Perhaps that is why he takes on Paolo as his protege and protects Anne from being exploited by pimps, he doesn't want them to repeat his same mistakes, the ones he's still making today. In a bad run of luck, Bob is dead broke (a feeling I've known all too well a couple times in my life). A friend tells him that the casino's vault holds an unheard of amount of money and Bob suddenly gets it in his head to take it down.

At this point, the story heads into a different direction than I had hoped it would. I wish it would have focused more on Bob's gambling and the relationships he's fostered with Paolo and Anne. Instead, it becomes yet another heist movie, albeit a pretty good one. Bob gets a crew together to take down the casino with the middle portions of the movie being focused on the planning and scheming. It plays out like a classic American crime drama. Not surprisingly Melville was obsessed with American movies and culture. In fact Melville wasn't even his real last name, he took it from the author of Moby Dick because he loved it so much.

Bob, played by Roger Duchesne, is cool in the way his hair is slicked back and the way he smokes his cigarettes. When he walks down the street in a trench coach, you probably couldn't tell him and Humphrey Bogart apart from a distance. Bob le Flambeur is sort of Melville's tribute to Hollywood noir, but it is also known to be perhaps the first film of the French New Wave. I did notice some of those elements, like the hand held camera and stylish camera movements. (I did miss the jump cut the film supposedly has, which Breathless would later make famous.) I really enjoyed the first couple scenes where we see Bob in the black and white checkered room, such a visually compelling set piece.

SPOLIER:
The ending is very fitting and what I wished the majority of the film focused on, the destructive nature of Bob's gambling. While planning for the heist, Bob promises to not gamble until then to remain focused. But while staking out the casino he casually places an innocent bet and wins, pleasantly surprised. At this point, you know this will be his downfall. Naturally, he goes on the hot streak of his life and wins so much that people have to carry his money in boxes for him. He is supposed to rendezvous with his crew at 5:00 and misses the date. He looks at his watch too late and his crew arrives on scene to find the police waiting for them and a shoot out ensues, killing Bob's protege Paolo. Bob arrives outside just in time for Paolo to die in his arms, a heavy price to pay for Bob's lucky run in the casino. What a perfectly ironic and tragic ending. It is bittersweet since it appears that Bob will be able to get away with it, but at what price to his conscience?
END SPOILER


The life of a gambler can be quite bleak if Bob's story is any indication. It seems like every movie about gambler revolves around personal loss and struggles, a theme that has reoccurred over and over again in my life. I am eagerly awaiting the movie where a guy shows up in Las Vegas with $20 and turns it into $1,000,000 in one weekend and lives happily ever after.

Grade: B+


Note: Rereading this, this is probably the least thought I've put into a post, it is almost entirely all plot. It kind of sucks because I probably should have been able to give more insight to Bob's character or personal stories.

Day 79 - Horrible Bosses

Horrible Bosses (2011) directed by Seth Gordon

I've never had a real job before so I don't know how it feels when people say that they hate their bosses, but it's not hard to imagine. People can be incompetent, they can be controlling and power hungry, and they can be real jerks (though I'm sure some of you are thinking of nastier words than that) and if these people are the ones you work for, it can make your life a living hell.

So have you ever imagined killing your boss? Hypothetically speaking of course. That is the question our three misfit heroes ask themselves drinking at a bar one night after a rough day at work. Nick (Jason Batmen) has been working his ass off for eight years under scumbag Dave Harken (Kevin Spacey) hoping to get that big promotion, but doesn't. Kurt (Jason Sudeikis) can only watch as sleazeball Bobby Pellit (Colin Ferrell) takes over the business. And then there's Dale (Charlie Day) who is being sexually harassed by his nymphomaniac boss, Julia Harris, DDS (Jennifer Aniston).

At first they are only kidding, but after further contemplation it suddenly doesn't seem like a bad idea. The only problem of course is that they are just three regular guys who know nothing about killing people, setting up hilarious situations where amateur hour is on full display. For instance on a recon mission breaking into one of the bosses' house, it never occurs to them that perhaps they should be wearing gloves and one of them seems more interested in pulling pranks than in gathering real intel.

Horrible Bosses continues the tradition of dirty adult comedies to come out the past ten years in the spirit of the Judd Apatow comedies and mega-hits The Hangover and Bridesmaids. Being rated R is no longer the death sentence it once was to comedies as audiences' tastes have grown more crass and less sensitive. This movie is really funny in this manner yet doesn't feel overly absurd or vulgar. Funny is just funny.

A lot of it has to do with the stars and Horrible Bosses is loaded. I've always liked Jason Bateman's sarcastic deadpan comedy since Arrested Development. Jason Sudeikis of SNL fame is a decent actor and of the three lead characters is probably the weakest, but that has more to do with the strength of his co-stars than anything. Charlie Day was a supporting character in what I thought was the best romantic comedy of 2010, Going the Distance (another of those aforementioned adult style comedies), but was often the film's funniest part. In Horrible Bosses, Day is able to showcase more of the same type of humor and while not as quite as funny, is still pretty damn funny.

And the bosses? Kevin Spacey is probably the worst boss, but his character isn't necessarily very funny, though he is clearly a real asshole. Colin Ferrell must have had a blast getting into character. He is barely recognizable with that balding hair and those beady little eyes. He has a couple funny one liners that I won't divulge into but he probably has the best lines in the movie. This is also the dirtiest and raunchiest role that Aniston has ever played. Rachel Green would never say the words that Dr. Julia Harris does. Aniston has never looked better and has a couple scenes in skimpy outfits. Nope, no nudity though.

Obviously Horrible Bosses is an absurd film but it works with the strength of the actors and the pure comedy. There is also a nice Strangers on a Train reference for you Hitchcock buffs.

Grade: B+