Film Review: Sequels: Rocky territory
The Peak
Nick Pannu, Associate Staff Contributor
Much like malignant tumours, film sequels unexpectedly emerge. The filmmaker’s intent is to revive interest in recognised characters and plots. Sometimes there is merit to having a second part that discloses unresolved issues that can further develop these elements, but often having a third and fourth film just causes the original to lose its initial appeal. The storyline loses direction, and characters start to lack genuine substance. This begs the question of how a fourth, fifth, or inconceivable sixth sequel could have any credibility. This past Christmas audiences were blindsided with a sixth sequel in the latest installment of the Rocky series, Rocky Balboa. Obvious rhetoric and cynicism precedes the mere thought of an aging Sylvester Stallone in another Rocky film. Yet in its first week, the picture scored at the top of the box office. Perhaps as an act of reverence for the once-endearing character, people decided to pay their last respects to Rocky Balboa.
Cultural immortality is usually reserved for extraordinary characters. Seldom is it the circumstance of adversity alone that makes a character immortal, yet whenever there is a challenge, a feeling of despair, and a struggle to rise out of the depths of obscurity, people think of Rocky. His resilience is a model for the mortals who never back down when the odds are stacked heavily against them. Sylvester Stallone revives the character for one final sequel in Rocky Balboa.
The filmmakers made a conscious effort to legitimatise this tension early in the film. Abruptly after the opening credits, Balboa, a champion with many accolades but no respect from the fans, is shown having trouble making money. His promoters desperately seek a means to revive the fighter’s financial prospects, while the fighter struggles to regain his pride and self-respect. Balboa is also looking for a way to redeem himself. Symbolically this is illustrated when Rocky befriends an older unattractive dog, claiming that it still has use and value. Later, Balboa stands in triumph at the top of the stairs of the Philadelphia Spectrum holding the petite dog. In this film, Rocky still manages to go to the body when he fights, but his quick southpaw jab is gone. Overall, the film maintains its tension because the respective motive of each character manages to make a confrontation between them somewhat credible.
The film invests a lot in establishing continuity between the first Rocky and this last chapter in the fighter’s life. Balboa lives in his old neighbourhood and travels extensively through it as he mourns the death of his wife Adrian and reminisces over their first date. Adrian’s passing is Stallone’s sentimental sucker punch to maintain the viewers’ interest. Delving extensively into Balboa’s past somewhat taints the aura surrounding the first film.
The positive aspects of the film outweigh these imperfections. Solid performances from veteran actor Burt Young and relative newcomer Milo Ventimiglia provide a strong foundation for the movie. Real-life boxer Antonio Tarver is equally impressive in his motion picture debut.
As expected, Stallone is able to effortlessly morph himself into his alter ego Rocky, especially in one particularly poignant scene. This moment actually possesses the arsenal to challenge the famous Rocky line about "going the distance." "Life is not all sunshine and rainbows," Balboa candidly tells his son. "It’s actually a very mean and nasty place." Thus Rocky’s legacy continues.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Freedomland
Film: Jackson tackles race relations, stuff in new film
Nick Pannu, The Peak
Freedomland, starring Samuel L. Jackson and Julianne Moore, is playing everywhere.
Media savvy pundits have recently shed light on how social policy elicits indifference towards marginalised people and the dire consequences of such policy (ie. New Orleans).
As well, how calamitic racial tensions tend to escalate within this realm. Conveniently, or perhaps with undeniable conviction, writer Richard Price and director Joe Roth boldly attempt to present the issue within their latest collaboration, Freedomland. An all-star cast, which includes Samuel Jackson, Julianne Moore, and William Forsythe, acts as a smoke screen to what otherwise could have been a very promising film.
Immediately a distraught, disenfranchised woman Brenda, played by Julianne Moore, is seen wandering the streets. She is confronted by Samuel Jackson’s character, Detective Lorezna, who desperately tries to find out what happened to her while she is being attended to by medical staff. Suddenly, napalm seeps through the tranquility and viciously erupts thereafter permeating every aspect of the movie. For example, Brenda was carjacked while her son was sleeping in the back seat. Yet the real issue presented in the film is not that her son was in the car when it was stolen but that she identifies a black man as the culprit. Finding the boy is essential towards diffusing a situation which will have dire consequences on a poor, predominately African-American neighbourhood where the car was jacked.
The plot thickens as the case turns out to be more complicated then expected. Brenda is not being forthright and for some reason is holding something back. As well, her brother is an officer in the neighbouring white neighbourhood of Ghana who sets up a barricade in the projects so no one can leave. Having strong ties to people in the community, Lorezna desperately seeks to diffuse the situation by having Brenda unconditionally surrender the pivotal information required to subdue erupting racial tensions between both neighbourhoods.
Initially and until near the end, the plot, as well as what seemed like the theme, was well orchestrated. Unfortunately, there were many implied gestures and circumstances that didn’t necessarily tie together. It seemed like the true essence of what the picture was emphasising was sabotaged. The prominent emphasis on the corrupt, vile approach that the police bureaucracy generally takes with poor marginalised people is subdued by ambiguous swerves. Near the end, not the very last scene, there is a cheesy dialogue between Lorezna and his partner, played by an under-utilised William Forsythe. The displaced issue was not cohesive with respect to the rest of the film. Also, their relationship was never built up enough in the film to communicate such a scene.
Samuel Jackson and Julianne Moore’s roles are convincing and genuine with respect to their characters, but Forsythe is totally under-utilised in this film. His scenes were limited and he was a pivotal character. It would made for an interesting dynamic to place Forsythe as the low self-worthing brother of Moore and antagonist cop setting up the barricade against Jackson’s beloved and esteemed Armstrong projects. Again, the plot was enriched, but the corny and ambiguous ending delegitimises the movie. Mysteriously, it seems that the movie had to be tweaked near the end so the emphasis on the vile, fascist liberties that the police bureaucracy typically takes on the disenfranchised and poor would be buried. People had to walk away from the film not thinking about that issue.
Nick Pannu, The Peak
Freedomland, starring Samuel L. Jackson and Julianne Moore, is playing everywhere.
Media savvy pundits have recently shed light on how social policy elicits indifference towards marginalised people and the dire consequences of such policy (ie. New Orleans).
As well, how calamitic racial tensions tend to escalate within this realm. Conveniently, or perhaps with undeniable conviction, writer Richard Price and director Joe Roth boldly attempt to present the issue within their latest collaboration, Freedomland. An all-star cast, which includes Samuel Jackson, Julianne Moore, and William Forsythe, acts as a smoke screen to what otherwise could have been a very promising film.
Immediately a distraught, disenfranchised woman Brenda, played by Julianne Moore, is seen wandering the streets. She is confronted by Samuel Jackson’s character, Detective Lorezna, who desperately tries to find out what happened to her while she is being attended to by medical staff. Suddenly, napalm seeps through the tranquility and viciously erupts thereafter permeating every aspect of the movie. For example, Brenda was carjacked while her son was sleeping in the back seat. Yet the real issue presented in the film is not that her son was in the car when it was stolen but that she identifies a black man as the culprit. Finding the boy is essential towards diffusing a situation which will have dire consequences on a poor, predominately African-American neighbourhood where the car was jacked.
The plot thickens as the case turns out to be more complicated then expected. Brenda is not being forthright and for some reason is holding something back. As well, her brother is an officer in the neighbouring white neighbourhood of Ghana who sets up a barricade in the projects so no one can leave. Having strong ties to people in the community, Lorezna desperately seeks to diffuse the situation by having Brenda unconditionally surrender the pivotal information required to subdue erupting racial tensions between both neighbourhoods.
Initially and until near the end, the plot, as well as what seemed like the theme, was well orchestrated. Unfortunately, there were many implied gestures and circumstances that didn’t necessarily tie together. It seemed like the true essence of what the picture was emphasising was sabotaged. The prominent emphasis on the corrupt, vile approach that the police bureaucracy generally takes with poor marginalised people is subdued by ambiguous swerves. Near the end, not the very last scene, there is a cheesy dialogue between Lorezna and his partner, played by an under-utilised William Forsythe. The displaced issue was not cohesive with respect to the rest of the film. Also, their relationship was never built up enough in the film to communicate such a scene.
Samuel Jackson and Julianne Moore’s roles are convincing and genuine with respect to their characters, but Forsythe is totally under-utilised in this film. His scenes were limited and he was a pivotal character. It would made for an interesting dynamic to place Forsythe as the low self-worthing brother of Moore and antagonist cop setting up the barricade against Jackson’s beloved and esteemed Armstrong projects. Again, the plot was enriched, but the corny and ambiguous ending delegitimises the movie. Mysteriously, it seems that the movie had to be tweaked near the end so the emphasis on the vile, fascist liberties that the police bureaucracy typically takes on the disenfranchised and poor would be buried. People had to walk away from the film not thinking about that issue.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)