The Grace Card (2011)

Starring Michael Joiner, Michael Higgenbottom and Louis Gossett Jr.

Directed by David Evans

Drama

Rated PG-13: Violence, Some Thematic Elements

The film opens on a flashback to our protagonist, Bill “Mac” McDonald’s past, were we learn that a speeding car killed his son Tyler. We know his son’s name because he screams “Tyler!” after he bolts awake. Dreams are quite dangerous in the movies, aside of the risk of running into Freddy Kruger or Leonard DiCaprio in your subconscious, apparently having a nightmare generates enough adrenaline in your body to propel your torso at near lethal velocity the second you regain consciousness.

Well fifteen years later Mac is complete jerk, his morning conversation consisting of complaining how ethnics have moved into their neighborhood and yells at his living son Blake for being such a screw up and that Tyler never would have turned out like this. In fiction when your character is a jerk, it’s best to give them at least one redeeming trait so that we don’t completely detach from them. Mac is saddled with Dead Offspring Syndrome, so he gets a sympathy pass by association rather than by anything he does himself, as we see he’s a lousy husband and father, an outright racist, a bit of a sexist and a terrible police officer to boot.

We are then introduced to his new partner Sam Wright, whom the other police officers snidely call “Preacher”, due to his second job as a minister. Mac and Sam don’t get along, Sam getting the promotion to Sergeant over Mac, the latter convinced that the choice in candidates was due to race. Sam doesn’t really help matters by irritating his partner by signing verses from hymns during patrol. “A-MA-ZING G-RACE! Public domain we don’t have pay anyone! Hahaha.” We’ve already established that he’s the religious one of the duo so this is really just overkill.

The film also contains Louis Gossett Jr. as “Grandpa George”. Gossett is best known for his award winning roles such as Gunnery Sergeant Emil Foley in “An Officer and A Gentleman”, Fiddler in “Roots”, and as Calvin Bouchard in “Jaws 3-D” (the latter of which had him nominated for the Golden Raspberry, which is an award of sorts). Despite his name on the poster with our two leads, he doesn’t really “star” in the movie since he only shows up in three short scenes, only two of them with dialogue and are just used to advance the spiritual side of the movie and serve as wised old mentor for Sam. By the end he hardly seems worth the mention.

Home life for Sam and Mac is lacking in subtlety. The Wrights live in a warmly lit earth toned house with a family dinner, light hearted banter and conflicts that are quickly and easily resolved. Contrast with the McDonald’s, who sit their cramped claustrophobic dining space that’s parked right up against a wall, and is lit by only one small overhead light. Apparently they’re broken in spirit as well as shins, stumbling around, banging into furniture in the dark.

Things pick up later, while on patrol Mac shoots a burglar fleeing a scene, only to discover that the thief his just shot was his own son! DUN-DUN-DUN! Mac’s reaction is so over the top that I nearly ruptured a lung laughing so hard. It turns out I’m not the only one to have grievous harm done, as Blake has been shot in the kidney and needs an urgent replacement.

Mac’s character arc comes to a head as we reach his big conversion scene, were, with Sam’s help he gives his life over to God. Not much to say here, its par for the course as far as Christian films are concerned and I’d best leave it at that.

Hope arrives just in the nick of time as it is revealed that Sam is an eligible donor for Blake’s needs and volunteers immediately, though he does take the time to have a flashback to all the moments he’s shared with Mac, that we’ve already seen in some poor attempt at pathos.

During the operation, Sam’s daughter asks her mother how they know a kidney from a black man will work in a white boy. Mom replies that while we’re different on the outside, but on the inside we’re all the same. It’s true all right; permit me to demonstrate by vomiting up rainbows. As far as a film about race relations goes, this isn’t exactly “In the Heat of the Night”, heck, this movie doesn’t even begin to break a sweat.

We cut ahead six months later so that we don’t have to see any of the gradual change to the characters after such a shocking ordeal, though this may have been done intentional, so that none of the actors have to actually “act”. The conclusion is at Sam’s church, which is now packed to the brim with new members including the McDonald family who are all happy and smiling and everything seems A-Okay. Then things suddenly become tense when the man who killed Tyler walks into the church, and in front of the whole congregation asks Mac for forgiveness. Wow. No pressure. It’s the kind of ending that would seem ridiculous even if it were on a daytime soap opera. Well as you expect, Mac extends his “Grace Card” to the man, as well as a hand to shake before we cut to the credits.

Summation:

I know I’ll probably receive flack for coming down hard on a Christian film and for measuring by the same standards I would use for any mainsteam Hollywood film, especially given the theme of grace in this particular movie, but I can’t think of any reason why I should do otherwise. The problems I have with this film have nothing to do with its Christian message of forgiveness and mercy, both values that I can firmly attest to, but rather how the story is portrayed. When it all comes down this movie is intended to coddle viewers rather than convict them. The drama simplified for the sake of it evangelical sub culture target audience. The race relation element of the film in particular fails to deliver because it is incapable of branching beyond its simple depiction of racism, so that the finale can easily resolve all the bad blood. 

The direction relies heavily on communication through telling rather than showing in the actor’s performances because the characters really don’t have personalities. Instead the characters are used as blank slates to have problems projected onto them with no way of dealing with their situations on their own. They are written to have all their issues solved by giving themselves over to God, and presto change-o they are now completely different as a result! The filmmakers say “Take our word for it, and if you don’t believe, just look at the ending were Mac is backed into a situation were he can make no other choice except the one presented here.” There is no tension for them because they don’t feel like real people, especially when we don’t see them changed but are only told they have changed. The quality production values are really the movie’s only redeeming feature.

Final Score:

1 out of 5. Dull and Toothless.

The Majestic (2001)

Starring Jim Carrey, Laurie Holden, Martin Landau

Directed by Frank Darabont

Drama

Rated PG

The Story:

Jim Carrey stars as Pete Appleton, a Hollywood screenwriter working in B-Movies with high ambitions in the early 1950s. Things take a turn for the worse when Pete is blackballed on suspicion having Communist sympathies. After crashing his car, he winds up with amnesia, and wonders into the small town of Lawson were he is mistaken for Luke Trimble, an MIA war hero and favorite son of the town who hardly reacquaint him with his old life. He begins to accept it, until his past comes back to haunt him.

My Thoughts:

The film begins with some very clunky expository dialogue and some awful close up shots. Carrey’s aids how much we need to be told rather than shown about the character through a voiceover explaining his life to whoever he thinks is listening I suppose. I’m generally of the opinion that if you use a voiceover narration it needs to be incorporated into the whole film you’re using it to lazily tell us about the character rather than let us experience him for ourselves. Pete gets drunk in the bar explaining how his beautiful actress girlfriend left him, which would have been something good for us to see, so that we could see his sorrow first hand, but again, we have to be told about it. After that  he starts talking to a toy monkey to explain his emotions yet again. Then he bumps his head and gets amnesia and the telling finally stops.

Pete’s new identity of the heroic Luke is met with mounting praise. This is difficult to watch because we know hes not really who they think he is and everyone is suckered into it , making the inevitable “I always knew…” statements towards the end that much more painful.

Eventually Pete remembers whom he is and is dragged into court by a Communist Witchhunter who was only established early on but doesn’t have much stance as a bad guy since by this point we’ve all but forgotten about him. Carrey delivers a grand speech of “I stand for X and Y ideals” but it feels rather hollow and without weight or consequence, those present however, treat it with loud cheers, rounds of applause and slow tear drops. Carrey returns to Lawson with a crowd awaiting his return once again worshiping the ground he walks upon closing the film in a neat package.

The film is a homage to the sentimentality and triumph of the human spirit themes commonly found in a Frank Capra film such as “It’s a Wonderful Life” or “Mr Smith Goes to Washington”. Using those themes here doesn’t work because we have to jump from Pete to Luke and back again so we don’t have a connection with the main character. The disappearing and reappearing antagonist makes this worse and the climax lacks any manner of subtly. Its hard to believe that this is from the director of “The Shawshank Redemption”, were all of Tim Robbin’s actions were subtle and quiet, building towards a greater purpose with a slow build up that generated tension and gave time to really get to know the main character. Here we are fed the line that Pete’s actions have greater meaning and are then told to applaud without really feeling the effects.

It’s a good idea on paper, and Jim Carrey does a good job with the material provided, but it feels a bit to packaged and processed in to building a “feel good” movie that it has almost the opposite effect.

Final Score:

2 1/2 out of 5. “Modest” but not Majestic.

Matinee (1993)

 

Starring John Goodman

Directed by Joe Dante

Drama/Comedy

Rated PG

The Story:

Gene and his little brother live with their mother on the military base in Key West, Florida while their father is deployed in the Navy in 1962 as the terror of the Cuban Missile Crisis begins to unfold. At the same time film producer Lawrence Woolsey (John Goodman) comes to town to promote his new monster movie “MANT!” Tension as the movies highly anticipated premiere approaches and development in Cuba grows grimmer as Gene learns about fear, both real and make-believe.

My Thoughts:

The film as a whole is a love letter to popular culture of mid century America. We’re reminded early on about how different ideas and attitudes of that era were, such as the importance of red meat in every meal and the imminent threat of nuclear Armageddon. This look back at the era is interrupted by the introduction of the waifish Sandra. She is wise beyond her years as she recognizes the futility of the school’s nuclear drills is also a crusader for social justice of the period. It feels like a bit of a jerk out of this reality of the decade to be given a politically correct textbook definition of the time rather than let the audience see things play out and experience the era for ourselves.

Gene’s story is hindered by the arrival of Woolsey, a film producer in the vein of William Castle, making movies into funhouse shows with gimmicks such as “Atomo-Vision” and “Rumble-Rama”. While we see his dishonest dealings used to promote his new movie, his encounter with Gene reveals just how passionate he is about storytelling and understanding the nature of fear serving as a psedo-mentor to the trouble teen. John Goodman steals the show with this performance.

Everything comes together in the third act at the première of “MANT!”, were all the movie’s wide array of characters all happen to meet and their personal demons begin to intersect not only with one another but with the plot of the “MANT!” itself. I can’t really say much more without giving the ending away expect that Robert Picardo hams it up his role as the neurotic theater manager. It is easily the film’s funniest part, but it feels a bit distracting from the big picture at times. The climax may seem a little goofy to some viewers, but it seemed so in tune with the kitsch charm that I was grinning from ear to ear.

I’d like to briefly compare “Matinee”’s structure with another film, “The Sandlot”. Both features were set in 1962, and were released in theaters within mere months of one another. In “The Sandlot” we follow a boy named Smalls, who like Gene in “Matinee” is new to town, friendless and without a father. While we spend “The Sandlot” following Smalls, the movie isn’t about Smalls so much as it is Benny’s Story told from Smalls’ point of view. “The Sandlot” was about both nostalgia and people, which is why I think it has become such a beloved classic. “Maintee” conversely is about culture and ideas. Gene is there to learn from Woolsey, whom Director Joe Dante uses a mouthpiece for to explain his own passion for movies and moviemaking. It is well written, but in execution feels unbalanced in certain places.

The film has all the elements of a classic coming of age movie. It is flawed, but funny and made with lots of affection and attention to detail.

Final Score:

4 out of 5. Matinee is a Full Price.

Ramona and Beezus (2010)

Starring Joey King, Selena Gomez
Directed by Elizabeth Allen
Family/Drama
Rated G
Based on the books by Beverly Cleary

Synopsis:

Ramona Quimby is an adventurous third grader who offer a unique perspective on the events around her and her family, such as her father losing his job, her Aunt Bee's budding love life and antics with her older sister Beezus.

Thoughts:

When I first heard about this movie I thought it would pitch the source material out the window and just try and be over the top cutesy. The proceeding trailer for “Marmaduke”, a movie which suffered such a fate, wasn’t exactly encouraging. Marketing is something that can really mess with your expectations. Selena Gomez’s size on the poster, fame from the Disney Channel and original song on the soundtrack made me think that she was the star and that the movie is about sibling rivalry. No, the title is truth in advertising as Joey King as Ramona is this film’s main attraction. 

The first thing I noticed is that the movie isn’t an adaptation of any one book in the series but rather it just cherry picks bits of stories from each of the books. Which I suppose makes sense, after all the books were really just a string of vignettes strung together by a thin overarching plot and the movie does the same thing. Despite how many plot threads the movie has, the script does a very good job if introducing a lot of ideas and then quickly tying the knot so that the story isn’t too cumbersome.

The most glaring problem for me was that none of the 9-year old characters talk like they’re 9 years old. Ramona's independence seems more in line with a 13-year old than her actual age. It’s a bit hard to believe that Ramona can’t spell “delicious”, when she uses words like “individual” or “embellishment” on a regular basis. In something like “Peanuts” or “Calvin and Hobbes” the fact that children speak with such articulate vocabulary is because it is meant to be satires of adult behaviors, but in a world that tries to pass off as a real life their dialogue sounds unnatural and feels like a punch in the stomach every other time one of these kids opens their mouth.

Selena Gomez does a good job in role as Romana’s big sister Beezus, but her role in this movie really just feels like window dressing. In fact, I could say that for a lot of people. This movie has a lot of periphery characters each with their own subplots that we cut away from Ramona to follow every here and now. It can be a little distracting, but it helps to establish a world bigger than just our lead character and gives the events that much more dimension to their reality.

Because of the way the plot picks and chooses from various sources and introduces loads and loads of characters the story has a lot of peaks and valleys to it, but in the end, I think it balances out well. Even if you know the books well, there is genuine interest in wondering how it will work out in the end.

The movie has a tightly executed script and surprisingly good acting. While it can waffle at times between clichés and cuteness, it comes out all right by the end. If they could have tweaked the children’s dialogue it might gotten a higher score. Bottom line, it serves as a good example of family entertainment that doesn’t try stooping to the lowest common denominator.

Final Score:

3 1/2 out of 5. A cut above the rest.