Malcolm X review

 Number 595 on the top 1000 films of all time is Spike Lee's epic biopic 'Malcolm X.'

Malcolm X (Denzel Washington) follows the life of the famed civil rights leader from his beginnings as a petty crook to his initial conversion to Islam in prison to becoming one of the highest ranking members of the Nation of Islam - perhaps evening becoming more powerful than leader Elijah Muhammed (Al Freeman Junior.)

I've seen a few Spike Lee films and if could describe them in a word, it would be heavy-handed. They're never as subtle as they could be. He's well-known for his focus on institutionalised racism and the African-American experience, so an adaptation of Malcolm X's life by an African-American director seemed like the perfect idea. Especially when the initially-attached white Norman Jewison was rejected because it was deemed a black director would be more appropriate. However, Malcolm X was a bloated, heavy-handed affair. Sure it was entertaining enough, but over-long and on the nose.

When I say over-long, I'm not kidding as it clocked in at just over two hundred minutes. And that was largely down to Spike Lee having financial control over the project thanks to many donors helping to fund the film. Like many biopics, it started too early into the main character's life and repeats too many key events - like Malcolm's father being brutalised by the KKK. Much of the film's third act focussed on Malcolm's many speeches, as he gained power within the Nation of Islam. Spike Lee insisted that you can't have a Malcolm X film without his speeches, but did we need every single speech? One or two would have sufficed.

This isn't to discredit Denzel Washington of course. He is a fine actor well-worthy of his two acting Oscars. Many people argue he should have won instead of Al Pacino in Scent of a Woman. Sure Pacino was great here, but I might argue that Malcolm X went on a far more interesting journey which was strongly portrayed by Washington. It was fascinating watching Malcolm Little go from a streetwise, cocky street hustler to a dedicated student of Islam where he sheds his "slave name" of Little to charismatic leader.

No, I'm saving my criticism for Spike Lee and his heavy-handed storytelling. Unlike 25th Hour and Do the Right Thing, there were no racially charged monologues, but there was a weird tracking shot like at the end of Blackkklansman.

Ultimately Malcolm X wasn't an inherently bad film, but it was bloated and not particularly subtle.

Philadelphia review

 Number 611 on the top 1000 films of all time is the legal drama 'Philadelphia.'

Andrew Beckett (Tom Hanks) is an up-and-coming lawyer in Philadelphia. He is dismissed from his law firm. When it is revealed that he is gay and has aids, he is fired from his law firm. Believing he has been the victim of anti-gay discrimination, he sues his previous employer enlisting the help of fellow lawyer Joe Miller (Denzel Washington.)

This was a brave film about, even now, a sensitive subject matter. In the 90's, there was a huge stigma around being gay and an even bigger one around aids. Homosexual discrimination, like what Beckett suffers from, was never far away.

Tom Hanks played the part well. He treated it with the utmost sensitivity. He also acknowledged that in today's world, he as a straight man would never be cast in such a role, but he still did it justice. He was well-deserving of his Oscar win. And that's saying something as he was up against Daniel Day-Lewis in Name of the Father and Liam Neeson in Schindler's List. Beckett's humanity is most evident when he is seen enjoying his famous opera - a scene so touching that it makes Miller question his own prejudices.

Miller freely admits that he doesn't like gay people, but he slowly realises that he shouldn't be so quick to judge people. Denzel Washington played the conflicted Miller well. This type of deep character work is what Washington does best like in Glory. He's far better here than in any big blockbuster.

Ultimately, the legal scenes is what let the film down. And this was strange considering it is a legal drama. But many of the courtroom scenes, particularly near the end, felt rushed and under-developed.

That notwithstanding, I did very much enjoy Philadelphia. It was a brave film with great performances from its two leads.

Flight Review

 Number 987 on the top 1000 films of all time is Robert Zemeckis' drama 'Flight.'

William 'Whip' Whitaker (Denzel Washington) is a pilot with a drinking problem. When the plane he is piloting malfunctions, he successfully performs a crash-landing resulting in only six deaths out of a complement of 102. But the subsequent investigation raises questions about his sobriety while on the job.

I often find Denzel Washington very over-the-top. Or maybe that's the roles he chooses to play. But I think that the character of Whip played to his strengths. He wasn't a larger-than-life character, but a tragic hero looking for redemption. Washington brought a wonderful amount of vulnerability to the role. It was a sensitive portrayal of a man who is desperately hiding from the world. And he does redeem himself when he ultimately does the right thing at the end.

It also surprised me to learn that it was Robert Zemeckis directing this film. I would argue that he is best well-known for directing comedies particularly the Back to the Future franchise. But he did make a very interesting drama film with well-rounded performances. It was well-paced and took us into some nice emotional depths. Although maybe this shouldn't be so surprising as he did win the Oscar for directing Forrest Gump.

But I was less convinced by Whip's relationship with prostitute/junkie Nicole (Kelly Reilly.) The two characters are very similar. They are both addicts. They are both looking for redemption. I don't want to take anything away from Kelly Reilly. She gave a sensitive portrayal of an emotionally damaged character. And her American accent was so good that I would never have guessed that she is actually a Londoner. But she and Whip were portrayed as star-crossed lovers. And I didn't see enough evidence to justify such a conclusion.

Yet this didn't stop Flight from being a very good film with a wonderfully understated performance by Denzel Washington.

Inside Man review

 Number 642 on the top 1000 films of all time is Spike Lee's crime-thriller 'Inside Man.'

Dalton Russell (Clive Owen) robs a bank in New York City. Keith Frazer (Denzel Washington) is the NYPD's hostage negotiator sent to deal with Clive. Meanwhile, the bank's owner Mr Case (Christopher Plummer) is harbouring a dark secret in one of the bank's security boxes. He sends fixer Madeline White (Jodie Foster) to stop this box getting into the wrong hands.

I thoroughly enjoyed this film. It was a clever take on the heist genre. I have seen a few other heist films on this list that made me wonder whether the genre was dead-and-buried, but that was not the case for Inside Man. It was a refreshing reinvention of the heist genre. But also a far deeper imagining of it.

While the money is obviously a bonus for Dalton, he is more interested in the artistry of creating the perfect bank robbery. And that made him an engaging character to watch. He and Denzel Washington were very good together as they play a deadly cat-and-mouse game. I find Denzel Washington very hit-and-miss, but he was very engaging as the maverick, rough-around-the-edges cop Frazer.

Yet underpinning this all is Mr Case and the mystery he was trying so hard to hide. *Spoiler alert* 

It's revealed that during WW2 he collaborated with the Nazis trading high-profile Jews in exchange for diamonds. It's a dark secret that he does not want coming to light. It added another layer of intrigue to this film.

While Owen and Washington were good together, I was less convinced by Washington and Foster. Both Frazer and Madeline were a similarly cat-and-mouse relationship, but thought there scenes were more on-the-nose with less imprecise dialogue.

And I know that Spike Lee's trademark is the dolly-tracking shot making it look like the MC is on a travellator, but I always thinks it looks a bit silly. I was also very confused as to why the theme tune was some late 80's Bollywood song. It was very out of place.

But these are minor criticisms of what was a very good film.

American Gangster review

 Number 468 on the top 1000 films of all time is Ridley Scott's 2007 biographical crime film 'American Gangster.'

Based on the true story of Harlem crime kingpin and drug lord Frank Lucas (Denzel Washington) American Gangster explores how this once lowly crook rose to become of the biggest drug traffickers in US History, as well Newark Detective's Richie Roberts' (Russell Crowe) efforts to catch him.

Ridley Scott really likes his overlong films, doesn't he? Black Hawk Down was far longer than it needed to be, and the same could definitely be said for American Gangster which burgeoned on three hours. It was bloated and could have been excised. The obvious example would be Richie Roberts' storyline. He is supposed to be the only honest cop in a department of crooked cops like corrupt NYPD detective Nick Trupo (Josh Brolin) who regularly accepts bribes and robs criminals of their drugs only to go on and sell them himself. 

Richie is also locked in a bitter divorce battle with his ex-wife. Although he is straight in his work, he is not in his personal life. As we learn, he is a serial womaniser. This was a massive subplot which didn't deserve the amount of screentime we spent on it. I really couldn't have cared less. Richie's wife Laurie (Carla Gugino) was little more than a scorned woman. And due to Richie being so straight, he wasn't the most interesting character to watch. We like maverick detectives who aren't corrupt, but they play by their own set of rules. This is what sets them apart from every other police officer out there. And this subplot also did a disservice to Russell Crowe who is a good actor.

If we didn't spend so much time on this subplot, I would have enjoyed American Gangster much more than I did. Frank Lucas was the superior and more interesting character. It was fascinating seeing his journey from his former boss' driver and bodyguard to, effectively, the Harlem Pablo Escobar. Although the historicity of the film's events have been questioned, it's amazing to see how he cut out the middle-man and dealt directly with heroin producers in South-East Asia. He smuggled the drugs back into the country by putting them in the coffins of American soldiers returning home from Vietnam.

Ultimately, I would say this is a good film. It just didn't need to spend so much time on Richie Roberts. 

Glory review

 Number 353 on the top 1000 films of all time is Edward Zwick's 1989 US civil-war drama 'Glory.'

Glory tells the true story of 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment - one of the earliest African-American regiments within the Union army. It is commanded by the white officers Colonel Robert Shaw (Matthew Broderick) and Major Cabot Forbes (Cary Elwes.) Some of its troops include the hot-headed Silas Trip (Denzel Washington,) the older and wiser John Rawlins (Morgan Freeman) and the well-educated Thomas Sears (Andre Braugher.)

I certainly cannot attest to the historical aspect of Glory, but it was a thrilling warm film that gave a well-rounded review that the 54th infantry faced. Its black soldiers suffered racism from their white counterparts and weren't paid as much as them either, while their white officers were constantly left lacking vital supplies needed by their men. It also highlights the interpersonal differences between the black soldiers - notably between Sears and Trip. The two initially clash on their radically different upbringings and perspectives. Trip resents how Sears acts and talks like a white man, while Sears rails against Trip's accusations of him not being truly black.

Both actors were great, but Washington especially so. He won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar and I think his win was more deserving than his one in Training Day. Silas Trip was a far more nuanced character than Alonzo Harris. And Washington played him with a lot of vulnerability. Morgan Freeman was also good as the wise and calming John Rawlins. And I particularly liked Andre Braugher. He and Washington were great together.

The black actors were superior to their white counterparts. I do think Matthew Broderick was miscast. He was just too young for such a role. This was only three years after he starred in Ferris Bueller's Day Off and it was difficult seeing him as anything other than the high-school slacker. He just looked scared all the time; whenever he spoke it was like he was trying to convince both himself and the audience that he was mature enough for such a role. I understand this is partly the character. Shaw is supposed to be young, inexperienced and unsure of himself, but Broderick did little to persuade me that he was the right man for the job.

Honestly, I think his co-star Cary Elwes would have made a better lead. Elwes had already proved himself a capable leading man in the Princess Bride. Although he wasn't great here either. He had a strange accent that varied between American and his native English accent.

Glory strayed into melodrama at times. I could have done without the grandiose, instrumental score and characters dying in slow motion. Where it shone was its quieter moments; particularly when the black soldiers are singing a gospel song on the eve of their first big fight. This was a brilliant scene that highlighted the camaraderie and close relationship between these men.

Glory is certainly a good film. Yes, it is cheesy at times and Matthew Broderick was dreadfully miscast, but it was still a noble attempt to bring the efforts of the 54th infantry to the big screen.

Training Day review

 Number 613 on the top 1000 films of all time is 2001 crime thriller Training Day.

Set over twenty-four hours in a rough LA neighbourhood, Training Day explores the relationship between two police officers: the maverick, borderline corrupt, Narcotics detective Alonzo Harris (Denzel Washington) and his new rookie partner Jake Hoyt (Ethan Hawke.)

Training Day pits two moralities against each other: Harris' the ends always justifies the means and Hoyt's justice over vengeance. Whereas the naive and innocent Hoyt wants to play by the rulebook, Harris rips it up and throws it out the window. He is adamant that his own brand of justice is what produces results from faking search warrants to unlawfully shooting suspects and covering up their murders. Hoyt has to battle hard to tow the line. The last thing he wants is to be sucked into Harris' corrupt ways.  But which form of justice is best?

Training Day makes a compelling argument for both. There is a time for following the rules and a time for breaking them. Breaking the rules, all the time, like Harris does, makes them redundant. But you can't be rigid, like Hoyt, and follow them to the letter. Which morality is better? That's for the audience to decide.

Denzel Washington won the Best Actor Oscar and while he brought a realism to the character, I don't think his performance was oscar-worthy. We've seen the corrupt cop who breaks the rules to get the job done time and time again. While Washington brought a charisma to the role, he was over-the-top. His adlibbed line "King Kong aint got shit on me" just sounded stupid.

Ethan Hawke was more convincing as the still wet-behind-the-ears Hoyt. It is his actions that drive the plot forward. Despite Harris' warnings, he stops two junkies trying to rape a teenage girl - an intervention that later saves his life when Hoyt is about to be killed by Mexican gangbangers. And it is Hoyt's refusal to go along with Harris' cover-up of a murder that brings them to odds. Perhaps you could argue Hoyt symbolises every wide-eyed, newbie cop determined to save the world while Harris is the cynical, jaded, washed-up copper beaten down by the world he has been trying to save. And rather than playing the victim, Harris spins the opportunity to his advantage.

Training Day had a nice authentic current running through it. Director Antoine Fuqua gained permission to film in neighbourhoods belonging to the 'Bloods' gang in exchange for Blood gangbangers appearing in the film. However, the ending seemed odd. Harris and Hoyt get into one final confrontation in a barrio where Harris holds control over the residents. The whole neighbourhood comes to watch. While they were initially Harris' acolytes they betray and even threaten to shoot him. I guess they were sick of his bossing them around and I suppose they had lost respect for him, but this is pure supposition in lieu of any real explanation. And it was all pointless anyway as they don't kill Harris. Instead he is later shot by the Russian mob who he has had an off-screen run-in.

Training Day was a good film if a tad overrated. Hawke was great, but the ending was strange. And Washington was more cartoon than actual character.

Man on Fire review

 Number 546 on the top 1000 films of all time is Tony Scott's action thriller Man on Fire.

John Creasy (Denzel Washington) is an alcoholic former CIA officer with PTSD. When his friend Paul Rayburn (Christopher Walken) convinces him to become a bodyguard for the Ramos family in Mexico, he is initially reluctant. However, he soon forms a close relationship with Lupita 'Pita' Ramos, (Dakoto Fanning) daughter of the Ramos.' When she is abducted by a kidnapping gang, Creasy promises to rain down hell on her kidnappers.

By their very nature, action films tend to be cliched and formulaic. You get the handsome, physically fit hero with a troubled past and plot armour, lots of explosions and guns, gratuitous violence and a simplistic plotline. Man on Fire had all of this in spades. The only thing was missing was an attractive female lead whose only function would be as a sex object for our rugged protagonist. Man on Fire was pretty cliched as far as action films go. Creasy is haunted by an unexplained past which is never really fleshed out. And that certainly didn't make him anymore three dimensional. 

Upon finding out information about Pita's kidnappers, he resorts to violently torturing members of the gang. And some of his methods were so violent that they bordered on silly. He sticks an explosive up a corrupt policeman's rear and detonates it when he has the information he needs. His plot armour was ridiculously thick. How many gunshot wounds does he survive? 

I also think the villain of the film was cliched. Roberto Sosa plays Daniel Sanchez who is otherwise regarded as 'the Voice.' But we don't see enough of 'the Voice' or his motivations to really make him a threatening enough villain. He's the one giving the orders but he doesn't have enough screen time to make him particularly scary. And there was also too much slow-motion and in really strange places too. Why did we need to see Creasy help Pita out of the pool in slow-motion? 

Lastly, Radha Mitchell plays Pita's mother and while she was good enough her accent was not. Radha is Australian and her character was supposed to be Texan. However, Radha's accent was very inconsistent. At time it sounded Texan and at others it just sounded generic American.

Despite all that, it was still an entertaining and, most importantly, a thrilling film. Washington and Fanning had a great chemistry and it was lovely seeing their relationship develop. Creasy starts off as morose and grumpy, but Pita helps to bring him out of his shell. They were very cute together. And I also enjoyed the gritty, visual style. Apparently it was a homage to the brilliant film City of God. The two films also shared a similar cast. 

I'm not sure whether I would count this as one of the top 1000 films of all time. But as an action-thriller film, I think it was very good.