A Rage in Harlem (Bill Duke, 1991)

Fleeing to Harlem with a box of gold, gangster’s mole Imabelle (Robin Givens) takes refuge with pure-hearted accountant Jackson (Forest Whitacker).

As word of the gold spreads, Imabelle and Jackson have to contend with several different parties - her former boyfriend (Badja Djola), Jackson’s brother (Gregory Hines) and the overzealous cops Gravedigger and Coffin Ed (Stack Pierce and George Wallace).

Will Imabelle and Jackson live to enjoy the plunder?

Based on a novel by Chester Himes, A Rage in Harlem is a fascinating movie.

I have read Cotton Comes To Harlem (which was also made into a movie in 1970), and so was familiar with the tone. Himes balances dark comedy with degrees of social commentary and a pulpy feel for the violence and sex which run through the detective genre.

The tone of A Rage In Harlem is broad but unified, and it does not take away from the stakes of the villains.

Robin Givens is great in the lead role - I am most familiar with her from Boomerang, but I think she has more to juggle here. The character is a survivor who is able to play different roles depending on who she is with, and Givens manages to give Imabelle a sense of empathy and fear. There is a lot going on behind the eyes here - she never comes out and says what she is thinking, except in moments of high stress.

I liked that she never operates as a subordinate, either romantically or otherwise - the character is always evaluating her next movie.

It is an empathetic portrait of a femme fatale - it is not a deep characterr study, but I give the movie kudos for not betraying that aspect of her character to make her more of a conventional ‘love interest’. 

While the movie feels like an ensemble piece, she is at the centre - not always in control of events but she is the quickest to adapt and push the picture into unexpected directions.

Jackson is a strait-laced homebody - Forest Whitacker plays the character as a rube. It is a big performance that fits with the tone of the picture, but on the rewatch he feels more like a cartoon, or a straight man to the antics around him. 

Badja Djola plays Imabelle’s boyfriend Slim with a simmering menace, a jealous man always on the edge.  

As Easy Money, the fixer who holds the key to Imabelle’s fortune, Danny Glover is all slippery menace and innuendo. He is a veteran player of this game and takes pleasure in sniffing out anyone whose buttons he can push.

The central characters of Himes’ Harlem Detective novels, Coffin Ed Johnson and Gravedigger Jones appear as comic foils to the heroes of the film - they are played with cartoonish intensity by Stack Pierce and George Wallace.

The movie is punctuated with violence and dark humor, but there is some pathos going on under the surface. 

The heart of the movie is Gregory Hines as Jackson’s worldly step-brother, Goldy/Sherman. The most well-rounded and human figure in the movie, Goldy is torn between being self-serving and loyalty to those he loves. Hines perfectly captures what the movie is aiming for, and his arc gives the movie some sense of hope.

The movie is operating a heightened mode, but I never felt distant from what was going on.

It is not a perfect movie. It does not quite capture the atmosphere of Moseley’s prose, particularly in its evocation of Harlem. I have no experience of Harlem, but there are times when A Rage In Harlem looks like it takes place on a studio backlot.

Considering how heightened the tone is, it is not a problem, but after watching the other Himes’ adaptation, Cotton Comes To Harlem feels like it took place in a living space that extended beyond what we can see onscreen. For fans of Chester Himes’ work, that picture is probably of more interest, but A Rage In Harlem makes for an interesting companion piece, in terms of adaptation.

Director Bill Dukes is more well-known as an actor (you will probably recognise him for his roles in American Gigolo, Commando and Predator), but he has had an interesting run as a filmmaker. His 1992 film Deep Cover (starring Laurence Fishbourne) is a fantastic modern noir. On the strength of that film and this one, I am excited to check out his other works.

On its own terms, A Rage In Harlem is a good time. It is probably a good example of pastiche, but there is a vein of humanity beating under the forties trappings that makes the movie compelling.

The Marine 4 - Moving Target (William Kaufman, 2015)

Jake Carter (The Miz) is back.

Now retired, he has taken a job as a bodyguard.

His first job is to protect a whistleblower (Melissa Roxburgh) with intel on a weapons company.

Said company has hired mercenaries to kill this witness, and it falls to Carter to get her to safety.

For the first time in the series, The Marine did not need a new recruit. The Miz returns as former Marine Jake Carter, and it is the one great decision made on this movie.

The direction is fine - there is none of the shaky camera of Part 2, but there is a network TV quality to the coverage, with a lot of the action created through editing rather than choreography within the same frame. These issues feel like a result of budget and shooting time rather than the director, William Kaufman. He is a name I have heard of - his DTV action stuff is pretty well-regarded - but Marine 4 is just vaguely functional. 

The scenario is workable for this level of action film - it is basically a chase through the woods - but the script is awful.The exposition dumps come thick and fast at the top, and the characters are inconsistent.

This movie is the most rote - it is not as bad as Part 2 but the script is packed with cliches and bizarre logic jumps that completely destroy the stakes.

Fellow wrestler Summer Rae appears as one of the mercenaries, but she gets little to do. It is a mistake that the next entry in the franchise would remedy.

Easily the blandest entry in the franchise, Marine 4 is for completionists only.

CURRENT RANKING

1. The Marine 5: Battleground (old review)

2. The Marine 6: No Quarter (old review)

3. The Marine 

4. The Marine 3: Homefront 

5. The Marine 2

6. The Marine 4: Moving Target

Charlie’s Angels (Elizabeth Banks, 2019)

A continuation of the Charlie’s Angels TV series (1976-1981) and the Noughties films (2000-2003), this 2019 iteration introduces a new trio of Angels (Kristen Stewart, Naomi Scott and Ella Balinska) who have to protect the world from a new menace which might have connections to their own agency…

I missed this one in theaters. I have never watched the show but I caught the McG movies on the TV about ninety million times. 

This movie is not great - the script is a bit bland and the direction is sloppy. The action is poorly shot and edited.

But the thing that saves the movie is the cast, particularly Kristen Stewart and newcomer Ella Balinska.

They are having fun and have good chemistry - the movie is all over the place but they make it way more fun than it would be.

Newcomer Balinska matches her co-stars as a hard-as-nails ex-super spy. She makes it feel like this is the fourth or fifth installment in her own franchise.

 

Kristen Stewart is having a ball as a slightly scattered heiress - it is her loosest performance in a while, and feels like the filmmakers gave her an opportunity to blow apart her popular image. Stewart is a great actress, and she gives this movie an energy it desperately needs. She is basically the Han Solo of this movie.

The script is good in certain respects - the movie does focus on how women are marginalised and ignored in the workplace - but it feels like ground that was already covered in 2015’s Spy.

I like that the movie is a sequel to the previous iterations, but I spent the movie wondering if it would have worked better if this movie was not a remake and just developed its own riff on the central premise (the ‘rip off don’t remake’ idea).

While it has some significant problems, I left Charlie’s Angels ‘19 rather satisfied. It bombed on release so there is little chance of a sequel. It has gained a small cult following in the last few years, and I can see why.

OUT NOW: The Northman

When King Aurvandill (Ethan Hawke) is murdered by his half-brother Fjölnir (Claes Bang), his son Amleth dedicates his life to avenging his death and rescuing his mother, Gudrún (Nicole Kidman).

In order to reach his target, Amleth disguises himself as a slave on a ship to Iceland. Onboard, Amleth finds an ally in the witch Olga (Anya Taylor Joy).

Once in Iceland, Amleth sets about executing his plan…

I cannot figure Robert Eggers out. I think he has a memorable vision but I am not sure there is anything underneath it.

The Witch was interesting but it felt a little more sizzle than steak (the ending felt like the start of a more intriguing movie). I loved The Lighthouse but it just seems to be a movie about two people who are frustrated they can’t find privacy to masturbate.

For its first two thirds, I felt that same hollowness with The Northman. The movie starts out as a revenge story, as Skarsgård goes on the hunt for his uncle and mother.

So far, so familiar.

Elements of the film are reminiscent of Conan the Barbarian, The 13th Warrior and even The Revenant.

For the first half, I was a little disconnected - the camera always feels at a remove from the action. The movie feels cold and a little inert.

But as the movie goes on, that distance feels more appropriate.

When Skarsgård is on the cusp of achieving his objective, new context throws our understanding events into a new light.

This ultimately a story about cycles of violence, of broken men making more broken men, unable to break out of the loop.

Are Amleth’s visions of the supernatural from the gods, or the trauma of a young boy’s attempt to protect himself and justify his life.

As a story, The Northman is familiar stuff - on one level, it is just a Dark Age version of Commando - Skarsgård has a clear objective and spends the movie killing his way to his goal.

The most interesting aspect of the movie is the revelations during the third act. 

Egger's previous work has dealt with repressive masculinity, or at least had it embedded as part of the world. Maybe it is because of the familiar story beats, but The Northman feels like the most successful execution of that idea.

Because of its narrative simplicity, this might be the most successful of Eggers’ films. It is too long, and some of its symbolism feels too literal, but by the end of the movie I could mostly forgive it.

Miami Connection (Woo-sang Park and Y.K. Kim, 1987)

 A rock band/taekwondo group of friends/orphans (Dragon Sound, played by YK Kim, Vincent Hirsch, Joseph Diamond, Maurice Smith, Angelo Janotti and Kathy Collier) stumble into conflict with the Miami Ninja, a group of Ninja who are also importing drugs into Orlando.

Cue mayhem and sweet tunes.

I wish I had watched this movie with no prior knowledge. Miami Connection has been one of the most popular cult movies of the last decade. 

What can I add?

The movie takes place in Orlando; one actor looks like a giant Michael Phelps; the actor playing Jimmy’s (Maurice Smith) dad is the youngest actor in the cast.

While there are unintentionally funny moments, the movie is impressive on its own terms.

This is a low budget genre movie that succeeds in its key aims.

The filmmakers wanted to make a martial arts action movie with music and they succeeded. 

The action is well-shot and staged.

The performers are martial artists and they are not called onto to do that much - with a couple of exceptions.

Enough words have been written about Maurice Smith’s performance of the monologue about his missing father. 

As far as the rest of the players go, my personal favorite was the former band leader who seeks vengeance on our heroes for ‘stealing’ his job. He is so volcanic in every scene it completely nullifies the ridiculousness of his dialogue.

William Ergle (Jeff) initially feels like a miscast. For most of the movie, he is the primary heavy. For most of his scenes, he is stuck delivering threats he cannot embody. During the biker scene, he seems to melt into the background.

But as with all the filmmakers' creative decisions, there is always a twist. In Ergle’s case this is his final fight sequence where he explodes into action and takes out three guys in rapid succession. It is a genuine surprise.

While I had heard it before, Dragon Sound’s music is still catchy - I had that ‘Friends’ song caught in my brain for three days.

The biggest compliment I can give the movie is that it feels like a one of a kind. While the ingredients are a melange of eighties pop culture, the movie does not fit any template. 

In its occasional amateurishness and weirdness, this movie feels like a home-made creation. And there is a naivete to the film that removes any sense of schadenfreude. 

It is a shame Y.K. Kim and his writing/directing collaborator Woo-sang Park  were not able to create a series of these films. It would have been interesting to see where their vision went next.

OUT NOW: Top Gun - Maverick

Busted for going against orders, Tom C- sorry, Pete ‘Maverick’ Mitchell (Cruise) is sent back to Top Gun to prepare a team of pilots for a dangerous, near-impossible mission.

The stakes are raised when Maverick realises one of said pilots is Rooster (Miles Teller), the son of his friend Goose, who died in the original Top Gun.

I am not a fan of Top Gun. I have no great angle on the film - it never stuck to my ribs. However the tenor of the reviews for this movie got to me. 

So going into Top Gun - Maverick, I was wondering if the movie would work on its own terms. 

A legacy sequel that is not about the second generation, but the last generation reckoning with its mistakes. 

A feature of Tom Cruise’s films in the last decade has been about refining his characters down to their tenacity - that indefatigable force of will has been a key feature of Cruise’s work and persona, but as the star focused more and more on action roles, it has been foregrounded.

Call it the Christopher McQuarrie factor (he takes a screenplay credit), or a savvy reading of the public perception of him, but it no longer feels like Cruise has to present himself as an Everyman or just human.

Cruise is a hyper-focussed perfectionist - and his latest films are all about that perfectionism. With the added grit of age.

Top Gun - Maverick is all about aging and reckoning with the past.

In 1986, Mitchell did not care about consequence. 

In 2022, it is all he cares about.

When I was younger, I always found Top Gun boring - I did not appreciate the fact that it was a sports movie, and I always wished it had been more of an action movie. 

Top Gun: Maverick is concerned with a mission, but the focus is on completing the mission and coming back alive.

As with the original, the enemy remains unnamed. In one respect, I like that it keeps the focus on Maverick and the squad trying to work through various obstacles - physical and personal. 

But the focus is so squarely on Maverick that the other characters - including Jennifer Connolly’s love interest start to feel like non-playable-characters from a video game.

While the lack of an explicit antagonist added to the sports movie framework of the original movie, it is a harder proposition in this iteration. A sequel to Top Gun is not going to offer any kind of critique of the US military. But this movie wants to be deeper than the original - particularly in terms of its emphasis on personal trauma and the importance of saving lives - but the addition of actual warfare makes the fudging of the antagonists feel off.

I am not sure if I am articulating this properly, but it feels out of step with the rest of the movie. On the one hand, I am a fan of brevity and cutting down on unnecessary exposition - but the limited framing in this movie rubbed me the wrong way.

I am going to completely contradict myself now because the mission aspect of the movie is the strongest part of the movie - particularly in its execution of the flight sequences.

As a visual spectacle and an action film, Top Gun: Maverick is terrific. Much has been made in the press of the star’s dedication to his stunts, but it never gets old.

Having the camera inside the cockpit, watching Tom Cruise’s physical exertion as he maneuvers through a tight canyon, gives the movie an immediacy and sense of the character’s vulnerability. There is a real sense of building tension to the training sequences that a more remote, CG-augmented approach would not have. 

And the mission - which all of its various variables - recalls ‘on a mission’ movies like Guns of Navarone. 

Despite the explosive third act, Top Gun: Maverick is fairly restrained as an action film. Apart from the flight training, the movie is a slow-burn. It gives the finale more punch.

Quieter and more contemplative than its predecessor, Top Gun: Maverick is an old-fashioned crowd pleaser. The cast are in good form, the stunts are terrific, and the story has a little more going on under the hood. It is not as great as all the effusive reviews, but it works.