2013: The Year in Film: "Fruitvale Station" Review

Yet another movie review that's at least a few weeks late, sigh.

Unfortunately, it's all-to common for people of color, young men especially, to face harassment and harm from the police forces that ostensibly exist to serve and protect us. There are a number of socioeconomic, racial and cultural issues at play in this, but the fact remains that if an unarmed person is killed by police in the United States of America, there's an overwhelming likelihood that the victim was a black man. Tragically, it just happened again. One such victim in a widely publicized case was Oscar Grant, a 22 year old man who was tragically killed in the early morning hours of New Years' Day, 2009 by BART officers in Oakland. 

The film purports to put a human face on this news story by dramatizing and depicting the last day of Oscar Grant's life. Written and directed by Oakland native and first-time director Ryan Coogler and starring rapidly rising star Michael B. Jordan (who most memorably played Wallace on season 1 of the Wire and quarterback Vince Howard on seasons 4 and 5 of Friday Night Lights) Fruitvale Station features some promising young talent, so how is it?

The Good: Jordan, as you know if you're at all familiar with his work is incredibly likable and really brings charm and humanity to a role that required all of his significant talents. Considering that 90% or more of the film takes place with him directly on screen, if the lead actor isn't up to the task, this is a project that's going to fail, quickly. Luckily, Jordan proves up to the challenge and then some, proving the type of chops that only a few actors working today readily display, and showing why this 26 year old is one of the rising stars I'm watching most closely. In addition to Jordan, Octavia Spencer and Melonie Diaz do fine work as Oscar's mother and girlfriend. First time writer-director Ryan Coogler shows a great eye, and demonstrates the kind of talent that could keep him working for a long time. Additionally, despite the fact that everyone knows how this one is going to end, the story moves briskly, interweaving changes of scenery, other characters, flashbacks and a great use of natural sound and techniques to give the film a small, intimate feel. This film sets out to humanize a tragic event, and does so masterfully, if occasionally in a manipulative fashion, making it so you'd have to be the world's biggest curmudgeon to root against this guy. A lot of this is due to Jordan's portrayal, but there is something to be said for a story that inspires the kind of passion that Grant's has.


The Bad: Oscar Grant was a drug dealer and had spent time in prison, and while that in and of itself doesn't make someone a bad person, obviously, the true picture of Oscar most likely had more shades of grey than the film's rosy portrayal offers. I feel that Jordan is a good enough actor that a more nuanced version of Grant could have still won audiences over, but this is a relatively minor complaint, as everyone is going to come up rosy in the eyes of their loved ones, who were likely Coogler's primary sources for his picture.

In all, this is a touching, artfully crafted, and ultimately devastating look at the human cost of tragedy and social injustice with one of the year's great performances (thus far) at its heart.  Well worth a watch, even if you're likely going to be feeling down in the dumps for a bit afterwards and find yourself reading a bit more Slate.com than usual. These aren't bad things! One of the year's best, so far.

8.5/10.

2013: The Year in Film: "The Wolverine" Review

Yet another movie review that's several weeks late, and extra late in the big picture, considering I didn't even see this one until it had been in theaters for a few weeks. Go me!

Fox's treatment of the X-Men franchise has been a mixed bag. The first X-Men film is solid enough and the second is pretty damn good, but the third X-Men film and first Wolverine film are straight-up garbage. (X-Men: First Class is good though, you guys!) I will, however, argue until my last day that Liev Schrieber made a pretty damn strong Sabertooth and came kind of close considering how bad everything else was to redeeming X-Men Origins: Wolverine. The one constant through (almost) the entirety of Fox's X-Men run has been Hugh Jackman as Wolverine. While Jackman isn't a perfect Wolverine (I have my issues with him, but that's a topic for another day) he's pretty damn good, and brings a certain haunted intelligence and sensitivity to the character that has been lacking in certain iterations. He was done no favors by the writing and tone of the first film, so let's see if things get better the second time around, shall we?

Wolverine's time in Japan is the subject of one of the more beloved arcs of the character in the comics and was for a long time the rumored focus of a film by Darren Aronofsky. (of "Requiem for a Dream" and "Black Swan" fame)  Continued conflicts and problems led to Aronofsky's exit, so enter James Mangold (of "Walk the Line" and the underrated "3:10 to Yuma") to try to save Fox's Wolverine franchise by taking Marvel's fiercest character to the Far East.

Following the events of the shitty Brett Ratner X3 film that Fox for some reason didn't write completely out of continuity, Logan is doing what he does best - brooding about lost loves in the Canadian wilderness. He's a man haunted by a exceedingly long lifetime of violence, and largely broken. Into this scene comes a mysterious Japanese woman, who convinces Logan to accompany her to Japan, where her employer offers him thanks and a gift. Logan finds himself embroiled in a quasi-noir family/dynastic/corporate drama, and finds himself vulnerable in a way he's never been. So how is it?

The Good: Jackman is, as always, solid as Wolverine. He's clearly determined to treat this beloved character with dignity and respect, and his performance is testament to his skill as a performer. Personally, I've always thought that his Wolverine is too restrained and no where near savage enough (where is the beserker rage, Hugh?) but you certainly can't say that Jackman sells his character short. He brings a physical menace that immediately ups the gravitas of what could very easily be a silly enterprise. The direction is solid, and the plot is much improved from the muddled nonsense of the first Wolverine film.


With that being said, the film struggles to establish itself as something of any significance. Other than Jackman's Wolverine, there are no memorable characters or performances. The villains are cartoonish and seem to menace for menace's sake. I understand that Fox views its X-men franchise as a serious moneymaker for all ages, but Wolverine is a savage murderer who isn't done justice by cartoonish action and a PG-13 rating. His power is a healing factor that in and of itself suggests serious gore and unbreakable bones including 18 inch razor sharp blades. He kills DOZENS of people in this film, and blood is nowhere to be found. The only death that seems to concern him is Jean Grey's. I would be fascinated to see Wolverine given a darker treatment by someone like Aronofsky or Nicolas Winding Refn. (Imagine Jackman as Wolverine given the "Drive" treatment? That movie could damn well contend for awards) The plot is largely pointless and basically serves as a mechanism to get Wolverine back in the game for the next X-Men movie.

So ultimately, while this film is a serious upgrade from the first Wolverine film, that's not saying a whole lot rather than that it's rather middling as far as quality comic book adaptations go. The special effects look cheesy, the plot tries too hard to surprise, and other than Jackman, who gives it his characteristic all, there isn't a memorable character here. It's worth watching if you're bored on a Saturday. Wait for DVD/Netflix, guys.

6/10