Hey folks, Harry here. Seems like a lot of people just are not enjoying ALI. I keep hearing that the film is just a paper thin portrait of the man with really strong performances, but a severe lack of material. I'm supposed to see this this week, so I'll let you know what I think then. Enjoy...

Hello Harry. Saw "Ali" this weekend at an industry screening on the Sony Pictures Studios lot. Just call me Pokey.

I was actually surprised by how easy it was for me to get in. I'm connected to a Hollywood guild, so during this awards season my guild card allows a guest and myself to get in free not only at regular movie theaters, but also the private industry screenings set up by the studios/distributors. I rolled up to the Sony gate expecting they'd have a list there, but when I told them I was going to the screening they just waived me through. Then I got to the theater and approached the woman with the RSVP list manning the door. Now, I had called to RSVP when the ad for this particular screening had first appeared in the trades. I had already tried for some other films -- "Lord of the Rings", "A Beautiful Mind" -- but they were all booked, so I was pleasantly surprised that this industry screening of "Ali" seemed to still be open. I got to the theater, though, and my name wasn't on the list. I told the woman that I had RSVP'd. She just asked what organization I was with and waived me through. Didn't even ask to see my card.

(A quick recap for AICNers in L.A.: got to the studio lot gate, told them I was there for the screening, they just waived me through. Got to the theater, name wasn't on the list, told them I RSVP'd, they just waived me through without asking to see my card).

Anyway, the film itself: good, but not great. In fact, of Michael Mann's last three epics -- this one, "The Insider" and "Heat" -- "Ali" is the least of them. Of course, it's Michael Mann, so this film is better than most of what is out there. But it is quite a letdown after "The Insider". I doubt "Ali" will get a Best Picture nomination. In any case, it shouldn't.

The main problem is that the film tries to cover so much territory in a very limited amount of time. It begins with the hype leading up to Ali's first fight with Sonny Liston, and ends ten years later with the "Rumble in the Jungle" fight against George Foreman. It covers things such as Ali's relationships with Malcom X and Howard Cosell, his weakness for women and penchant to jump into marriage, his trust of people who didn't have his best interests at heart, and of course his refusal to be drafted into the military and the consequences that followed.

But any one of these things could alone have made for a good two-hour movie. Remember, one of the best and most compelling films in recent memory is the documentary "When We Were Kings", which focused solely on the Rumble in the Jungle. Ali has led such a complex and dramatic life, and to try to squeeze the most dramatic 10-year period of it into a two-and-a-half hour film is just such a formidable task to begin with.

Thus, the movie glazes over things, and in many cases fails to stop and elaborate on key events and character points when it really should. It was clear to me that A LOT was left on the cutting room floor. (Quite a bit of what you see in the previews and promotional photos don't make it into the film). In fact, the movie feels very disjointed. For example, we see "Ali-Frazier 1" but then we go from that right into the Rumble in the Jungle. At one point, when it looks like George Foreman might pull out of the fight, someone suggests that they can always have "Ali-Frazier 3". But nothing was ever mentioned of "Ali-Frazier 2" (an important fight which Ali in fact won, and which gave added credibility to the Foreman fight). It FELT like something was missing there. (Watching this film, one could think, Well, he lost so badly in his last fight, so what right does he have to call himself "the real champion" and challenge Foreman?)

I guess it could be said that I had an unfair advantage going into the movie with prior knowledge about Ali. So of course that paints my view of the film. But the film works best for those who are already very familiar with Ali's story. Those people can fill in the blanks themselves. But those who don't know much about Ali will be at a loss to understand why so many people believe the man truly is "The Greatest". Even they will sense the story has a lot of holes, and it will likely leave a lot of them confused.

Another problem I had is that there is little sense of the scope of Ali. The film doesn't come close to capturing just how huge and iconic a figure he really was. It suggests it, but never captures it. (Coincidentally, this was my main problem with a related biopic, Spike Lee's "Malcom X", which is a much better film by the way). We see Ali in small hotel rooms, in small cars for secret meetings in parking garages, on tour in Africa waving to crowds. But it isn't until we get to the Rumble in the Jungle that the movie starts to open up to the fact that Ali was an international figure. For example, there is a scene in a small club where Ali tells his date (later to be his first wife) that he met the Beatles. ("Only one of them is smart -- the one with the glasses." I loved that). He TELLS his date (again, in a small club), but why doesn't the movie SHOW it? Just a few quick shots that could have gone a long way in capturing how big the man really was.

Of course the big question a lot of people have is "How is Will Smith?" Will Smith is good. He does his job and earns his paycheck, in my opinion. Though because the movie glazes over Ali's life, Smith doesn't get the opportunity to really sink into the role. Smith deserves kudos, but certainly not an Oscar nomination, or even a Golden Globe nomination. The movie doesn't give him enough to work with, and I think it will be a shame if the big-star-plus-big-director-plus-event-movie-plus-big-studio-awards-push formula leads to him being nominated. The only two award-worthy performances in the film are Jon Voight as Howard Cosell (really tough to play Cosell and not make it a caricature; Voight does and nails it) and Mario Van Peebles as Malcolm X (this film should revive his acting career). Jamie Foxx is good and has his moments but, like Smith, didn't really get the chance to sink into his role.

Of course, all of this is just my opinion. Others will see it differently.

- Pokey