Cool News
Moriarty takes a look at an advance test screening of LIFE
SPOILER ALERT !!
Mesa here wid a bigga ravue... Sorry Jar Jar flashback. Harry here with a review from that evil genius, MORIARTY. He's been on many missions but has been quite busy mixing chemicals and concocting elixir's to grow Semel and company a brain that only he can talk to. As you can guess, growing a brain in Semel's head is quite a feat and is taking a lot of his time. So for a break he went to a film called LIFE starring Martin Lawrence and Eddie Murphy. Now remember, this is an advance screening of a film that won't be coming out for a looooong loooooong time. BUT Moriarty is usually a very solid reviewer, so keep that in mind. Here ya go....
Hey, Head Geek...
"Moriarty" here.
It's tough being an evil genius and still having a social life. Recently,
my
work here at the Moriarty Labs has been keeping me so busy that I haven't
had
a chance to work my evil ways against my sworn enemies over at the NRG. Of
course, I can't just let them go unchecked, so I ventured out tonight,
surrounded by henchmen, determined to infiltrate a test screening -- any
test
screening.
One of the funniest things about the recent NRG screenings, for me, is when
they make you fill out the little oath card that swears you won't tell
anyone
about what you saw. I call it the "Harry Knowles" card, since it didn't
exist
before your site did. Making someone swear something so ridiculous seems
silly to me. After all, what are they going to do, throw me in movie jail?
With this question on my mind, it seemed particularly apt that the film we
managed to get into tonight was the first screening (that I know of) for the
new Eddie Murphy/Martin Lawrence film LIFE, directed by Ted Demme.
I guess I should say up front that I don't like Martin Lawrence very much.
Never have. I've always thought he was coasting, just phoning it in. Eddie
Murphy, on the other hand, has been a major comic influence on me since the
early '80s. I'm old enough to remember the rush during his first few years
on
the air on SNL, and I was a huge fan of his early film work like 48 HRS and
BEVERLY HILLS COP. Lately, Eddie's been extremely hit or miss, and even his
"best" recent films like NUTTY PROFESSOR are nothing compared to his glory
days.
Walking into this film, I really didn't know what to expect. The cast, the
premise, and even the director all made it a wild card. I figured it could
be
good or bad, and neither would surprise me. It's with a great deal of
relief
and even joy that I report that not only is LIFE a very good film, it could
actually turn out to be one of Eddie's finest moments.
Could, mind you. There's some work that needs to be done. The film starts
confidently, with the best first act I've ever seen in an Eddie Murphy
movie.
This is a real screenplay, concerned with creating real characters. Ray
Gibson (Murphy) and Claude Banks (Lawrence) meet in New York in the '30s,
where Ray picks Claude's pocket at a nightclub. This coincidental meeting
brings both of them to the attention of Spanky Johnson (Rick James in a nice
cameo role), a crime boss. The film's one really weak narrative link is how
the two end up in front of Spanky together. It felt like there was a scene
or
two missing tonight. At any rate, they end up agreeing to go on a
bootlegging
run to the deep south. Right away, there's real chemistry between the two.
Murphy feels more relaxed than he has in a long time here, and Lawrence
(looking fairly fat and healthy following his couple of years in career
exile)
works hard to establish a character, someone who's genuinely different than
him. With a few minor stops, including a very memorable stop at a diner
with
a "No coloreds" sign on the door, they make it to Slim's, where they pick up
the booze. If they had just headed back out to New York right then, the
rest
of the film wouldn't happen. Of course, they don't, and the story really
kicks in when Ray loses to a cardsharp played by Clarence Williams III.
Through a series of unfortunate accidents, Ray and Claude are found standing
over the dead body of the cardsharp, and they're arrested for his murder.
After a perfunctory trial, the two of them are sentenced to -- yes, you
guessed it -- life in prison.
Now, there's several ways Demme and the screenwriters (sorry, no credits,
guys) could have taken this film. What they end up creating is a sort of
comic SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, although this film isn't the triumphant
achievement that one was. It's the story of how you survive, and what it
will
take to persevere over decades in prison. The story brings them from the
'30s
all the way to present-day, and the old-age makeup by Rick Baker is, as
usual,
outstanding. It's the performances by the men inside that makeup, though,
that really convinces us as an audience that these are men who are watching
their lives ebb away.
I must once again single Eddie Murphy out. With HOLY MAN, he's stumbled in
his efforts to rennovate his career, but this film should finally answer the
question, "Can he really act?" He's wonderful. He's funny, he's touching,
and above all else, he's real. Maybe it's because Eddie's so good that
Martin
seems to have finally locked in on how to deliver a real performance. He
rises to the occasion, delivering several classic moments throughout. The
rest of the supporting cast is good, with Nick Cassavetes, Baba Obantube,
Bernie Mac, Bokeem Woodbine, Ned Beatty and even R. Lee Ermey all doing very
solid work.
So what's wrong? Why don't I give this film unrestrained praise? Because
it's so close to being something better than "just" a comedy. With a little
work, this film could be great. This next paragraph is directed at Ted
Demme
and Imagine, who produced the film. Don't let Universal lowball you guys.
You've got something special here. What you have to do now is force them to
work with you. Make it great. In the later half of the film, things move a
little too quickly, and it leaves the film feeling unbalanced. I'd like to
see more of the effect that a lifetime of imprisonment has on a man. In
particular, I'd like to see the effect it has on these two men. There's a
subplot with a watch that is okay, but it's not really what the film is
about.
If you're going to pay that off, pay it off. Show us why that watch is so
important to Ray. Show us why Claude has to steal that pie. Let us see the
lengths these two men will go to to hold on to that little bit of hope.
There's a scene near the middle of the film that is wonderful, when Ray is
describing his nightclub, Ray's Boom Boom Room, to the other prisoners, and
they're all imagining themselves at the club. Each of them has a role there
-- the bouncer, running the dice, tending bar, singing, playing in the
orchestra -- and in that one moment, all of these men are free. Maybe you
can
treat the scene in the middle of the film like the famous ball game sequence
from CUCKOO'S NEST -- just let Ray paint the picture for us. Hold the
actual
image of the club until the end of the film. As the film stands now,
there's
no ambiguity at the end. Maybe you can leave things more up in the air...
show us that last scene with Baba as he laughs at the two trustees, then
take
us not to a ball game in the real world, but to the club that Ray described.
Set all these characters free in those final moments. You're so close.. why
not let the audience and the film fly at the end?
Here's hoping Universal learned from HOLY MAN not to sell a more serious
Eddie
Murphy film as a wacky comedy. Here's hoping Universal gives these
filmmakers
room to make this thing great. Here's hoping audiences get a chance to see
the very best version of this very good film. Finally, here's hoping...
Uh-oh... someone just knocked on the door. Someone's shouting something
about
Joe Farrell. I think I'd better cut this short if I don't want to end up in
movie jail, after all. Until next time, Harry...
"Moriarty" out.
-
+ Expand All
-
Universal had a two page ad in a Hollywood reporter last month for Life -- Feb 2??
that's only 4 months away!! -
Cinescape Online reported today that the evil Jon Peters at the WB says they will probably film Superman next year and he still sees Nick Gage for the role. In addition, he is quoted as saying the script "is good. (I guess having a "great" script over at the WB would be bad form.) They are sticking with the "Superman Lives" script, i.e. the Death of Superman, which, in my opinion is unfortunate. Tim Burton is off the project and they are looking for a director and expect the budget to be between $90 and $100 million. This reeks, reeks, reeks of a Michael Bay project -- say it isn't so!!! I will venture that if this movie tanks, it will be a dark cloud over the WB's existing and potential comics-to-film franchises for years to come. WAKE UP WB!!!
-
Cinescape Online reported today that the evil Jon Peters at the WB says they will probably film Superman next year and he still sees Nick Gage for the role. In addition, he is quoted as saying the script "is good. (I guess having a "great" script over at the WB would be bad form.) They are sticking with the "Superman Lives" script, i.e. the Death of Superman, which, in my opinion is unfortunate. Tim Burton is off the project and they are looking for a director and expect the budget to be between $90 and $100 million. This reeks, reeks, reeks of a Michael Bay project -- say it isn't so!!! I will venture that if this movie tanks, it will be a dark cloud over the WB's existing and potential comics-to-film franchises for years to come. WAKE UP WB!!!
-
I heard this movie has an unnecessary narrator. If this is true, then the filmmakers can learn a thing or two of how to use a narrator like the movie "Little Big Man."
-
Speaking of Martin Lawrence and Michael Bay... I must admit I thought Martin did a pretty darn good job in Bad Boys. There were one or two brief (very brief!) moments of actual humanity in there.
-
A point raised in a very..."violent" Star Wars talk back: Harry looks and talks JUST LIKE the fat comic book store owner in The Simpsons!!!!
Another point: Harry: SHOW US SOMETHING FROM THE GODDAMN STAR WARS SCRIPT, YOU CHEAP ASSHOLE!!!!! Are you just trying to make your site more popular by tempting us with your knowledge of the script????!!! You are a goddamn asshole! Thanks for nothing, you fat-ass, candy-eating, child-molesting, nerdy bastard! -
I really, really, REALLY hope that SOMEBODY fucks Natalie Portman (Queen Amidala) in Episode I. I mean, literally, I want to see her get fucked, even in the ass. I don't care if Anakin, Obi-Wan, or even Nute Gunray does it! That would make my day! Plus, I'm praying that Natalie does a pictorial in Playboy when she comes of legal age!
-
so I wouldn't have to read disgusting posts like the impersonator added. I accept the fact that people do not like Harry, but why would someone use the forum for such perversion. Disgusting.
-
Superninja,
you seem like you have a good head on your shoulders, so maybe you can explain to me about why some people think that the name michael bay is synonymous with "satan". He is my favorite director and I absolutely loved all three of his movies, as I know Harry did also. Granted, Aramageddon had its cheesy moments, but it was a very entertaining film and will probably wind up as the top grosser of '98. What gives? -
While I respect your opinion, MB has not made any of my favorite movies. All I could think of while watching Armageddon was, "Geez, this could've been a really great movie." I'm not talking about an Oscar winner here, I'm talking about a movie that actually had some thought put into it. The script was ridiculous. I laughed when Bruce Willis died -- it was like watching a freakin' Aerosmith video! The only touching moment was when Ben Affleck's character poured his heart out to Willis' character before he went off and died a hero. All of the characters were one dimensional and stereotypical. It was like , pause (5 sec.) , cut to melodramatic moment with sepia shot of Americans with patriotic paraphernalia, etc... Deep Impact was just as bad. It just seems that when I watch movies nowadays, I end up sighing and thinking about what might have been. I haven't had that Indiana Jones feeling in a long time.
-
Hey, all...
"Moriarty" here.
To all those who seem to have some ethical issue with our posting reviews of advance screenings, let me make a few points. I'm not looking to change your mind, just to clarify my position.
First, the idea that a test screening is meant to be "confidential" is patently absurd. One of the things a studio counts on from a test screening is word of mouth. If you like the film, they sure as hell hope you're going to tell your friends to go see it. Just because I do so electronically doesn't change the intent. It's only because of fiascos like BATMAN AND ROBIN that the studios and NRG started trying to make the results of the screenings secret. NRG's biggest fear in us posting our responses to these screenings is that it negates the effectiveness of their number crunching from the response forms. After all, if a filmmaker can just sign on here and get some honest, unedited feedback, then what do they need to talk to Joe Farrell for?
Second, NRG is an unethical organization that lies to filmmakers and studios on a routine basis. My roommate was an NRG recruiter who worked deep inside the organization for years, and his horror stories about the way numbers were cooked or altered have convinced me that no good comes from this part of the process. I do believe that screening a film for an advance audience can be advantageous, but it's better for a filmmaker to just stand in the back and listen to the audience. You'll know if a film is working or not. All the numbers do is (A) give the studio ammunition to take creative control of a picture away from the filmmaker and (B) determine how much money will be committed to prints and ads. Neither goal is, in my opinion, worth "protecting".
Finally, if you think it's so deeply unethical and pathetic for us to post our responses to these films, which are usually in my case attempts to find the good in any rough cut, then what does that make you? After all, you're the ones who take the time to download our reviews. You're the ones who read them daily. You're the ones who actually take the time to respond to us. If you think we're so terribly pathetic, then perhaps there's another website out there that would service your particular ethical needs better.
My advice? Find it.
"Moriarty" out. -
The only film of last summer with it was Small Soldiers.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 419 total posts 209 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 131 total posts 129 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 123 total posts 122 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 124 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 191 total posts 47 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 43 total posts 43 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 42 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 27 total posts 27 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 506 total posts 26 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 77 total posts 24 posts