MLK/FBI

The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., is now a near-universally respected and beloved historical icon, but as Sam Pollard’s careful and silently infuriating 2020 documentary “MLK/FBI” shows, this was not always the case, especially during King’s lifetime. Christopher Bourne said in his review, “Based on historian and King biographer David Garrow’s book The FBI and Martin Luther King, Jr.: From “Solo” to Memphis, and largely sourced from recently declassified documents and unearthed film footage, MLK/FBI fills in many damning details of the FBI’s extensive surveillance of King, under the direction of J. Edgar Hoover.” This surveillance, which was meant to personally disgrace King and neutralize the supposed threat of the civil rights movement, is described by one of the film’s interviewees, former FBI director James Comey, as “the darkest part of the FBI’s history.”

Bourne noted, “Pollard, a veteran documentary filmmaker who also edited several of Spike Lee’s films, masterfully weaves together this archival material with present-day interviews with historians and King colleagues (including Garrow and Andrew Young).” While fascinatingly laying out the vast scope of the FBI’s surveillance, he also shows how both government officials (including supposed friends like JFK, RFK, and LBJ) and general public opinion were mostly in agreement about the threat King was to American society. Bourne noted, “Much of the archival footage consists of clips from Hollywood films glorifying the FBI and depicting federal agents (or “G-men,” as they were colloquially termed at the time) as dashing heroes preserving the American way of life. Anti-Communist sentiment played a large role, and this was the initial tack the FBI’s actions against King took, focusing on Stanley Levison, a white Jewish lawyer and close advisor with ties to Communist groups.” King’s refusal to end his relations with Levison, even after being personally warned by JFK, was what led to the FBI’s wiretapping of King and his associates. Bourne noted, “While the FBI was pursuing their campaign to smear the civil rights movement as a Communist infiltration plot, fueled by Hoover’s fears of King becoming a “Black Messiah,” they happened upon evidence of King’s philandering and extramarital affairs. The FBI thereupon pivoted to using this as a means to personally ruin King’s reputation and discredit him in the eyes of his followers.”

“MLK/FBI” is a necessary and timely reminder that far from the often relaxing and clean “I Have a Dream” historical figure that he’s often shown as, King was a very divisive and controversial person in his lifetime – “the most dangerous Negro in the future of this nation,” as stated in an FBI memo – and who even lost many supporters when he spoke out against the Vietnam War. The film also has audiences asking unsettled questions regarding King’s assassination, mainly how anyone was able to kill him when he was under such heavy surveillance, and whether the FBI’s obsession with taking King down personally led them to overlook or intentionally ignore the many threats on King’s life. Bourne ended his review by saying, “But perhaps even more unsettlingly — particularly given the current president and attorney general’s attempts to smear current protests against police brutality, and especially Black Lives Matter’s prominent role, as dangerous sedition — MLK/FBI leads us to question whether the governmental overreach it depicts is as safely in the past as some would have us believe.”

I saw this documentary on Hulu and I was surprised at how much I didn’t know about MLK. What they teach us in school is not everything about his life. They leave out a lot of the details, which are shown here. I would recommend everyone to see this film if they have a Hulu or an AMC+. You will be amazed at how many details are in this and how much surveillance the man was under throughout his career. Check this out and see for yourself.

Alright, we have once again reached the end of “Black History Movie Month.” I hope everyone enjoyed this month and will see the movies I recommended. Stay tuned next month to see what other films I will be reviewing. Take care.

LBJ

The 2018 biopic, “LBJ,” based upon a large amount of the life of USA’s 36^th President, Lyndon Baines Johnson, is an odd, wooden look with a strangely distanced feel.

That distance shows one of the film’s biggest problems: neither director/producer Rob Reiner nor actor Woody Harrelson likes LBJ the least. Both Harrelson and Reiner later said they disliked LBJ because he was pro-Vietnam. Now the question is: why make a movie about him?

DM Bradley said in his review, “Although Woody (before he was in War For The Planet Of The Apes, Three Billboards…, Solo: A Star Wars Story and several others) is actually about the same age as LBJ was during the years depicted here, he nevertheless sat for hours in the make-up chair and wore prosthetics to make his lean gob look more like the jowly Johnson’s, and all it really does is make him look weirdly rubbery.”

Strangely focusing more on Johnson’s Vice Presidency than his actual Presidency, this starts with LBJ, his wife Lady Bird (Jennifer Jason Leigh), and John F. Kennedy (Jeffrey Donovan) and his wife Jackie (Kim Allen) in Dallas on November 22, 1963. Bradley noted, “We know the assassination is coming, yet there isn’t much tension (as there was in Jackie, where LBJ was impressively played by the less chameleonic John Carroll Lynch) and the sequence looks a little cheap, with sparse crowds and, briefly, a reflection of the camera crew in one of the cars.”

We jump back and forth from that tragic day as Joey Hartstone’s script continues, and early on there’s a hint that LBJ was very jealous of the more popular JFK and secretly regretted how he only became President after Kennedy was assassinated. Bradley said, “Later LBJ is also seen having it out with Bobby Kennedy (Michael Stahl-David not really looking much like the real guy), who refuses to like him, in sequences that have been stripped of their dirtier excesses. Here you wonder again why anyone would bother making a movie about Johnson if he couldn’t be depicted in all his foul-mouthed glory.”

Stronger in tone are the scenes where Johnson is becoming more faithful to civil rights causes and must fight with evil Senator Richard Russell, played by Richard Jenkins, playing against type. The two of them have dinners and meetings where Russell tells his fear at the fact of allowing black people any type of equality in the South, and that’s the way God would want it too. Harrelson’s LBJ sits there looking quietly shocked.

Bradley said, “Made at a time when LBJ has featured in several films, this is handled by director Rob Reiner with creaky earnestness, and Harrelson is strained, especially when he tries to be awkwardly funny. Why do it at all? The final act shows that LBJ did great things in the realms of social justice, and this sings his praises in the standard final credit crawl too, before noting that, yes indeed, his belief in the Vietnam War was his undoing.” All the way, you might say.

I have mixed feelings about this film. I don’t like that it jumped back and forth between the life of LBJ’s career and there wasn’t much of a focus here. It only got focused after LBJ became president. If you want to watch this, you can see it on Roku, but I don’t recommend this. This is just an average movie, not a good or bad one.

Happy President’s Day everyone. Look out Friday for the continuation of “Black History Movie Month.”

Harriet

“Harriet” is a long overdue 2019 drama about the adventures of the most famous conductor on the Underground Railroad, Harriet Tubman. The film’s greatest trait is Cynthia Erivo, a veteran of the London stage who brings spirit and emotion to the main character. Written and directed by Kasi Lemmons, “Harriet” celebrates life and freedom and reminds audiences of the price people long ago paid for the freedoms we enjoy today.

Harriet, known as Minty to her family and owners, was a God-fearing woman married to John Tubman, played by Zackary Momoh. Since they were planning on having a family, John and Minty wanted their children to be born free which only would have been possible if Minty was free herself. Both John and Minty’s father, Ben, played by Clarke Peters, were freemen, working at a nearby farm. Because the previous owner of Rit (Vanessa Bell Calloway), Minty’s mother, promised freedom at 45 but never followed through, they petitioned owner Edward Brodess (Mike Marunde) to honor the agreement and include Minty. Nothing happened. A prayerful but desperate woman, Minty prayed that God would take Mr. Brodess so that she could be free.

When Brodess suddenly passes, his son Gideon, played by Joe Alwyn, refuses to give Minty freedom and she decides to run away. Not wanting to risk John’s freedom if they were caught, she insists on going alone. I’m not giving anything away when I mention that she made it over the Pennsylvania border to freedom in 1849 and befriended William Still (Leslie Odom, Jr.) and Marie Buchanan (Janelle Monáe) to become involved in abolitionist activities.

Once Minty escapes and goes by Harriet (after her mother), the film starts dragging. Hosea Rupprecht said in her review, “Lemmons decided to keep the film family-friendly so there are no bloody slave beatings like the ones witnessed in “12 Years a Slave,” but along with that also went some of the tension that could have made this film worthy of its subject. The repeated trips Tubman heroically made back into Maryland to gather her family and other slaves seeking freedom begin to feel like been-there-done-that pretty quickly. Some added tension leaks into the story with the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act in 1850, forcing Harriet to bring slaves all the way to Canada.”

Despite those flaws, “Harriet” due diligence to faith's role in Tubman’s life. Her head injury as a child made her have “visions” and spells but she said that was God’s way of speaking to her and guiding her on her way to lead the slaves to freedom. There is one moving scene when things appear useless but Harriet insists that God will not let the freedom-seeking slaves be harmed.

I agree with Rupprecht when she said, “We in the United States tend to take our freedoms for granted. This film reminds us that what we enjoy today came at a great price to those who lived before us and shaped our country and its history.” Harriet Tubman remains a huge figure in that mission.

I saw this film on Netflix and I loved it. I think it brought the life of Harriet Tubman to life on the big screen. If you haven’t seen this and you love the story of Tubman and her journey through the Underground Railroad, see this if it’s still on Netflix. You will fall completely in love with this film, I promise you that.

Sorry for posting this late. I have been really tired from not sleeping much this past week. Look out next Monday for the yearly “President’s Day Movie Review.”

Grease

For this year’s Valentine’s Day movie review, I was thinking of reviewing another musical, but this time, one that I am not a fan of at all. The 1978 musical, “Grease.”

From the looks of it, time hasn’t changed the class of Rydell High. They still look like they’re 30. Jeffrey Westhoff said in his review, “Or maybe teenagers in the '50s really had crows feet and receding hairlines.”

One thing people can note is that John Travolta adds depth to cool guy Danny Zuko. Watch the look he gives with Stockard Channing’s Rizzo after she shows Sandy, played by the late Olivia Newton-John, at the bonfire. Channing’s talents have been more obvious in other films, particularly “Six Degrees of Separation.” Her acting in this film is as good as Travolta’s, but her singing isn’t. Rizzo’s main song, There are Worse Things I Could Do, should be a huge hit, but isn’t. One happy surprise is to find the funny ability of Eve Arden, who plays Principal McGee.

She says the terrible line, “If you can’t be an athlete, be an athletic supporter,” and turns it into one of the film’s funniest lines. Westhoff said, “Others may be able to dismiss "Grease" as bubble gum entertainment, but I can't get past the "conform at all costs" moral.” Sandy sells out her own identity to keep the boyfriend, a boyfriend who has spent the film hiding her from his friends. No matter how playful the music, the terrible message remains of changing your identity for the one you’re in a relationship with.

I know that a lot of people love this movie, but I first saw a little bit of it when I was in seventh or eighth grade. I never bothered to go back and watch it until years later, and I didn’t like how peppy the girls were, the going back and forth of the relationship between Danny and Sandy, and half of the songs I didn’t like. Originally, Henry Winkler was supposed to be cast as Danny, but he didn’t want to be typecast, especially since he played the same character in “Happy Days,” so we got Travolta instead. Still, I don’t think that would have saved the movie from being just average.

Surprisingly, this film was such a hit that they had planned three or four sequels and a television show. What we got, was the 1982 atrocious sequel, which is one of the worst ever made, “Grease 2.”

Felix Vasquez started his review by admitting, “When I was a kid one of my favorite movies on constant rotation was “Grease.” It’s still one of the most entertaining movies I’ve ever seen, and downright spectacular adaptation of one of the most interesting stage musicals ever introduced to audiences. Upon discovering there was a “Grease 2,” I was ecstatic. Another chapter to one of the most bad @$$ movies ever made? It’s too good to be true. It was during the middle of the opening number to “Grease 2” that my excitement dropped down to an immediate disappointment and I struggled through what is easily one of the cheapest and worst sequels ever devised.”

It was tough to follow “Grease,” but they could have at least tried. Everything about “Grease 2” is cheap. The title lacks imagination, the performances are downright forgettable, and (besides the school faculty: Arden as McGee (this was her final role), Sid Caesar as Coach Calhoun, Dody Goodman as Secretary Hodel, Dennis Stewart as the leader of the Cycle Lords, and Dick Patterson) the only characters who return are Didi Conn as Frenchy and Eddie Deezen as Eugene. Some continuity, and it’s made clear in the first film that Frenchy had to repeat her senior year because she dropped out of beauty school, but the sequel takes place two years after the first film. What happened to Frenchy, did she fail three times or did she just decide to go back to school when she turned 20? As I already mentioned, Stewart is back as Leo, but it becomes weak when you see he’s a biker who looks like he’s in his 20s trying to beat up a group of 14-year-olds.

“Grease 2” lacks everything that made the original film iconic. Everything about it spells the 80s, despite the film supposedly set in the late fifties to early sixties. What doesn’t help is that every song is either very forgettable or memorable for being very bad. Vasquez said, “I honestly can’t remember a single song in the film save for “Cool Rider.” Granted, Michelle Pfeiffer is immensely beautiful, but a singer she is not. She makes Stockard Channing seem like Whitney Houston. I can only imagine Pfeiffer’s children singing “Cool Rider” to annoy the ever loving crud out of the actress whose admitted embarrassment for this role in the past.”

The writers make the sequel as a smart flip of the coin and in actuality, it’s just horrid. This time, there’s a very proper British student named Michael, played by Maxwell Caulfield, who falls in love with Pfeiffer’s (in her film debut) character Stephanie who is a rowdy leader of the Pink Ladies. Much like Sandy did to win over Danny, Michael begins changing himself to win over Stephanie. And besides a sudden change of clothing, he takes the entire film to make himself over for Stephanie. Vasquez described, “He does this by purchasing a motorcycle and learning how to ride it like Evil Knievel, and becoming a masked bike rider who appears to help the Pink Ladies and T Birds in their ongoing feud with a local biker gang who begins terrorizing them.”

Result: Stephanie begins to fall in love with the masked rider. See the change in the formula? Vasquez said, “It’s so trite, it’s nauseating. There’s also the sad fact that Maxwell Caulfield and Michelle Pfeiffer not only have zero chemistry, but also fail to muster up the charisma that Travolta and Newton-John had with one another. The supporting cast also fails to register as remotely memorable, as they play nothing but background players for sub-plots that go nowhere, and a finale that never quite matches the big number in the school carnival.” As a sequel to “Grease,” it’s terrible, and as a musical on its terms, it’s completely abysmal. “Grease 2” is a failure on every level and is one of those tacky memories that is fondly looked back on while laughing because, like “Staying Alive,” it’s just so horrendous it couldn’t possibly have existed.

I think everyone can guess this film is one of the worst sequels ever. It was the same story except the plot was slightly altered and the roles were switched. How could anyone have liked this sequel? Patricia Birch, the original film’s choreographer, directed the sequel. I bet she must feel ashamed. Just do yourself a favor and avoid this sequel, especially if you loved the first film. This film will just make you feel dirty when you see it.

Apparently, there was going to be a second sequel and Olivia Newton-John had confirmed but she sadly passed away almost two years ago. In 2019, a prequel was announced, and I know they made a live television special on Fox, and a show that appeared on Paramount+ last year, but that got canceled and withdrawn from public availability. Who knows if they will ever try to resurrect this again, but we’ll see. I know there is a huge fanbase, but I am not a part of it, sorry to say.

I want to apologize for the late posting as I fell asleep when I came back from work and had some stuff to do before I wrote this up. Now that I have, stay tuned Friday for the next review in “Black History Movie Reviews.”

Marshall

How did director Reginald Heldin convince the late Chadwick Boseman to do another biopic? After playing James Brown, Jackie Robinson, and Floyd Little, Boseman hesitated, until he read Hedlin’s script. It was created by the father and son team of writer Jacob and important Connecticut Civil Rights Lawyer, Michael Koskoff who researched the subject carefully. Also, it didn’t hurt that Thurgood Marshall’s son wrote a letter asking him to do this.

However, this film isn’t just a biopic, and it’s not moralizing. It just tells the facts through a courtroom case based on race. Al and Linda said in their review, “The evidence unfolds throughout the film a little at a time while the characterizations of those involved are being revealed. It’s courtroom drama and you become part of the jury.”

It’s also an origin story showing how young Thurgood Marshall used his legal skills, working with the NAACP to create a career defending African Americans against racism. This trial, in 1941, took place well before Marshall won 29 out of the 32 cases he brought before the Supreme Court, and before he became the first African American Supreme Court Justice. Also, it is just as related, if not more so today.

Al and Linda noted, “Hedlin didn’t pick Boseman because he looked like Marshall. He doesn’t. But he thought he had the swagger he wanted in the portrayal of Marshall. Sometimes we thought Boseman played it a little too slick and flip. But Hedlin sees the lawyer as a kind of Sheriff serving up justice by going from town to town. He was an underrated American superhero out to prove that all men are created equal under law. (Side note: Hedlin wrote Marvel’s Black Panther comic book from 2005-2008. Boseman played the Black Panther in Captain America: Civil War and will appear in more sequels).”

This film takes on a controversial trial of a Black Chauffeur, Joseph Spell (Sterling K. Brown) accused of rape and attempted murder of the wealthy aristocrat he drove, Eleanor Strubing (Kate Hudson). The shot from Spell’s point of view in his jail cell looking up at Marshall adds to the lawyer’s impressive figure. Knowing he faces a death sentence; Brown plays it scared beyond belief and you feel for his character.

Because the racist judge (James Cromwell) won’t let a Black man talk in his court, Marshall is assigned the apprehensive and inexperienced Jewish accident insurance lawyer, Sam Friend (Josh Gad), to speak for him. Friedman’s wife, played by Marina Squerciati, is cautious because of their religion, but the scene where she stands up to the people staring them down in their synagogue is real, showing their determination to stand up to the criticism of working on a case with a Black lawyer.

Al and Linda said, “Court drama can be boring and it’s almost painful watching Marshall and Friedman tip toe around each other in the courtroom trying to placate the Judge. They’re also trying not rile the prosecuting attorney, played with chilling Aryan attitude by Dan Stevens. But there are some very funny scenes seeing the two trying to figure out how to work together in court, starting with picking the jury. Marshall had the experience and smarts to pick out a juror who seems to have a thing for Friedman which could work in their favor.”

Hedlin does a good job having Boseman show his frustration at having to remain silent in court, visibly restraining himself from attacking the racist judge. Gad is convincing as the nervous lawyer, out of his league, looking every minute like he’s about to faint. Al and Linda noted, “You get sweaty palms watching him.” They are both brutally attacked outside the courtroom which only strengthens their bond and their determination.

The case turns out to be more like solving a mystery with Hedlin showing step-by-step the information and evidence Marshall and Friedman discover that leads them to a surprising verdict. Al and Linda admitted, “Hedlin puts you in the period and lets you see what it was like for African-Americans and Jews in this country at that time.” Have attitudes changed?

The last scene in the “Marshall” movie, released in 2017, shows Marshall’s arriving at a train station to take on his next case for the NAACP. He’s about to defend a 14-year-old boy for reportedly killing a police officer in Mississippi. Director Hedlin cast the parents of Trayvon Martin, the Florida boy who was shot to death in 2012, to play the parents of the boy Marshall is about to defend. Both Boseman and Gad agree this film shows the fight continues. They’re hoping young people will see this film and be inspired to follow Thurgood Marshall’s example and become lawyers seeking justice for all.

Currently, you can see this film on Netflix. I highly recommend all of you to see this film. It is one of the greatest films from the last decade. It is so powerful and so realistic that you will believe you’re watching the actual case happen in front of you. Everyone should see this, especially since you can see the late Chadwick Boseman play such a powerful role that he will forever be remembered for.

Next week, I will be looking at another amazing film about one of the greatest civil rights leaders in “Black History Movie Month.”

Concussion

We’re back at “Black History Movie Month,” where we will start this month with the 2015 sports movie, “Concussion.”

Released at the time of the NFL playoffs, the movie hopefully gave many serious thoughts about the most popular American sport.

Tom Long said in his review, “Based on a true story, Will Smith plays Dr. Bennet Omalu, a Nigerian-born, hyper-motivated coroner working in Pittsburgh.” He treats the corpses he examines as his patients, carefully trying to determine the reason they died.

One day he’s given the body of a local legend, a former Pittsburgh Steeler and NFL hall-of-famer named Mike Webster, played by David Morse, a man who went from the peaks of success to living in a run-down truck. Omalu notices something uneven with Webster’s bran and, against the objections of a fellow coroner and Steeler fan, played by Mike O’Malley, decides to run some cultured tests, paying for them with his own money.

With the support of his no-nonsense boss, played by Albert Brooks, Omalu determines that Webster suffered a litany of concussions over his career, which eventually led to his irregular, unreasonable behavior. Some animals' skulls come programmed with insulation to protect against hard hits. Human skulls do not have that protection. Omalu comes to find out that so many great football players have had similar problems, and other inexplicable deaths have occurred.

This begins Omalu’s fight, first to be taken seriously by the scientific community (not so hard), then by the NFL (nearly impossible). Helping him along the way is a sympathetic former team doctor for the Steelers, played by Alec Baldwin, and the widows of other NFL players, whose husband’s brains Omalu examines, finding they line up right with Webster’s.

“Concussion” spends too much time on Omalu’s relationship with his future wife, played by Gugu Mbatha-Raw, and could have made its point quicker. Long ended his review by admitting, “But that sobering point is made, even though the film takes care to relish the beauty of football, as well. Beautiful or not, we’re all cheering for something that can kill people.”

I didn’t see this in the theaters, although this was one of the movies, we were thinking about seeing that year. I saw it as a rental from the library. I loved this movie because of how real it depicts what happens to NFL players. This is one of the most common conditions that occurs, and this film does a good job showing that. Smith did a great job at playing the coroner who is trying to prove this to the NFL. It wasn’t easy, but it worked out in the end. Check this out if you haven’t because I think you will love it.

Look out next week when we look at a powerful film about one of the civil rights leader in “Black History Movie Month.”