Now You See Me

A group of magicians shows their skills on a Las Vegas stage, making it appear that a bank is being robbed in real-time, across the Atlantic, in France. The Euro notes disappear from the vault, and are showered on the fascinated audience facing the Four Horseman. Shubhra Gupta said in her review, “A collective gasp goes up from that gathering, as well as from us, sitting in the theatre.” Magic is always such great fun, and these are fun actors to watch when they are at their own pace. Gupta said, “Now You See Me coasts on both these elements and gives us some cracking moments. But the dots are connected with patches that are not so magical. And then it becomes a case of 'Now You Don't'.”

A mysterious hooded character finds the four criminals. Merritt McKinney, played by Woody Harrelson, is a mentalist, happy to hypnotize and steal from the audience. Daniel Atlas, played by Jesse Eisenberg, is a trickster who plays with cards and memories. Jack Wilder, played by Dave Franco, believes ‘nothing is locked’ because he opens every shut door that he sees. Finally, the beautiful re-lipped Henley Reeves, played by Isla Fisher, escapes Houdini-like from locked water tanks. These criminals create illusions for ticket-paying eager crowds and stay one step ahead of FBI agent Dylan Rhodes (Mark Ruffalo) and attractive Interpol detective (Melanie Laurent), as well as fights with an insurance tycoon Arthur Tressler (Michael Caine) and a former magician Thaddeus Bradley (Morgan Freeman) who likes outing his members for commercial reasons. The names of the characters suggest that they have backstories, and we are prepared for more depth but soon find out that “Now You See Me,” released in 2013, is determined to stay on the ground, and surprise everyone.

Gupta says, “Till the film stays with the magic-walas, it is fun. Harrelson is such a deceptively natural actor, seducing you (and me) into swallowing all kinds of implausibility. Eisenberg is too-talky here again, reminding us of his Zuckerberg act in 'The Social Network', adding in a bit of smugness to his advantage. But when the film meanders off into spook-speak and uniformed characters shouting 'Go, Go, Go', it becomes listless.” Why cast such a nice group of actors (Caine and Freeman just need to be in the frame for the film to feel better than it is) and then make them get into car chases and predictable romance? Gupta notes, “The moment Ruffalo opens a conversation with Laurent by growling too much, you know it will lead to cosying. No sleight of hand required for that.”

The magic tricks are very impressive, especially one that has Isla Fisher floating above the audience in a giant bubble. Gupta ended her review by admitting, “But Now You See Me needed more sharpness for it be a really good film. It's left me thirsting to re-visit the terrific 'The Prestige' by Chris Nolan, a film about magicians that is pure magic.”

Despite so many visually entertaining moments, “Now You See Me 2,” released in 2016, is a largely disappointing sequel. Those who weren’t exactly convinced by the first movie definitely will not get to enjoy the sequel, which ends up depending on a seen-it-all-before story while giving weak execution of magic with very little excitement or innovation.

Starting about a year after their last huge magic stunt which ended up outsmarting the FBI and putting enemy and local exposer Bradley safely behind bars, The Four Horseman – members including J. Daniel Atlas, Merritt McKinney, and Jack Wilder – have now gone underground, busy keeping a low profile while waiting for their next big mission from The Eye.

It’s not long before the group is once again given a mission when FBI agent Rhodes receives word that a major telecommunication company has been stealing and selling personal information and now hopes that the group – including newcomer Lula, played by Lizzy Caplan – can stage an appearance and expose their dishonest dealings to the public. However, their plan is soon ruined when they are magically transported to China, where the company’s mastermind, played by Daniel Radcliffe, decides to blackmail them into carrying out a robbery of his own.

Marija Loncarevic said in her review, “Directed by John M. Chu, Now You See Me 2 manages to embrace a bubbly spirit and a brisk pace from the very beginning, giving the movie that ‘brainless fun’ trait and a unique visual style which separates it from its predecessor. Unfortunately, though, while Chu’s efforts for trying to make sure that the action set pieces are slickly executed and generally engaging, there is a certain lack of substance and very little connection to the story as a whole, making all of its flashiness and visual grandness just surface-based. The main problem comes in the form of the over-explanations which lay behind the story’s every move, while the magic tricks – which are not performed on stage anymore but are executed through a series of heists – are rather routine and predictable.”

With the minor exception of Harrelson and Ruffalo, who manage to keep their characters engaging throughout, most of the characters don’t do anything but stroll plot devices, as opposed to fully rendered characters who we, the audience, are supposed to connect to care for. Even newcomer Radcliffe couldn’t do enough magic to create an impact.

Overall, fans of the first movie should find no problem enjoying the second round of magical mess that “Now You See Me 2” has to give. As for everyone else, don’t expect much.

I find both of these movies to be decent. There’s nothing special about them and nothing really exciting about getting into them. You would have thought that a movie based on villains who are magicians would have been exciting, but surprisingly, I don’t think it impressed a lot of people. If you want to check them out, it won’t hurt, but I would say just watch the first movie. After that, if you aren’t impressed, don’t check out the sequel. There are talks of a third movie, but I have not heard any final words about when that will be released.

Thank you for joining in on “Morgan Freeman Month Part 2.” I hope everyone enjoyed and…wait a minute. Next month is October. You know what that means!? HALLOWEEN MONTH!!! Stay tuned to find out what I will be reviewing next month, because it will be exciting. Note: it will not be an entire month's marathon.

Red

Nathalia Aryani started her review by saying, “After thrilling times at the last two movies led by Bruce Willis (“Live Free or Die Hard,” “Surrogates”), I was expecting more of the same with “Red” (Retired Extremely Dangerous). While it’s not as preposterously outrageous as “A-Team,” I haven’t had this much brainless fun with a movie since early this summer!”

Filled with an all-star, veteran cast having a carefree good time, the 2010 graphic novel adaptation of “Red” is going crazy. Intensely carefree, these retired veterans could easily beat their younger students by a round of shots and some.

Aryani said, “When I saw Bruce Willis stumping for the movie at Comic-Con this year, I was surprised to learn about the Helen Mirren bit. At that time, I never heard of “Red” before (I was there waiting for Angelina Jolie to make an appearance on the “Salt” panel). All doubts were erased when the trailer was shown. With a stern, rifle-totting Mirren looking more than competent to kick butt and her muttering “I kill people, dear,” I was instantly sold.”

On the edge of being attacked in his own home in the dark of the night, strong man, soft-spoken Frank Moses (Bruce Willis) runs to find Sarah Moses (Mary-Louise Parker), an employee of the Department of Pension who he has been in love with. Previously he’s been going through his money so that he could call and chat with her, while she’s been chatting with him about foreign travels and romance novels.

Willis does look like the type of CIA employee who takes down drug addicts, terrorists, and governments. Aryani credited, “Parker is impeccable with her wide-eyed, nutty expressions and comedic timing. There’s a hysterical exchange at her place when the two first meet in person. And the conversation in the car about their “first date” is positively gut-busting. The coolest, singular scene involves Willis stepping out of a spinning car and onto his feet firing.”

Together Frank and Sarah drive across the country to find his former CIA colleagues: Joe Matheson (Morgan Freeman), Marvin Boggs (John Malkovich), and “Victoria” (Dame Helen Mirren).

With CIA agents William Cooper (Karl Urban) and Cynthia Wilkes (Rebecca Pidgeon) close behind them, the team is racing against time to uncover war crimes with a top-ranking U.S. government official. Richard Dreyfuss makes a cameo as Alexander Dunning, a man with connections to the White House, and his role in the conspiracy becomes clear toward the end.

Willis is great with his break-in and out of CIA headquarters and long-drawn fistfights. Malkovich is completely crazy as the eccentric paranoid Marvin. You’ve never seen an underground hideout until you see Marvin’s! Don’t call him an “old man” and take it easy with the grenade or bazooka. Freeman, mainly seen living in a retirement home, might be the closest one to being a calm retired again – however, don’t count him out yet (or underestimate his punch!) Armed and dangerous Mirren does her part and fits right in with the boys, all the while connecting with a former lover.

“Red” is the summer blockbuster that we never had. It’s an over-the-top, hilariously explosive ride that we don’t ever want to stop.

Bruce Willis returns in “Red 2,” released in 2013, as retired CIA black ops expert Frank Moses, who’s trying to live a quiet life with his excitement-wanting, much younger girlfriend, Sarah Ross. While pushing a shopping cart at Costco, Frank’s alerted by his crazy colleague Marvin Boggs that they’re being targeted to rescue a long-lost Cold War-era nuclear device called Nightshade, hidden somewhere on the planet. That’s confirmed by a phone call from trigger-happy MI6 Victoria, who’s been assigned to kill them, and helped by the appearance of a dangerous Korean hitman named Han, played by martial arts expert Byung-hun Lee.

They’re off to find Edward Bailey, played by Anthony Hopkins, the sneakily disturbed scientist who made the deadly weapon of mass destruction. He’s been imprisoned by the British in a locked cell for the criminally insane for the past 32 years. Joining them is hot Catherine Zeta-Jones as Katja, a seductive Russian spy, along with Brian Cox as a romantic Ivan, Victoria’s Kremlin suitor. A Frenchman (David Thewlis) known as the Frog briefly distracts them, while CIA villain Jack Horton (Neal McDonough) constantly threats.

Susan Granger said in her review, “Based on DC Comics graphic novels by Warren Ellis and Cully Hammer, it’s a thinly-plotted thriller by screenwriting brothers Jon and Erich Hoeber and directed by Dean Parisot, who helmed the hilariously satirical “Galaxy Quest” back in 1999.  Humor takes precedence over logic, as the intrepid senior spies dash from one escapade to another. While it’s hard to take your eyes off scene-stealing Helen Mirren, Mary-Louise Parker shows surprising comedic timing, seething with jealousy when Frank is dazzled by Katja, whom Marvin describes as “Frank’s Kryptonite.” The amusingly droll relationship banter between protective Willis, paranoid Malkovich and adventurous Parker propels the pace.”

My sister got the second one from the library, so I went to the library to check out the first one. I saw the first film on my own and after I was done watching that, then I watched the second film with my sister. I think the first one was enjoyable in the same sense as “The Expendables” (seeing how they both came out the same year) but the second one was just okay. I thought it was an average film, but it was still a fun film to watch, like the first one. If you have not seen these films, you can see them on Amazon Prime. Check them out and see if you enjoy them, which I think everyone will since they aren’t one of the best in the genre, but nowhere near being considered one of the worst ever made. Watch them and see for yourself.

All right everyone, next week I will be looking at another average couple of films in the finale of “Morgan Freeman Month Part 2.”

Unleashed

Jet Li plays a caged slave named Danny who’s been raised to by a martial arts attack dog by his loan shark owner Bart, played by the late Bob Hoskins, in collecting debts from deadbeat clients. Cole Smithey said in his review, “Whenever Bart removes the metal collar from Danny's neck, it signals a consequence of flashy ultra-violent action.” Set in Glasgow, the story follows Danny’s escape from his evil master when he meets Sam (Morgan Freeman), a generous blind piano man, and his musically gifted stepdaughter Victoria (Kerry Condon). The two accept the traumatized man into their loving family.

Li’s fighting scenes are unique for their street-fighting style of violence. The film is produced by Luc Besson and directed by Louis Leterrier.

Smithey said, “"Unleashed" is a cinematic oddity created by Europe's leading cottage film industry that consists of one man, Luc Besson. Besson's script fits his signature narrative template. It involves a tragically distanced character prone to violence, who is rehabilitated by a stranger. Gaps that occurred in the making of the film are coincidentally what give it its surprising curves that help compensate for frequent dips into heartstring clichés.”

Before wearing out his welcome with fight choreographer Yuen Wo-ping, who had just finished work on “Kill Bill,” director Louis Leterrier defined the film’s opening fight scene using plastic dolls to communicate the action to Wo-ping. What the audience sees in that first fight is the most dangerous fight scene Jet Li has ever filmed. Smithey noted, “Li uses fast repeated right fist punches that send tremors of inertia through the audience. Danny liberally uses head-butts, and tears out his subject's hair with a ferocity that speaks directly to the seven months the action star spent creating the character.”

Smithey continued, “After Luc Besson awarded the director title for the film (previously titled "Danny The Dog") to his apprentice Louis Leterrier ("The Transporter"), the studio producing the movie began to shrink at the promise of it being too violent. It withdrew its financing. Morgan Freeman threw a curveball of his own when he showed up for his first day of shooting and announced that he would be playing his character as blind. By this time Yuen Wo-ping and his team of assistants took back control of the remaining fight sequences they didn't match the bracing shock of the opening scene.”

Danny’s character represents a specific type of ambitious martial arts student who only responds to the commands of his coach or “master.” Smithey noted, “He is a person outwardly doomed to go through life as a drone when he's not engaged in a specifically dictated routine of action. Danny's peculiar fighting style is like a wild animal that focuses all of its attention on one aspect of an opponent at a time rather than keeping a 360-degree awareness as practiced by most  martial artists. The departure is jolting because it's foreign to the kind of fighter we know Jet Li to be.” His fighting reflects the differences of his character’s state of mind. It’s similar to Jackie Chan’s “Drunken Master” where Chan’s fighting technique changed to fit the role.

Smithey mentioned, “Danny's eventual escape into the precarious safety of family life is buffered by the classical piano music that Victoria plays.” His childlike nature enables Danny to identify with playing an electronic keyboard that Sam gives him for the simple joy of making music. The dramatic tension between Danny’s innate fighting ability and his capacity for peaceful family life goes loose because we want to see Jet Li fight however much the story says we should enjoy watching his character get his first ice cream headache in the romantic company of a young woman.

Smithey noted, “There's an unintended ironic subtext at play about serving two masters that gets more dispensable dominion when Bart survives one too many certain- death situations.” Just when Sam has trained Danny to become his piano-playing assistant, Bart shows up to retrieve his long-lost human attack dog. Danny’s bipolar character lets Jet Li exercise acting muscles he’s never been allowed to show onscreen before. Smithey credited, “It's gratifying to see the emotional colors he creates.”

In light of the odd combination of rare creative people that put their names on the film, “Unleashed,” released in 2005, is an enjoyably confusing film filled with gentle charisma and intense action. The narrative connections are hilariously rough, but the performances are genuine. There’s something special here.

I had seen trailers and commercials for the film when it was coming out, but I can’t remember how I saw it. It was either On Demand or we had gotten a boot-legged DVD of the film. But I digress, this was an enjoyable film. I really liked the action in this film, and Jet Li, despite not speaking too much, did a great job in this role. I really liked him with Morgan Freeman, as they both really showed a strong bond with one another. When Bob Hoskins and Jet Li are together, you can easily see the rivalry between them. Check this out and see for yourself.

Next week I will be looking at two action films in “Morgan Freeman Month.”

Nurse Betty

Neil LaBute’s 2000 “Nurse Betty” is about two dreamers in love with their fantasies. One is a Kansas housewife. The other is a professional criminal. The housewife is in love with a doctor on a television soap opera. The criminal is in love with the housewife, whose husband he has killed. What is important is that both of these obsessed romantics are not known to the person they are in love with.

Morgan Freeman is Charlie, the killer, and Renee Zellweger is Betty, the housewife and waitress. Their lives meet because Del, played by Aaron Eckhart, Betty’s worthless husband, tries to con Charlie on a drug deal. Charlie and Wesley, played by Chris Rock, show up at his house, threaten him, scalp him, and kill him. Charlie only kills him because Wesley scalps him – and then what are you going to do? Betty witnesses the murder but erases it from her memory. Her husband was a rat, she doesn’t miss him, and in her mind, his death frees her to drive out of Los Angeles to meet her “ex-fiancé,” a doctor on a soap opera. Charlie and Wesley follow her, and in the course of their search, Charlie’s mind also goes off the rails. Under the influence of Betty’s sweet smile in a photograph, he begins to idealize her – he speaks of her “grace” – and to see her as the bright angel of his lonely self.

In Los Angeles, Betty meets George, played by Greg Kinnear, the actor who plays the doctor. She relates only to the character, and as she talks to “Dr. David Ravell” at a charity benefit, George and his friends think they’re witnessing a great Method audition. Meanwhile, Charlie and Wesley arrive in Los Angeles with Charlie increasingly fascinated by everything about Betty. When they started chasing her, she was an eyewitness to a murder who was driving a car in which her husband had hidden their drugs. Now Charlie thinks of her more as a person who would sympathize with his broken self.

Roger Ebert said in his review, “I'm spending so much time on the plot of "Nurse Betty" because I think it's possible to misread. When the film premiered at Cannes in May, some reviews didn't seem to understand that Betty and Charlie are parallel characters, both projecting their dreams on figures they've created in their own fantasies. Look at this movie inattentively, especially if you're looking for Hollywood formulas, and all you see is a mad woman pursued by some drug dealers, like a high-rent "Crazy in Alabama." But it's more, deeper, and more touching than that. Zellweger plays Betty as an impossibly sweet, earnest, sincere, lovable, vulnerable woman--"a Doris Day type," as Charlie describes her. She has unwisely married Del, a vulgar louse who orders her around and eats her birthday cupcake. Her consolation is the daily soap opera about her fantasy lover Dr. Ravell. When Charlie and Wesley turn up, nobody knows she's home. She glimpses the murder from the next room, and her response is to hit the rewind button for a crucial soap opera scene she's missed.” A therapist tells the local sheriff, played by Pruitt Taylor Vince, that she remembers nothing. She’s in an “altered state – that allows a traumatized person to keep on functioning.” Betty drives west in the dangerous Buick LeSabre with the drugs in the trunk, and outside a roadside bar, she has a fantasy where Dr. Ravell proposes to her. Not long after, following right behind her, Charlie pauses in the moonlight on the edge of the Grand Canyon and dreams of dancing with Betty. Charlie has never met Betty, and Betty has never met the “doctor.” Ebert noted, “Both of their dream-figures are projections of their own needs and idealism.”

Note about the Grand Canyon scene: Morgan Freeman admitted it was a really cold night when they shot that. He admitted that Renee Zellweger wasn’t wearing any clothes except for what was fantasized about in that segment. Morgan Freeman said he warmed Zellweger up as best as he could and that part marked his first kissing scene. Chris Rock, who lost his father very young, said that he had father figures, but says Freeman was like his uncle.

Morgan Freeman has a complicated role. His Charlie is a dangerous villain, capable of killing but looking forward to retirement in Florida after one last “assignment.” He has a strong bond with Wesley, a hothead, and tries to teach him lessons Wesley is not capable of learning. Charlie has led a life of crime but has now gone soft thanks to his obsession with Betty, whose smile in a photo helps him mourn his own lost innocence.

Betty is even more of a lost cause. Traumatized by the murder, she has no understanding that the soap opera is a TV show, and her first scene with Kinnear is brilliantly acted by both of them, as she cuts through his Hollywood sarcasm with constant sincerity. Kinnear is completely accurate in playing an actor who has confused his ego with his training, and a scene where Betty is offered a role in the show deals with cruel realism.

Ebert noted, “LaBute previously wrote and directed "In the Company of Men" and "Your Friends and Neighbors," films with a deep, harsh cynicism. "Nurse Betty," written by John C. Richards and James Flamberg, is a comedy undercut with dark tones and flashes of violence. Heading inexorably toward a tidy happy ending, LaBute sidesteps cliches like a broken-field runner.”

As for Charlie, his final scene, his only real scene with Betty, has some of Freeman’s best work. “I’m a garbage man of the human soul,” he tells her, “but you’re different.” He is given an almost impossible assignment (heartfelt nostalgia in the middle of a gunfight) and pulls it off, remaining attentive even to the comic subtext.

“Nurse Betty” is one of those films where you don’t know whether to laugh or cringe and find yourself doing both. It’s a challenge: Ebert said, “How do we respond to this loaded material? Audiences lobotomized by one-level stories may find it stimulating or confusing--it's up to them. Once you understand that Charlie and Betty are versions of the same idealistic delusions, that their stories are linked as mirror images, you've got the key.”

I saw this with my brother because he had recorded it on the DVR. We saw this, and it is a Black Comedy, so it was definitely a difficult movie trying to figure out what to laugh at. However, I think everyone should see this because this is one of those strange movies that has to be seen to be believed. When I say strange, it is strange in a good way. This is a good movie and I think everyone will find a lot of enjoyment in how everything unfolds. See it to know what I mean.

Next week we will be looking at a movie that I did see a lot of trailers for growing up and, I believe, I saw it On Demand. I don’t think it was well received, but find out what I thought about it in “Morgan Freeman Month.”

Driving Miss Daisy

Those of you who have been reading my reviews since the beginning might remember my first year of blogging, I did an entire month dedicated to Morgan Freeman. I have decided to make a second part to that since I have seen other famous movies of his since then. Let’s get “Morgan Freeman Month” started with the 1989 classic, “Driving Miss Daisy.”

Morgan Freeman and Jessica Tandy, two actors with so many resources – and so many idiosyncrasies too – drive along in this bicycle vehicle with enthusiastic ease. Adapted from his own Pulitzer Prize-winning play, Alfred Uhry’s comedy-drama hints at disclosures of character more often than it gives them.

Henry Sheehan said in his review, “While Bruce Beresford’s careful, respectful direction ensures a suitably opened-up and efficient production, the director is content to let the material speak for itself.”

Sheehan continued, “Nevertheless, the sight of such confidently talented performers taking a pair of colorfully sketched characters over a quarter-century of a contentious relationship is bound to have solid appeal. Driving Miss Daisy appears to be headed for considerable popular success.” Freeman and Tandy looked like they were certain to win awards for that year.

Sheehan mentioned, “Set in a well-to-do section of Atlanta, the film opens in 1948 with Daisy Werthan (Tandy), a physically slight 72-year-old Southern Jewish dowager, accidently driving her new car into a neighbor’s yard.” Her businessman son, Boolie (Dan Aykroyd), against his mother’s wishes, hires a polite black man in his early sixties, Hoke Colburn (Freeman), to be his mother’s driver.

Daisy, who already bosses around a silently collected maid, played by Florida Evans from “Good Times,” the late Esther Rolle, at first actively resists the new hire, before finally settling into the daily dose of mild verbal abuse and increasing physical and emotional dependence.

Sheehan noted, “The action is played out episodically, with errands and trips undertaken by the mismatched pair serving as self-contained actions. The thematic development, signaled by the advancing signs of age in the two players (more marked with Freeman than Tandy), is contained in the subtle shifts in their relationship — the patient Hoke parrying the verbal assaults of his passenger with subservient, aw-shucks humor early on, but eventually with more forceful assertions of his own dignity.”

While the small inconveniences and routines of daily life take up a large part of the film, Uhry and Beresford still make use of big scenes when they want to make sure their point is made. Hence, a trip through Alabama, which turns out to be a more seriously racist and threatening state than Georgia, is used to glue the two closer together in recognition of their mutual outsider status.

Also, the final settling of their friendship is played out with obligatory emotional passion, against the background of the retirement home where Hoke visits the handicapped Daisy. Sheehan mentioned, “Over the years, the pair encounters the whole of the seismic social changes that occurred in the South, and while they do impinge indirectly on their relationship, it is during this trip that the interaction of character and background comes off most naturally, with the least sense of authorial connivance.”

Sheehan continued, “The fitful development of the script aside, the movie is dominated entirely by Freeman and Tandy, who manage to retain individual star-quality while acknowledging the other’s presence.” Basically, each scene starts with a brief setup, a seriously emotional demonstration by Tandy, a fight between the two actors, and a closing dry pronouncement by Freeman. Yet every one of these dramatic scrambles manages to look fresh because Freeman and Tandy somehow manage to come up with new ways, meting out complementary parts of their characters.

“Driving Miss Daisy” has a warm, soft look that helps with the overall nostalgic atmosphere. Sheehan noted, “Yet Beresford has carefully avoided the damaging, languid rhythms that often accompany such a feel, and the film moves along with a steady, supportive canter. The production design — aside from the many auto interiors, anyway — is suitably evocative of sepia photographs and heavy furniture.”

Sheehan continued, “A broad-beamed Aykroyd provides reliable support as the put-upon Boolie, settling affably for his straight-man status.” Rolle, as the maid Florine, and Pattie Lupone, as Boolie’s social-climbing wife, have parts that really don’t amount to more than light material, and their appearances are brief and functional.

You don’t know for how long I was thinking of watching this movie. I knew this was a classic film that was meant to be watched by everyone, but I just never got around to watching it. Now I can finally say I have and I cannot recommend this movie enough. You should definitely find time to watch this film however you can. You will love this film a lot. This has to be seen because it is a really feel-good film.

Next week I will be reviewing a film that my brother and I watched together, which is another funny movie, in “Morgan Freeman Month.”

Invictus

For the finale of “Morgan Freeman month,” I thought I would look at another film that Morgan Freeman starred in and was directed by Clint Eastwood. This film is the 2009 rugby film about Nelson Mandela, “Invictus.” Now I had never heard of this film before I went to see it in the theaters with my brother and cousin. I had not seen any trailers or reviews for this film, but my brother had told me about it, and I went and saw it with him. After watching it, I really liked this movie a lot, and I consider this another one of my favorite sports films. Quite possibly, it could be my absolute favorite sports film. Yes, the film's title is after the famous poem by William Ernest Henley.

It should probably come as no surprise that Morgan Freeman is portraying Nelson Mandela. He had already done God in “Bruce Almighty,” which I will get to eventually, so if he could pull off playing God, then Mandela shouldn’t be that big of a problem. Ebert noted, “Freeman has been linked to one biopic of Nelson Mandela or another for at least 10 years.” How unusual that the only one to be made focuses on the South African rugby team. The posters for this movie show Matt Damon in the foreground, with Freeman behind him in shadowy dignity. Ebert said in his review, “I can imagine the marketing meetings during which it was lamented that few Americans care much about Mandela and that Matt Damon appeals to a younger demographic.”

Ebert also said, “Screw 'em, is what I would have contributed.” Also, Mandela’s achievement is one of the moments that everyone should be familiar with from recent history. He was imprisoned for 24 years and broke rocks, and after his release, he went back to being the leader of his nation. When the white South African’s forgave him, which was the guiding light that shined upon the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions, one of a selected examples of a historical person who “really” had much to forgive, and forgave it. Don’t’ forget that both black and white mourned, and reasons to forgive, where in many cases they faced the actual killings of loved ones.

Would it really be that big of a deal that the underdog Springbok team, an all white team except for one, won the World Cup in rugby the first year into Mandela’s rule? Ebert mentioned, “I understand that in a nation where all the races are unusually obsessed by sport, the World Cup was an electrifying moment when the pariah state stood redeemed before the world -- even if soccer is the black man's game there, and rugby is the white's.” Similarly, the Beijing Olympics were important to China.

Clint Eastwood, as Ebert put it, “I believe, understood all of these things and also sought to make a film he believed he could make, in an area where he felt a visceral connection.” He has now gotten to the point in his career where he doesn’t need any interest in making a film only for money. Eastwood might have read all of the other screenplays that people made for previous Mandela’s projects. One thing is for sure: none of them got made. It was a universal decision that Morgan Freeman would be the right actor, but the story, according to Roger Ebert, “financing and deal never came together.” I would assume that Eastwood made a film that did get made. Also, Morgan Freeman (much like with Joe Clark) had met Mandela and they got along just great.

This is a great film. This film has moments where its emotions are very powerful, like when the black and white members of Mandela’s security (hard-line ANC activists and Afrikaner cops) agree to serve together with unbearable difficulty. This shows that the effects of segregation are still very strong. Another moment is when Matt Damon’s (another great actor, who you might remember as Jason Bourne) character, the team captain of the rugby team, Francois Pienaar, is shown in the exact same cell where Mandela was in on Robben Island. Ebert mentioned, “My wife, Chaz, and I were taken to the island early one morning by Ahmed Kathrada, one of Mandela's fellow prisoners, and yes, the movie shows his very cell, with the thin blankets on the floor. You regard that cell and you think, here a great man waited in faith for his rendezvous with history.”

Now the World Cup was a famous victory. The Springboks rugby team had their match with a New Zealand team that won against every single one of their opponents. They played against Japan, and they won by around 90 points, which is a lot in rugby. South Africa won in overtime. South African national teams have been called the Springboks since, as Ebert said, “time immemorial,” (New Zealand is called All Blacks) which are the national logo, and are on every tail of every South African Airlines airplane. Ebert asked, “Would Mandela change the name to one less associated with the apartheid regime? He would not. Join me in a thought experiment. An African American is elected mayor of Boston. He is accepted, grudgingly in some circles. How would it go over if he changed the name of the Red Sox?”

Morgan Freeman does a great job of playing Mandela, who is basically on the same level as Gandhi (he led his first campaign in Durban, South Africa). Freeman shows Mandela as friendly, confident, calming – over what was, as Ebert described, “Was clearly a core of tempered steel.” The focus is on the early years when he was in office. Ebert mentioned, “I believe there may be one scene with a woman representing Winnie Mandela, but the dialogue is vague.” Damon also is amazing as the captain, Francois Pienaar, a child of racist parents, who changes after he has came face to face with “the greatest man I’ve ever met.” Eastwood, who is as high of a director as he was an actor, puts every formula together to make this film work, and has his fans loving Mandela, proud of Francois, and cheering for the Springboks to win. It’s a great, entertaining picture, and you should all see it. Ebert ended his review by saying, “Not, as I said, the Mandela biopic I would have expected.” See the film if you haven’t because I cannot do it justice with this review.

Thanks for joining in with me on “Morgan Freeman month.” I hope you all enjoyed my reviews as much as I have making them. Now I know there are other Morgan Freeman films out there that I hadn't reviewed, but keep in mind that these are all the films that "I" have seen, minus one or two that I didn't review in this month. But don't worry, their time will come soon. Stay tuned for more of my reviews coming at you.

Million Dollar Baby

What happens when you put Morgan Freeman with another great actor together in a film? You get an amazing piece of work. Case in point: Clint Eastwood’s 2004 boxing film, “Million Dollar Baby,” one of my favorite sports movies. As I pointed out earlier, Morgan Freeman and Clint Eastwood both star in this film, but Eastwood also directs it. This is my second review of a boxing film, the first one being “Ali.”

All I can say is that this movie is a masterpiece, pure and simple, deep and true. The story is about an old boxing trainer and a hillbilly girl who has a feeling she can become a boxer. The narrator is a former boxer, and the trainer’s best friend. Here’s an interesting tidbit: it’s not a boxing movie, but more a movie about a boxer. Just like how “Ali” follows Ali’s career down the road, this essentially does the same thing by showing how deep it can go, the emotional power that is flowing throughout the film, this could be the best film that came out that year. I agree with Ebert when he said, “I cannot suggest in this review, because I will not spoil the experience of following this story into the deepest secrets of life and death.”

Eastwood, aka Dirty Harry, plays a trainer named Frankie, who runs a sleazy gym in Los Angeles and when he’s free, he reads poetry. Hilary Swank, another very attractive actress, plays Maggie, who is from Southwest Missouri and has been a waitress since she was 13. The one thing that she can do to escape waitressing for her entire life is boxing.

Otherwise, Maggie says, “I might as well go back home and buy a used trailer and get a deep fryer and some Oreos.” Morgan Freeman plays Scrap, a boxer who was previously trained by Frankie into a match for the heavyweight title. Now he lives in a room inside the gym and also has conversations with Frankie that have twisted through the years. Frankie doesn’t want to train Maggie because he doesn’t train girls, but Scrap is the one who convinces Frankie to at least try Maggie out: “She grew up knowing one thing. She was trash.”

These three characters are seen very clearly and truth, which is something you don’t see very often in movies. Eastwood, who doesn’t carry a spare ounce in his old body, doesn’t have any filling in his own movie: Even during the very emotional final scenes, doesn’t go easy with sentiments, but is goes along with them on the same eye-level, which is what they have to do.

Some directors lose their edge when they get old. Others gain it, learning how to tell a story that has everything essential and nothing else. “Million Dollar Baby” is Eastwood’s 25^th film as a director, and his best. Ebert mentioned that, “Yes, "Mystic River" is a great film, but this one finds the simplicity and directness of classical storytelling; it is the kind of movie where you sit very quietly in the theater and are drawn deeply into lives that you care very much about.”

Morgan Freeman is the one who narrates this film, just like how he did with “The Shawshank Redemption,” which this film is exactly like how Scrap describes someone who he has known for a very large part of his life. The voice is flat and truthful: You never hear Scrap going for an affect or putting a spin on his words. He just wants to tell us an autobiography. He walks about how Maggie walked into the gym, how she refused to leave, how Frankie finally said he would train her, and everything after that. Scrap isn’t simply an observer. The film gives him his own life when everyone else is not present. It is about every one of the three protagonists.

Hilary Swank is just amazing in her role as Maggie Fitzgerald. This is a believable character, and reduces her to a fierce intensity. An example is when she is with Scrap at the diner, and Scrap tells her the story how he lost his ability to see with one of this eyes, how Frankie blames himself for not stopping the fight. Ebert admitted, “It is an important scene for Freeman, but I want you to observe how Swank has Maggie do absolutely nothing but listen.” No “reactions,” no nods, no body language except complete stillness, deep attention and a solid look.

I will have to admit: after I saw “The Next Karate Kid,” I didn’t give Hilary Swank a chance because I hated the film that much. Afterwards, when I went to see “Insomnia,” she was just great in that. In this film, she really brings out a great role in Maggie. So I have say that “The Next Karate Kid” wasn’t her fault, it was the people who decided to make that spin-off.

If you remember that scene when Frankie and Maggie are driving at night after visiting Maggie's family where it didn't go so well. Maggie's mother is played by Margo Martindale, who plays this monster that is selfish. Maggie tells Frankie, "I got nobody but you," which is true, but do not think for once that there is a romance going on between these two. It goes deeper than that. She opens up to Frankie and tells her about her father and an old dog, both whom she loved so much.

Look at how the cinematographer, Tom Stern, uses the light in that scene. Instead of the usual “dashboard lights” that somehow light up the entire front seat, what how he has their faces slide in and out of shadow, how sometimes we can’t even see or hear them. Look at how the rhythm of the lighting matches the tone and pacing of the words, as the visuals are embracing the conversation.

This is a dark movie: a lot of shadows, many night scenes, characters who move away into private fates. It is a “boxing movie” by following Maggie’s career and several of her fights. She wins from the beginning, but the point is “Million Dollar Baby” is about a woman with a goal of making something of herself, and a man who doesn’t want to deal with this woman, and finally will.

Paul Haggis, who mostly worked on TV, did the screenplay to this film and earns an Oscar nomination. I believe Swank, Eastwood and Freeman also had Oscar nomination, as did the picture and many technicians – and the original music made by Eastwood, which always does the requirement and is not a distraction.

Ebert noted, “Haggis adapted the story from Rope Burns: Stories From the Corner, a 2000 book by Jerry Boyd, a 70-year-old fight manager who wrote it as "F.X. Toole."” The dialogue is never fancy but poetic. Maggie asks Frankie, “How much she weigh?” She is asking him about the daughter he hasn’t seen in years. “Trouble in my family comes by the pound.” Look at when Frankie sees Scrap’s feet on the desk:

Frankie: “Where are your shoes?”
Scrap: “I’m airing out my feet.”

The foot conversation lasts almost a minute, which displays the film’s patience in reminding character.

Now Eastwood is helpful when it comes to his supporting characters, which help him out in painting the world that brings the realism out of it. What you never see coming is the scenes that Eastwood shares with the Catholic priest, who is simply seen as a good man. Ebert complained, “Movies all seem to put a negative spin on the clergy these days.” Frankie has gone to mass every morning and says his prayers, and Father Horvak, played by Brian F. O’Byrne, says to him that he must be carrying some guilt inside of him, since he has attended daily mass for 23 years, and that usually is the case. Frankie wants some advice from the priest at very serious time, and the priest gives him some wise insight and not church belief: “If you do this thing, you’ll be lost, somewhere so deep you will never find yourself.” Also, pay attention to when Haggis has Maggie use “Frozen,” which uneducated girls may not even utter, but that word expresses what a full paragraph couldn’t.

Movies nowadays seem to pay a lot of more attention to special effects and sensation, but this one is made about three people and what they do expresses who they are and why they are that way. It has to be everything that you would want to express. It’s very character driven, but that’s what makes the film shines since, like I had mentioned before, movies pay way more attention to the action. So definitely give this film a watch, I think you’ll love it as well.

Well, next week is the finale to Morgan Freeman month. Stay tuned and see what I could possibly end this month with.

Outbreak

I remember back in science class when I was in the seventh grade, we had watched a movie that was about the Ebola virus. I didn’t know the title to the movie until last year when I had done some research. I remember that Morgan Freeman was in it playing a superior officer to the main character, so I Google searched “Morgan Freeman Ebola Virus,” and that’s when I found the title. It was the 1995 film directed by Wolfgang Peterson, “Outbreak.”

This interesting film is, as Ebert described it, “one of the great scare stories of our time, the notion that deep in the uncharted rain forests, deadly diseases are lurking, and if they ever escape their jungle homes and enter the human bloodstream, there will be a new plague the likes of which we have never seen.”

“Outbreak” is a clever, scaring thriller about a possibility of a bug that we follow, who actually kills humans after an entire day of being exposed to it by dissolving the internal organs. This is not pretty. This bug is actually a fact. Ebert mentioned that “something similar can be found in Richard Preston's new book, The Hot Zone.” The film occupies the same area as a number of science fiction movies about deadly takeovers and high-tech schemes, but has been made smartly and appeals human magnitude.

Now it starts off 30 years ago in Africa, where American doctors travel to a small village where the villagers have been killed by this bug. They promise a cure but instead call a plane that burns the village with a firebomb. Maybe the reason could be the bug it too lethal to handle in any other way. There is no information about where the bug came from, or why it landed in this remote area, even though the village witch doctor said worryingly, “It is not good to kill the trees.” Next thing you know, it goes to present day. One of the greatest actors of all time, Dustin Hoffman, and Rene Russo (in between Lethal Weapon 3 and 4) play a newly divorced couple, who both are disease experts. Hoffman’s character, Colonel Sam Daniels, works for the Army, and Russo’s character, Roberta "Robby" Keough, just got a new job at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia. Throughout the film, we follow how their relationship is falling apart. In between the scenes, Petersen shows an African monkey that carries this deadly virus is shown illegally imported into the United States, and the smuggler, played by Patrick Dempsey, steals the monkey and takes her to California to sell on the black market, but on the way gets infected.

Now we get a montage of people that get infected from one carrier to another. This is not a funny montage, but a very scary one. The first carrier gets off a plane to Boston, he is red, sweaty, shaking and is close to not being able to stand, but obviously his girlfriend doesn’t let this disease interfere with their long kiss. Back in a small California town, an infected carrier sneezes in a movie theater, and the camera follows the germs as they make their way through the crowd. Ebert notes, “In a laboratory, a test tube breaks in a centrifuge, and a scientist is infected. And so on. I especially liked the moment when the smuggler takes one bite out of a cookie on an airplane, and a little kid asks him if he's planning to eat the rest of it.”

Soon there are reports of this deadly virus spread is seen from Boston and California. Colonel Daniels is given this case by his superior officer, played by Morgan Freeman, even though he and a colleague, played by Kevin Spacey, follow the infection and its spread. We also see glimpses of a conspiracy which is on Freeman’s own commanding officer, an evil genius general, played by another great actor, Donald Sutherland. For reasons that are never given to us, the Army is holding secrets about this virus, and also has an antidote. Unfortunately after it goes into different forms, only the monkey can be the only source as an antibody.

Petersen and his writers, Laurence Dworet and Robert Ray Pool, put together the tools of many different thrillers into one nail-biting story. Medical detectives are working, there is military conspiracy, martial and professional jealousy, and at the climax of all the action, Hoffman and his helicopter pilot, played by the very funny Cuba Gooding Jr., fly all over California and to a ship at sea, racing against time and another deadly virus spread.

You will enjoy “Outbreak,” even while you are watching yourself being manipulated. Colonel Daniels is a character we have seen so many times before; Ebert notes, “he's the military version of that old crime standby, the Cop With a Theory No One Believes In.” Sutherland plays a role that is so familiar that you can watch him playing the opposite of this character wearing a Soviet uniform in the HBO movie, “Citizen X.” But these roles are will written and acted, and Morgan Freeman is a general who is in the middle of all of this brings in the realism. He is a general that is at the crossroads of obeying instructions and his own better character.

There has got to be a law in Hollywood these days that all thrillers end with a chase. Simple dialogue-driven endings are too slow for today’s attention-deprived audiences. Ebert ended his review by saying, “I am not sure I believed the helicopter chase sequence in "Outbreak," and I am sure I didn't believe the standoff between a helicopter and a bomber (in a scene with echoes of "Dr. Strangelove"). But by then the movie had cleverly aligned its personal, military, medical and scientific plots into four simultaneous countdowns, and I was hooked.”

Well, I hope that this review was informative and you learned something new. Definitely see this film because it is one of the best. Stay tuned next week when I review another great Morgan Freeman film.