Michael Clarke Duncan passed away recently. I’ve never has the pleasure to meet him personally, but I always felt his on screen performances were something to behold. While always a “supporting” actor he often surpassed many of the people who were given top billing. I’m taking this time to go over the work he is most known for. He will be missed.
The Green Mile
Despite my love of movies, I’m fairly convinced that at least eighty percent of DVDs released every Tuesday are complete crap. It’s what makes good movies such a thrill because you’re exposed to so much crap that you’re happy when that pleasant surprise came along. At least that was what I was thinking around the thirty minute mark as I was watching “The Green Mile.” I went into this movie completely closed as to what it was about, and that is probably the best way to approach a movie. Tom Hanks’ mug shot graced the DVD cover, but that was the extent of my knowledge. It isn’t a movie that grips you from the beginning with some kind of flashy action/horror scene, but rather subtly brings you in by leaving you in the dark about what is mostly going on. It has brilliant paces, and it might actually take you a while before you realize you are watching a great well crafted film.
At first you might notice similarities between “The Green Mile” and “The Shawshank Redemption.” That is mostly because they are both directed by the same guy, are set in a prison, and are based on a Stephen King story. However many of those similarities fade as the themes and characters to this film develop so differently. There is even a supernatural element to the film’s plot that is more typical of King’s work. The characters are equally colorful if a little less grounded in reality. The cast is also very strong, and in many ways surpasses Shawshank. Tom Hanks is his usual brilliant self. Sam Rockwell’s character is a little over-the-top, but he surprises the audience by playing it so perfectly. The most surprising though was Michael Clarke Duncan who ascends from his character actor roots. 
He spends most of the movie being this gut wrenching lovable character that he steals most of the show. “The Green Mile” was supposed to be a Tom Hanks vehicle, but Mr. Duncan should be charged with carjacking.
The only real downside to this film is that it’s longer than it needs to be. It steps off the main tracks of the plot too often to concern us with subplot of decreasing interest. In particular is the plot involving a bastard of a prison guard and the struggle with the other guards dealing with him. The whole thing feels needless, doesn’t really touch on the main plot, and disappears without much of a second thought. I’m glad there was some contrast between the guard characters, but the prick didn’t need his own storyline. I felt the movie was well paced, but it trucks a haul at well over three hours. It’s worth the journey, but most films that long usually involve a war or something. It’s a well crafted, very well acted movie, and it should be viewed by movie lovers at least once. Just don’t be intimated that this movie is bigger than Michael Duncan himself.
Daredevil
I’m going to throw myself under the bus here by saying I don’t hate Ben Affleck. In fact there are only five people on my short list that I actually “hate”, and none of them are actors. The disapproval of him always seemed irrational to me and there just seems to be something I’m missing. He has been in some films that were downright terrible, but nothing that would cause me to have a general dislike over. 2003’s “Daredevil” isn’t one of those downright terrible films, but I really wouldn’t say it’s great either. There is just a strong ‘meh’ feeling to the film from the obvious lack of support this film had from on high. The film has plenty of good acting talent, but there was a lackluster effort among the effects, directing, and writing. Nothing I would blame Affleck for, but he was hardly the best thing about this movie.
“Daredevil” has always been a comic book that has been held up by its writing. The comic always felt too gritty and too real to rely on gimmicks or a sense of adventure. However, this movie tries to do exactly that by falling back on Daredevil’s sonar too often and hashes out style over substance. And the style isn’t even done that well. The vast majority of influence from the comic book came from Frank Miller’s run back in the early eighties. In fact, stuff taken straight from the comic book contains the best parts of the movie, but there just isn’t enough creativity to merge those pieces together. It just feels like used trace paper to copy half the movie, and didn’t have the talent to fill up the other half with anything good. Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner actually have some decent chemistry here, but their scenes are so poorly written that you end up not caring. Colin Farrell and Michael Clarke Duncan make really good villains, but their performances are too sparse and a tad over-the-top. In fact, that is what sums up the whole movie. This part was good, but blah blah why it wasn’t great. You can notice several good things about it, but there is always just something holding it back. Farrell and Duncan are super great actors, but, like the rest of the movie, never really live up to any kind of potential. It tries to be cool without actually being cool. Maybe that’s why some people don’t like Ben Affleck.
Sin City
Not to sound like a hipster D-bag, but I was into “Sin City” before it became cool. Many years before “Sin City” hit theaters I read “The Dark Knight Returns” and, even to this day, I still contend it is the greatest comic book ever. I hold Frank Miller in heavy esteem and his rough, dark work remains at the top of my bookshelf. That being said, I’ve never really felt his work was perfect for film. There is a great deal of interior dialogue, and frozen comic pages don’t always translate as they should to live action motion. I should do a review of “Watchmen” to expand on that last thought. Still, I was expecting to walk away from this movie thinking the books were better. I’m not saying I didn’t think that, but the movie had its fair share of surprises.
The film adaptation of “Sin City” takes three out of the six graphic novels and carefully mixes them together into one solid film. It also opens and closes with one of the short stories for good measure. “Sin City” even seems to take some ideals from “Pulp Fiction” on how to structure itself and to cast Bruce Willis. The film’s editing and structure seem brilliant in that regard and blends the stories together in a way cynics like me would have thought impossible. It also takes great pains to craft itself after the artwork from the very pages of the graphic novels. It doesn’t work in every way they intend, but the result is much better than many previous efforts in shot-for-shot adaptations. The highly abundant inter dialogue also fits beautifully into the noir film style they had chosen to go with. The clever additions of color also modernize the style to keep anything from feeling stale or old fashioned. 
The brutal and extreme nature of “Sin City” would have gone terribly with old fashioned.
Despite everything that was really good about it though, I can’t help but think there is something wrong with it. Parts of the film just felt ridiculous or out of place among the murder and rape happy characters. There just didn’t seem much room for the little comic relief there was. Also, the talking corpse of a dirty cop wasn’t Benicio del Toro’s best work, and I just view most of those scenes to be fairly awkward. “Sin City” also has a hard time denying the fact that “The Hard Goodbye” was the best of the selected trilogy. A well crafted story with a brilliant performance by Mickey Rourke. The other two stories are good, but don’t live up to the standards the first full story set.
Unless you’re squeamish, it’s hard not to recommend this movie. It’s unique, well crafted, and has a full cast of wonderful talent. I feel the movie is flawed in some way, but it’s hard to pin down where those flaws are. It’s probably because the film is so loyal to the graphic novels that I can’t see how this movie could get any better than it already is. There is just a certain amount of absorption you have when you are reading and noticing the details in a brilliant book. The movie does a good job adapting, but putting two guys in front of a green screen just doesn’t have the same effect. “Sin City” is a case of the fact that the books are better. But, in this case, it isn’t by much.
Also, in a shameless plug to myself, check out Bruce Osborne on Facebook. I post/link all my stuff there, including chapters on a book I’m working on. Feel free to hit the ‘Like’ button as if you’re an addict.
I also write publish works of fiction on my Bruce Osborne Blog. Feel free to read, follow, or even hate my stuff. I don’t care if people like it, only that they read it.
There are too many movies for me to review in full, so I created a twitter account to give brief opinions on the many movies I view. If you wish to read my smart ass remarks, follow M.O.V.I.E. Reviewer @MutantOpossum.
 LIMITED EDITION PRI… $25.00
|
 recycled vhs notebo… $7.00
|
 The Green Mile Recy… $3.00
|
 Daredevil Large $25.00
|
 Daredevil Watercolo… $45.00
|
 DareDevil $20.00
|
 Sin City movie post… $6.99
|
 Sin City – art prin… $36.00
|
