REVIEW: BARBERSHOP - In my preview a couple weeks ago, I ridiculously compared the new Ice Cube movie Barbershop to Smoke (dir. Wayne Wang), only with more jokes. Granted, they both center around a group of people, almost exclusively male, who hang out, share knowledge, and trade insults in traditional neighborhood establishments – Smoke in a cigar store in Brooklyn; Barbershop in, well, a barbershop on the South Side of Chicago. But a more fitting comparison would be the barbershop scenes from Coming to America, where Eddie Murphy and Arsenio Hall play multiple characters, lifted out and extended over the course of one day. Cedric The Entertainer’s character in particular, a seen-it-all, know-it-all barber named Eddie, could have been an extra from America. It's only too bad that Cedric, with his affected old man's voice and gray-ish hair, never really had me convinced he was an old-school barber -- just a younger actor acting like an old man -- which distracted me considerably from his jokes. Barbershop has other problems, chief among them a near disastrous beginning that has two (or three?) characters trying to steal an ATM from a neighborhood convenience store. The sequence is shot deliberately to keep the characters in the dark, so that we just hear their voices, because director Tim Story doesn't want us to know who all is involved in the crime. (One of the movie's subplots involves a two-time felon named Ricky, who Ice Cube's character, Calvin, has given a job as a barber, and whether he reverted to his criminal ways and helped steal the ATM.) The result is a chaotic, unintelligible waste of two minutes; it might be one of the worst openings to a good movie ever. Actually, the whole ATM subplot just should have been excised from the story completely. The movie alternates between the main storyline -- Calvin selling the barbershop his father left to him to a slimy "businessman" named Lester (Keith David), then trying to get it back -- and the two bumbling criminals who spend the whole movie trying, unsuccessfully, to pry open the ATM. Only a handful of the jokes involving these two made me laugh, and, on the whole, these scenes just distracted from the more interesting story of Calvin trying to figure out what to do with his barbershop, a place he has somewhat ambivalent feelings toward because it was his father's dream, not his. What ultimately saves the movie is that most of the dialogue in the barbershop, especially the in-fighting between an elitist, highly-educated barber named Jimmy (Sean Patrick Thomas) and the shop's lone white guy, Isaac (Troy Garrity), is quite funny. But what pleased me the most is that Barbershop didn't settle for the easy ending when it would have been so convenient to do so. As soon as Calvin learns that he has to come up with $40,000 to re-purchase his shop, I was sure the big finale was going to be one of those, "Hey, let's all pitch in and do a big fundraiser that will revitalize the community and get the barbershop back!" The cliched, sappy ending was sitting there with a big red bow on it, but the filmmakers chose a different ending -- one that is still positive, but more consistent with the overall tone of the movie, which is the tone that you get when two or more guys try to one-up each other with clever insults. They may be dissing each other, but a certain level of respect and comfort has to exist in order for the dynamic to work.

E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

DE NIRO VS. PACINO REDUX - About three weeks ago (9/5), I posited the question, "Which Godfather needs a new agent?" It was basically a response to a local movie critic remarking in his review of Simone that Al Pacino had acted in a string of unforgettable roles over the last ten years -- a statement not supported by Pacino's resume, which includes Scent of a Woman, Glengarry Glen Ross, Donnie Brasco, The Insider, and Heat. I went on to point out how, despite being one of the best actors ever, Robert De Niro has been in more unforgettable movies over the last decade or so, much to the chagrin of one of my readers. I'm revisiting this debate because ESPN.com Page 2 writer Bill Simmons -- by far the most entertaining, plugged-in sports/pop culture columnist on the planet right now -- provides a comprehensive assessment in today's column. Scroll down about halfway to where you see this question from one of his readers: Q: My friends and I loved the "Cheers" vs. "Seinfeld" debate that you wrote a couple of months ago. But what about the ultimate Dr. Jack breakdown: Pacino vs. De Niro? Good stuff.

E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

BARBERSHOP CONTROVERSY - I had planned to go into some detail today about the movies I intend to see at the upcoming Chicago Film Festival. However, my delinquency in posting my review of Barbershop, the #1 movie at the box office the past two weekends, coupled with the fact that the movie has generated a bit of a controversy in the black community, compels me to finally write about it. Apparently, quite a few prominent African-Americans, including Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, are angered about two different scenes, totaling two minutes of screen time, in which a grizzled old barber named Eddie (Cedric the Entertainer) calls Martin Luther King Jr. a "whore," and demeans Rosa Parks by saying that "all she did was sit her black ass down." I happened to be flipping channels last night around 6 pm and both MSNBC and CNN were doing full segments about it, which I suppose doesn't really mean much in the era of 24-hour news channels when any story can be hyped into a controversy to fill time. On MSNBC, Brian Williams was interviewing columnist Mary A. Mitchell from the Chicago Sun-Times --the movie was shot on the city's South Side -- who defended the film's right to skewer revered African-Americans like Parks and King, and a talk show host from Radio One whose name I have conveniently forgotten. The radio host's basic contention was that Parks and King were such important figures in the civil rights movement that any type of disrespect toward them is irresponsible. Furthermore, the filmmakers should consider removing the two offending minutes before the movie is released on video and DVD. Frankly, listening to his arguments made my head hurt. As others have surely pointed out, what these outraged pundits are completely overlooking is the context of Eddie's derogatory statements. From the first time he opens his mouth, Eddie is clearly the movie's fool; everything he says is questionable in its truthfulness and is subsequently dismissed by the barbershop's patrons and other employees. And what happens when he launches into his rants about Parks and King? Everybody in the joint dismisses his claims and more than one person then provides an intelligent counter-argument. That people can get this worked up over something clearly meant to be a harmless joke, delivered by a character who has absolutely no credibility, just stupefies me. The radio host explained it was his understanding that Eddie's dialogue was not even in the original script, and he believed it was added at the last minute to make a political statement. First, the fact that it wasn't in the original screenplay only confirms what I suspected at the time, which is that Cedric the Entertainer improvised the dialogue. Second, there's absolutely no way that the filmmakers were actually trying to call into question the contributions of Parks or King. Cedric's goal was simply to provoke laughs, which should have been obvious to anyone watching the movie. And he got laughs because his statements were so ridiculous that everyone in the barbershop and the audience thought he was foolish. It's not as if the lines were spoken by Ice Cube, the movie's main character, in an impassioned speech about the fallacy of black leaders. It was meant as a joke, and I hope the filmmakers are firm enough in their convictions to keep the lines in the movie. How sad is it that a movie written, directed, produced by and starring black people -- a movie that has achieved mainstream success -- is being attacked by the same people who arguably should be praising it the most? So, is the movie any good? Check back later for my review.

E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

MY CHICAGO FILM FEST SCHEDULE - Every year the Chicago International Film Festival kicks off its festivities with an opening night tribute and screening. This year the gala is Friday, October 4 at 8 pm, and CS will be there to soak up all the pretentious film fun. Then again, maybe "pretentious" isn't the appropriate word for this year's event. Last year's honoree was Chicago's own David Mamet, who was showing off his latest film Heist. How cool would it have been to attend that little shindig? Despite my disdain for The Spanish Prisoner and the uneven reaction I had to Heist, Mamet's still one of the most exciting filmmakers around, whether it be as a screenwriter, director, or both. And, of course, he's one of the most important American playwrights...well...ever. So who did this year's organizers decide to honor with their Career Achievment Award? 007 himself, Pierce Brosnan. The movie Brosnan is promoting isn't his latest Bond effort, Die Another Day, but a little Irish movie called Evelyn that sounds halfway decent, if a little too weepy. Directed by Bruce "Driving Miss Daisy" Beresford, Evelyn is based on the true story of a man named Desmond Doyle in 1950s Ireland who lost his wife, his job, and then his kids because of some inane law called the Irish Children Act. The Irish courts and Catholic Church apparently believed it was better for Doyle's three children to be raised in orphanages than to be without a mother. But rather than hit the pub and drown his sorrows in Guiness, Doyle decided to fight the power and try to get the act overturned. It figures to be a real tearjerker with a little bit of courtroom drama thrown in. Hopefully, Beresford can restrain himself and let the story and actors do the work. I'm not counting on it. The supporting cast is solid, though, with Aidan Quinn, Stephen Rea, and Alan Bates, who I had the pleasure of seeing in Ibsen's The Master Builder in London's West End in 1995. Former ER nurse Julianna Marguiles also appears as a "tough but sweet barmaid." As if there was any other kind. Brosnan is no David Mamet, but I suppose I shouldn't complain -- a few years ago they honored Richard Gere.

Below is a list of the other movies I plan to see over the two-week festival, with more likely to be added. I'll have reviews of each movie posted here on CinemaScoped as I see them.

Monday, Oct. 7 -- Bowling For Columbine (Michael Moore)
Tuesday, Oct. 8 -- Punch-Drunk Love (P.T. Anderson)
Wednesday, Oct. 9 -- Bloody Sunday (Paul Greengrass)
Thursday, Oct. 10 -- Roger Dodger (Dylan Kidd)
Saturday, Oct. 12 -- Auto Focus (Paul Schrader)
Wednesday, Oct. 16 -- Rabbit-Proof Fence (Philip Noyce)

Now I'm just waiting for the e-mail from someone wanting to know why, if it's called the Chicago International Film Festival, am I only bothering to see four American movies, one from Australia, and one from Great Britain/Ireland? Maybe by tomorrow when I go into detail on each movie listed above, I'll have a respectable answer.

E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum

WEEKEND MOVIES - I don't know if it's because I'm too excited about the films I'm going to see at the upcoming Chicago International Film Festival (more on this tomorrow), or that I don't have the connections to see movies for free in Chicago like I had in Iowa City, but nothing about this past weekend's new movies looked interesting to me -- interesting enough, anyway, to actually shell out $9 to see them. The synopsis for the movie Trapped features this great line: "Three locations, three kidnappers, three hostages - one family and a chilling, breakneck 24 hours until it's all over." I gotta hand it to Columbia's marketing people, it almost makes the movie sound interesting, doesn't it? Kevin Bacon stars as one of the kidnappers, with Charlize Theron as the kidnapped girl's mother. Who knows what Bacon is doing with his career these days? With apologies to Paul Verhoeven-Hollow Man fans, he really hasn't made a decent film since 1995's Apollo 13. And then there's Theron, who might actually be the worst actress in Hollywood right now. Her performances in The Legend of Bagger Vance and Cider House Rules are textbook bad acting. In The Banger Sisters, Susan Sarandon and Goldie Hawn play two former '60s groupies who reunite and reminisce about their infamous pasts when Hawn's character is faced with a life crisis. Enough said. The unfortunately titled spy movie Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever, with Lucy Liu and Antonio Banderas, is so bad it actually hasn't garnered a single positive review yet on Rotten Tomatoes. Maybe this doesn't surprise you that much, but at least one critic, usually writing for some fringe Internet site (like this one), always finds something to recommend about even the worst dreck. But here's Ballistic with 65 reviews and not one critic liked it. (Click here to see a list of other movies with 0 "fresh" reviews.) I saved The Four Feathers for last because it's the one new movie I might break down and see at some point because the subject matter -- British colonialism in North Africa, ten years before Khartoum -- is somewhat interesting and Rick McGinnis over at Movieblog listed it, along with Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine, as the movie he is most looking forward to this fall during my CinemaScoped Critics & Reader's Poll.
There are two things keeping me from being too excited about this movie: 1) I wasn't as enamored as everyone else with director Shekhar Kapur's last movie, the best picture nominated Elizabeth (1998). Frankly, I thought it was over-directed and far more confusing than it needed to be. 2) The cast -- Heath Ledger, Kate Hudson, and Wes Bentley -- conjurs for me the phrase "junior varsity." Apparently, Katie Holmes, Joshua Jackson, and everyone else from Dawson's Creek was unavailable. OK, that's not completely fair. I enjoyed Bentley as the moody misfit Ricky in American Beauty, and loved Hudson in Almost Famous. Even Ledger impressed me with a brief role as Billy Bob Thornton's son in last year's Monster's Ball. But those were all supporting roles, and something about all three of these young actors taking on British accents scares me. Reviews have been less than stellar so far, with only 42 out of 102 positive. Elvis Mitchell of The New York Times writes: "The picture's wheezing fussiness and devotion to the British empire and its minor nods to questioning unthinking loyalty to an ideal make The Four Feathers a possible first of a kind: a movie that's halfhearted about ambivalence." On a similar note, Salon's Charles Taylor says: "For all of the contemporary post-colonialist consciousness that Kapur tries to bring to The Four Feathers, the oddest thing about the movie is how it winds up affirming the same damn moldy values the material has always held dear." The cinematography should be luscious though with Robert Richardson's (Oliver Stone's cinematographer of choice, currently working on QT's Kill Bill) careful eye surveying all of that desert.


E-mail CinemaScoped@hotmail.com or start a discussion in the Feedback Forum