The Dressmaker

Bantucinema
The Dressmaker 6/10

Released: September 23, 2016

By William Rivers

“Great visuals, but the stitching was a hack job”

The Dressmaker was an entertaining film, but a very confusing one. I don’t mean Inception confusing, where the story is just so complex that you have to watch it a few times to understand the incredibly deep inner meaning behind ever frame of the film. I mean confusing, as in: “This movie didn’t know what it was supposed to be, and neither did anybody in the audience.” This film’s biggest issue is its tone and lack of a definable genre. IMDB has this movie listed as a Drama, and Wikipedia has it listed as a “Revenge comedy-drama”. For a while there near the end, I was going to consider the film to be a Dark Comedy for this review, but I quickly realized that the reason this movie was so weird and unsettling wasn’t the fact that it was a Dark Comedy and that’s just how it is supposed to be. The reason this film was so hard to swallow was the fact that the pacing is all over the place, and that the film goes from Drama, to quirky Comedy, to Mystery, to Romance and then finally to Dark Comedy in the last 3rd.

The Dressmaker centers on Mrytle ‘Tilly’ Dunnage (Kate Winslet), a former resident of a small town in rural Australia, who has returned to clear her name of a mysterious death that occurred when she was a child. Tilly has spent a good portion of her life travelling the world and designing couture dresses for some of the biggest names in fashion. After having been torn from her mother’s arms and exiled, she returns to find that her mother has since lost all memory of her, along with the dreadful day that ruined her life. It is up to her to discover what really happened and piece together her own memory as well as that of her mother. The people in this town are evil, to say the least, and they want nothing more than to see her and her mother disappear once and for all. However, when Tilly starts making beautiful dresses for some of the women, many of them begin to change their tune.

The film stars Kate Winslet, Judy Davis and Liam Hemsworth, along with a very well cast group of actors in supporting roles. This movie is definitely not held back by performances, even if they are a bit over the top. Everyone here plays their roles just perfectly. You can really feel the stench of hate that surrounds this disgusting little town and you can’t wait to see what Winslet’s character eventually does to punish these people. In this, and in the wonderful cinematography, the film is very successful. What is not so well put together are the motivations of these characters, and the series of events that unfold.

It is difficult to talk about this film and its problems without spoiling it for everyone, so I will boil it down to a few key points. This film has no central driving force. At the beginning you figure that once she discovers what happened to her in the past, everything will be fine and that the movie will end. Later on we start to see that there are two separate romances going on between our leads and between two supporting characters. We also find that there is a plot involving Tilly creating dresses for women in the town, and the men not liking that she is winning their wives over. Somewhere in there is a plot about saving a play that is supposed to be going on soon, and also a plot about an ongoing affair and an illegitimate child. Believe it or not, there is also a whole bunch of death in this movie.

The overarching problem stems from the fact that none of these plot threads really ever fully get resolved, save for the supposed main plot which ends halfway through the second act. You discover what happens in her past, everybody falls in love, and you’re ready to leave the theater thinking you’ve just watched a quirky and very cheesy romantic comedy with a bit of mystery thrown in. Unfortunately all of that quickly changes into a rather depressing, yet somehow still underwhelming set of miserable events and then the movie just ends. You are never able to really feel anything that is happening. Part of that has to do with the pacing, and the other part is the soundtrack.

This film’s soundtrack is all over the place. Happy music plays during serious moments. Upbeat and comedic music plays during dark and shocking events. The plot at times feels like it’s on fast forward or that you’ve skipped a few integral scenes, just before hitting you in the face with something that is supposed to be shocking but never really does the trick for you.

All in all, this movie was entertaining, but not something I will ever voluntarily watch again. It left me scratching my head wondering what even happened and why this story was even important enough to be told, and that really sucks because the performances and the cinematography were so good. There were some major symbolic moments in this film, and I really appreciated the attention to detail that was put into this. It’s just a shame that when it came to the plot and the tone, the producers didn’t seem to care what the audience would be feeling while watching. I have a feeling this movie will become a cult film sooner or later, and people will be trying to explain how, “the plot is disjointed because of how disjointed the lead character’s life is”, or something crazy like that. Quirky film making is not a cover up for sloppy film making, and that’s what this film is: Sloppy.

Kicks

Bantucinema
Kicks 10/10
Released: July 8, 2016
By William Rivers

“Got them number ones!”

This is my first ten out of ten! I sat in the theater for about 20 minutes after the movie ended trying to think of any conceivable problem that this film had. I have been as thorough as possible, and as such, I can say without a single doubt that you should definitely go see Kicks. This is a film that grabs your heart and forces you to accept truths that we all too often try to avoid. It makes you understand that there are no true villains in this world, and most importantly, this movie expresses the nature of the Black community in an exceedingly more mature fashion than I have seen put to film in quite a long time.

Kicks stars Jahking Guillory as Brandon, a fifteen year old Black boy living in Richmond, California. To him and to everyone he knows, status is everything. It always was and always will be; and among Black teens in America, your status comes greatly from what’s on your feet. Everybody wants the newest and cleanest shoes available, so when Brandon gets a chance to get his hands on a pair of classic Jordan’s for much cheaper than retail, he forks over that cash without a second thought. For a while, he’s on top of the world. Girls are finally into him, and his friends don’t bag on him about the dusty old shoes he used to wear. Brandon has got it made until some dudes from Oakland beat him up and steal the Jordan’s off his feet. Now it’s up to him to decide how far he’s willing to go to get his shoes and his status back.

The thing that Kicks does so well is portray Bay area Black folks in such a realistic light. This movie isn’t about glorifying crime and violence, but it isn’t about shaming the Black community for some of that stuff either, and that’s what is so great. These people are real. Real people have multiple reasons for the things that they do and each and every major character in this film is explored with the same level of respect and maturity that is needed for the audience to not pass judgment, but to instead look inward and see themselves in the characters’ shoes. We all have the things in our lives that make us feel important or worthy of respect. For Black men in America, respect is everything and it comes only through a handful of means, for the most part. This movie is about what it takes to get that respect, and it questions just how important all of that really is in the end. Manhood is a fragile thing, and each character displays very well what they feel their manhood revolves around and what they are willing to do to keep it.

All too often, we as a community are painted as being insultingly one dimensional. Either the whole film focuses only on the crime, or the gives us a single Black character that doesn’t seem to identify with the black community as a whole. The affect of this is that whether it is purposeful or not, the antagonist ends up being The Black Community itself, rather than the singular character that is supposed to be the source of conflict. This type of film really causes people from the outside to continue to paint us all with the same brush because they compare themselves to the protagonist, but to nobody else. This film forces you to keep your prejudices to yourself and judge the characters as people and not as stereotypes. Just when you think you have somebody pinned down, they turn around and reveal a side of themselves that you really don’t see coming. In the end, you really aren’t on anybody’s side and that shows how diverse and complicated we are as a species. There are no inherently good, nor bad people. Writers Joshua Beirne-Golden and Justin Tipping understand this, and do an amazing job expressing this great truth.

From a filmmaking standpoint, this movie is flawless. The cinematography, while not groundbreaking, was purposeful and effective. The soundtrack is extremely diverse compared to some “Black movies” that stick to a collection of predictable Rap and R&B tracks. The tone of this film is one that ranges from upbeat youthful joy to the very depths of morality at many different points in the film. The symbolism isn’t always the easiest to grasp, but it nonetheless is never something that gets in the way or takes you out of the film. This movie doesn’t hold your hand and explain everything. It respects its audience enough to think about it and understand based on their own experiences.

The supporting cast here is one of great talent. I look forward to seeing these actors in future projects. Christopher Jordan Wallace, Christopher Meyer, Kofi Siriboe, Mahershala Ali, and even Molly Shaiken perform beautifully. The writing for them is spot on, and they more than handle their given roles. I can honestly see these characters as real people living here in the Bay, and that adds a bunch to the experience.

The plot carries on at a very nice pace. I never felt bored, nor did I ever feel like something important was being overlooked. Everything that needs to happen does and the ending is surprisingly very satisfying based on the events that precede it. I 100% recommend this film to anyone who has a connection to the Black community. This isn’t a movie I think white people will like very much honestly, and that shows by how few theaters are actually playing the film. For a movie that takes place in the Bay, there is currently only one theater in the Bay Area playing it. This is a movie that is easy to miss based on its meager marketing campaign and the lack of available theaters. Please don’t let this movie slip under the rug. If we want to see more movies of this sort, we as a community, must do our best to support the filmmakers who work to bring them to us. Seek out this movie and watch it. You will not be disappointed.

Bantu Thoughts- 'Birth of a Nation' actress Gabrielle Union: "I cannot take Nate Parker rape allegations lightly"

Bantucinema
Bantu Thoughts- 'Birth of a Nation' actress Gabrielle Union: "I cannot take Nate Parker rape allegations lightly"
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-union-nate-parker-birth-nation-rape-allegation-20160902-snap-story.html
By William Rivers

This morning I read a wonderfully written Op-Ed, written by one of my favorite actresses, Gabrielle Union. Her piece revolved around the rape allegations toward Nate Parker that were recently brought back into the public eye due to the coming release of their film, Birth of a Nation. For those of you who don't already know, the film centers around the story of Nat Turner. Turner was a Virginian slave who lead a rebellion against his captures in 1831. This film is highly anticipated for its rare message of rebellion and aggressive protest that is often not spoken of, especially by those who would like to see Blacks in America simply remain quiet. There are many who believe that these allegations are reason enough to boycott the film, while others take the stance that because these allegations happened so long ago, and Parker was found guiltless in a court of law that we can't punish him in good conscience. I tow the line on whether or not Parker deserves scrutiny, simply because I wasn't there and I don't know what really happened. In her article, Gabrielle Union states this fact, but also brings a very important point to the table that seems to be often overlooked, especially by those discussing this over social media.

(Article linked above for context)

I agree with Union completely on this one. I like that she stresses the necessity of using her role in the film to teach her sons in the ways of the world and in their role as boys soon to become men. I feel that it is incredibly important that we raise our sons correctly rather than blaming the victims every time some innocent woman is raped. The "Boys will be boys" thing is bull shit and should be addressed by competent parents like Gabrielle Union.

Union mentions that even after having read the entire transcript of the court case, she doesn't know what really happened, but never-the-less will take action in productive ways to fight the issue. Too many people are ignoring this ISSUE and are just talking about not watching a movie. I've noticed over the past month since the original article was released, that people are overwhelmingly focused on the film and not on the possible victim here. If these allegations are true, then this woman suffered a traumatic experience, and subsequently left her son to be raised without her four years ago. THAT is the story. What good does not watching this movie do if people don't actually go and try to solve the problem which is the fact that rape can and often is claimed and many people will not trust in the testimony of the woman involved. Let's fix that! Passing on a movie about slaves revolting does nothing to prevent further rape, and does little to punish Nate Parker even. It simply sinks a film that is obviously causing a heap of fear in our media.

The conversation about these allegations starts with the possible victim and goes straight to the fact that many people believe not watching a film is actually taking steps to solving the broader issue. It isn't. It simply appeases your desire to say you care about something, when for 17 years, this was public information and we never brought it up. We all went to see Red Tails and nobody mentioned this. I was even thinking while reading the article, that Gabrielle Union signed on to this film and worked with Nate Parker for however many years, and had no idea that these allegations were even made. This information is on his Wikipedia page! Even people who worked for him didn't know about it. Was this information that important to us or them for all 17 years that Parker has been making films, or are we simply joining the lynch mob because some reporters told us to do so?

That is a genuine question that we should all ask ourselves. Once again, I have no answers and frankly have no authority to be speaking on rape at all as a cis male who has experienced no such circumstances and stands to benefit from the privileges of this sick rape culture. I am simply asking why so many people feel that boycotting the film is the end of the story. Are you really standing up for the victim by not seeing it, and more importantly was this information relevant to you for the past 17 years or are you conjuring up imitation dedication at the last minute? We SHOULD have known about this and judged Parker throughout his entire career and the fact that we didn't is appalling! I'm just as guilty of not looking into this sooner.

Gabrielle Union names Nate Parker only a few times in her article. She doesn't curse him or threaten him or the production. She explains what SHE can do about the issue which is rape culture and asks us all to do something as well. If Nate Parker did this, I pray he gets what is coming to him tenfold. Since we don't have a single fact on the matter,but are getting Facebook angry over a 17 year old story that some random news network brought up to tell us not to go see a movie, maybe we should actually go educate somebody or at the very, least stop ignoring the real problem and do something about THAT. Being mad on Facebook and staying home during the theatrical release just to catch it in Netflix or at a friend's house next year, while only taking a moment to grumble about how you stood up for what was right before pressing play, does nothing but serve your ability to look in the mirror and say, "I'm a good person."

I agree with and respect Gabrielle Union's words on the matter and urge you all to read it if you haven't already. I don't know if I'm going to see this movie or not. I do know that when I have a son, he will know what is right and what is wrong, and if he commits a crime of this nature, he will be severely dealt with by his father whether the justice system does its job correctly or not.

Creep

Bantucinema
Creep 6.5/10
Released: March 8, 2014
By William Rivers

“Why the Hell wouldn't you turn around???”

Creep is a rare achievement. It takes a genre that is very tired, (especially at the time of release) and gives it a revitalizing take. Written by Mark Duplass and Patrick Kack-Brice, Creep is one of a handful of “Found footage” films that have no such paranormal elements. This is a great thing because the seminal thing that holds the genre back as a whole is its reliance on using ghosts and witches to amp up the scares. Ultimately, we all pretty much know that nothing in the film is real, and with how many of these films had been coming out at the time, the gimmick was quickly wearing off. More than anything else, Creep’s strengths come from the fact that there is really nothing scarier than something we can all relate to.

The film stars its writers, Patrick Brice (Aaron) and Mark Duplass (Josef). Aaron is a typical guy looking to make a little extra cash by taking a camera work job on Craigslist. When he arrives at the location, a home deep in the woods and far away from any towns or cities, he meets Josef. Josef is a guy that we all sadly know. He’s the guy at work who is always leaning into your cubicle asking you when you guys are going to hangout again, when you know that it’s never going to happen. He’s the guy who likes every one of your posts on Facebook and Instagram and tags you in childish videos even though you’re not that close. He’s the guy you just can’t help but be nice to because you feel sorry for him, even though at the end of the day, you probably end up going off on him for just being too abrasive. We can all conjure the thought of being alone in that guy’s home for the first time. I’m sure you just did, and you cringed at the thought of how uncomfortable it would be. This film brings that uncomfortable feeling and makes you deal with it for 80 minutes.

Josef is a weirdo in the worst ways, but is played so well by Mark Duplass that there are many times when you almost forgive him for this quality. This film is really good at putting you into Aaron’s shoes. You can tell that from the shaky impression made at the very start, Aaron isn’t all that thrilled to have taken this job and really just wants to be done with it. As the film progresses through to it’s second act though, both Aaron and the audience really start to see past the weird and into the tragic soul of a man who’s just too nice and too thoughtful for anybody to handle. Josef spouts philosophical beliefs that ultimately give decent explanations for his overly energetic demeanor. It isn’t until all is revealed that Aaron realizes just who he’s dealing with.

This film shines because of its believable writing and its ability to put you right into the mind of its protagonist. Aaron is a great guy, but he’s pretty stupid. There are more than a few times where he decides to take his camera with him into a dark area in search of his attacker rather than putting the damn thing down, and either running away or going after him with a blunt object. These are the moments when the gimmick begins to show, as it is clear that this is meant to build tension. It does this very well, but it does make you question the realism of the situation because you know that nobody in this position would be worried about keeping that camera on.

Despite its very suspenseful run, the ending isn’t the most satisfying one, and that is really what brings the film down a few pegs. Overall, Creep is a great ride filled with a wonderful performance by Patrick Brice and some gripping suspense. Again, it’s really nice to get out of the haunted house and into the home of a real guy with real problems. If only our main character had a bit more sense, our emersion into his circumstances would have likely never been broken. I would definitely recommend this to anybody who doesn’t mind being jumpy for over an hour, and to anybody who may need another reason to leave well alone, and never go anywhere with the creepy guy at work.

Don’t Think Twice

Bantucinema
Don’t Think Twice 7.5/10
Released: July 22, 2016
By William Rivers

“Hilariously absurd; Touchingly human.”

Don’t Think Twice is a film about people. It epitomizes what friendship is, in a way that doesn’t sugar coat the hard times, nor stifle the easy ones. The film stars Mike Birbiglia (Miles), Gilian Jacobs (Samantha), Kate Micucci (Allison), Tami Sagher (Lindsay), and Keegan-Michael Key (Jack) as a tightly-knit improv team on the verge of losing their beloved theater due to lack of funds. Throughout the course of the film we see the struggles that they face when Jack moves on to become a cast member on an SNL-type show called Weekend Live. As they all forge the paths toward the rest of their lives, they begin to discover things about themselves in a way that we can all deeply relate to in one way or another.

The cast here is one of great chemistry. You really feel like these people are all friends and have been for many years. These are the unbreakable theater kids you knew or were one of in high-school, still following their dreams as best as they can. Their joint sense of humor is one that is remarkably refreshing, because it shines no matter what is going on in the film. Even during the worst of times, they are friends and they use their tried and true tactics to cheer each other up in a way that is often a bit confusing to the audience. This is by no means a criticism though. We all have those jokes that can only be told in a certain company. We all have those weird quirks that only come out when we are among our closest friends. Whether it’s sarcastic fun making or morbid jokes at the most inappropriate of times, it is clear that the writer here understands people and knows how to display to the audience a deeply believable bunch of companions.

Individually, the actors’ performances are good but not great. At times they seem to be a bit too awkward in a way that makes them seem like they are trying too hard to be dramatic. I know that these are very good actors, but at times it is clear that their hilarious television personas and the people they become on stage are the real stars here. Drama isn’t really their strongest suit, but when the film needs to grab you by the heart, it does so with masterful skill. Again, I chalk that up to the chemistry between the members of the group. Improv, as they explain, is not about one performer, it is about the entire team. The film itself and its characters display this truth very well and as a result, you are rarely too thrown by any cheesy lines or odd reactions.

I would definitely recommend this film to anyone who is or has been interested in stage performing. It is something that is heavily relatable and touching. All of that is supported brilliantly by the cinematography. Mike Birdiglia is the writer and director, and it shows. He makes very good use of the wide angle shots and the whole film in general really feels like a single vision, unlike many films that have a bunch of different people behind the camera. It all culminates in a glorious whole that makes you think about your own life and put yourself in the shoes of these characters. The road ahead is scary at times, and this movie doesn’t cover that truth up. It displays it with clarity and realism, but reminds us to take a break from the chaos every now and then, and just have a good laugh.

Bantu Thoughts- Why Spider-Man Could Be Black, but Tony Stark Could Not

Bantucinema
Bantu Thoughts- Why Spider-Man Could Be Black, but Iron-Man Could Not
By William Rivers

So this article comes to you because of the recent unsurprising outrage at the fact that Zendaya has been cast as Mary Jane Watson in the upcoming Spider-Man films. Of course we aren't going to mention the fact that Zendaya is half white and half Black and therefore by the same standards that white people have toward mixed Black people (Being that even a drop of Black blood makes you Black), Zendaya is just as white as she is Black, and could even be considered to be straight up white if she so chose to be. (Of course these dumb rules don't go both ways, but I can dream.)

The issue that I'd like to address today is the difference between white-washing a character of color and changing a typically white character into a person of color in film. In the case of white-washing, there is likely never a good reason for doing that simply because of the extended cultural status that whiteness holds in the world today. Changing any character of color into a white person for the screen, would not only be offensive to the person involved (Being the historical figure of the creator of the character in question), but would also be an offense toward the entire race. You in this case would be erasing all of the important elements of this character/person's backstory that are directly involved in their race. Furthermore, changing any character with multifaceted race related character traits to another creed would be detrimental to the character involved.

To all of you out there who seem to not understand that last sentence: There are very specific differences between people of different races both inside and outside of the United States, and those differences are not just skin deep.

For my examples I'm going to be using Spider-Man and Iron-Man; two originally white characters who are well known and from the same universe. To start out, the seminal gauge for whether or not you can change the race of the character is figuring out whether or not their character traits are directly related to their race. Peter Parker (Spider-Man) is described as a nerdy high school boy, living in New York City, who is picked on and has never felt strong. His Uncle was murdered due to his inaction, and because of this he is using his new found powers to protect the citizens of NYC. Tony Stark (Iron-Man) is described as a billionaire tech genius and weapons tycoon. He comes from a long line of rich and powerful inventors who revolutionized weapons technology. He was following in his father's footsteps until one of his own weapons was used to injure him, he was kidnapped and forced to build weapons for international criminals. Instead he used his skills to build himself a suit of robotic armor that would allow him to escape, and protect the world from the types of weapons he spent his life learning to build.

Now you will notice that neither of those characters had any parts of their story that had to do with them being racially profiled, or discriminated against. This is because race having a direct influence on a character isn't something that can be easily seen by just anybody. There are nuances to every group of people that have to do with history and culture and the problem with the majority of white writers is that when they try to write for POC, they simply write for a white character, add in a few anecdotes about having been stereotyped by white people, or having family members on drugs or in prison, and call it a day. They don't know that there non-stereotypical nuances to the speech patterns, experiences, and thoughts and actions of every different race of people. Hence why Peter would be a great Black character and Tony would not.

Brought to my attention about a year ago while watching a video by Tim E. Kish, Peter Parker's story would be greatly enhanced if he were a Black character instead of the traditional white character that he always was. See the problem with characters that were created a long time ago is that most of them were white because most writers were white and whiteness in America is a default trait. It is one that isn't even mentioned. The value in that is that Peter's character has no overt nor subtle references to his whiteness. Peter Parker being an extremely intelligent, nerdy Black high-schooler in 2016 would be a very compelling character. He would have to deal with not being looked at as cool by his fellow Black classmates who don't talk like him nor show interest in the things he likes that aren't traditionally "Black" things. He would be an outcast both in his own community and in the community of whites in his school because he would be too "Black" to fit in with them and too "White" to hang out with the Black kids. Outside of school would be even worse because while being on the up and up, hew would be constantly stereotyped and treated as a criminal by the outside world. On TV he would see images of fellow Black men and women being shot down in the street by fearful police officers. If he was trying to do some good in the world, people still wouldn't trust him simply based on what he looks like. He would truly be the outcast that 50s white Peter Parker apparently was simply being a nerd. Peter's only salvation would be from having been blessed with super-human powers, because when he puts on that mask, nobody can see what he looks like underneath. For the first time, he would be judged for his actions rather than his skin. He would be loved by all people regardless of race. The only down side would be that people would still assume he was a white guy underneath. 

I don't know about you, but that seems like a very compelling character journey that I would love to see play out. As I said the 50s nerdy white kid thing doesn't work anymore. That's why people like Toby Maguire as Spider-Man and fewer people liked Andrew Garfield. I personally like Andrew Garfield's performance more because it feels real and less like the 90s geek stereotype that Maguire was. The only way to make that believable would be to make Peter another stereotype of a fat card game playing nerd of today, which wouldn't be pleasing for today's audience to watch. Being an intelligent, non threatening Black male in America is to be an outcast. Making him Black would not only not hurt the character but would enhance the character greatly.

Tony on the other hand makes considerably less sense as a Black person. Tony Stark comes from a long line of successful business owners and inventors. He was a billionaire before he even grew up and rode on his father's success until he finally made a name for himself with his Iron-Man armor. Yes anybody can be as intelligent as he is, but it is a lot less likely that a POC, specifically a Black man, would have such a long line of American business owners. It's just not quite something that most people would be able to buy because of the nation's history so far. If it were to work out, you would need to drastically change his backstory, which wouldn't be very respectful to the creators of the character.

As you can hopefully see, if the change will aid in the character's already existing theme, then any such change should be welcome. This isn't specifically against white people nor white characters, the way that many people seem to believe as they rant about Zendaya on Twitter. Representation is a good thing in any case, and there have always been an abundance of cultures that could have been pulled from over the years. Honestly, writers in the past have caused this shift on their own. If they had written their white characters to have a deeper and more culturally involved character arch, then they wouldn't be able to be changed. It is because of them that whiteness is seen as the default trait in any character created in this country. "White" isn't a trait connected to Peter or Tony because people already expect him to be just "white". That word doesn't honestly mean much of anything, but without diving into Tony's roots, we will never know what depth could have been captured. The tragedy of this country is the Europeans come here and become just another white person, where as everyone else (who may want to just become one of the many) come here and are never allowed to forget their differences. Differences are a good thing, at least it seems that more and more filmmakers are striving to utilize this fact.

Temptation: Confessions of a Marriage Counselor

Bantucinema
Temptation: Confessions of a Marriage Counselor 4/10
Released: March 29, 2013
By William Rivers

“Don’t cheat, or else you’ll get HIV”

I really don’t think Tyler Perry should be writing relationship movies. It’s not that I don’t respect him as a filmmaker or as an entertainer. I fully respect him as I respect any black man or woman who creates art. I simply feel that his films featuring family drama are great, but the ones focused on a single relationship the whole time, suffer from overdramaticized finger wagging.

Temptation is a film about many things. It is about how bad it is to cheat on your spouse. It is also about how getting married too soon can be a terrible choice. It is also about how a man should treat his wife as a queen and not forget her birthday. It could also be about not falling for the man who openly lies to you about his intensions because once you do, you will immediately spiral out of control and end up cursing at your mother, becoming addicted to drugs, getting HIV and dying alone and ugly. There are a lot of messages in this movie, and many of them contradict one another. Worse than that, they are all very forced.

Where should I begin?

Temptation stars Jurnee Smollet-Bell(as Judith), Lance Gross (Brice), and Robbie Jones (Harley). Judith and Harley were two down-home, southern kids who fell in love at an early age. They knew each other the better part of their lives and got married just in time to move to the big city. Brice soon becomes boring, (I guess) and because of this, Judith is increasingly tempted by Harley, a rich and handsome tech genius, akin to Mark Zuckerburg without the weird face. The problems with this film are not due to poor dialogue or poor direction (Although those aren’t the best either). The issues mainly come from the conflicting plot elements and overly extreme explanations for character choices.

One of the problems that Judith sees with her marriage is that her husband doesn’t stand up for her. They encounter some men who rudely cat-call her on the street, and Brice simply pulls her to the car telling her not to get upset. He seemed more worried that the men may have been armed than about defending his wife’s honor. Her answer to all of this is Harley, who turns into a psychotic gorilla, threatening a man who accidentally crashed into Judith on his bike. Judith was running without looking ahead of her, so it was her fault in the first place. After Harley attacks this man, Judith has to jump in and stop him. This is just one of a plethora of extremes Tyler Perry throws our way expecting us to understand and make the right choices. Yeah, her husband should stand up for her, but should he have gone straight to attacking innocent bicyclists? Later on, Harley continues to make passes at Judith in his home, and she calls him on his crap by pointing out that he has high heeled shoes and earrings left behind from previous female guests. She sees straight up and early on that he is a player who will say anything to get what he wants, and later she goes along with it anyway.

This woman is way too easily influenced. Harley tells her that sex should be spontaneous, so she immediately goes home and jumps her husband, hitting him in the face to try to arouse him. It is treated as a negative when he refuses to go along with this nonsense, as if he is boring because he doesn’t like getting smacked in the face out of nowhere. Later, when Harley literally sexually assaults her on a plane, she shoves him away screaming for help, he says “Now you can say it wasn’t your idea,” and then she goes ahead and has sex with him. Is this what Tyler Perry thinks is a good way to have sex? If Brice was boring, then what is Harley? We all know that Harley is the bad guy, but do we really? Throughout a good portion of the film, Brice seems to be the only one doing anything wrong as we see Judith and Harley have long conversations filled with real chemistry. It really isn’t until the end, when he gets her strung out on drugs and shoves Judith’s mother to the ground that the film actually expresses that Judith made the wrong choice. After one night with Harley, Judith is wearing dark makeup out of nowhere, has an uncaring demeanor and is now cursing at her mother and turning from the Lord! Since when does one night of infidelity totally change your personality?

I believe that the seminal issue here is that Tyler Perry likes having a number of characters to bounce ideas off of. Films like “Why Did I Get Married?” are very good because he has a lot of different relationships going on and a lot of different messages that pertain to each situation. Relationships are definitely complex and the right thing isn’t always what you’d expect. This film would have worked if there was one couple who had a boring marriage and the wife ended up cheating on her husband, but finding a man who treated her right and was exciting in all the right ways. It would have worked if there was also woman who fell for a man who was a player, and in doing this was enticed to do things she hadn’t previously been comfortable with and fell into a hole she couldn’t easily climb out of. These are both real situations that occur, and if done right, this film could have expressed them both properly. Instead we get a mashed up combination of the two that doesn’t make sense, and instead becomes almost offensive.

(Spoiler Alert! Not like you’d actually be missing out on a worthwhile experience) In the end, Judith is a sad and lonely woman. She now wears ugly plaid blazers and giant 80s secretary glasses. Through a confusing subplot that was supposed to be a twist, Harley gives Judith HIV, and she is seen buying medication from a now happily remarried Brice. She walks down the street in misery while the final credits role.

WHAT???

This movie shows us two men who are both not completely right for her, and a woman who listens to everybody right off the bat, causing her to lose her marriage, relationship with God, health and fashion sense basically after one night. What kind of screwed up message is that? These two had legitimate marital problems, but instead of even bringing up the possibility of forgiveness and marriage counseling, Tyler Perry just punishes her for falling for the trick that he even had us believing in for a while. No one in life is inherently good nor bad, but when your messages are so openly shoved down your viewer’s throats, you sort of have to pick some basic conventions that will express what you are trying to say with each character. Nobody ended up being likeable here. We didn’t even really feel happy for Brice in the end because his happiness was staged on top of Judith’s misery!

And why in all holy Hell is Kim Kardashian in this movie??

Temptation had too many ideas for two people to experience in one film. I would recommend this movie only to people who would like to laugh at the absurdity of it all, and at how quickly characters will give up on who they are inside. The only saving graces in this film are actors who know what they are doing, but are unfortunately stuck to read from a script that severely limits their talents, and a single scene of exposition that isn’t just somebody telling us about a character. At least, I was able to sit through it, so there’s that.