Zidane: A 21st Century Portrait (2006)

Right off the bat, let me say that you do not need to be a football fan to enjoy this film. It helps, but it is not a prerequisite.

I began watching this film thinking that it was merely going to be footage of a match in which the cameras were solely trained on Zinedine Zidane. I was pleasantly surprised when I started watching and found out this was not the case. This film does follow Zidane throughout a match from April 2005, but there is more to the cinematography and style of the film than just a bunch of nice cameras following him.

I like this film for the reason that the title gives for its purpose. Only with today's technology could we follow one player out of 22 on a field, during a game with thousands of people in attendance with such clarity and focus. The sound editing in this film is absolutely awe-inspiring, as they are able to edit the sounds down to Zidane sniffing. or his studs on the pitch. As crazy and loud as major sporting events are, this is no small feat. Also, the film quality allows the cameras to follow the action in such rich and vivid motion so that nothing is lost to the viewer. We also, on occasion, get the view of the armchair viewer, Zidane himself on the pitch, and cameramen in the stadium.

Throughout the film there are subtitles that are played, that are presumably quotes from Zidane. Never clarified, but it's a pretty safe assumption. In one, he talks about how a game is like magic, and how he only remembers pieces of games; moments. Cross our fingers, we always assume that the match we are watching is not rigged. Anything can happen on that day. The team can win or lose, the player can have a great game, or can have the worst of their career. It's not a certainty; even with a legendary player like Zidane. We get to see the spark of greatness that comes when he sets up a goal, and we get to see his volatile temper when he gets into a fight on the field and is red carded in the last throes of the match. It was all just defining moments that he would take from the game.

Through the one-player perspective, you get a great view into how they read the game. The viewer doesn't get lost in a sea of players and can watch how often the player reacts to what's going on around him. This has its drawbacks, too. You only see them reacting, not necessarily what they are reacting to. However, two great moments that come out of this close-up perspective are: 1) when Zidane tells the ref he should be ashamed after he awarded the opposing team a penalty kick which they converted into a goal, and 2) when Zidane and teammate Roberto Carlos share a genuine laugh on the field. You see it in Zidane's eyes and demeanor.

All in all, a slow and enrapturing ride along with one of football's legends. Worth a watch.

Harlem Nights (1989)

Written, directed, and starring Eddie Murphy, this film follows the exploits of club/casino owner "Sugar" Ray, played by Richard Pryor, and his son (not really) Quick, played by Eddie Murphy.

1930s Harlem. Rife with gangsters all trying to get a piece of illegal pie. "Sugar" Ray runs the hoppingest club in Harlem, and mobster Bugsy Calhoune, played by Michael Lerner, wants his share. Ray, not to be outpriced, rallies his troops and decides to scam the scammer, using whatever tricks at his disposal.

In a nutshell, that's all the story's really about. It's not difficult, it's not complex, and it's not even very well written. This film was really an excuse for Murphy to get some really great talent together and have fun. Plus, Murphy gets to play a character named Quick and shoot people. I don't think it could have been more obvious what the intentions of this movie were. No wonder he won a Razzie for Worst Screenplay, and was nominated for Worst Director. In the film's favor, it was nominated for an Oscar for Best Costume Design for Joe I. Tompkins. Murphy does seem to get that right in his films, also landing that Oscar nod for Coming To America.

Anyways, I could not believe Richard Pryor as a fatherly figure. Sorry, but maybe his past clouded my mind on this, but it's hard to let that go when the characters are so blatantly supposed to be extensions of the actors, as Murphy tried to write them. Best example of this is Redd Foxx and Della Reese as bickering duo Bennie Wilson & Vera. They were great to watch, merely because of the crap that came out of their mouths. And really, did Murphy write in all those obscenities (and I'm not a schtickler on this, but there were SO many in this film), or did the cast just improvise so much and that's what ended up coming out? But, cameos abound, even Arsenio Hall and Charles Murphy, if that could be considered a cameo.

There is no real grounding of this film in the 30s. You just have to sort of put that hope out of your mind. It's more like a 1989 costume party. Really, don't get your hopes up on even the slightest feel of believability.

Despite it all, a fun ride, if you're not looking for substance. Have low standards before viewing.