Thandie Newton in treating Ball 2011Pics Thandie Newton is in style at the Met Ball held at the Metropolitan Museum of Art on Monday in New York City.The 38-year-old British actress, who wore a Stella McCartneydress, walked the red carpet in Jimmy Choo's Chief Creative Officer Tamara Mellon.
Over the weekend, after watching I Can Do Bad All by Myself, my sister-in-law remarked that “Tyler Perry is always one step away from making a really good movie” to which I countered that it is more like two or three steps…and that is being generous. Still I could see what she was trying to get at. Every one of his films has the potential to be great, yet Perry’s knack for over stating the obvious does him in every single time. Truth be told, I have yet to see a Tyler Perry directed movie that I have liked. Despite this I think Hollywood needs more directors like Perry.
Now you may be wondering why would I want more Tyler Perry’s in the film industry when I cannot stand the one we current have? This is a question I have struggled with myself on several occasions. Unfortunately the answer is not that simple. On one hand I am constantly annoyed by the same formula that occurs in the majority of his films. There is always a woman who is in relationship with a man that the entire world can see is bad. How bad is he? Well Perry usually makes him an adulterer, wife beater, rapist, drunk, or some combination of these traits. The woman is often the victim until she realizes her self-worth and fights back. Usually this realization is achieved through the aide of a good looking blue collar guy who the woman cannot stand at first but eventually falls in love with. Also, let’s not forget there is always the influence of a few spiritual gurus.
As overdone as this formula is, Tyler Perry’s films consistently make a huge profit at the box-office. Perry continues to taps into a market that Hollywood routinely, and foolishly, neglects…the African-American female demographic. Tyler Perry is one of the few, I would even argue, the only, commercial male director working today who places African-American women at the forefront of his film. If you look at the current crop of actors and actresses headlining movies nowadays, how many lead black actresses can you name besides Halle Berry? Angela Bassett? She has not headlined a major film in years. How about Kerry Washington? Zoe Saldana? Taraji P. Henson? Thandie Newton? All of whom are talented actresses but can you name a major non-animated film that they were the lead in? It is far easier to list off the numerous films that featured the likes of Charlize Theron, Angelina Jolie, Jennifer Aniston, and even newcomers like Carey Mulligan in the lead. Most of, if not all of, there films play to large audiences worldwide.
African-American actresses, heck actresses in general, have gotten the short end of the stick for years in the film industry. This is why we need more guys like Tyler Perry in Hollywood. Directors who are interested in telling stories that not only feature African-American actresses in prominent roles; but are accessible to all demographics. Preferably ones who are far better filmmakers than Perry, but you get the point. This is by no means a plea for affirmative action in film, it is merely an observation as to why Tyler Perry is able to turn out films faster than Woody Allen these days.
When watching a Tyler Perry film, I am constantly reminded about how the first Sex and the City movie was underestimated by the Hollywood pundits. Once that film made a huge splash at the box-office, Hollywood was more than happy to fast track films and television shows that appealed to the modern single woman. The same can be said for the whole Twilight phenomenon. Now studios are itching to find the next big thing that teenage girls will go crazy for. Yet the large number of women who are pouring billions into Tyler Perry’s pockets are still being underserved by Hollywood. Why is this? Love him or hate him, Tyler Perry is the only one who has tapped into a lucrative market that few directors have even considered to touch.
There is nothing worse in the horror genre than a film that does not invoke a sense of dread. As much as it pains me to say it, Vanishing on 7th Street is one of lackluster films where the only way you will feel a chill down your spine is if the theatre’s air condition system is cranked to max. Vanishing on 7th Street was disappointing because it was high on my list of must see films. I even passed on Danny Boyle’s much hyped 127 Hours and a few other stellar films in the TIFF selection process for Vanishing. As the saying goes, be careful what you wish for.
The premise of the film is by far the most interesting aspect of the film. A city suffers a power outage and by time the back-up generators start the majority of the population has disappeared. All that is left is their clothes, vehicles, cellphones, etc. After 72 hours without power, and the with the menacing darkness quickly expanding, four survivors (Hayden Christensen, Thandie Newton, John Leguizamo, and Jacob Latimore) must figure out a way to elude the darkness and get out of the city.
One of the main reasons I was so eager to see Vanishing on 7th Street was due to the fact that is was directed by Brad Anderson. His work on films such as Session 9, and The Machinist, as well as his contribution to shows like Fringe are proof enough that Anderson knows how to tell an eerie tale well. So what happened to with this film? To be honest, all of my issues with this film stem from Anthony Jaswinski’s screenplay.
Vanishing on 7th Street never explains why the darkness occurs or how it can be stopped. Sure there are several nods to a bigger spiritual type of cleansing going on, not the mention the not so subtle reference to Adam and Eve, but nothing is ever stated in concrete terms. Leaving things up to the viewer’s imagination is always better in regards to horror. Unfortunately, the problem is that Vanishing never establishes any real rules for “the darkness” and the film takes liberties with this. One minute “the darkness” is afraid of light, the next it is manipulating it by showing a baby stroller under a street light. A character can survive 72 hours covered in glow sticks yet, later on in the film, “the darkness” can magically drain the power of newly opened glow sticks, batteries, etc. There is never any rhyme or reason to much of the actions of “the darkness”.
This lack of consistency flows into the characters themselves. While I can understand people not thinking straight in the first 48 hours, one would start to wise up just a tad after 72 hours. Characters are constantly making stupid decisions at every corner of the film. For example, Luke (Christensen) and Rosemary (Newton) decide to leave the only well lit building on the entire street to go searching for a working car. Before leaving Rosemary place a bunch of glow sticks around James (Latimore), but none on Paul (Leguizamo)…who is lying wounded on the pool table. It is very telling when the smartest character in the entire film is the one with the least amount of screen time, Briana (Taylor Groothuis).
The repetitive nature of characters making one stupid mistake after the next really hinders any form of character development within the film. It is a shame that Jaswinski never seems to figure out how to evolve his story past the great initial premise. If the story and characters had been stronger Vanishing on 7th Street could have been a decent film. Sadly the film feels like a low-rent sequel to the equally silly movie, Darkness Falls.
