Street Smart

If It wasn't by the performances of Morgan Freeman and Kathy Baker, I would have given 5 stars to "Street Smart", but such performances elevate the category of a modest movie.

I didn't like the plot of the movie, but at least this movie doesn't bore you and keep you entertained, this movie is similar to the police movies made for TV, and I liked the shots of different parts of NY.

The plot of the movie is about a journalist who invent a story about the life of a fictitious pimp called Tyron that is published in the magazine where he writes. The law confuses this factitious pimp Tyron with real life pimp "fast black" (Morgan Freeman) who is being accused for murder, so the law ask the journalist to deliver all his notes and tapes about his interview with the pimp to arrest Fast Black.

There are 2 great scenes in the movie, in one scene the journalist is seduced by Punchy, who is one of the girls of Fast Black", where Kathy Baker who plays Plunchy looks really sexy (10 stars for her in this scene). And the other scene which is the best in the movie from an acting point of view involves the characters of Morgan Freman and Kathy Baker, you will know what scene I mean when you see it.

In short you have to watch this B movie for the performances of Morgan Freman and Kathy Baker

"Street Smart" is a movie not a lot of people appear to remember from the 1980's. What attracted me to the movie was the fact that Morgan Freeman received his first ever Academy Award nomination for his role as a pimp in this film. Freeman hasn't played a role like this before or since, and his best known roles to come after this (including Oscar nominated roles) have consisted of more positive characters with effective leadership skills. Although Freeman doesn't play the type of positive African-American role model here that he is now best known for playing,he gives the character of Leo Smalls, Jr., a.k.a. "Fast Black", a three-dimensional performance that few other actors, black or white, would have been able to pull off. He's not just an intimidating presence, or a guy who wears flashy clothes. In fact, the scenes where he goes back to his apartment, and a poster of Martin Luther King, Jr. can be seen in the background, says volumes about his character.

Without a doubt, Freeman's performance is the best thing about this movie. The rest of the movie is indeed intriguing, but has a few weaknesses which makes it feel a little half-baked. With a running time of 94 minutes, at least 20 minutes of footage could have been added to account for these skimmed-over plot details without throwing off the pace of the film.

The late Christopher Reeve is Jonathan Fisher, a Harvard educated print journalist who is under pressure to write a magazine article in a weekend. He submits an idea to his publisher, seemingly off the top of his head, about 24 hours in the life of a pimp. The story is supposed to be true, but Fisher, feeling intense encumbrance to get a story to his editor, fabricates one instead. To his surprise, the story makes the front page, Fisher becomes a celebrity overnight, and moves up to his own TV news segment.

The trouble comes in when some readers believe the article is about one particular real pimp (Freeman) who happens to be on trial for murder. Among those wary readers is the leading prosecutor for that case. Although the fictional article depicts no murder of any kind, Fisher is still ordered to give the court his notes in the trial, or be subject to a jail sentence.

With the trouble comes a story that keeps the viewers' interests high for what comes next, but plot holes that accompany the story remain unexplained throughout. For instance, we have some of an idea what Reeve's character wrote in the article, but no idea what in the article would be considered circumstantial evidence in a murder trial. Having a series of imaginary montages with Reeve's idea of a pimp as he's writing the story would have cleared that unexplained plot point up easily. Plus, although Reeve's character is Harvard educated, that's all we know about his character. How did he come up with the idea to write about a pimp in the first place? Since we never see him in the inner city until after he submitted the story proposal, that occurrence remains unexplained also. Reeve did a great job playing a guy who tries to maintain control of his life and career, only to have both be in jeopardy as his situation goes over his head. It would have been more helpful to establish some real roots for his character, though, not to mention a moral compass of some kind.

There were some other times where the story felt shaky, but the film had other great qualities. For instance, the inner city in the film looked far more real than other "gritty urban dramas" I've seen over the last few years where the movie sets looked like movie sets and the houses looked too polished. Overall though, the film is worth checking out for Freeman's performance, and probably should be remembered better in Reeve's career than "Superman IV: The Quest For Peace". If anything, this movie showed that Reeve can play a character who has everything under control (Superman) just as well as one who does not.

A superior movie, except that the ending is completely contrived and unbelievable. Morgan Freeman generally gets the palm for his performance in "Street Smart" and deserves it for turning in a masterful performance. Called in to straighten out some difficulty between one of his girls and her trick, he calms everyone down, the soul of reason, until the trick is distracted, then Freeman kicks him in the family jewels and does a number of his face too. It's a shocking burst of violence. And his rattlesnake-like ability to strike quickly isn't limited to important economic confrontations either. During a basketball game, one of his shots is blocked. He shoves his opponent to the pavement, suggests that he'd look particularly good dead, then notices that everyone is standing around agape, smiles reassuringly, pats the guy on the shoulder and hands him a good deal of money to buy and bring back -- "Some chicken, ribs, stuff like that." He calls out, "Keep the change," to the grateful survivor of this encounter. All of Freeman's violence comes as a surprise, particularly when Chris Reeves tries to cool him down and Freeman whips around and holds a broken bottle before Reeves' face, with the steady, sure hand of a surgeon. Almost invariably, these episodes are followed by big friendly grins, pats on the back, assurances that things are back to normal, generous offers of food, drink, or money. The change takes place in less than a second.

Freeman is smarter than anyone else in the movie too. The main figure in a celebrated journalistic effort, he and his girl are invited to the publisher's party where everyone showers them with attention while they chat about "the Hamptons." Afterward, Punchy exults over the attention but Freeman sees through it all. He knows condescension when he sees it, and he is filled with resentment. Trying to put something over on Freeman is like trying to slip sunrise past a rooster.

But Kathy Baker as the used Punchy deserves credit as well, although her part isn't nearly as showy and dramatic as Freeman's. She's just beyond the bloom of youth, rather used looking and heavily made up, and her figure, while ripely pleasant wouldn't draw stares in a supermarket. She's very appealing indeed in her vulnerability and aloneness.

Chris Reeve is usually ignored in reviews. I don't know why. He's rarely anything but bland, but this is by far his best performance, and he invests his character with ambition, confusion, fear, and compassion -- not an easy role. The scene in the hotel bedroom with Kathy Baker, in which she seduces him knowing that behind that facade of journalistic objectivity lies a man who would just love to get it on with her, whether or not he realizes it. She demonstrates how she made it with her first john and makes Reeve play the partner. The silly made-up dialog fades and is replaced by "Natural Woman" on the sound track. The two have a relaxed, enjoyable-looking, mutually appreciative little love scene.

It's a pretty good movie and involves us emotionally in several different ways. Alas, as I say, the end is almost an embarrassment. The bumbling Reeve character turns into a genius, and other characters into the fools they never were. Don't let that stop you from watching this.

Freeman gives his most powerful performance here. I've seen almost all of Morgan's films but I think this is his most outstanding performance. Fast Black is one juicy character and Morgan brings life into it. Christopher Reeve, god bless his sole, is a pretty bad actor. I only seen him in his Superman roles, which I wasn't much a fan of. But here his character gets a lot of screen time and Reeve just can't live up to it. He makes the movie boring. Kathy Baker excels in her role. Mimi Rogers does her part well. The film has an amazing storyline here, but screenplay is 50/50. If Morgan had more scenes the movie would have been way better. Yes there are some really strong scenes, but all of them involved Freeman. The direction wasn't great, if this movie was handled by a better director it would of been memorable. Many people probably don't even know about this movie and that's a shame because Freeman's performance must be watched. Freeman's outburst scene where he puts a bottle up to Reeve's face and gives him a 20 second stare is WOW. And not to forget the scissor scene where he threatens to poke Kathy's eye out...MARVELLOUS. What disappoints me the most, regardless of the many flaws in direction, is that Freeman didn't have a last scene in the climax. In a movie where Morgan kept everyone in their seats, the director/screenwriter didn't hook him up with a proper climax scene. I was expecting something huge, but instead the ending was the same old same old. Overall, the movie is OK, but Freeman's performance is great.

I found this movie to be very entertaining and well done, with good performances across the board. I agree with previous reviewers that the late Chris Reeve's performances in other movies, and at times this one, could be seen as wooden. That being said, I think he played his role extremely well, because it was able to work with Morgan Freeman's outbursts and explosions. Because of the problems encountered by his fabricated story, Reeve's performance was handled well being outside of his environment as much as he was. He was unsure and understated, and being a reporter, being unemotional was in his well being. On the other end, Morgan Freeman was fantastic! Seeing him in a role like this makes you want to see him take on a role where he can be the loose cannon.

This movie can show what happens when you "create" a story and you do it TOO well. More people should see it and comment on it.