Never Die Alone

I remember when I first saw the poster for "Never Die Alone". I thought they were cashing in on DMX's turn in Exit Wounds and now he was getting his own action flick. The trailer just cemented this idea. Now I realize how wrong I was. Yeah, there's gangstas, there's killings, there's dope. There's a DMX track or two within, but this ain't no action movie.

I've seen a lot of dark movies featuring dark characters, but this situation, the main character, you know they exist in real life. This guy - King David - as he's called is one piece of work. I know very little about DMX and I couldn't help but wonder where the character began and he ended. That there is the most positive aspect of "Never Die Alone". DMX can be commended, but the movie on a fundamental level is flawed.

The story, the cast of characters ride the line between adequate and embarrassing. David Arquette's role as the writer - basically the bridge of the tale - is hackneyed and Arquette is no thespian actor. Michael Ealy's character and his connection to both King David and his drug boss employer is mix of lame poorly executed ideas and unsatisfying conclusions. While the whole theme of the movie is obvious from frame one. Intended to be a dark drama, "Never Die Alone" ultimately ends up being a pretentious glance at the surface of a drug pusher and the people caught in his blast radius.

Interesting attempt to adapt a Donald Goines novel for the big screen, Never Die Alone is reminiscent of early blaxploitation classics like BLACK CAESAR, with both the pluses and minuses that entails.

DMX stars as drug dealer King David. "Exiled" in LA for the last ten years, he comes back home to NYC to repay his debts. The movie wanders around between the present day and flashbacks in LA, where we learn more of his past.

Essentially this is three movies lumped together. The first movie, which lasts for the first half-hour or so, is an excellent, gritty crime drama, as good as anything I've seen recently on the big screen. The second movie, mainly the flashbacks, is true to the Goines source material, portraying the horrors of drug addiction and Goines's peculiar, glum view of the world as a violent, basically loveless place. The third one deals with David Arquette, an aspiring writer who fetishizes the gangster lifestyle exemplified by King.

These three movies sit awkwardly together. Arquette's character is potentially very interesting, but never developed as much as it should have been. The flashbacks and the main storyline are both well done, but bump up against each other awkwardly. DMX's motivations are more stated that portrayed, so that the primary character arc doesn't really feel very believable.

DMX is fine -- if you're familiar with Goines you'll see how well he exemplifies a typical Goines character, the "noble gangster who's morally compromised by a depraved past". Dickerson's direction is excellent, although the final metaphorical shot is a little heavy and obvious, I thought.

I would like to see more cracks at the Goines novels -- they are promising source material.

Since truth is indeed sometimes stranger than fiction, often the movie with the most unlikely scenario is the one that turns out to be the most believable. This is the case with "Never Die Alone," an urban crime drama with a plot just loopy enough to keep us interested and just goofy enough to make us believe it.

David Arquette plays a white reporter who hangs around in a predominantly black section of the city soaking up the "atmosphere" for articles and books he hopes to write. One night, he attempts to save the life of a black drug kingpin (played by DMX) by driving the man to the hospital after he's been left for dead in a revenge killing. Immediately before his death, the man, who goes by the name "King David," bequeaths his car and other earthly possessions to this inner city Good Samaritan. Included in the haul is an assortment of tapes David recorded detailing his experiences as a successful drug pusher in LA. Thus, as Paul listens to these recordings, a full picture of the kind of man David was soon emerges.

The best thing about "Never Die Alone" is that it doesn't flinch from displaying the ugly, harsh realities of its blood-splattered world. It shows how even the innocent and the good eventually fall victim to the evils of drug addiction and crime. The film is not afraid to kill off characters in a random way, often surprising us with just who ends up dying and who ends up surviving. And it does not attempt to sugarcoat "King David," for despite all his comments about redemption and making up for the evil he's done, David is one hell of an amoral bastard who does some pretty horrible things to some truly undeserving people - and the film does not shy away from depicting that reality.

Although, on the surface, the film seems like just another in a long line of sordid crime dramas involving crack heads, dope fiends and armed-to-the-teeth ghetto gangstas, "Never Die Alone," perhaps because it is willing to hold nothing back in what it chooses to show us, has a certain ring of truth about it. Whatever the reason, "Never Die Alone" is a cut above the average.

For starters story is very smart. That's the stand out thing in the movie. Interesting how one person can affect so many. But it seemed very short.

Acting wise it was average I guess. I'm a fan of DMX and think he isn't a bad actor. But most characters he's played are pretty similar. Good job by the supporting cast as well. David Arquette was the a stand out.

Overall an enjoyable movie. I was looking forward to seeing this movie very much for some reason, and it didn't let me down, but it wasn't perfect either. Once you've watched it you'll probably think something was missing because of the shortness, but there isn't (I think!). I look forward to reading the book.

I watched this movie as I read one or two viewers opinions of it. Both must have been white men or women who have lived a protected life. A life that has never been touched by the harsh realities that life as a black person in a large city in the USA faces.

I agree that there is no clear hero or villain in this movie. What upsets me about the reviews I read was the lack of compassion the reviewers of this movie had about it.

The reviews of this movie that I read clearly have not experienced the terrible reality that this movie portrays.

I believe that the persons that dished this movie have never been tested by environment of poverty.

I have. I'm white. I can tell you that to spend your youth in settings of LA will test the mettle of anyone.

It seems obvious to me that viewers commentaries that I read have not.

I didn't like the movie but I thought it was honest.