Two Men in Town

Greetings again from the darkness. Director Rachid Bouchareb, a long time festival favorite, has taken the general story of writer/director Jose Giovanni's 1973 film of the same title and relocated it from France to a New Mexico border town. It touches on many elements such as rehabilitation of criminals, small town justice, human personality traits, freedom and justice, and conversion to Islam.

Opening with the silhouette of a brutal murder against the sunset in a New Mexico desert, the film has a western feel replete with the sense of doom and impending showdown. Forest Whitaker stars as Garnett, a paroled man who has just been released after serving 18 years for killing a deputy. Despite a life of crime that began when he was 11 years old, Garnett was a model prisoner who obtained his GED and mentored others while becoming a converted Muslim. His words make it clear he wants to put his old life behind and start fresh – however, his actions show he still struggles with explosive anger issues.

In a move that seems counterintuitive, Garnett is confined while on parole to the county in which he killed the deputy. The local sheriff (Harvey Keitel … who else would it be?) sets about making things difficult for Garnett, and expresses anger at his release while the "deputy is still dead". The idealistic parole officer is played by Brenda Blethyn, so the stage is set for the clash of philosophies: trust and rehabilitation vs historical behavior and justice. Adding one more challenge to Garnett's new world is the presence of his old crime boss played by Luis Guzman, who of course, wants him back in the business.

While many folks all over the globe struggle endlessly to find love; Garnett is 2 days out of prison when he falls for the local banker played by Delores Heredia. Herein lies the problems with the movie. The love connection just happens too quickly. Guzman is never the ominous presence of a truly bad guy. Keitel only gets to offer glimpses of his disgust at Garnett's freedom. These three characters are all severely underwritten despite the efforts of three fine actors.

If not for the terrific performance of Forest Whitaker, the film would fall totally flat. It's his screen presence that keeps us watching, hoping against all odds that he will find the peace he so desperately seeks. There is a wonderful scene with Whitaker and Ellen Burstyn, and a couple of the scenes with Whitaker and Blethyn are powerful, but the other pieces just never pack the punch necessary for this one to fully click.

For those of you who are fans of Oscar winner Forest Whitaker, than I recommended you check this one out.

Whitaker plays a man on parole after 18 years of prison, and with the help of Allah, who he finds inside, he makes a great attempt to follow the path and get his life right, but too many things are pulling him down, especially the town sheriff that can't forgive him for killing his partner.

Harvey Kitel plays the Sheriff, adding a little more star power to this small picture. Luis Guzman plays the role of Whitaker's ex-partner who wants to repay him for his loyalty by getting him back in the life.

Kitel and Guzman are fine actors but their purpose is truly just to support Whitaker who barely needs it. It's the type of realness that you would expect from a academy award winning actor, who convinces you of being a man on the verge of redemption without hitting you over the head with a needless moral campus.

The movie itself is not put together as well as Whitaker's award winning turn in The Last King of Scottland. It's all about pointing the camera at this man and watching him go. That's what you want to see and he gives it 100 percent.

My summary line making the point that this is a remake many years removed from its (french) original. I haven't watched the original, so I cannot tell you how the two movies compare. I can only judge this by its own merits (and faults). What I can say, is that Whitaker is giving an excellent performance. It's also nice to see Harvey Keitel in a bigger role, even if it sometimes turns a bit comic evil, he has the gravitas to pull it in.

The age old question within this movie is: can we escape our pasts? Can we change and become someone/something different? Can we ever truly repent and is there such a thing as forgiveness? Those are heavy topics and the movie does not stay away from other topics as well (like religion, though it's not really made a big strong point, other than being there). You can tell early on, if this is the kind of "entertainment" you like to watch or not ... the rhythm/pace stays the same throughout (occasional outbursts excluded)

Not the best film but worth seeing if you've nothing else to do. Whitaker is excellent throughout but the ending was very dissapointing.

I saw this film at the Berlinale film festival 2014, where it was part of the official competition. It allows us sufficient time to get acquainted with the five main characters: (1) Garnett who is just released from prison after an 18 years sentence, (2) the sheriff whose deputy was killed by Garnett some 18 years ago, (3) an underworld-er who wants to enlist Garnett for a shady job, (4) Garnett's new girl friend who he met after his release while opening a bank account, and (5) last-but-not-least his assigned parole officer who takes her job very seriously, and even ruffles the sheriff's furs when the need arises. We also meet several side characters who are portrayed very well, in spite of their much shorter appearance. Yet, the full two hours running time stretches our patience unnecessarily.

The plot itself is not new in essence (ex-convict tries to keep on track), but this variant offers many novel directions given the ingredients included. The finale is not fully predictable, which is a good thing. Yet, I was not very satisfied with the chosen outcome (no details to avoid spoilers), preferably something more optimistic could be thought of. Further, I'm not sure about the need for some side tracking sub-plots, e.g. Garnett's conversion to Islam, the issues around the Mexican border, and amply showing off the landscape. Not all these are necessary for the core story, maybe even deemed redundant and better left out to get a more concise story.