A Última Noite

Having seen Spike Lee's "25th Hour", I must say I was pleased. Lee's plot is both involving and heartfelt, showing the essence of reality. His script is fresh, yet somewhat slow in spots. His characters shine, however, in a truly believeable tale of consequence. Edward Norton, in another masterful performance, shows an almost frightening level of genuine human emotion as the protagonist Montgomery Brogan. The supporting cast consisting of Philip Seymour Hoffman, Barry Pepper, and veteran Brian Cox provide a solid foundation that allows Lee's story to flow freely. While most would consider this tale a literal one, take note: It is quite apparent, through subtlety and the rather obvious "restroom mirror scene" that Spike Lee has a message he wants to get across. What I think makes "25th Hour" so appealing on a theoretical level is the fact that his message is surprisingly open-ended; allowing the individual viewer to decide what he or she wants to retain from the film. This is a genuine film experience; a haunting dose of reality.

For myself, watching 25th Hour was sort-of like taking a palm reading. Noticing one line, representative of a life-path, stretches out long and far, while another line branches off and stops short in the middle of your palm. You question which life path will you take, and which are you currently on now. Are you one the short one or the long one? You question the various choices and decisions that you made in the past, and which life-line have those choices and decisions ultimately lead you down. In a round-about way, the three characters in Spike Lee's 25th Hour are struggling with these same kind of questions. Based on a novel by David Benioff, the film is essentially three people struggling with the choices that they have made in their past, and the choices they are to make in the future -- and which path will it ultimately lead them down.

Edward Norton stars as Monty Brogan, a man whose life decision, becoming a drug dealer, has left him facing a seven year prison term, "...with 84 days off with good behaviour." It's the morning before, and Monty has twenty-five hours left to examine his life, bond with his closest friends, say goodbye to family, find a home for his dog, and figure out a way to survive in the joint. At one point, Monty's friend refers to his incarceration, as "...going to hell and never coming back," and the audience gets the feeling that it's not just a coy metaphor. If Monty does survive his "time", he will most assuredly not be the person they once knew when he gets out.

Even though he has grown distant from them over the years, Monty chooses to spend his remaining hours with his closest friends from childhood, Jacob Elinsky (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and Frank Slaughtery (Barry Pepper). Socially and economically, these are two of the most dissimilar people one is likely to see spending time together in a film. Their only real connection is the deeply entrenched devotion they feel to their friend. Jacob is a nerdy English teacher, whose gift for the language, has done little for his social skills. His self-doubt and shame for being born wealthy has left him single, lonely and in a thankless job. He desperately yearns for one of his students, a beautiful and precocious seventeen year old, Mary D'Annunzio (Anna Paquin), but is afraid to act on it, fearful that such a decision will lead to him being fired from his job, or even worse, arrested. Frank, on the other hand, is on the opposite end of the character spectrum, he's a good-looking, rich Wall Street trader, who, unlike, his nebbish friend, has never had a problem with the ladies. Also unlike Jacob, Frank is much more forthright in his feelings about life, and his friend's impending incarceration, "He profited from other's misery and he deserves what he gets," he tells Jacob. Norton's character also has a girlfriend, Naturelle, played by Rosario Dawson, whom he believes might have been the one who sold him out to the police. There's also his father, played by Brian Cox, a retired fireman who owns a bar on Staten Island which caters primarily to fire fighters. Each of these people, in their own way, blames them self for what is happening to Monty.

The story propels forward when the three childhood friends gather in a nightclub, with Jacob's student, Mary, and Monty's girlfriend, Naturelle, tagging along. It is what happens in this club, on this night, that provides the core of the movie. The accusations that are made, the favor that is asked, the choices that are acted upon, and the truth that is revealed, will stay with these characters long after the 25th hour has widdled and gone away. Will these friends be willing to enact Doyle's Law, in a figurative sense, and save Monty Brogan, the symbolic beaten dog?

25th Hour is also memorable for grappling openly with the aftermath of September 11th. Lee skillfully immerses it into the subtext of the story. Referenced in pictures of fire fighters who lost their lives at the World Trade Center, which adorn the walls of the local sports bar and the uptown offices of the traders; to the mention of Bin Laden in a particularly biting commentary by Monty; to Frank Slaughtery's defiant refusal to move from his apartment, which sits overlooking the ruins of the Twin Towers. Director Spike Lee, never known for being subtle, thrusts these images, and his obvious anger about it, into the viewers lap and compels them to deal with it. Also memorable is the venomous diatribe by Norton into a bathroom mirror, where he verbally attacks every group in New York regardless of ethnicity, sexual preference or socioeconomic standing. Not even the church or JC himself, is safe from his tirade, which ends when Monty realizes the only person he has to blame for his predicament, is the one staring back at him in the mirror.

The whole film plays in a subdued, almost depressing, tone. There are no laughs to be had, no falsely engineered moments where the characters break bread, and cry, and get all remorseful -- none of that. We feel as Monty feels: perplexed, distressed, unsure of those things to come and angry for how he happened to arrive at this place, and moment, in his life -- his last 25 hours.

STAR RATING:*****Unmissable****Very Good***Okay**You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead*Avoid At All Costs

Spike Lee is a truly revolutionary director in terms of the presentation of his films and the motivations behind his stories.Though the genre and content of their stories differ fairly enormously,he is in fact a lot like a latter day Alfred Hitchcock in terms of how he presents his films,like the characters involved and the inspiration behind the premise.

The premise here is a deeply original,inspiring and intriguing one,concerning Marty (Edward Norton) a drug dealer who is about to go to prison for seven years.The film follows him around on his last day of freedom,and,rather than waste too much time on a hindering,unnecessary sub-plot concerning his attempts to find the person who ratted him out,wisely opts to be an engaging character study of a man who,though able to acknowledge he knew full well what he was doing and the criminal life he was getting himself involved in,is still able to question the possible circumstances and immoralities that may have helped his descent into crime.

The two main people who help organise his last free night are his childhood buddies Frank (Barry Pepper) a sleazy stockbroker who plays with people's investments and Jakob (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) a repressed drama teacher,who,throughout the course of the film,gives in to a lustful temptation toward a feisty student of his named Mary (Anna Paquin).Though Marty is the one facing the lengthy jail sentence,the moral dilemma the film constantly raises is whether he is actually any more of a criminal than his two best mates,who are really as equally manipulative and sly as he is.The film brilliantly contrieves to present these characters to the audience,and have them develop their own opinion on what their fates should be.

The driving point of the film however,is condemnation.At the beginning,we see Marty reveal his sensitive side to the audience by rescuing a stray dog who appears to have been discarded by it's owner who,though vicious and nasty toward him,he still finds it in his heart to adopt and love,despite the protestations of his large friend.But then the opening credits ensue,and it's a dark,droning opening theme and that prsents the tone of the movie.Then,straight afterwards,we're shown Marty's not-so-sensitive side,as he trys to brush off a man he turned into a drug addict.Lee intelligently and absorbingly weighs out Marty's good points and bad points,and shows that,despite dealing in a criminal profession,he's not all bad and can be quite nice at times.Yet we're also shown a man who wasted all his potential.If he'd tried a little harder,he could've been a doctor or a chef,his father (Brian Cox) points out to him.We also see that he was once a very gifted basketball player,and could possibly have pursued that further,but alas,didn't.He also tries to blame everyone and everything else for his current predicament,until finally accepting that he was in control of his own destiny and must now pay the price.At the end,he is given the choice:accept he did wrong,pay his debt and go and serve his time in jail,or turn and run.The decision he makes will determine the audience's final impression of him.

It does drag a little towards the end,but generally speaking,Spike Lee is a master of his craft and this is a strong contender for the first great film of 2003.****

This is definitely Spike Lee at the top of his game! `25th Hour' is a purely character-driven drama filled with engaging, complex characters and sharp dialogue. I like how Spike allowed the scenes to play out, without being too concerned about dampening the pacing. I'm sure some will complain (and this probably explains why it wasn't a big success) that the film is boring and slow-moving. If they do, that's probably because audiences are so used to watching movies with a million cuts in one scene, and more time emphasized on action and sex scenes than character development. The characters were so well-developed that I felt a deep connection with each of them. It's rare nowadays that I really get sucked into a film, and this was one of those rare cases. It might also have to do with the fact that I'm familiar with many of these types of characters in real life. You have the Barry Pepper character, who's this smooth-talking playboy who ends sleeping with a ton of women, despite the fact that he's harsh and not very likable. And there's the Philip Seymour Hoffman character, who's a lonely, average-looking guy, who's alienated from society because he doesn't look like an Adonis. It's a harsh reality that handsome guys with nice bodies get away with being complete jerks and still maintain an active dating life, while average-looking guys can have great personalities and women will be repulsed by them, but it is indeed a reality. Sure, it isn't right for Hoffman to be lusting after one of his underage students, but I'm sure if he were ten times better looking, people wouldn't be as disgusted-because God knows that teachers sleeping with their students is sweeping the globe like an epidemic.

The approach to these character interaction scenes is almost documentary-like, which adds to the film's engaging qualities. I love the scene between Pepper and Hoffman, where they chat about dating and Pepper describes his buddy as being part of the 62nd percentile, in the dating world. Sometimes it doesn't work when you deviate from the main characters to focus on the supporting characters, but in this film it did, being that they're very essential in Monty's life and it's helpful to allow the audience to know them inside and out.

The acting is terrific. Edward Norton is always brilliant. But the supporting cast is just as strong. Barry Pepper is a wonderful actor as well, and it's interesting to find out that he's from Vancouver, yet he convincingly inhabits the character of a true New Yorker. Brian Cox is only in the film for about 20 or 30 minutes, but his appearances are very memorable, and he is absolutely magnificent. After seeing him in this movie, I must add him to my list of favorite underrated actors. It's ironic that he shows up in practically every other film, yet he never gets the recognition he deserves. Hopefully, one day he will. Even Tony Siragusa impressed me. I'm not hugely familiar with him, but I saw him make a guest appearance once on `The Tonight Show,' and he seems like a cool guy with a good sense of humor, but I wasn't sure how he'd pan out in a serious dramatic role. Well, he is great, and pulls off the Ukrainian accent with hardly a hitch. I also liked how his character would mess up on his English every once in a while, instead of these foreign characters in movies who speak perfect English, only with an accent. I'm always proud to see Philip Seymour Hoffman, who never fails to impress. One reason I'm so drawn to him is because-like me-he's an average-looking guy, yet he receives decent roles and doesn't get typed as the `fat slob' like most actors in his weight range. So I think of him as an inspiration to all overweight aspiring actors. I once read a review for `Magnolia' in which someone bashed him for being so ugly. Of course, this person didn't mention anything about his acting, but that just proves how superficial of a society we live in today. Many audiences are so used to seeing actors and actresses with near-perfect faces and near-perfect bodies that they can't stand to see actors who look like `normal people.' How often do you walk outside and see people who look like Tom Cruise and Gwyneth Paltrow? Even these so-called reality shows try to include the most beautiful people possible. So people get hypnotized into thinking that's reality. I'm a heterosexual man, so naturally I'm open about enjoying the sights of beautiful actresses, but that's not going to impact how I feel about their acting abilities. And the sight of beautiful women alone surely doesn't make a film good (i.e.: `Charlie Angels'). Speaking of beautiful women, wrapping up this talented cast are Anna Paiquin and Rosario Dawson. Paiquin is cute and effective in her role, though technically it's similar to the ones she played in `HurlyBurly' and `It's the Rage.' I just hope she doesn't get typecast as the teenage slut who loves sleeping with older men. But she's a fine actress, and despite these similarities, she takes different approaches to each of her characters. Rosario Dawson just gets hotter and hotter by the movie. When I saw that trailer shot where she's dancing in the club in that silver dress, I couldn't help but think to myself, `I'd give my left leg to marry that girl.' Well, I'm glad to see that she receives good roles that compliment her acting abilities. She really has a commanding screen presence, outside of her outstanding beauty.

I only have two minor criticisms about the film. One is the unnecessary `F.U. sequence' where Norton goes on a blue streak about his hatred for the people of NYC and the world in general. I'm sure many will find deep meaning in that sequence, but I felt it was out of place and simply an opportunity to remind people that this is a Spike Lee joint-since it's identical to the race-bashing montage in `Do the Right Thing.' Spike mentioned in the commentary that the scene was in the screenplay, and adapted from the original novel, but I'm sure he thought of it as a perfect opportunity to insert one of his directorial trademarks. My other criticism is the use of flashbacks. Nowadays, some directors feel that dissolving into flashbacks and showing subtitles that read things like `Three years earlier' is passe, but the audience needs some sort of clue that we're going back in time. In the scene where Dawson and her friend are in the playground, and Norton first meets her, is obviously a flashback since Dawson is wearing a Catholic private school uniform. But there are other scenes that I didn't realize were flashbacks until I watched the movie with Spike's commentary. But even without knowing those scenes were flashbacks, I didn't feel thrown off, so that's always a good sign.

Besides the `F.U. sequence,' there were other Spike trademarks, which I felt worked out well, like his famous dolly shot. The movie is long, but not overlong. As I said, this is Spike at the top of his game. I'm personally a fan of most of his work, even the awfully bashed `Summer of Sam.' Other fans should also be impressed. Hell, even if you're not a Spike Lee fan, you should appreciate this film! It's a smartly written, well-acted, character-driven drama that doesn't come along too often.

My score: 9 (out of 10)

This great picture by the greatly discussed Spike Lee is one of a kind. What really makes this shine through the constant rubble being made by either incompetent directors or inexperienced ones is first of all, the incredible acting and for that you need great characters that are well thought-out and second comes the frighteningly real and tragic story. Which Lee handles with utmost care and outstanding precision.

Lee's trademarks are present here and the cinematography suits the feel of the movie very well. The final product feels very polished, but true to the story and it is those small things that some of us notice, those details that separate a veteran from a novice. There are some weak points, but they are only minor.

The acting here is top notch. Norton convinces once again and makes for a great heartfelt performance and Hoffman is equally impressive. However, I was completely blown away by Pepper. Barry Pepper. He 'was' continuously Frank and very consistent in his acting. The scene where he breaks down and Norton thanks him in a way for what he has done is one of the most beautiful scenes I have ever seen. It felt so authentic.

Furthermore, I can keep writing about how great this movie is or how good the acting, but eventually you have to decide for yourself. I can only recommend it.

So, I say to you, if you can, see this movie as soon as possible.