Hey, everyone. "Moriarty" here. One of the projects I'm very interested in this fall is THE CAVEMAN'S VALENTINE. When I interviewed Samuel L. Jackson recently, I was most disappointed about the brevity of the opportunity because I didn't get much chance to go indepth with Mr. Jackson regarding some of his lesser-known but powerful work in films like SYDNEY (or HARD EIGHT, if you like) and EVE'S BAYOU. That film was directed by the gifted Kasi Lemmons, and the notion of the two of them reteaming for this pet project of Jackson's makes it impossible to resist. If you've seen early photos of him as the homeless lead character of the film, you know that it's an extreme look for Sam. This is going to be a movie that requires special handling as it approaches release, and AICN looks forward to covering it further in the coming months. For now, here's that little mobster, GoodFella, to tell you what he thought.
Last night, I was able to catch a rough cut of Kasi Lemmons' "The Caveman's Valentine", starring Samuel L. Jackson.
Now, if you've ever read anything at all about this new film (i.e. plot description from a magazine), then I'm here to tell you that this movie is not what you think it is.
But that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Let me tell you some of the cool things about this movie:
Sam (playing Romulus Ledbetter - a great character name) plays an extremely intelligent homeless man who lives in the streets of San Francisco (I think), and who believes that there is an evil man living at the top of one of the city's high rises, who plans to take over the world. Romulus calls this man Styvesant, and takes every waking opportunity to rant and rave to passersby about the evils this man is about to unleash on the world.
Romulus also believes that there are a dozen or so tiny men with wings inside his skull, which he lovingly refers to as "moth seryphs", who dance spasmodically like bats in hell whenever he gets upset. From time to time throughout the movie we are shown surreal glimpses of these seryphs in action, and I must say, it's all choreographed beautifully.
And like most deranged people, Romulus is a musical genius. Several times during the film his character gets the rare chance to sit in front of a piano and play a tune - which he does flawlessly. The music Lemmons chose was perfect for this character.
Romulus has a daughter who works for the police department. She keeps her distance from him, but once in awhile reaches out to him out of pity and familial love. But he resists.
Romulus is the kind of character you love to watch and root for because, despite his mad-genius ramblings, there is a glimmer of sanity in there that peeps out every once in awhile that offers you a glimpse of what he once was - or could have been - a loving father, an intelligent man, and a trustworthy companion. But then he starts yelling and screaming about Styvesant and you just shake your head. Sam Jackson has crafted a beautiful character. Some of the sharp-tongued dialogue he spouts will no doubt trigger waves of hooting and laughter from a packed house.
Here is where things got a little confusing for me:
The plot: Romulus finds a frozen corpse sitting in a tree just outside the cave he lives in. Another homeless man, Matthew, tells Romulus that the man (named Scotty, who happened to be Matthew's lover) was murdered by a famous artist named David Leppenraub, who used Scotty as a model for his art. Romulus takes this information to the extreme, and convinces himself that Leppenraub works for Styvesant, and that it's all part of a big plan. So Romulus sets his mind on finding Leppenraub and proving that he murdered this boy. What fuels his anger and determination is the fact that Leppenraub's art specializes in depicting tortured men - and most of the pictures involve Scotty as the model.
The reason this didn't do it for me is because I had a hard time believing that an insane man like Romulus could uncover this mystery so easily, and yet the entire police department doesn't even come close. There were times in the middle of Act Two, when Romulus uincovers important clues about the murder, where I though, "There is no way this is real. He is imagining everything, because it is all too convenient for his character." By the end, when [SPOILERS DELETED HERE TO PROTECT THE INNOCENT -- MORIARTY], I felt like I was watching some cheesy version of NYPD Blue.
What at first appears to be a Fisher King-esque exploration of a man's soul and the lines we draw between reality and our own imagination, turns into an empty crime thriller. It made me think, "Wow, I thought I knew Romulus' character - but I guess not. Bummer."
Now, of course, this is just my opinion. Like I said before, the fact that this movie is a little genre-fickle isn't necessarily a bad thing. People may love it, and really get it. For me, there was a little something missing - some element that needed to define what the movie was. I'm okay with being confused about what is real and what is not in a movie - that's fine - but if I'm watching a crime thriller, I want to discover clues right along with the protagonist, so I can feel some sense of connection. I don't want the protagonist to suddenly say, "I know who did it - and I'm going to prove it before I can tell you about it - muhahahaha!"
There were a lot of good elements to this movie - and things I'm sure I left out - but for me, it didn't gel at the end.
My 2 pennies,
Goodfella
