The Brave One
      The Brave One is the "Jodie Foster as Charles Bronson" film.  
      Jodie plays a victim of urban violence who lives through a brutal mugging 
      which killed her fiancé and soul-mate. She has a difficult time 
      re-entering the world, because the beating left her with greater emotional 
      scars than physical. In her job as a roving radio personality whose 
      schtick is "reporter about town" in New York, she had come to love the Big 
      Apple, but the mugging changed all that. In her recovery period she finds 
      herself terrified of things which she used to relish as part of the city's 
      quotidian rhythms. A man comes close to her at high speed; she goes into 
      panic mode, only to discover that the man is just an ordinary commuter 
      rushing for his train. Her paranoia is enhanced by the realization that 
      her assailants could know that she is alive, and that she may be able to 
      identify them. She can no longer live with the paralyzing fear of everyday 
      existence, so she gets herself a gun for protection. Because of the gun 
      control laws in New York, she is forced to acquire her 9mm handgun on the 
      black market.
 
 
 
  
      She doesn't start out with a desire to be Charles Bronson. Her career 
      as a vigilante starts as an unavoidable matter of self-defense. She's in a 
      convenience store during a robbery, hiding successfully until her cell 
      phone goes off and the robber becomes aware of her presence. She knows 
      she's in a life-or-death situation because she's already seen the man gun 
      down the store clerk without provocation, so she hides, waits, and is 
      lucky enough to survive by getting the drop on the bad guy.  She has 
      to fire three shots at close range to score a single hit, but she does get 
      the job done. It is not long before she is taking an increasingly bold and 
      proactive role in vigilante justice, setting herself up as bait to invite 
      thuggery, then exacting stern justice on the would-be thugs. Within a 
      month or so, she has turned into Batman, no longer content to invite 
      criminal behavior, but now actively seeking out the city's lowlifes and 
      whacking them by night. Her increasing confidence brings her closer to a 
      head-to-head confrontation with the thugs who attacked her in the opening 
      scene.
 
 
 
  
      Balanced against Jodie's story is the tale of the cop who is 
      investigating the vigilante murders. In fact, he becomes Jodie's close 
      friend after coming into contact with her in her twin roles as a radio 
      interviewer and a victim of violence. He has no idea at first that she 
      might be committing the crimes she's reporting on, but he's a dedicated 
      and smart cop, and he gradually puts two and two together. Lacking any 
      hard evidence, he arranges a meeting with Jodie and tells her indirectly, 
      through a parable, that (1) he knows the score (2) he will bring her in, 
      even if she is a friend, even if he sympathizes with her aims. 
 
 
 
  
      The ending of the film creates dramatic suspense from Jodie's pursuit 
      of the baddies, and the cop's pursuit of Jodie. 
 
 
 
  
      SPOILERS AHEAD
 
 
 
  
      I kind of liked the film, but I'm having a hard time articulating why, 
      or even understanding why, because it is a film which betrays its basic 
      premise, and that always bothers me. The audience is invited to wonder how 
      the film's knot can possibly be untangled, given that Jodie has determined 
      to kill her assailants, the cop has determined to bring her to justice, 
      and Jodie has announced that she will accept the consequences.
 
 
 
  
      And then the script cheats. 
 
 
 
  
      After the film makes a painstaking effort to establish that the 
      policeman is honest and incorruptible, thus assuring some kind of tragic 
      ending for one or both of the sympathetic characters, it manages to 
      resolve the situation simply by making him turn dishonest and corruptible.
      
 
 
 
  
      See how easy scriptwriting can be, kids?
 
 
 
  
      So, given this cheap bit of deus ex machina, why am I defending the film? 
      I'll offer two reasons. 
 
 
 
  
      (1) The film has a poetic tone and style to it. There are two good 
      people in love with each other and the city. Only one survives. The other 
      lives on in anguish, delivering haunting and highly articulate radio 
      monologues about her feelings.  One good cop sympathizes with the 
      victim, but can't let her use New York City as her personal hunting 
      grounds. 
 
 
 
  
      One scene that is particularly memorable involves Jodie's fiancé being 
      brought to the emergency room. The film pictorializes what he's thinking 
      of in his dying moments (making love to Jodie), but intercuts his thoughts 
      with the grim reality of what is happening to him on the operating table, 
      thus showing how the real events may be stimulating his subconscious. We 
      see the doctors cut off his underpants in a frenetic rush to save his 
      life, then we look into his mind, where he's removing Jodie's underpants 
      in a tender memory. That scene is absolutely brilliant, as is the scene 
      where Terrence tells Jodie what he knows without actually telling her 
      anything.
 
 
 
  
      (2) Terence Howard and Jodie Foster really make the movie work. Film 
      this same script with Kari Wuhrer as the victim and Stephen Baldwin as the 
      cop, and it could be just formulaic straight-to-vid fare, but Terrence and 
      Jodie raise it to a different level. What's amazing to watch is that 
      Terrence and Jodie are so similar as actors, especially considering that 
      one is a black man and the other a white woman. It's like they are in one 
      of those science fiction movies where the alien presence goes from body to 
      body, because it seems like they are playing the same person in different 
      bodies. Both of them are sensitive, soft-spoken, in control, refined, yet 
      both of them have an intense volcano of emotions just below the surface, 
      as reflected in their eyes. They are two of the very best actors in the 
      "subtle underplaying" category, and that works perfectly in this movie.
 
 
 
  
      Those elements make it a good enough movie, up to a point. Too bad it 
      was not true to itself, because it might have been a classic.
 
 
 
  
      -----
 
 
 
  
      The critics were split dramatically. The British critics (BBC and 
      Guardian) focused on the film's weaknesses and awarded 2 out of 5. Both 
      Ebert and Berardinelli liked it a lot and focused in the film's strengths, 
      each of them scoring it 3.5 stars out of 4. In general critics were split down the 
      middle: RT estimates that the reviews were 45% positive, and Metacritic 
      assesses the average score at 56/100.
 
 
 
  
      Film clips in yesterday's page. I did no collages because I'm pretty 
      sure it is a body double.
 
 
 
  
       
 
 
 
  
      It's that Time of Year
 
 
 
  
      Cast your vote for the nude scene of the year, The ballot page is set 
      up for non-members. You don't need to use any of those Rapidshare links 
      because I got all of those film clips out of the back issues in order to 
      put them on Rapidshare in the first place, so you already have access to 
      every one of them.  
      Just go there and vote.