Connect with us

Movie Reviews

‘I’m Carl Lewis!’ Review: Engaging, if Limited, Doc Gives an Athlete and Iconoclast His Due

Published

on

‘I’m Carl Lewis!’ Review: Engaging, if Limited, Doc Gives an Athlete and Iconoclast His Due

Back in 2012, 9.79* aired as part of ESPN’s 30 for 30 franchise. Daniel Gordon’s film focused on the 100-meter final at the Seoul Olympics, a race that was dominated by Ben Johnson, who then abdicated the crown after a positive steroid test, leaving Carl Lewis as the desultory victor.

In an era oversaturated with sports documentaries, the closest we came to a doc focused on Lewis, among the greatest track and field stars ever, was one that was really about The Other Guy.

I’m Carl Lewis!

The Bottom Line

Always respectful, occasionally enlightening.

Advertisement

Venue: SXSW Film Festival (Documentary Spotlight)
Directors: Julie Anderson & Chris Hay

1 hour 39 minutes

Even after his career-ending long-jump victory at the Atlanta Olympics offered an opportunity for people to embrace Lewis fully, he was still seen as somewhere between unlikable and unknowable.

That contention is finally put to the test in Julie Anderson and Chris Hay‘s new feature documentary I’m Carl Lewis! 

Advertisement

Premiering at SXSW, I’m Carl Lewis! gives Lewis his due as an athlete. But more than that, it paints a portrait of a man who was decades ahead of his time as an advocate against the arbitrarily enforced “amateurism” of Olympic sports; who was criticized as brash and arrogant just years before those attitudes would be recoded as “confident”; who defied gender norms and paid the price in public perception. 

Regarding Lewis’ knowability, he still comes across as only as forthcoming as he wants to be, and you can sense Anderson and Hay nudging up against the limitations of Lewis’ warmth. But it’s easy to see the double standards — most of them racially coded — that harmed his image.

It’s easiest to chronicle Lewis’ athletic success and I’m Carl Lewis! takes a strictly, slightly blandly, chronological approach stretching across his four Olympiads, starting with the 1984 Los Angeles Olympics, in which Lewis equalled Jesse Owens with four marquee golds.

The doc follows his two decades of unprecedented dominance with spotlights on the 1988 showdown with Johnson (who doesn’t appear in the film) and his legendary 1991 World Championships long-jumping battle with Mike Powell (interviewed enthusiastically), which saw both men threaten Bob Beamon’s long-held record.

There’s ample tremendous footage of Lewis at work, emphasizing his grace and dominance. There’s also ample footage of Lewis meeting with reporters, allowing us to see the combative attitude (on both sides, since plenty of journalists come off every bit as poorly) that denied Lewis some of the public-facing opportunities a performer of his profile should have received.

Advertisement

With distant hindsight and the 63-year-old Lewis’ current candor, the directors reposition what was presented as “confrontational” back in the ’80s. 

Was Lewis primarily obsessed with money or was he pushing back against a system that carved the pie up to benefit organizers and sponsors? It’s easiest to see what a threat Lewis was to the status quo through sniveling archival interviews with dismissive Madison Avenue types from back in the ’80s, along with current interviews from Lewis’ contemporaries crediting him with opening doors. Is the documentary able to make direct connections between Lewis’ outspoken support of getting paid and eventual changes to the infrastructure of the sport? Probably not.

It’s much easier to see Lewis’ impact on keeping the sport drug-free, as he was hardly coy in accusing Johnson of doping long before there was evidence, and the doc isn’t shy about admitting to and clearing up Lewis’ own pre-Olympics positive drug test from 1988 (not that anything he clears up wasn’t in the public record 30+ years ago).

You can see how carefully Anderson and Hay want to handle Lewis’ sexuality, which was the subject of speculation and slurs in his prime.

“Carl didn’t act in the traditional, hyper-masculine way that Black men were expected to, and that’s part of what made him threatening to some people and empowering to other people,” commentator Keith Boykin says of his friend.

Advertisement

I don’t think the documentary is successful at illustrating that last part — how Lewis really empowered anybody. Yes, he opened up the door for today’s athletes proudly serving lewks on the red carpets that have become a key facet of 21st century sports. But where was the empowerment in Lewis’ aggressive denials at the time that he was gay? He isn’t much more candid today, nor is he introspective about the way he handled those claims. Nor is the documentary able to illustrate if Lewis’ penchant for eye-liner, homoerotic pop videos and flamboyant bodysuits gave him support in a gay community of the ’80s starved for public representation that he didn’t embrace.

In his current interviews, he’s more playfully evasive, speaking proudly of his famous Pirelli ad in red stilettos and critiquing nude portraits he commissioned at the time. He seems happy today, as he relaxes in his hot tub or walks the filmmakers around his small orchard or enjoys a birthday party with friends and family. Whether there were situations he could have handled differently or slurs he could have addressed in different ways apparently doesn’t matter here. The documentary is more about what society owed Carl Lewis than what Carl Lewis owes society at this point.

I’m Carl Lewis! reminded me most of Alex Stapleton’s Reggie, an Amazon documentary that made me entirely reexamine my perspective on Reggie Jackson — especially the ways the narratives about him were crafted at the time and who was allowed to craft those narratives. This doesn’t offer as full an overhaul for Lewis, but it’s effective in underlining his athletic greatness.

Movie Reviews

Vaazha 2 first half review: Hashir anchors a lively, chaos-filled teen tale

Published

on

Vaazha 2 first half review: Hashir anchors a lively, chaos-filled teen tale

‘Vaazha’ found its footing in how sharply it reflected a certain kind of youth, boys dismissed as ‘vaazhas’, but carrying their own confusions and emotional weight. The second part returns to that space, again following a group of boys trying to figure themselves out.

Directed by Savin SA, the film tracks this gang through their higher secondary years, with Hashir and Alan among the central figures. It stays with them as they move through that in-between phase, dealing with early attraction, peer pressure and the pull of new experiences, the kind that often arrive before they fully understand them. The narrative is not built around a single arc, but around the shared rhythm of the group.

The first half is mounted as a high-energy stretch, driven by humour, action and a fast pace, with a background score that keeps it buoyant. The inclusion of contemporary content creators stands out here, and the response suggests it lands well with younger viewers, especially in the way the film taps into familiar emotions.

Vijay Babu, Aju Varghese and Sudheesh appear in key supporting roles, adding presence around the central group.

Advertisement

Where the first Vaazha had a more subdued, easygoing take on youth, the sequel is noticeably louder and more vibrant, holding on to the same core but pushing it with greater energy.

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

‘Are We Having Fun Yet?’

Published

on

‘Are We Having Fun Yet?’

Photo: Universal/Everett Collection

Like being asphyxiated in a ball pit filled with candy, the experience of watching The Super Mario Galaxy Movie is at once kaleidoscopic and nerve-wracking. It pantomimes the hallmarks of a good time, with a fast, forced cheeriness; the flashing lights, bright colors, sparkly design, and subplot-happy narrative are there to hold our attention and charm us, but they accomplish the opposite, instead making us worry about what we’re missing. At one point there’s a throwaway bit involving a roller coaster that dives into a pit of lava, eventually emerging with all its passengers transformed into happy skeletons; maybe we are supposed to be those happy skeletons, drained of life and loving it. The good news (or is it the bad news?) is that this is a kids’ movie and nobody cares what “we” think. Its predecessor, 2023’s Super Mario Bros. Movie, made more than $1.3 billion worldwide, and no one should be surprised if this one does something similar.

That first movie wasn’t particularly accomplished either, but it had a slick simplicity that one could sort of lose oneself in and some clever bits involving our heroes, Brooklyn plumber brothers Mario (Chris Pratt) and Luigi (Charlie Day), as well as a lively turn by Jack Black as the bloviating turtle-demon Bowser. The sequel, by contrast, is turbo-loaded with character, incident, themes, never pausing to let us appreciate anything. Though directors Aaron Horvath and Michael Jelenic do apparently want us to care: The Super Mario Galaxy Movie centers around families destroyed and reclaimed, a sentence I can’t believe I just typed. The film’s chief villain, the spasmodic Bowser Jr. (voiced by Benny Safdie), seeks to save his father, the now-docile Bowser, from neutered captivity. As part of his devious plan (I think?), Junior kidnaps Princess Rosalina (Brie Larson) from her space-faring observatory dominion, where she plays mother to a race of puffy, colorful star children known as Lumas. Rosalina loves to read her kids heroic stories about Princess Peach (Anya Taylor-Joy), her long-lost sister, ruler of the Mushroom Kingdom and Mario’s main object of desire. Such attempts to infuse depth into the film’s carnivalesque cacophony could have been something, but corporate flatness consumes all. The ideas about family aren’t explored or developed, merely repeated.

Advertisement

But like I said, it’s a kids’ film, and younger children will be distracted by the aforementioned cute little star-baby things, by the cute little mushroom-head guys, by the frantic speed at which everything comes at us, and by the film’s vision of the universe as a series of amusement parks, with each world in this galaxy seemingly its own funfair. If only all this chaos didn’t feel so strained, so polished and programmed, so, so … unchaotic. The movie is also filled with Easter eggs from many decades’ worth of Mario video games, which will surely reassure devoted fans of those games that all is right with the world and someone loves them. (Full disclosure: I haven’t played any of them. Back when I was a kid and had to cold turkey myself from video games entirely, I’m pretty sure Donkey Kong was as far as I got in the incipient Mario universe.) The best of these aforementioned callouts is the appearance of the Han Solo–like Star Fox (voiced by Glen Powell), a character from a different set of Nintendo games, who arrives accompanied by his own hand-animated, hyper credit sequence. More of that, please.

Of the rest of the star-laden voice cast, Safdie and Black are the only others who make an impression. As before, Bowser has been realized with an eye (and an ear) for Black’s own grandiose, mock-operatic mannerisms, and Safdie seems to have appropriated them for the character’s offspring. Black, of course, was also the star of last year’s entertaining hit A Minecraft Movie, which got a ton of mileage out of the actor’s unique mix of irony and roaring sincerity, using him to hold together its ramshackle, faux-DIY vibe. That film was a good example of this type of material handled with something resembling charm. We could also point to something older like The LEGO Movie as a model of a brand-management enterprise that managed to be irreverent and thoughtful (and, indeed, brilliant) at the same time. All The Super Mario Galaxy Movie has, unfortunately, is the messianic fervor with which it throws everything at us. Well, that, and the mountains of money it will surely make. Me, I’ll take my travel stipend and go home.

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Blaming Reviews Won’t Save a Film – Gulte

Published

on

Blaming Reviews Won’t Save a Film – Gulte

At the success meet of Band Melam last night, several actors and the director voiced strong complaints about film reviews. Some said reviews are damaging films badly, while other actor even questioned producer satirically why reviewers were not “managed.” One speaker even suggested that critics should wait a few days before sharing their opinions.

However, the bigger issue seems to be something else. The team successfully brought back the hit “Court” pair, expecting that their previous popularity would automatically pull audiences to theatres. While the chemistry between the lead pair still works to an extent, that alone cannot guarantee success. Audiences today expect a strong story and engaging narration, not just familiar faces.

This argument about reviews also misses a basic point. Reviews, whether positive or negative, are usually based on how the film actually feels to the viewer. Audiences along with reviews, They also check trailers, songs, and public talk before making a decision.

If a film truly connects with people, no amount of negative reviews can stop it. Social media quickly reflects genuine audience reactions, and strong content always finds support.

When a film fails to create that impact, blaming reviews becomes an easy excuse. Instead of targeting critics, filmmakers need to focus on delivering better content.

Advertisement

At the same event, producer Bekkem Venugopal made a sensible point that everyone should do their own job. Filmmakers should focus on making good films, and critics should share honest opinions.

Continue Reading

Trending