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

‘Christmas Karma’ movie review: A Bollywood Carol with little cheer

Published

on

‘Christmas Karma’ movie review: A Bollywood Carol with little cheer

Kunal Nayyar in ‘Christmas Karma’
| Photo Credit: True Bit Entertainment/YouTube

Christmas jumpers are all I can remember of this film. As this reimagining of Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol dragged on with sickly-sweet sentimentality and song, my eyes constantly tried to work out whether those snowflakes and reindeer were printed on the jerseys or, if knitted, how complicated the patterns would have been.

Christmas Karma (English)

Director: Gurinder Chadha

Starring: Kunal Nayyar, Leo Suter, Charithra Chandran, Pixie Lott, Danny Dyer, Boy George, Hugh Bonneville, Billy Porter, Eva Longoria, Mia Lomer

Storyline: A miserly businessman learns the true meaning of Christmas when visited by ghosts of Christmas past, present and future

Advertisement

Runtime: 114 minutes

Gurinder Chadha, who gave us the gorgeous Bend it Like Beckham (who wants to make aloo gobi when you can bend the ball like Beckham indeed) has served up an unappetising Bollywood song-and-dance version of Dickens’ famous Christmas story.

A still from the film

A still from the film
| Photo Credit:
True Bit Entertainment/YouTube

A curmudgeonly Indian businessman, Ishaan Sood (Kunal Nayyar), fires his entire staff on Christmas Eve—except his accountant, Bob (Leo Suter)—after catching them partying at the office. Sood’s nephew, Raj (Shubham Saraf) invites him for a Christmas party which he refuses to attend.

He returns home after yelling at some carol singers for making a noise, the shopkeeper (Nitin Ganatra) at the corner for his business decisions and a cabbie (Danny Dyer) for being too cheerful.

His cook-housekeeper, Mrs. Joshi (Shobu Kapoor) tells him to enjoy his dinner in the dark as he has not paid for heat or electricity. He is visited by the spirit of his dead business partner, Marley (Hugh Bonneville), who is in chains with the spirits of all the people he wronged. Marley’s spirit tells Sood that he will be visited by three spirits who will reveal important life lessons.

Advertisement
A still from the film

A still from the film
| Photo Credit:
True Bit Entertainment/YouTube

The Ghost of Christmas Past (Eva Longoria), with Day of the Dead makeup and three mariachis providing musical accompaniment, shows Sood his early, happy days in Uganda as a child and the trauma of being expelled from the country by Idi Amin.

Sood comes to Britain where his father dies of heartbreak and decides the only way out is to earn a lot of money. He meets and falls in love with Bea (Charithra Chandran) but loses her when he chooses paisa over pyaar even though he tries to tell her he is being ruthless only to earn enough to keep her in luxury.

The Ghost of Christmas Present (Billy Porter) shows Bob’s twee house full of Christmas cheer, despite the roast chicken past its sell-by date, and his young son, Tim, bravely smiling despite his illness.

The Ghost of Christmas Future (Boy George, Karma is sure a chameleon!) shows Sood dying alone except for Bob and Mrs. Joshi. He sees the error of his ways and throws much money around as he makes everything alright. He even ends up meeting up with his childhood friend in Uganda.

Apart from the mixed messages (money makes everything alright, let us pray for the NHS but go to Switzerland to get well) and schmaltzy songs, Christmas Karma suffers from weak writing and wooden acting.

Advertisement

Priyanka Chopra’s Hindi rendition of George Michael’s ‘Last Christmas’ runs over the end credits featuring Chadha and the crew, bringing back fond memories of Bina Mistry’s ‘Hot Hot Hot’ from Bend it Like Beckham. Even a sitar version by Anoushka Shankar is to no avail as watching this version of A Christmas Carol ensures bad karma in spades.

Christmas Karma is currently running in theatres

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Dust Bunny

Published

on

Dust Bunny

An orphaned girl hires her hitman next-door neighbor to kill the monster under her bed. This R-rated action/horror movie mashup has lots of violence but surprisingly little gore. However, there are still many gruesome moments, even if they’re just offscreen. And some language and a strange portrayal of Christian worship come up, too.

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Resurrection movie review & film summary (2025) | Roger Ebert

Published

on

Resurrection movie review & film summary (2025) | Roger Ebert

Across the three feature films he’s made to date, the 36-year-old Chinese filmmaker Bi Gan has proven himself prodigiously gifted at manipulating the parameters of time and space through moving images, resulting in visually astonishing, narratively diffuse feats of showmanship that drift and shift in accordance with a self-consciously slippery dream logic.

In his 2015 debut, “Kaili Blues,” which maps the contours of the area around his hometown, Kaili City, in southwestern Guizhou province, Bi traced the psychic and physical geography of his own youth to reflect on rural China’s relationship to the country’s rapidly advancing modernity. Wandering the streets and alleys of a riverside village in a bravura long take that collapsed its past, present, and future in a swirl, he announced himself as a boldly cinematic voice, one for whom restless yearning to escape from existentially impoverished realities into fantastic, subconscious realms was clearly a formal and thematic imperative. 

His elliptical debut turned out to be mere table-setting for “Long Day’s Journey Into Night,” a labyrinthine neo-noir that—despite unfurling across Guizhou province—was a more baroque, impersonal affair. Following another drifter in search of a missing person, Bi reinterpreted this generic premise as a jumping-off point to meditate at large on time, memory, and cinema’s role in shaping both, enumerating his influences—among them Hou Hsiao-hsien, Wong Kar-wai, and Andrei Tarkovsky, the latter of whom Bi has openly referred to as a formative inspiration—while burnishing his international reputation as a filmmaker capable of traversing stylistic boundaries with supreme confidence. Again came a fluid long take, this time in the form of an hour-long 3D sequence shot that started once its protagonist took his seat at a run-down movie house.

This sophomore effort—technically a leap forward, one achieved with a surfeit of production resources—brought Bi toward other issues, none unfamiliar for an emerging auteur with his emphases. Most glaringly, for all the puzzling surface pleasures wrought by its heightened stylization and oblique storyline, the film felt consciously artificial, all but completely lacking its predecessor’s tactility. If “Kaili Blues” laid the groundwork for Bi’s cineastic language, it also grounded him in a localized context where his abstractions could still accrue atmospheric density. “Long Day’s Journey Into Night” might be seen as unburdened by its aversion to narrative or emotional clarity, but its flourishes felt curiously weightless and inconsequential.

“Resurrection,” Bi’s third feature, is no less staggering than his last two, and it’s saturated with some of the more striking images you’re likely to see in a theater this year. Still, its onerously oneiric progression is a disappointing development, signaling a greater shift from the yearning poetics of Bi’s past work toward circular meta-cinematic pastiche. If his previous films were concerned with exploring time and memory, the subject of dreaming is what most moves Bi in “Resurrection” — but in all three instances, his thesis is essentially the same self-reflexive assertion of belief in cinema’s power to reflect the experience of our inner journeys. 

Advertisement

Styled as a love letter to the grand illusion of cinema, albeit one to be read upon its deathbed, “Resurrection” opens in a fitfully imagined alternate reality where imagination itself has become imperiled. People have discovered that the secret to immortality lies in no longer dreaming. However, a small subset of the population has defied this anti-dreaming decree, preferring to still revel in fantasies despite the fact that this significantly shortens their lifespans. (A series of intertitles, styled to emulate those of the silent-film era, compares people not dreaming to “candles that do not burn,” and Bi consistently returns to this metaphor across each of the film’s chapters.)

Dream dissidents, known as “Deliriants,” are summarily outcast from society and hunted down by “Other Ones,” who are capable of entering their dreams and do so to extinguish them, lest these outliers become monstrous. “Resurrection” follows one Deliriant, played by Chinese pop star and actor Jackson Yee, as he shapeshifts from dream to dream at the behest of an Other One (Shu Qi), who installs a film projector inside him as a seeming act of mercy, allowing him a few reveries more before his inevitable death. Comprising the rest of the film, each of the Deliriant’s dream scenarios is linked to a different era of moviemaking, from German expressionism to neon-streaked, Wong Kar-wai-indebted romanticism; Bi also connects each vignette to one of the five senses and places them in distinct periods of 20th-century Chinese history. 

The most spellbinding section comes first, through Bi’s tribute to silent melodrama, as the Other One hunts Yee’s Deliriant through what appears to be a Chinese opium den but soon transforms into a byzantine maze of exaggerated, crooked film-set backdrops. Evoking memories of both Murnau and Méliès, the accomplished production design of “Resurrection”—by Liu Qiang and Tu Nan—shines brightest here. Through its successive sections, the film then morphs into a war-time espionage thriller, adrift in smoke and mirrors; a folktale set in the ruins of a Buddhist temple, involving a thief and a trickster god; a tragicomic riff on “Paper Moon,” about a con artist and his orphan apprentice who allege they can identify playing cards by smell; and, finally, a woozy romance between two young lovers—one seemingly a vampire—on the eve of the new millennium, this last part playing out as another of Bi’s virtuosic long takes.

The ambition, as we’ve come to expect from him, is overpowering. “Resurrection” is alternately a sci-fi picture, a monster movie, a film noir, a cryptic parable, a crime caper, and a gangland romance — and it’s sometimes all of the above, blurring tones and textures to suggest a certain metamorphic potential within each of the stories as the Deliriant experiences them. Yet there’s a curiously draining quality to Bi’s film as well, one that feels related less to its sprawling scope than to the repetitive, riddling nature of the segments therein. As a procession of characters is transmogrified in strange ways, or otherwise meet surprising ends, across a series of abstruse set pieces that function primarily to pay homage to various techniques, Bi’s dominant mood is one of plaintive desolation, and this wears thin as quickly as all the willfully ersatz dialogue he invites audiences to puzzle over. 

Bi’s reverence for the century of cinema he references throughout “Resurrection” is indisputable, and the sheer opulence on display will leave some enraptured. Certainly, in terms of production design and cinematography, he’s assembled an intimidating contraption made up of far too many moving parts to track upon initial viewing. But the effect of this outsized ambition is often mannered, even mechanistic. 

Advertisement

For all its waxing lyrical about the need for humanity to keep dreaming through cinema, all its technically polished tributes to film history, its showmanship lacks emotional substance. If imitation is the sincerest act of flattery, here it also proves flattening; as in “Long Day’s Journey Into Night,” Bi enshrines his influences through recurrent motifs and symbols, through one assured demonstration of a recognizable style after another, but in doing so he also entombs them, creating a film that feels like less a work of imaginative possibility from an ascendant master than an act of preservation by a dutiful curator. 

Paradoxically, for a film about the undying essence of the movies, what’s missing is any more molten, organic sense of processing that would evoke the true surreality of dream states. In place of an artist’s passion, Bi’s cold touch carries an undertaker’s sense of ceremony. Without a deeper subconscious drive behind his construction, it also lacks the intense aura of mystery and desire one would welcome in a grand monument like this. Instead, Bi has erected a series of simulacra, a hall of mirrors that reflect one another endlessly yet also indifferently; its images only seem to grow smaller and smaller as they recede into infinite distance. “Resurrection” is ravishing in its command of shadow and light, but it studiously hollows out any sense of soul beneath the surface. 

“Resurrection” is now in theaters, via Janus Films.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending