Redemption

The topic of Stan Williams often incites heated and emotional debate. A movie about his life was therefore a perfect opportunity to inform both sides of the armchair debaters, showing why Tookie was put in prison and sketching the events leading to his self-claimed redemption. Tookie was a wretched man - he said so himself. The movie should have shown how wretched he was. It should have shown the violence he was exposed to when he was young, the murders he was convicted for, his violent behaviour in prison for many years before he had a change of heart. He also always claimed he was innocent of the crimes he was sentenced for, so there was an opportunity to film the murders with some doubt as to the perpetrator. It could really have built around the doubt, and played on the emotional conflict of carrying out the sentence or having mercy on a changed man. But the movie doesn't focus on the character change of Tookie. It never focuses on his violent nature, and the viewer is not taken on the journey of the evolving character. Instead, the film starts off with the nice Tookie Williams who has kind eyes and a nature that evokes sympathy. His former crimes are only eluded to, and he is depicted as an honest man seeking release from prison as a place he can't get used to and just doesn't belong. Jamie Foxx is a brilliant actor, but unfortunately does not portray the latent demon that was Tookie. Jamie is too nice-looking, and not nearly huge enough. If you are not familiar with the Tookie Williams story, this movie will seem to jump around a lot and will not make as much sense as it is supposed to. Those unfamiliar with the story will side immediately with Tookie and want him to be released from prison. As such, it is not an accurate portrayal, and it is not clear what the film was trying to create. The movie never really finds its rhythm and it is an unfortunate lost opportunity. The viewer should have a good idea of how bad Tookie was, and then be able to judge for himself the genuineness of the change, and only then start to question what Tookie's fate should have been. These questions did not need to be answered in the movie, but they should at least have been posed. Instead, the end result is a random and inelegant sympathetic sketch of Tookie's last days that ends on an imperfect cadence.

STAR RATING: ***** The Works **** Just Misses the Mark *** That Little Bit In Between ** Lagging Behind * The Pits

A true story depicting the story of Crips founder Stanley 'Tookie' Williams, played by Jamie Foxx. Imprisoned on multiple counts of murder in the early 80s, the film takes off on the verge of Tookie's execution date, when he is visited by a journalist (Lynn Whitfield) eager to learn about the gang culture. Impressed by the intelligent and seemingly remorseful man she now sees in front of her, she is astonished when he asks for her help-in writing children's books warning of the dangers of gang life! This is the beginning of his path to true redemption and his nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize.

I got a little caught up last year in the big Tookie debate as the day of his execution dawned (or maybe just a little after it.) Ancient history now, but I thought it would still be interesting to check this film out and learn a little bit more about the story behind Tookie.

As the actor playing him, Foxx was one of the celebrity vocal exponents for granting clemency to Tookie in the closing days before his execution. I'm willing to bet he met the man and spoke with him to research his part a bit, and that his portrayal of the imprisoned man is fairly accurate. Tookie's crimes sound truly despicable and in the eyes of many his death by lethal injection may even have sounded too merciful, but I think what the film is trying to portray is an example of how the American prison system has worked in it's ability to 'rehabilitate' a criminal and make him into a more intelligent, if not entirely decent, human being. With Foxx in the lead role, I can't help but feel his personal politics on the matter may have had some say in how the script panned out, and at times it does feel a little one-sided, going to great lengths to show the new improved Tookie without going into too much detail of the atrocious crimes he committed, but then a few other films could be accused of that recently.

Quality wise, the film suffers from a bit of a disjointed opening, with too much use of flashy camera effects. Early on, this actually put me in such low expectations for the rest of the film that I actually found myself nodding off for a bit. But Foxx does deliver a compelling performance in the lead role and things do get more interesting as the film goes on. Plus it should be commended for wrapping the very heavy subject matter it's depicting up in just under an hour and a half. ***

I have watched the movie Redemption Two times and, I must say that it really touched me. First and foremost I don't agree with the way that our legal system is set up to begin with. Everyone likes to see criminals locked up behind bars to serve the time that they are sentenced. That is all fine and well but, what about when their sentence is up and, it's time for them to released back into "real population"??? Jails do not fully help people become rehabilitated because once they leave their cell they are basically on their own. In most instances after being released they are assigned to a Parole Officer to whom they report to. This is not enough what is needed is a back up system merely a support group. We don't want them to live in our neighborhoods and most companies don't want to hire ex-con's so what is their next resort back into a life of crime that ends up making the door to the jail house revolving. As I have stated earlier after watching the movie I have gained an interest in convicts and, on the conditions of their life in prison and beyond. I would like to see improvements in how they are treated while serving out their sentences. Now most will disagree with what I propose but, even though the jail house is full of rapist, child molester's, murders, etc.,. they are still human beings first.

I was expecting more balanced story between who He was and who He became, but that doesn't happens here. Instead, 90 % of the movie is concentrated on who He became and it is done well with thoughtful dialogs.

Unfortunately it depicts a little of His violent past, blurry presented, and far from enough so we can feel the change. It is a warm story nicely told, but also doesn't goes beyond that, doesn't surprises, but follows a firmly determined line, and in the end instead culminating, slowly fades.

However a good job is done her, since this is a hard story to tell. In the end I must say, a great performance by Jamie Foxx, well transformation.

This is not the movie I thought I'd see tonight, but…Even when I didn't want to, for the first time in a while, I doubted the intentions of a film. Doubting is not a negative thing, though, but it is in a lot of ways related to disappointment. "Redemption" is a well made TV film, and it has lots of elements that don't make it disappointing I will talk about, but again; the intentions. To explain the intentions I have to take myself back to the film itself, but I won't do that. When I refer to intentions I mean what the piece tries to generate on the viewer. This is stronger when the film is based in biographical or true events, as this feature. I don't know how much of exactitude this has with Stan Williams' life, but if you are trying to reach someone with something that actually happened, you have to keep it real.

Many parts in "Redemption" were unconvincing to me. I would like to research about "Tookie" Williams, the Crips, the Nobel Prize nominations…I would like to read biographies, the books he wrote…I would like to find out about who he was, what he did, how he did it; knowing that this is likely impossible, and having just seen a movie that should have explained it all. I wonder if it is possible for a man with no culture or education, having been a gangster half of his life, to learn the most difficult words, write with a capacity enough to be awarded, think philosophically and profoundly, and literally become a wise-ass just because of being locked up and having none other thing to do.

The story, despite having occurred in real life, follows common plot lines used in most of movies of the type today. The journalist who wants to write about a prisoner, and first thinks of it just like a job and as a chance of expressing herself, but eventually after getting to know the man behind bars, gets to involved with him and his thoughts, which might be dangerous for her life, etcetera. This is just the general overview, because the film covers different aspects, with flashbacks of Williams' (Jamie Foxx) past, situations in the journalist Barbara Becnel's (Lynn Whitfield) personal life, a glance at the society.

With all this the movie still seems unfinished. First, the movie introduces Williams as a leader and violent individual destined for prison. Then, when he ends up in prison, eventually isolates from the world, reads the definition of the word "redemption" out loud and meets Barbara Becnel, J.T Allen's screenplay presents him as something similar to a Buddha; with glasses, a long haircut that inspires peace and expressions that in occasions out limit the journalist's knowledge. The screenplay also contains phrases that don't seem honest, but convenient and intends that we think, for example, that Williams has one powerful talk with his mom almost at the end of the film, when supposedly she has been visiting the man for years. This does not mean the scrip is flawed but that of course, it is manipulative and not many will buy that.

Vondie Curtis-Hall's direction is way too noticeable for a TV feature. He is not fond of the still shots I witnessed constantly during "Everyday People". He prefers the constant movement, and expresses this during the whole movie, where a shot doesn't stay still during more than ten seconds. He puts the audience to think too, in a lot of instances. Consider the movie's most interesting scene, when Stan is working out and suddenly has a dream…I don't know if Williams ever dreamed that or something similar, but Curtis-Hall made me meditate about it. The director's work isn't disappointing and neither is the main actors'. Lynn Whitfield left me speechless. Besides her eyes being full of expression, almost about to cry and her power in the most stirring scenes, she reminded me of a live person I know. Her face, her ways, made me think of this person in the future.

Blame me, but this is just the fourth time I've regarded Foxx's work. I first saw him in the underestimated "Shade" and thought he overacted; then I watched "Collateral" and I was truly amazed by his gifts; and before this film, I was taken to the past, where in Ice Cube's "The Players Club" he seemed like a relaxed and natural actor. However it was last year when he became word everywhere. "Ray" is a movie I must see, but then here he looked a lot different than in "Collateral", and he achieved a different performance.

Here, the softness in his voice remained, but it was the manners of this more certain and confident man and the strength of this fighter that marked this portrayal. I think the industry may have rushed with him, and that we need to see what he does next. I hope he isn't just an actor who chose some right roles but then looked the other way. He recently starred in a science fiction film alongside Jessica Biel. He'll have to prove the talent to me in a movie like that, I mean; Halle Berry got it for "Monster's Ball", but look where she stands now.