Product: xXx (2002)
Rating: 2.0
REGARDING SAMUEL L. JACKSON'S ROLE IN "XXX"
The LA Times printed (after some crude chopping) my letter in their Calendar section of 02/20/05.It's a response to an article in which Samuel L. Jackson is being recognized as the top box office champ of all times, having starred in enough films (like the god-awful "Caveman's Valentine" and the equally embarrassing and forgettable "Changing Lanes" just to name a fluffy few) to have raked in over 6 billion world-wide. "I am now the No. 1 box-office star in the world," said Sam.In the article, the writer boasts of how "strenuously" Jackson prepares for a role, how he demanded the film's makers not kill off his character in the "XXX" sequel (which stars that formidably-talented, classically-trained thespian O'shea Jackson--otherwise known as Ice Cube. The original "XXX" --as we all well know--was a well-crafted character study starring none other than screen legend Vin Diesel), so that, in the (inevitable and unfortunate) subsequent installments of the destined-to-be-classic film franchise, his character (the beloved and oft-quoted "Gibbons") can appear once again, and invariable work his screen magic.The Los Angeles Times article was titled "HE'S THE $6-BILLION DOLLAR MAN."Here's my submitted response:--------------------------------------------------------------Regarding the Samuel L. Jackson Article of 02/13/05One can only wish that Samuel L. Jackson was as concerned with pushing the boundaries and challenging himself as an actor, and consistently choosing projects with more meaning and substance (than that contained within the "XXX" film franchise), as he is with "the numbers."As an African-American actor, I'm greatly inspired by Jackson's accomplishments within the entertainment industry, but not by his lackluster approach to the craft of acting. Although always solid on screen, and despite how he's said to prepare for a role, Jackson essentially seems to play himself in every film he's in.With his formidable presence, and not-to-be-messed-with attitude, he rarely shows human vulnerability or more than one dimension on screen. Jackson doesn't appear to have really challenged himself since his star-making turn as a crack addict in "Jungle Fever" (his later role as Jules in "Pulp Fiction" appears to have cemented the stoic, one-sided image of him fans have come to admire, expect and invariably receive in his every film).Sadly, I think Jackson's attitude is indicative of what's wrong with the entertainment industry at large: too much of a focus and fixation on being No. 1 at the box office, and not enough emphasis on doing work that's fresh and original, unpredictable, and capable of transcending the boundaries of mediocrity.