Tribeca Review: Ball Don't Lie
Filed under: Drama, Sports, Tribeca, Theatrical Reviews
And here's another street-ballin' flick that wants you to know how tough it is to make it in life when the only thing not lyin' to your face is that dirty old basketball. Ball Don't Lie had a lot of potential and some sweeet b-ball sequences, but annoying editing and several mis-placed flashbacks ultimately hurt the film, which boasts appearances by Nick Cannon and Rosanna Arquette -- both of whom populated just about five to six minutes of the 102-minute feature. Chris "I'm Starting to Use My Real Name Instead of Ludacris" Bridges also shows up as a mentor who doesn't do much mentoring, except for schooling and then being schooled on the cement court.
He's not the only one: When it's not dazzling us with some fancy footwork, Ball Don't Lie schools us in the pitfalls of a broken foster care system; one that finds our hero, Sticky (newcomer Grayson Boucher), moving from one dysfunctional situation to the next. At some point, Sticky meets a girl who works at Foot Locker -- tries to find enough money to buy her a necklace for her birthday -- and then he gets beat up by a guy with a gun. The end. I don't mean to be harsh toward the movie, but it just doesn't serve a purpose -- it didn't go anywhere. I never read the book this was based on (written by Matt De La Pena), but I'd like to think it contained a little more than "What a sad situation for that poor boy."
Obviously, when you hear the word 'flashbacks', you know where this one is heading: Ball Don't Lie jumps all over the place -- with a majority of the film split between Sticky as a grown teenager and Sticky as a little boy. To make things even more complicated, they'll often flashback to stuff that happened a few months prior -- then flash-forward before giving us another flashback. I'd say about 15 minutes of Ball Don't Lie was spent in the here and now, and not as part of some flashback. The film's greatest moments come when Sticky is hanging with some of the local players down at the community gym -- the lone white kid in a sea of hard, tough, no-nonsense black street players. When first-time feature director Brin Hill left the camera on the gym action for more than two minutes, this ensemble cast really had a good time, and the lightening-fast basketball moves looked great on the big screen.
But then we'd have scenes in the gym where Hill would feel the need to stick three flashbacks in. So, essentially, you'd have a six or seven minute gym scene that included three annoying flashbacks. And it's fine if all these flashbacks are building up to something -- if, in the current time, Sticky set a date to try out for a college, or he has a big game to prepare for. Then, together with the flashbacks, we slowly work up to a nail-biting conclusion -- with our hearts firmly invested in a positive outcome for Sticky because we now know all the hardships this kid's been through. Unfortunately, there's none of that. There's no "big game" or "one last shot." There's nothing to build toward -- just a bunch of sad scenes and hurtful people.
Early on, they introduce a pretty nasty OCD problem Sticky has -- but it's only used to harm our character, and never once does he try to help himself, or does someone try to help him. This, to me, was the most interesting aspect of the film; a tough, b-baller with extreme OCD issues. Fantastic! However, the filmmakers are sloppy with it (he needs to fold his clothes a certain way, but he keeps his money all bunched up in a plastic bag?) and after it comes back to bite him in the end, there's never redemption. That part of the film felt incomplete. Though I hate playing the woulda-shoulda game, had Ball Don't Lie gone the straight linear route and changed the story so that our main character was actually working toward a concrete goal, perhaps the film would've shined. All you're getting here, though, is a dish of messy emotional drama and some really kickass basketball footage. Perhaps that's enough for some, but it wasn't enough for me.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
5-01-2008 @ 2:33PM
Minus said...
I saw this movie yesterday and I think you might have missed something fairly obvious: Sticky got shot, through his shooting hand, at point blank range. With a gun.
I hate to point out something I'm quite certain you couldn't fail to see (there was, after all, quite a bit of blood. And a gunshot.), but your "gets beat up by a guy with a gun" comment gives me pause. Perhaps you were trying to not give too much of the movie away, but your analysis of the ending hinges so completely on this event that I feel it's worth mentioning. People who get shot through their hands usually don't get to use their hands again.
From where I was sitting, the ending was the triumph of the movie. We see this kid Sticky make his way through a brutal childhood, get yanked out of a few foster homes, get kicked out of others, and finally achieve some success on the basketball court. Just as his life is about to turn a corner, just when the colleges start showing interest, he goes and gets his hand damn near shot off! Stupid Sticky. Dumb Sticky. Same old Sticky.
At that point, I figured the kid would never play ball again and we should start the Tribeca suicide watch. When he shows up in the gym later, looking the same if not better on the court and sporting a college hat (Was it USC? Cal? I'm blanking on this for some reason), it seemed clear to me that he'd overcome the only thing that might have kept him from making it to college: his injury.
For me, that's all the redemption I needed.
Reply
5-01-2008 @ 2:41PM
Erik Davis said...
Hey Minus,
No, I didn't miss that part ... just didn't really want to give it away. And I understand your point, but that ending was way too rushed and not one person talked about whether he could play ball again, nor did it come up in one conversation. We then cut to whenever, see him back on the court (without a scar, mind you) and a college hat on that's not explained either. Don't these kids all wear different team hats and jerseys? They can't TELL US he got into a college?
Also, I found it so hard to believe that a kid with extreme OCD kept his money all bunched up in a bag like that.
Also, neither the flashbacks nor the current scenes lead up to something. It would've been different if, say, as an adult he was working toward a clear and cut goal. And we saw that. But we didn't. It was "look how much his life sucked when he was a kid" then "look how good at basketball he is." This went back and forth for an hour and a half and then the film ended.
5-01-2008 @ 5:12PM
Chow Hound said...
"My name's Sticky"
Throughout the entire movie, we see young Sticky approaching the same door over and over again and never able to open it. In the end, during the dream sequence, he has an emotional breakthrough – he finally opens that door and reveals to us what he’s been burying this entire time. By saying his name, by defining himself (when young Sticky can’t), he is taking ownership of what happened and releasing the guilt he feels about what he didn’t do to help. For the first time, he is able to confront his past head-on.
This is what the flashbacks and the present day sequences are building towards – the moment when he can finally open that door. It is only when he is shot – when he has everything on the line to lose – that Sticky finds the courage to come to terms with his childhood, allowing him to look forward instead of backward…and to finally embrace his life.
Sticky is haunted by his past and his memories blind side him the same way they do all of us. The non-linear flow of the film is a reflection of how real people think and live – how in the midst of every day mundane activities something can be triggered that resurrects the past. This isn’t some formulaic, two-dimensional sports flick that ends with a “game winning shot”…and it’s all the more impressive because of it. Ball Don’t Lie dares to break the mold, to push the envelope, to shake things up a bit and take a risk. That is what visionary filmmakers should do…and we, as an audience, should settle for nothing less.
Reply
5-01-2008 @ 5:56PM
Minus said...
Hey Erik,
Actually, I'm not convinced he's been accepted to college by the end of the movie, I'm just making the connection from earlier: Colleges were interested in him before, he's recovered from the injury, therefore they're still interested. I think he might still be a junior in high school by the end of the movie, since he was on the JV team at the beginning. But like I said before, it's enough for me to see that he can still play. The basketball action speaks louder here than a few explanatory lines would. Anybody who can play the game as well as he can is going to get a free ride somewhere.
As far as the money in the plastic bag, I think it's more "poor kid, no money for a real wallet" than anything else. I suppose he could have been shoving a handful of bills into his sock, but that wouldn't be too comfortable while he's out there on the court.
This may not be a clearly stated "goal" in the movie, but here's something to consider about the ending: Sticky's had a real crappy life. He's poor, he's got his OCD thing, and he doesn't have anyone to rely on. No real family, what with his mom and dad not being around. He gets shunted from foster home to foster home with only the occasional (usually bad) mentor stopping by for a minute before making a quit exit, so he doesn't even have a stable makeshift family. And then he finds his way to the gym, and the guys down there become people he can lean on. And then he meets his girl. And then... (I'll leave this spoiler out, but I think you know what I'd be putting here). By the end of things, he's made the journey from unhappy to happy. He has family, and he has friends, and they're there for him. He is no longer alone.
I'd argue that this is one of those universal goals that almost all of us are working toward, even if we don't necessarily acknowledge it.
Reply
5-01-2008 @ 8:16PM
Erik Davis said...
Hey, I'm all for visionary filmmakers "shaking things up a bit," but I felt this film used those flashbacks as a crutch. Fact is, nothing was happening much to move the story along when we were in a flashback, and nothing was happening much to move the story along when we were not in a flashback. It was "Look, Nick Cannon is rolling a joint and putting a cigarette out on the kid's neck" to "and now they're playing basketball again." Not to mention the weird almost-rape scene at the end that had no purpose.
You can call not moving the plot along "taking a risk," but I like to call it not moving the plot along.
Reply
5-04-2008 @ 12:27PM
charlotte said...
I would like to take a moment to discuss Sticky's OCD. As someone who has grown up with OCD, I know a sufficient deal about the disorder. OCD behaviors are clearly something that are not understood by the average person (as proved by above critiques). The common misconception that a person is consistent in their behaviors is false, i.e.; his folding of clothes but allowing money to be crumpled and stored in a bag). Obsessions are formed in the brain, for whatever reason, at random. Just because Sticky needs to fold his clothes a certain way, doesn't mean that he is required to be a neat freak in all aspects of his life. Obsessions also come and go as they please, with no transition at all. Maybe these misconceptions needed to be addressed in the movie, but would've most likely strayed from the film's direction. The film only suggested Sticky’s OCD, no one ever put a name to his compulsions. A perfect definition of OCD simply would not fit in a film of this genre. Not to mention the actual diagnoses wouldn’t be appropriate or consistent with the sequences of events.
I am also concerned at the mention of Sticky trying to help himself, or others assisting him with his OCD. As someone who doesn't particulary enjoy OCD I am a little offended at the idea that he could receive any kind of cure or relief from his disorder. Not to mention that any kind of treatment would be far too costly for anyone involved in his life. The time and money needed for this would be completely unrealistic for any person to actually follow through with. With the aforementioned idea that Sticky was never diagnosed, I have a feeling, that none of his guardians suspected a neurological disorder. This idea is also backed by the reactions of everyone in the film to his odd behavior. An example of this can be seen in his second (I think 2nd) foster home when his foster "mom" is scared of him because he put his socks on eighteen times. Outside of the liquor store with his mom is also an example. If anyone realized that he had any real neurological disorder, I highly doubt they would be so ignorant to try to get him or to seize his compulsions.
I hope this is helpful to anyone who is confused about OCD.
Reply