Whatever your opinion of her may be, you cannot deny the universal fame of Joan Rivers. One of, if not the, most recognizable female comedian the world has to offer, Rivers had been thrusting herself into the spotlight for the better part of the 50 years. And whether a rabid fan, an adamant hater, or somewhere in between, everyone knows Joan. Her sharp wit and wickedly crass material have been overshadowed by her commitment to plastic surgery and unfortunate career choices but at the same time, you have to credit her for still having a career at all this far into the game. On the verge of turning 75, "Piece of Work" details the life and times of Rivers from the highs to the lows and her rise to budding superstar and fall to Indian casino bookings.
First of all it should be noted that I really wasn't interested in this movie. Obviously I love a good documentary but the thought of sitting through an hour and a half of Joan Rivers sounded only slightly less ominous than wearing Lady Gaga's famed meat suit into shark infested waters. My introduction to Joan Rivers came as a child when she appeared as an over-the-top makeup saleswoman in "The Muppets Take Manhattan," an appearance that left me shell-shocked for the last 25 years. That was enough for me. But when this doc popped up on my bi-weekly search for anything new worth watching on Netflix Instant, I figured it wouldn't hurt to add it to the queue even if I never watched it. (Note to movie studios: this is not the first time this has happened. Netflix Instant is a serious boon to your industry. Embrace it.) And then the weather and AT&T became allies and launched a dual-front attack against my house a couple of weeks ago, knocking out my cable while simultaneously making it impossible for me to leave my house. So when the Lady of the Box Office refused to be party to any of the movies I suggested (who doesn't want to have a "Star Wars" marathon on a snow day?!), we turned to "Piece of Work."
Secondly, I was completely taken aback by how compelling I found this documentary to be. It provides not only a look at a comedian's creative process but also an insight into crippling insecurity. The preparation that this woman puts into her craft (comedy) and the seriousness with which she approaches it are remarkable. A wall full of card catalogues house a record of every joke Rivers has ever told and I found her editing methods to be fascinating. At the same time, the need for approval, for fame, for love (essentially) is the overwhelming message of the film. In many ways, Rivers has carved out for herself a remarkable legacy and yet all she can focus on are the rejections and the fragile state of her acting career. It's heart breaking, really, to listen to Rivers as she delves into the depths of her lack of overall confidence, something you'd never pick up for her act. "Piece of Work" also displays a strong if understated caring side to Rivers, particularly in scenes describing her kindness toward past and present employees and the continual badgering of her daughter, Melissa, concerning her smoking. Of course, being the rough-around-the-edges person that she is, her concern comes across as condescending but for me, that made these moments all the more genuine. "Piece of Work" allows the audience to view Joan Rivers as a human when most in my generation have only known her as a caricature-like presence. That humanism is where the movie makes its mark, really, and what sets it apart from other celebrity bio-docs I've seen in the past.
Last year, in my review of “Dinner for Schmucks,” I wrote about that rare occasion when I find myself nervously voicing my approval for a hated film. It really doesn’t happen often. I mean, sure, perhaps I give a film a “B+” when the general consensus is more in the “B” range or something similar. But rarely do the opinions of other smart movies goers differ significantly from my own. That’s kind of my bit, really. I write reviews for regular people who like movies. At least when it comes to mainstream releases, generally speaking, if I hate a movie, you will, too, and if I love it, chances are you’ll enjoy yourself as well. So it is with great trepidation that I step into the shark infested, chum-filled waters of a positive review for “Just Go With It.”
Adam Sandler plays Danny, a womanizing plastic surgeon who had his heart broken in the 80s and has never allowed himself to be put in that situation again. As a result, he uses a fake wedding ring as his prop for picking up women that are far out of his league. His assistant, Katherine (Jennifer Aniston), scoffs at his lifestyle but that doesn’t keep her from being his confidant. Danny’s walls are put to the test, however, when he meets Palmer (Brooklyn Decker), a young teacher (yeah, right) for whom he creates a fake ex-wife and kids. For the right price, Katherine and her children pose as the fake family. The shenanigans get even zanier when the whole troop, along with Danny’s cousin Eddie (Nick Swardson), heads out on a twisted family vacation to Hawaii, where a series of events cause Danny to question his life and his attachments to both Palmer and Katherine.
Going into “Just Go With It”, I was 99 percent ready to hate my life. If I hadn’t picked up complimentary screening passes, I wouldn’t have ventured into this movie in the first place. While I’ve been a lifelong fan of Sandler, last year’s “Grown Ups” made me actually want to die and forced me to consider the possibility that I’ve outgrown Sandler’s hijinks. Yet, as the opening moments of “Just Go” unfolded, I found myself legitimately laughing out loud more often than not. I was literally shocked. I laughed more and more as the film went along and actually had a moment where I turned to my wife to say, “This is funny, right?” The jokes are easy but plentiful and Sandler seems to actually work with the material rather than against it like he has in the recent past. Director Dennis Dugan, the Adam McKay to Sandler’s Will Ferrell, has punched me in the gut numerous times over the last decade but for once he seems to have learned from his failures. One of the things that made “Grown Ups” so incredibly painful were the overly-long scenes that crushed any form of momentum the movie might have had. Instead, what you get with “Just Go” are quick cuts that don’t allow you to focus on the ludicrousness of what you’ve just been presented with. As much as I usually hate a movie that jumps from scene to scene, it works well in this situation.
Now that isn’t to say this movie is without flaws. In fact, it’s riddled with them the way Jack Bauer’s SUV is almost always filled with bullet holes by the end of an episode of “24.” No one would ever make the decisions that these characters do, for one thing. For another, Brooklyn Decker, for all our physical attributes, is by no means an actor. She’s one of the worst fake-actors ever. Swardson also doesn’t add much to the equation. And the usual host of cameos that plague a Sandler/Dugan production fall short again here, most notably that of Nicole Kidman who seems completely lost and rigidly one dimensional. But the element that allowed me to overlook these extreme issues is the chemistry between Sandler and Aniston. Given how rarely these actors have delivered in the recent past, it was more than a bit surprising to see how well they complemented each other here and how relatively naturally their characters blend. I wouldn’t necessarily call it an organic pairing but it certainly isn’t forced which is exactly what I expected.
By no means do I feel that any of the life choices made in this film are reasonable, realistic, or even remotely possible. Any number of “plot twists” could have been avoided entirely by a single character simply saying, “Wait a minute, there is no way we’re doing that.” BAM! Movie over. But where’s the fun in that? And for that matter, how many of the great movies we’ve come to know and love could have been DOA if a character would have simply made the logical choice? Comedies, as a whole, are almost always predicated on an absurd action or behavior. So I chose to embrace the ridiculousness and my evening was much more fun than I could have ever predicted. Maybe the theater pumped weapons-grade laughing gas into the room (it was a screening, after all) and maybe any future viewings will make me race to my computer to change my review, but whatever the case may be, I laughed a lot. And that is, after all, the point of a comedy. So my apologies if this review leads any of you astray down a dark and dangerous path.
Grade: B
You may now begin lambasting me, Brian
Care for another (possibly more sane) take on "Just Go With It?" Head on over to Cinema Slants.
John (John C. Reilly) hasn't ever completely recovered from his divorce. A nice guy without any confidence, his life takes an interesting turn when he meets Molly (Marisa Tomei) at his ex-wife's engagement party. John and Molly hit it off but after a few dates, John begins to feel like Molly is keeping something from him. He follows her home one night (stalker much?) and discovers that her adult son, Cyrus (Jonah Hill), still lives at home. At first Cyrus seems to embrace his mother's new relationship but John soon finds that things aren't what they seem to be. Molly and Cyrus have an unnaturally close relationship and despite his objections to the contrary, Cyrus wants nothing to get in the way with that. Cyrus comically undermines everything John does, causing John to stoop to his level and force a showdown between the two.
"Cyrus" is an interesting little film. Directing brothers Jay and Mark Duplass provide a well written screenplay and a bit of fresh life for a concept that's been used more than once. The characters in "Cyrus" are much more human than one might expect. John, in particular, is a very authentic "divorce broke my soul" kind of guy and Reilly gives depth to the character. Even Cyrus, who's more over-the-top than John, still has moments of realness when it would have been very easy to allow him to become a robotic generalization. "Cyrus" is labeled as a comedy and at times revels in the (slightly) absurd but at its core it's a blended family drama with real heart. As weird as it sounds, you kind-of understand why Cyrus would steal John's shoes and that's saying something. My only real criticism of the film is the final 10 minutes, in which John and Cyrus attempt to work through their differences. While the majority of the film is fresh and vibrant, the finale is much more cliche, a cookie-cutter comedy ending. It doesn't fall apart so much as it just comes across as a cop out. Still, the Duplasses have crafted a heartfelt, organically funny movie that should provide them with a ticket to the mainstream.
On a summer night in 1983, two welterweight boxers met at center ring in front of a large Madison Square Garden crowd. The boxers were on different levels, with Billy Collins having been pegged for stardom and Luis Resto considered by most to be a tune-up fighter, though one with a solid reputation. The battle lasted ten rounds before Resto was named the winner. What should have been a career-making victory for Resto turned out to be short lived as almost immediately it was discovered that Resto's gloves had been tampered with. The padding had been removed from the gloves, essentially allowing Resto to pummel Collins with bare knuckles (see the photo below). For Resto, this meant the end of his boxing career, a stint in jail, and a haunted past. The fight was even more harmful for Collins, who never fully recovered from the beating which, combined with his already dark disposition, led him down a rough path toward a tragic death. 25 years later director Eric Drath follows Resto as he attempts to come to grips with the results of the fight.
Considering the damage he inflicted on Collins (and his family), Resto is an exceedingly sympathetic figure. A poor immigrant from Puerto Rico, Resto found not only a livelihood but also significance when he showed some talent in the ring. He had a chance to better his life and the lives of his family members and he worked extremely hard to make that happen. He learned early on, however, that you never question the men in your corner and that would ultimately lead to his undoing. He didn't remove the padding from the gloves himself but as he reluctantly admits about halfway through the film, he knew something wasn't right. Resto buried himself under a mountain of guilt not only because of the impact the fight had on Collins but because of the way he had disrespected his sport. His grief is written all over his face. By all accounts, this fight ended two lives with Resto holding on as a shell of a man, estranged from friends and family and unable to find redemption.
Drath offers just that, redemption, with a whirl-wind tour to the homes of all those affected by the fight. Resto is given the opportunity to confront his former trainer, Mario Costa, the man ultimately responsible for the customized gloves. While Resto spent two years in prison, Costa was simply stripped of his trainer's license due to a chain of custody issue that resulted in his court case being thrown out. Upon their first on-screen meeting, I was immediately struck by how much power Costa still held over Resto. Here stood the man responsible for Resto's troubles and yet he could not even look him in the eye. When questioned about the events of that night, Costa denies and feigns offense but in later footage he makes it abundantly clear that he would never admit his wrongdoing. It is abundantly clear that while Resto may have known something wasn't right when he stepped into the ring, Costa knew exactly what the game plan was. Drath also sheds a little light on the New York Athletic Commission, leading one to wonder what kind of shady business was conducted behind closed doors and under grimy tables on the way to that night's infamous events. In this sense, Drath allows "Assault" to illustrate what a shady business professional boxing truly is.
If Resto's confrontation with Costa is somewhat unsatisfying, his other meetings pick up the slack. He finally confesses his (limited) knowledge of the tampered gloves with his ex-wife and grown sons and you can see the relief wash over him. He weeps quietly when receiving forgiveness from Collins' widow and is even reunited with his mother and sister. It isn't a picture perfect ending, of course. Collins' father refused Resto's apologies and Costa provides no comfort for his former protege. Still, Drath's simple and understated film finds a poignant groove and stays within in, capturing the essence of a man who has paid for his mistakes a thousand times over without hope of reprieve, almost as much a victim as the man he sparred with on that fateful night.
When Joshua "J" Cody's (James Frecheville) mother dies of a drug overdose, you would think that his life couldn't get much worse. And you would be wrong. J goes to live with Janine (Jacki Weaver), the grandmother his mom had sought to keep him away from, and his uncles, Pope (Ben Mendelsohn), Craig (Sullivan Stapleton), and Darren (Luke Ford). Just before J came to stay with them, the Cody boys and their partner Barry Brown (Joel Edgerton) committed a string of high-profile armed robberies that caused Pope to go into hiding and brought a lot of attention from the crooked cops running the city's Armed Robbery Division. Too soon, however, the powder keg that is this battle between cops and robbers is set off with the murder of one of the boys and their subsequent retaliation against the police. While J attempts to keep some distance between himself and his uncle's war, detective Leckie (Guy Pearce) senses J to be the weak link in the family tree and puts pressure on him to turn against his uncles. With Pope on a rampage and the cops closing in, J is forced to fend for himself, employing a plan that puts him in danger from both sides.
"Animal Kingdom" is an Australian movie featuring an all-Australian cast of primarily unknown actors (with the exception of Pearce). When you add the "unknown factor" to the sheer strength of the well-defined characters, you almost feel like "Animal Kingdom" is a documentary, with the film's director getting the most in-depth look at illicit activities that anyone has ever been granted. That is to say, this is a character driven drama that you can almost confuse with real life. Pope is a complete sociopath who only just manages to keep his murderous impulses hidden under a thin veil of laughter which dies away as his desperation grows. J, on the other hand, is stoic and conflicted; a kid who just wants to have a normal life but always seems to find himself in jacked up situations into which he brings everyone around him (see: girlfriend). An entirely sympathetic figure, I found myself torn between wanting to see J rise above the stench of his family while at the same time hoping he'd be able to exact his revenge for the harm that is inflicted on him over the course of the film.
And then there's Janine, the sugary-sweet grandmother on the surface who controls her boy's criminal enterprise in the vein of Laura Linney's character in "Mystic River." She's a dark, twisted character who will stop at nothing to protect her children, even if it means sacrificing her grandson. Weaver earned a Best Supporting Actress nod for her role here and the merits of her nomination fully come to light. The acting is tremendous across the board, with Frechville earning a "Keep An Eye On This Kid" mark in my mind. "Animal Kingdom's" shortcomings are minimal and almost exclusively revolve around accent confusion (please excuse my American incompetence) and a few overly complex plot points that were difficult to follow. Regardless, it is an intense, hard film that doesn't pull any punches and absolutely glues the viewer to the screen.
Grade: A
Want a second opinion? See Marshall and the Movies take here: "Animal Kingdom"
Opening in Central America six years in the future, "Monsters" drops us into a reality in which most of Mexico has been overrun by alien monsters, the result of NASA probe that crashed while carrying martian samples. Mexico is termed the "Infected Zone" and each year, the aliens, which look like giant octopuses (octopi?), undergo a migration, causing some of the border towns in both Central America and the U.S. to be abandoned for a season. In the middle of all this is Andrew (Scoot McNairy), a cynical photo journalist looking for a shot of a live alien, who is forced to escort his bosses' daughter, Samantha (Whitney Able), back to safety. Things go awry when Andrew fails to get Samantha onto a ferry and the pair is forced to travel over land and through the Infected Zone which results in a fight for survival and challenges Andrew's overall outlook on life.
"District 9" and "Moon", both part of the vaunted class of 2009, set the standard for low budget, high quality sci-fi and reignited Hollywood's interest in the genre as a whole. "Monsters" takes the "low budget" to a new level. Whereas "District 9" was made for around $30 million and "Moon" was done for $5 million, "Monsters" came in at a shockingly low $800,000. The entire cast consists of McNairy and Able and locals who were paid $20 to appear in a movie. Gareth Edwards, now regarded as a hot up-and-coming filmmaker, wrote, directed, edited, and shot this film himself. When you consider all of that, "Monsters" is an absurd achievement.
"Monsters" has an excellent story to tell and some very cool concepts that will undoubtedly lend themselves to a big-budgeted sequel in the near future. The special effects are a bit lacking but only in that the aliens don't appear on screen as much as I would have liked. Then again, given the money spent on this film, it seems to me that Edwards made the very responsible decision to limit the CGI shots and make them good rather than load the film with schlocky, B movie aliens. Kudos for that. The suspense is well built, too, and I got the feeling that if I'd seen this in a dark theater instead of my living room I would have been on edge. "Monsters" is perhaps over-ambitious at times: the inevitable twist is somewhat convoluted and forced me to go back and review some of the early shots. (That could be on me, though, as I was ADDing all over the place last week.) The final reveal of the aliens is cool but not quite as impactful as I would have hoped. And the actors, particularly Able, are only adequate though about what you would expect for what they were paid. All that said, however, doesn't erase the fact that Edwards crafted a quality sci-fi flick for the cost of catering on a blockbuster set. A good movie and a worthwhile viewing.
"Made in America" centers around the inception and subsequent development of the Los Angeles gang culture. Director Stacy Peralta immersed himself in the gang neighborhoods of L.A. and spent months getting to know the members themselves before even turning the camera on his subjects. Peralta begins with interviewing the founders of both the Bloods and the Crips (the most notorious of American gangs) to provide a background for how the gangs came about. As the documentary progresses, Peralta and narrator Forrest Whitaker push further into the current gang scene and allow the viewer a glimpse into what it's like in the highly volatile and bloody war.
I'm not completely sure when the war between the Bloods and the Crips took hold of America but pretty much everyone my age (27) was inundated with news on this phenomenon as children. Other gangs may have been just as prevalent in terms of membership and overall damage to society, but none of them had the impact of these two groups and that reach of influence spread across the country by the time I was in grade school. When I was in the third grade I knew more about the Bloods and the Crips than I did about the American system of government. We had school programs about the dangers not just of gangs but of the Bloods and the Crips specifically on what seemed like a weekly basis. By high school that influence seemed to have waned a bit but the lasting impression of the gang lifestyle was left in my psyche so you can imagine my interest in "Made in America."
Unfortunately, "Made in America" is a flawed documentary. As opposed to "Bigger Stronger Faster" which gave time to both sides of the argument, "MIA" works entirely from the perspective of the gang members without any regard to what other opinions might be. That is to say, if you watch "MIA", prepare for a steady stream of blame directed at the White Man and the government. Right or wrong, the opinion of the founders of the Bloods and Crips would have you believe that the formation of their gangs was the result of extreme prejudice and the only solution they had at the time. The other side of that argument is never presented. In addition, we get no delving into the money side of the gang war, the drugs and guns, which would have been an extremely interesting segment.
Still, "MIA" does provide a valuable insight that we rarely get and the fact that Peralta was able to get this amount of access is incredible. More often than not, real life looks at gang members feature covered faces and auto-tuned voices whereas "MIA" gets you up close and personal with the gang leaders. The increased level of violence and brutality that gangs have seen over the decades was of particular interest. When originally founded, the L.A. gangs served as a sort of social club for black youths who had nowhere else to turn. The fights between the gangs usually involved pugilism and rarely resulted in a serious injury or fatality. The introduction of guns into this battle, however, forever changed the face of the rivalry and pushed the gang war into the American consciousness. It is a sobering and cautionary piece of storytelling. Peralta puts the finishing touches on "MIA" by giving the mothers of gang violence victims some face time and allowing the impact of such a senseless and futile battle to sink in. "Made in America" is not a great documentary and could have given us more, but it is nonetheless, it illustrates a compelling and significant history.
Like many men his age, growing up Chris Bell idolized the muscle stars of the 80s like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone, and Hulk Hogan. He dreamed of becoming a professional bodybuilder and working out at Gold's Gym with his heroes. He was devastated, therefore, when he realized these men were juiced up and that their message was fraudulent. Chris reluctantly accepted that to truly compete in the sport he loved he would have to turn to steroids and ultimately rejected the drugs. His brothers, Mike and Mark, couldn't make the same choice. "Bigger, Stronger, Faster" explores the controversy that is the steroid industry and the American obsession with being just what the film's title describes.
"BSF" is what you would call a balanced documentary, or to purists, a "true" documentary. Chris explores both sides of the argument over steroids and does his best to leave the final decision of whether or not steroids have been overly vilified up to the audience. There is a certain amount of reluctance to the narrative that Chris provides and you can sense the conflict within himself as he takes us through this journey. On the one hand, he believes the drugs to be morally wrong. On the other, he knows he can't compete without them and proponents of steroids (featured prominently throughout "BSF") make a compelling case for their usage. Chris is a human face for the battle against steroids, a sympathetic figure who really sums up the issues that so many athletes face these days.
Unlike some of the reviews I've read, "BSF" is NOT a pro-steroid documentary. Those who would push for the legalization of the juice are given an opportunity to express their beliefs and discuss the scientific tests that would support their assertions. But I found this to be more in the interest of the aforementioned balance rather than portions of a propaganda piece for 'roids. The classic side effects of steroids (acne, uncontrollable anger, loss of fertility, etc.) are not only discussed but clearly displayed by the drug's defenders even as they argue against these afflictions. When Chris quietly challenges some of the assertions of anti-steroid campaigners, notably Congressman Henry Waxman, it is done with respect and genuine interest in the factual basis for some of the widely-held beliefs about steroids. Through these questions, Chris shows that the issue of just how destructive these drugs are is not as clear-cut as we tend to think. Whether right or wrong, you can find studies that will support your claims either way.
Chris brings the point home, however, when he turns the camera on his own family as he peers into the lives of his brothers, both of whom use steroids regularly and both of whom have been negatively impacted by their habits. It is a truly compelling moment when Chris' dad tells him point-blank that he expects Mike to turn up dead sooner rather than later. It's even more hard-hitting when you know that just a few months after the filming of "Bigger, Stronger, Faster", Mike did die at the age of 37. A longtime steroid user who would have done anything to break into the world of big time wrestling, Mike's early demise serves as this documentary's lasting impact and perhaps the final point to swing the balance of the film's debate.
Frank Moses (Bruce Willis) is bored. A former CIA agent of great importance now living off of retirement, the highlight of his day is when he calls Sarah Ross (Mary-Louise Parker), his benefits representative whom he flirts with. Things take an exciting turn, however, when a hit squad breaks into his house and attempts to kill him. After putting down his new foes, Frank then sets off across the country to round up all of his old comrades (Morgan Freeman, John Malkovich, and Helen Mirren) as he tries to figure out who's trying to kill them and why.
Similar to "The A-Team" and "The Losers", "Red" is all about stylized action. It revels in its ridiculousness and has a fine appreciation for over-the-top explosions. Based on a graphic novel, 'Red" doesn't waste time with such issues as reloading, collateral damage, or the laws of physics, something I can certainly admire when done correctly. "Red" left me feeling a bit cheated, though. This movie is a lot of fun but it could have done so much more with the premise. The misuse of such a great cast is criminal. Willis is excellent, bringing visions of an older, more mature, but still awesome version of John McClane. Everyone else seems to be mismatched or out-of-sync as they just aren't given much to do. I have no idea why Morgan Freeman was cast in the first place. If you're not going to use Morgan Freeman then why bother adding him to the equation? Likewise, the story is jumpy, going from place to place, event to event, without much development or wrap-up. It's a bit like a video game as our heroes (or anti-heroes as the case may be) go from level to level. And just like "The Losers", "Red" lacks a compelling villain which could have helped me overlook the movie's other flaws. It has its moments (mostly in the first half), not to mention an excellent supporting part from Bryan Cox, and I can't deny the entertainment value as a whole. I simply expect an action movie with this level of talented actors to provide me more than above average entertainment.
A veteran crew of hardened thieves, led by Gordon (Idris Elba) and John (Paul Walker), runs into some turmoil when Ghost (T.I.), a former member of the group, gets out of prison and offers up a dangerous job. Against their better judgement, the group decides they owe it to their newly free comrade to pull the heist, all the while unsure of whether or not they can trust the intel. With a detective (Matt Dillon) hot on their tails and a clean lifestyle calling to some of the crew, the thieves put everything on the line for a score that will surely make or break them.
Heist movies call to me, even ones I know will be awful. There's something about a big score playing out on screen that gets my attention every time. I'm like a drug addict, really, constantly chasing the next high, with the high being "Heat" or "Italian Job." So even as I mocked the trailer for "Takers" last Fall, I knew I'd eventually give in and check it out. And now I hate myself for giving into the urge.
"Takers" is, quite simply, a mess of a movie. Terrible acting, an overly convoluted story, and a final "twist" you can see from the opening credits, "Takers" has them all. The biggest issue, however, is a severe identity crisis. "Takers" can't decide whether it wants to be "Ocean's 11", "Heat", or "Dead Presidents." The tone of the film jumps back and forth between smooth and stylish, harsh and gritty, and over-the-top ridiculousness. The filmmakers clearly couldn't decide what their target audience would be and decided to shoot for them all, only they failed to hit on ANY level. Elba, a fine actor, is seriously underused while Zoe Saldana's role in the film is completely pointless. Whatever Saldana was paid, it was stolen money because she's essentially an extra given a line here or there. And when you then consider how much time was given to Paul Walker and Hayden Christensen, both horrendous actors, you have to ask yourself what in the name of John Frankenheimer was director John Lussenhop doing?! Walker and Christensen are completely overshadowed in the "Worst Actor EVER" conversation, though, compared to rapper T.I. Never, and I mean, NEVER, have I witnessed a more miserable performance. I feel like I should start a petition to ban T.I. from appearing on screen again in the future. It is offensive how bad he is.
"Takers" also steals liberally from better heist movies and while I usually give a free pass in the "That's Already Been Done in This Other Movie" department, it's so blatant here that the characters actually reference the knock-off they are about to perform. New lows all around. The first 20-30 minutes of "Takers" is decent and some of the (early) action is entertaining but that is all that keeps this movie from completely deteriorating into near-spoof territory.
A few months back, as I looked over the end-of-year movie schedule, I couldn’t help but be more than a little disappointed with the holiday offerings. I was stoked about “True Grit” and “The Fighter” but other than those options, “Tron Legacy” was about the only thing that had any appeal whatsoever. But as the month approached, buzz about “The King’s Speech” began making the rounds and after initially dismissing it as a subject I wasn’t interested in, I finally succumbed to my influences and partook in the Colin Firth fervor. And lo and behold, peer pressure isn’t near as bad as my old D.A.R.E officer would have had me believe! (Note to kids: I’m kidding, peer pressure totally sucks. Stand strong!)
“The King’s Speech” tells the riveting story of the man who would come to be Britain’s leader in World War II. We open in 1929 as Prince Albert/the Duke of York/George VI (Colin Firth) steps up to a newfangled device known as the microphone to address the global British Empire. Unfortunately, the prince suffers from an extreme speech impediment that makes it near impossible to complete a full sentence without stammering. A few years and a plethora of doctors later, George’s wife Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter) enlists the help of one last specialist. Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush) is a quirky Australian who claims to be able to heal anyone who wants to be healed. After some hesitation, George begins to buy into Logue’s odd methods and steadily sees an increase in his vocal abilities. This is all put to the test, however, when his brother, Edward VIII (Guy Pearce), is forced to abdicate the throne and George is given control of Britain at a dangerous time. With war on the horizon, George must face his fear and deliver a speech to rally the Empire.
I confess that my ignorant American education left me with no knowledge of these events. (Sorry, Britain.) I’ve gone through periods of great interest in WWII but in true Westerner form, that interest has focused almost entirely on the American involvement. Whenever a film like this reaches theaters, I’m always shocked that it has taken so long for the story to be told. Perhaps the Brits know this subject matter so well that it didn’t need to be dramatized or perhaps no one thought Americans would care to see this. But regardless of the reason, man am I glad it’s finally come to the forefront.
“Speech” could be used as a teaching tool for how to make a historical drama. The performances are amazing, the runtime is sufficiently concise, the drama is built organically and without heavy-handedness, and it stands out in all technical departments. From a story standpoint, you could not ask for a better tale than the one director Tom Hooper and screenwriter David Seidler were given. For their parts, however, the pair doesn’t waste time trying to spice the narrative; they simply let the story be told, a novel concept in Hollywood these days. Hooper seems to understand the use of space in front of the camera as well as anyone in the business and chooses his shots brilliantly, bringing attention to tiny details of the set that serve to strengthen the atmosphere of the film. In addition, the use of color and a subtle soundtrack are strokes of genius.
I’m not exactly sure when Colin Firth went from “Likeable-but-Plain with an Accent Guy” to “Could Win an Oscar Every Time Guy” but the transition certainly suits him well. He absolutely shines here, delivering what has to be considered a career-best performance. Just like Christian Bale in “The Fighter,” Firth earns extra points in my book for a near-perfect depiction of a real-life person with a disability. It is so incredibly hard to play a character with an addiction, a mental handicap, or a speech impediment and make that character come across as authentic rather than caricature-like. His final speech is a work of art. Rush shines in his own right, providing a down-to-earth base for both the characters on screen and the audience. He’s accessible and that fact brings the audience into the film, helping to connect the viewer to the story. Carter, Pearce, and a few other actors take full advantage of their moments in the spotlight, but the fact of the matter is, “Speech” begins and ends with the work of Firth and Rush.
It should be noted that this type of film isn’t really my cup of tea. More often than not, I avoid historical dramas and period pieces because the ones I have seen bore me to tears. “Speech” may force me to reexamine my prejudice. A dose of genuine heart and an outrageously witty, self-deprecating sense of humor provide the finishing touches to a tremendous finished product. This is (forgive the pun) a crowning achievement in film and one that I would recommend to any movie goer.
Grade: A+
Even this movie’s poster is awesome, Brian
If you're interested in knowing what King George VI actually sounded like, please check out the link below. He begins speaking at about the 3 minute mark. http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=50494
I would say that overall, my final graded opinion on most films falls in line with the thinking of the average movie blogger. Maybe not the hardcore, professional critics but guys like me who enjoy a wide range of cinematic experiences and put their thoughts on paper? We usually find some level of agreement. Every once in a while, though, a movie comes along on which my opinion is far different from the rest of my colleagues. Sometimes I despise a movie that most everyone else at least tolerates (see: “House Bunny”). Sometimes, however, it’s the exact opposite: everyone around me, people I trust and usually agree with, pounce upon a film and rip it to shreds, forcing me to stand alone and argue the merits of said film. So without further review, allow me to stand alone and argue the merits of “The Green Hornet.”
“The Green Hornet” opens on young Britt Reid (Seth Rogen) as he is ridiculed by his overbearing, news mogul father, James (Tom Wilkinson). Fast forward twenty years (during which we can assume the rift between father and son only grew wider) and we find Britt as a full-fledged L.A. party guy with no ambition and nothing to show for his privileged life. Things change, however, when James is found dead, leaving his entire media empire to his slacker son. While vandalizing the statue above his father’s grave, a drunken Britt and his driver/barista Kato (Jay Chou) stop a mugging and in the process garner some attention as low-class crooks. Inspired, Britt and Kato decide to become superheroes who will take on the city’s criminal element. However, instead of coming out as heroes and risking the proverbial weaknesses of being good guys (the call of duty, the respect for all human life, etc.), the duo will pose as villains in order to get closer to the real baddies. Britt uses his media influence to push this new terror down the city’s throat and names him The Green Hornet. This new found calling draws the ire of crime boss Chudnofsky (Christoph Waltz), however, and he engages Britt and Kato in a full scale urban war.
It should be noted before I get too far into this sure-to-be-questioned review that I am not a fan of Seth Rogen. A few of his movies (most notably “Knocked Up”) have been enjoyable but on the whole, I generally dislike what he brings to the table. I think he thinks he’s much funnier than he actually is and that annoys me. That said, I thought he was just about the perfect choice for Britt Reid/Green Hornet. He isn’t your typical superhero casting choice but then again the Green Hornet isn’t your typical superhero. This version of the Hornet is as much a bumbling buffoon as he is a stylish butt kicker and Rogen embodies that mentality. It is Kato, and therefore Chou, who provides the real muscle behind the Green Hornet, designing all of his gadgets and putting bad guys down with a righteous array of kung fu moves. Some have complained about Chou’s struggles with the English language but I found this to be much more endearing than annoying. And while Chudnofsky might not be as formidable an opponent as you might want in a villain, Waltz gives a quality and humorous performance, almost a satirical take on his brilliant work as Hans Landa (“Inglourious Basterds”). It’s clear the priorities of “Hornet” are comedy then comic book action but the laughs are plentiful and the mix worked for me. Add in some sweet fight scenes, a well-used soundtrack, and a couple of killer car chases and you’ve got an enjoyable action-comedy.
That’s not to say I don’t understand the negativity that’s being thrown around. I definitely understand some of the complaints my colleagues have levied against this movie. First and foremost, the post production addition of 3D is infuriating. This enhancement is poorly done and utterly pointless. More often than not I wouldn’t have been able to tell I was watching a 3D movie were it not for the cumbersome Buddy Holly glasses attached to my nose. “Clash of the Titans” has nothing on “The Green Hornet” in terms of hastily added 3D. Likewise, Cameron Diaz’s character, Britt’s secretary, is empty and unnecessary. In all honesty, she didn’t need to be in the movie and she adds nothing of significance to the plot. And speaking of the plot, it seems “story development” wasn’t of great importance. It’s not that “Hornet” is all style, no substance like your average Michael Bay movie. Instead, we get a worthwhile story but one that jumps from place to place and moves along clumsily. These negatives, though, weren’t enough to temper my satisfaction with the movie as a whole.
I went into “Hornet” without having read, seen, or heard a single review of the film and perhaps that added to my experience. Regardless, I confess I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. From almost the first moment, the jokes start flying and the vast majority of them hit the mark. While the humor is certainly slapstick-y, juvenile, and perhaps less witty than my normal comedic taste, I found it to be entertaining and easy to watch. Director Michael Gondry (“Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind”) and screenwriter Rogen establish the tone of the film immediately and seem to ask the audience to get on board or get out. I accepted this invitation to enjoy myself and did just that. “Hornet” is, quite simply, fun and much more so than anything I have come to expect from a January release.
If there is any recreational medium that I love more than the cinema, it is sports. The vast majority of my spare time that does not involve movies usually revolves around the ESPN family of networks. I watch sports, play sports, think about sports, and work in sports. So it should come as no surprise that I love it when movies and sports come together to rock the multiplex. 2010 was a huge disappointment in this regard. I can’t remember a year that featured less sports related films than 2010 and that’s coming off a year that had a solid selection in this department. It seems weird that I went into “The Fighter,” the last movie I saw in 2010, knowing that by default it would be the best sports movie of the year. Fortunately for me, “Fighter” lived up to the title that had been pre-ordained upon it, delivering a compelling story that grabs hold of the audience from the opening scene.
“Fighter” is the true life tale of Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg), a struggling light welterweight boxer who fought in the 90s. Boxing is a family affair for Ward, with his mother Alice (Melissa Leo) serving as his manager and his half-brother Dick Eklund (Christian Bale) fulfilling the role of trainer. Dick was at one time an up-and-coming fighter who nearly defeated the great Sugar Ray Leonard in a highly publicized bout in the late 70s. Since then, however, his life has fallen apart in the midst of a serious drug addiction. Everyone has a say in Micky’s career except Micky, leading to a litany of poorly matched opponents who use him as a tune-up before a big fight. Everything comes to a head when Dick, attempting to make some money to keep Micky in his gym, gets into an altercation with the police during which Micky’s hand is broken. With his brother back in jail and his hand busted up, Micky finds that his career is at a crossroads. Under the guidance of his new girlfriend, Charlene (Amy Adams), Micky decides to give it a go on his own, training for the first time without Dick. When Dick is released from prison, however, Micky finds that he must figure out how to bridge his two worlds in order to give himself a legitimate chance in a title fight.
Despite its sports setting, “The Fighter” is, for all intents and purposes, a character study. It’s kind of the exact opposite of a Jerry Bruckheimer production: 90 percent story and development, 10 percent action. At times that causes the film to move a bit slower than I was prepared for, resulting in a 115 minute runtime that feels a bit more like 150 minutes. It isn’t boring by any means but the pace is steady and deliberate. As such, much is asked of and delivered by the leads. You could not ask for better crafted or portrayed characters than Micky, Dick, Alice, and Charlene and therefore, Wahlberg, Bale, Leo, and Adams. All four of these esteemed actors give masterful performances that should be counted among their finest works. Wahlberg brings quiet intensity to Micky, a trait that makes his immediately likeable. You can’t help but root for Micky because that feeling comes upon you organically rather than being forced down your throat. Alice, on the other hand, is cold and harsh and Leo perfectly illustrates the balance between loving mother and icy businesswoman. On some level, you dislike Alice the way you do those obsessive stage moms who force their kids into pageants but you’re also left to wonder what you might do in her shoes. If Wahlberg provides the quiet drive behind the film, Adams gives it its voice and backbone. Charlene is unapologetically foul-mouthed and strong willed and it is her push that allows Micky to do something for himself. Micky’s life outside of the ring is as much a fight as it is inside of it and that is displayed beautifully in the conflict between Charlene and the rest of the family.
All of these performances, however, pale in comparison to the work done by Bale. Every time he stepped on screen I was fixated on him. I sat mesmerized as he ran the gamut of emotions that rule an addict’s life, the ups and the downs, the delusions of quitting and the calm of the high. His mannerisms, speech, and behaviors are all textbook junkie, giving heartbreakingly authentic life to Dick Eklund and the film as a whole. The scene in which Dick realizes what he’s done to his family and particularly his young son is one of the more haunting, gut-punching moments in recent film history. Simply put, Bale owns every scene that he’s in and you are undeniably reminded of what outstanding work this guy is truly capable of.
On the down side, I found some of the filmmaking aspects of “The Fighter” to be below par. The sound and video editing were a bit off and at times even the color was tinted poorly. While the boxing scenes were excellent (you can tell that extensive work was put in to make these shots look as realistic as possible), I felt like they could have used a little more production to help build the in-ring drama to match what happens outside of it. The final fight ends somewhat anticlimactically which brought with it a touch of disappointment. On some level, I think the performances are better than “The Fighter” itself and overshadow the film as a whole.
These negatives, however, in no way take away from the overall impact of this movie. Director David O. Russell put together a brilliant film and brought attention to a story that badly needed telling. The realism of “The Fighter” combined with the powerful performances would make it a tough contender to beat for just about any other sports movie. It is an outstanding achievement and one that will not be forgotten soon.
Liz Gilbert (Julia Roberts) has achieved the American dream - she has a successful career, a loving husband, and a quality life. Still, however, she feels unfulfilled and when she finally embraces this fact, she springs into dramatic action. Leaving her husband, Liz embarks on a one year journey that will take her from Italy to India to Bali and back to New York. Along the way she meets a number of new and fascinating people who help her work through the image she has created for herself and discover her true being.
Based on the memoir of the real life Elizabeth Gilbert, "Eat Pray Love" is ostensibly about letting go and forgetting about calorie counting, cultural constraints, and the burden of guilt and worry. All noble conventions, to be sure, but in reality this film pretty much grounds itself in shallow spirituality and the cliche actions of empowered women in film. Roberts, one of my very favorite actresses, plays her role well but there isn't much to work with. Just like his work on "Glee," director Ryan Murphy creates depth-less, one note characters that seem more generic the longer they are on screen. With the exception of Richard Jenkins, whose turn as a rough-around-the-edges-but-kind-hearted recovering addict is inspired, the talented cast of "Eat Pray Love" is under-utilized and their characters are ultimately forgettable. Even Javier Bardem, who always draws attention no matter what role he plays, fails to make much of an impact on the audience.
It is, nonetheless, a beautiful film. The cinematography, architecture, and use of color is at times mesmerizing. Anyone who dreams of starting fresh in a new setting will be tantalized by the stunning visual beauty displayed throughout the 130 minute runtime. But these features combined with the personal appeal of Julia Roberts simply wasn't enough to draw me in and get me invested in the movie as a whole. "Eat Pray Love" tells a bold and viable story but without emotional connection to the tale or the characters that work within it, you're left with a flawed finished product that fails to impress.
10. Marion Cotillard - "Mal," Inception "Inception" is going to get a lot of love this award season and rightly so. Though I'm still undecided, if I were given a vote for a major award committee, I think this would get my vote for Best Picture. Still, Cotillard's hypnotic and ghoulish turn as Mal isn't getting much attention these days and that's a crying shame. She is magnificently creepy as the ghostly vision of Cobb's (Leonardo DiCaprio) dead wife who pops up at the most inopportune of times to wreak havoc on an otherwise flawless plan. Mal is an atypical villain but "Inception" calls for a compelling antagonist and Cotillard steps up beautifully.
9. Will Ferrell - "Allen Gamble," The Other Guys This one is undoubtedly a unique choice. On the whole I didn't really like "The Other Guys" all that much but the one blindingly bright spot was Ferrell. Gamble is a straight edged, starched collar, pleated pants kind of guy whose humor is more unintentional than anything else and Ferrell absolutely nails that description. The downfall of this movie is the rest of the cast, almost all of whom get swallowed up by director Adam McKay's improvisational, "just see what happens" style. Ferrell, on the other hand, flourishes in that setting and gives a truly funny performance.
8. Armie Hammer - "Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss," Social Network The majority of the attention being paid to the actors of "The Social Network" is going to Jesse Eisenberg and Andrew Garfield and rightly so. Both men did an excellent job with their characters. Hammer, however, stole the show for me every time he and his body double came on screen. Sure, Mark Zuckerberg is clearly the brainier of the three but it would be very easy for him to dominate the screen and the story. Instead, Hammer delivers a dual performance that is commanding, compelling, and sympathetic with his twin brothers going to toe-to-toe with Zuckerberg.
7. John Hawks - "Teardrop Dolly," Winter's Bone Jennifer Lawrence is the clear star in "Winter's Bone" and she'll get her due in a minute here. But wow, what an outstanding job Hawkes did as a backwoods, Ozark tough guy. Teardrop is a man torn in two directions: on the one hand he'd like to avenge his brother's death and on the other he must respect the code developed between himself and the rest of the his methed-out community. Hawkes displays this internal struggle gloriously and would be nominated for Best Supporting Actor if I had a vote.
6. Emma Stone - "Olive Pendergrass," Easy A You can't watch an Emma Stone movie and not fall in love with her character. She's the girl next door who also happens to be deliciously hilarious. "Easy A" is Stone's coming out party of sorts, her first real, mainstream starring role and what a job she does with it! Olive is an unknown teenager who finds that her popularity (temporarily) soars when (untrue) rumors of her promiscuity roll through the school. Stone plays Olive perfectly, never allowing her to become too wrapped up in the cliche drama that envelopes most high school settings but still letting the ramifications of her circumstances register with the audience. It's an excellent balance and it is what makes "Easy A" a valid piece of social commentary instead of just a throw away teen movie.
5. Jennifer Lawrence - "Ree Dolly," Winter's Bone As an Ozark mountain teenager left in charge of her young siblings as her mother drifts deeper into depression and her father jumps in and out of jail, Ree is an uber-sympathetic and harrowing figure. Lawrence embodies the backwoods of Missouri so perfectly that you would think "Winter's Bone" was based on her life. She is strong, rugged, and determined but with a subtle touch of naivety that makes the role as powerful as it is. She's a shoe-in for a Best Actress nomination and would get my vote in the category.
4. Leonardo DiCaprio - "Cobb," Inception and "Teddy Daniels," Shutter Island I'm going to focus mostly on DiCaprio's turn in "Inception" but I would be remiss if I didn't mention his outstanding work in "Shutter Island." While "Island" wasn't quite up the expectations I had going in, it was a compelling story and DiCaprio was wicked good. Like Mal in "Inception," Daniels is often a disturbing figure that you can't take your eyes off of. DiCaprio sells the film's final twist beautifully. Cobb is a much more commanding but no less compelling and sympathetic figure as compared to Daniels. Cobb is haunted by the ghostly spectre of his dead wife but hell bent on delivering on his most complicated job to date. He is an excruciatingly complex character and everything about DiCaprio's performance brings the audience deeper and deeper into his soul (for lack of a better term).
3. Jeremy Renner - "James Coughlin," The Town Two years ago, Renner was in a short-lived ABC cop drama called "The Unusuals." Last year he gave a stirring performance in "The Hurt Locker" which earned him a Best Actor Oscar nod. This year, he was cast as Hawkeye in the upcoming "Avengers" movie and perfectly played the crucial role in "The Town." He's a star in the making. As a hardened ex-con with a horrifying temper and a lack of legal skills, Coughlin is the driving force behind the inevitable confrontation between Ben Affleck's bank robber and John Hamm's FBI agent. He is devoted and loyal to his crew and his heritage but he will not accept that his best friend is moving on with his life. Most importantly, he is steadfast in his determination that he will never again be kept prisoner. When Renner makes this declaration I believed him, unlike so many movie crooks I've seen over the years. You could almost feel sorry for Coughlin if you weren't sure he'd beat the crap out of you for saying so. It's a riveting portrayal.
2. Jeff Bridges - "Rooster Cogburn," True Grit How do you follow up a role that won you the Oscar for Best Actor? I guess revamping a character that won the same award for another legendary actor is a good way to go. Rooster Cogburn is a collection of contradictions: harsh but appealing, simple but wickedly sharp, often drunk but always sober-minded, slow to speak but quick to act. There's no question that writers/directors Joel and Ethan Coen gave Bridges a magnificent character to work with. Likewise, however, there's no question that Bridges did more with what he was given than even the Coens could have envisioned. Bridges offering is, all things considered, perfect. Adding to the brilliance for me is how decisively different Bridges' Rooster Cogburn is from his Bad Blake, the role for which he won the Oscar for last year. Both are aging, grizzled, down home, good old boys but their similarities end there. To make those two characters so different is EXTREMELY difficult and I think any number of great actors wouldn't have been up to challenge.
1. Christian Bale - "Dick Eklund," The Fighter It is tough to standout in a film that is rife with amazing performances. In "The Fighter," Mark Wahlberg, Amy Adams, and Melissa Leo all deliver excellent portrayals of their respective characters. Adams and Leo are likely to garner numerous Best Supporting Actress nominations and for my money, Wahlberg deserves some award talk as well. So please understand how great those actors were when I say that none of them even hold a candle to what Christian Bale did. A drugged out, washed-up former boxing prodigy whose reality never measured up to vision in his own head, Eklund is one of the more well-crafted characters in recent memory. It is not easy to accurately depict the life of a junkie, to find the proper balance between the zone-outs and the manic outbursts, the shifty vulnerability and the drug-fueled strength. From moment one of the film to the final frame, Bale hits the mark flawlessly. He sucks you into his world as an addict, keeps you there as he attempts to recover, and rewards you for your patience when he ultimately steps up in the most important moment of the film. In a year that was egregiously lacking in heart, Bale's turn as Eklund is the only single performance that brought a little water to my crybaby eyes. It is a tremendous achievement in acting and Bale deserves every single praise that comes his way.
Looking forward to what these great actors will do in 2011, Brian
Sam Gold (Jesse Eisenberg) is a young man whose life is run by his Orthodox Hasidic Jewish upbringing. He lives at home, works for his father, and will marry only the woman he is set up with. Everything changes, however, when he accepts a job offer from Yosef (Justin Bartha), his best friend's older brother who serves as the community's black sheep. Presented as a free trip to Amsterdam, Sam quickly discovers that to return home, he will have to carry Ecstasy through customs. While he is clearly shaken by this foray into the world of drug running, he quickly realizes what kind of financial benefit this trade could bring him. He begins training other down-on-their-luck Jews to smuggle drugs and before long, asserts himself as a valuable part of kingpin Jackie Solomon's (Danny A. Abeckaser). But as the deals get bigger, Sam's family life falls apart and he comes closer and closer to the edge as the feds get closer.
"Rollers" gets some good-enough performances from the cast. Eisenberg brings a certain emotional attachment to the project and does an admirable job of making Sam his own man instead of a Mark Zuckerberg as a drug mule. Bartha, usually the comic relief, plays well against-type and embraces the black sheep junkie with flair. Based on real events, the film's setting is interesting but fails to develop as I would have liked. There's a great story to be told within the framework of the "Orthodox Jew struggles with the abandonment of his family and faith in order to make good money" plot line. Unfortunately, director Kevin Asch and screenwriter Antonio Macia neglect this, the most intriguing aspect of the tale and instead focus on a cookie-cutter love triangle that stagnates the flow of the film and brought about boredom on my part. A refocused narrative could have made "Holy Rollers" an engrossing film. Instead, the final product is mediocre at best.
Evelyn Salt (Angelina Jolie) is just your ordinary, run-of-the-mill CIA agent until a supposed Russian defector (Daniel Olbrychski) lets slip that she is a Russian spy during an interrogation. Salt is forced to go on the run, carrying out a series of increasingly dangerous actions that occasionally make sense. While being pursued by both her former colleagues and a sleeper cell of Russian terrorists, she keeps everyone (including the audience) asking the same question: just what side is Evelyn Salt on?
It's possible that "Salt" may have the widest range of reviews of any movie from 2010. Comments from writers I greatly respect would have had me believing that this was either one of the better action movies of the year or one of the more convoluted, pointless films of the year. I'm afraid I come closer to the latter camp than the former. Clearly the point of the movie is to keep the audience guessing so that the final twist is especially earth shattering. Unfortunately, I had completely lost interest in the movie's plot by the time we get to the final reveal or whether or not Salt is a hero or a villain. I'm all for a film that challenges me to follow along (see: "Inception") but I have a tendency to shut down when I feel like a movie is screwing with my mind just for the heck of it. Maybe that's an indictment of me as much as it is "Salt" but regardless, the various twists and turns just left me feeling cold and uncaring as to what would happen. In addition, the action sequences are quite outlandish and while that might work for a Jerry Bruckheimer production, it doesn't seem to fit here. Moreover, I just don't buy Jolie as an action star. I've tried, I really have, but she just doesn't work for me in these types of roles. Add that all together with an under-utilization of one great character actor (Chiwetel Ejiofor) and the typecasting of another (Liev Schreiber) and the result is thoroughly unimpressive.
Here's the problem with "canning" columns: sometimes you forget to publish. I, like almost all of my blogging colleagues, have been known to write several pieces in one day when I have some extra time. Unfortunately, I neglected to post this one last week when I intended to. Please forgive the lateness!
Every December, I comb through several movie calendars to get a grasp on what I have to look forward to at the theater the following year. I compile a "See, Rent, Don't See" list because...well, because I like making lists. From that list, I mentally circle the release dates on the calendar and take note of a few films that really float my boat. Because of the number of movies that have unannounced release dates or have to make the rounds through the festival circuit, however, it is quite difficult to get a feel for what films will be available for my perusal during the back half of the year. With that in mind, I present to you my 10 most anticipated films from the first half of 2011.
10. "Mars Needs Moms" (March 11) - Seth Green, Joan Cusack, Breckin Meyer When aliens come to earth to recruit mothers, one boy (Green) gains a new appreciation for his own mom (Cusack). This movie wouldn't come close to making the list if not for "Tangled" which completely changed my ideas about current Disney films. Should be fun!
9. "The Beaver" (March 23) - Mel Gibson, Jodie Foster An angry, depressed man (Gibson) begins communicating through a stuffed beaver puppet he keeps on his hand. In my mind, this film started out as a documentary like "I'm Still Here" with director Foster wanting to follow the real-life Gibson around as he tries to re-assimilate into society. Obviously that's not what really happened but it sure is funny to think about. Anyway, I'm very interested to see the response to Gibson fresh off his most recent outburst.
8. "Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides" (May 20) - Johnny Depp, Penelope Cruz, Geoffrey Rush, Ian McShane Back from a four year layoff, the "Pirates" series jumps back onto the scene sans Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley and with a new villain (McShane). Like most everyone else I loved the first "Pirates" and mildly enjoyed the second and third installments. I'm hoping the break between movies and a refocus onto the money character, Depp's Captain Jack Sparrow, can push this series back to prominence.
7. "Thor" (May 6) - Chris Hemsworth, Anthony Hopkins, Natalie Portman, Idris Elba The Norse god of Marvel comics finally gets a big-screen debut with a storyline that involves a young and arrogant Thor being banished to earth by his father, Odin (Hopkins). My hope is that director Kenneth Branagh can bring this movie some British charm and sophistication because the trailer looks a bit over the top.
6. "The Adjustment Bureau" (March 4) - Matt Damon, Emily Blunt I was extremely excited about this film last year when it was scheduled to open in September and my enthusiasm hasn't died down to this point. Based on a story by Philip K. Dick ("Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep"/"Blade Runner"), Damon plays a political candidate who falls in love with a ballerina(Blunt), only to have their affair complicated by the Adjustment Bureau, who work to keep everyone's "fate" on track. Sci-fi plus Matt Damon equals a win for me any day of the week.
5. "X-Men: First Class" (June 3) - James McAvoy, Michael Fessbender, Jennifer Lawrence The backstory of the original X-Men and their opponents, namely Professor X (McAvoy) and Magneto (Fessbender). I admit some hesitance about "First Class" on my part. "Wolverine" was less than stellar and the casting choices are less than inspiring for me. Still, having had a great love for the X-Men from an early age, the franchise holds my interest and I'll definitely be at a midnight showing for this one.
4. "Source Code" (April 1) - Jakey Gyllenhaal, Michelle Monaghan, Vera Farmiga A sci-fi concept piece finds a soldier (Gyllenhaal) being given the opportunity to prevent a catastrophic event if he can do it in under seven minutes. "Source Code" has forced two of my worlds to collide: I can't stand Gyllenhaal or virtually any of the films he's starred in but director Duncan Jones rocked my face off with 2009's "Moon" which is unquestionably the best sci-fi movie I've seen in years. In this case, Jones trumps Gyllenhaal and I'm stoked.
3. "Super 8" (June 10) - Kyle Chandler, Elle Fanning, Noah Emmerich Much like 2009's "Cloverfield," director/producer J.J. Abrams has kept an extremely tight lid on this single-camera alien flick. The master of building suspense through viral marketing, Abrams has once again piqued my interest with a great trailer and a level of secrecy that is usually reserved for launch codes.
2. "Cars 2" (June 24) - Owen Wilson, Bonnie Hunt, Michael Caine Let's put all our cards on the table: besides "Ratatouille," in my mind "Cars" is the worst Pixar film. But the worst thing to come out of Pixar's stable of amazing films is still better than just about anything that comes down the pipes. In all honesty, these guys could probably just send out a press release that says, "The next Pixar film will open on June 24" and I'd be there on day one with absolutely no knowledge of what I was about to see.
1. "Green Lantern" (June 17) - Ryan Reynolds, Blake Lively, Peter Sarsgaard, Mark Strong I admit that, even though this movie tops my list of anticipated films, I'm nervous. In fact, the trailer that's been making the rounds for the last few months scares the heck out of me. The CGI looks rough and the suit is...well, George Clooney's suit in "Batman and Robin" is clearly the worst superhero suit of all time but this thing might end up being just behind it. And Sarsgaard looks ridiculous. But. BUT. The idea of Ryan Reynolds as a superhero who, unlike Batman or Superman, by his very nature has an undefined backstory (the Green Lantern in comics changes depending on who wears the ring of power) with which so much freedom can be taken to put together a great story...that's just too much to not get excited. Hopefully the CGI issues have been worked out in post-production and "Green Lantern" will reach my expectations.
I see an awful lot of movies each year. One thing I pride myself on, however, is being able to avoid the worst of the worst (at least in a theater). I'm very rarely surprised by how bad a movie is once I'm in the theater. Sure, mediocrity can sneak up on me from time to time but I'm usually able to avoid all around miserable experiences (or at least hold them off until they hit DVD shelves). Many of my contemporaries make an attempt to see a higher number of films, whether they expect them to be good or not, an approach which I certainly appreciate but ultimately reject. I don't get paid to go to the movies, for one thing, and for another, I'm quite busy as it is. Forking over my limited amount of spending cash for a movie I expect to stink is just not my bag. Because of this, my annual end of year rankings (coming next week) are generally top heavy in grades as compared to the lists of other writers who spend more time with bad movies than me. With that in mind, I present to you the Soap Box Office's first annual Worst Movies I Didn't See This Year. Please enjoy.
Note: Despite the fact that I am 100% certain that both "A Nightmare on Elm Street" and "Saw 3D" are atrociously horrible movies, I excluded them from consideration because I don't generally enjoy horror movies of any quality. I felt their inclusion would be unavoidably biased.
10. Death at a Funeral - Chris Rock, Danny Glover, Tracy Morgan, Luke Wilson We start the list off with an unorthodox choice. In truth, this movie is probably relatively enjoyable on one level or another. "Death" takes a place on this list as a matter of principal rather than content. In 2007, the British production of this film debuted, went through the festival circuit, and ultimately received a fairly large US release. 2010's version is an almost scene-for-scene "adaptation" with all the British/white actors replaced with just about every famous black actor (minus Will Smith) with a few lowbrow jokes thrown in. I'm not a movie snob; I doubt you'll ever see me complain about an English remake of a foreign film and very rarely will I wax poetic about how much better an original film is than its remake. But this was an English-language film and it opened less than 3 years before this remake did! The only significant difference is the black actors. I think if I was a black moviegoer, I would be thoroughly offended by this production. Its existence suggests that black people will only understand and therefore pay to see a movie starring black actors. That's an ignorant, foolish, and embarrassing assumption and it bugs me that this angle didn't get more play.
9. Tooth Fairy - The Rock, Ashley Judd, Julie Andrews Children's movies are going to make a few appearances on this list so I guess you could look at this as "the best, worst children's movie of the year." The Rock is a self-absorbed hockey player who becomes the Tooth Fairy through a series of "Santa Claus"-esque events. I have yet to enjoy a single movie The Rock has been a part of and tired plotlines like this don't make me want to put that prejudice aside. Add in a cringe-inducing trailer and you've got a recipe for disaster. At least Disney was smart enough to release this in January when it could make a little money.
8. The Back-up Plan - Jennifer Lopez, Alex O'Loughlin I'm CERTAIN that had I seen this blergfest, it would have rivaled the worst movies I've ever seen in my life. Just read the IMDB plot summary: "A romantic comedy centering on a woman who conceives twins through artificial insemination, only to meet the man of her dreams the very same day." Here's my question: how long until "The Back-up Plan" is being used as psychological torture in holding facilities across the world? An even better question: has Jennifer Lopez EVER been in a good movie? "Out of Sight" has a solid reputation and "Selena" is decent enough for what it is. Everything else? Crap.
7. Furry Vengeance - Brendan Fraser, Brooke Shields, Matt Prokop I'll be the first to admit that I'm not the greenest human in the world. Still, I'm all for curbing global warming, conserving our planet, etc. Green ideas have been prevalent in kid's movies for a long time but perhaps never so blatantly (and moronically) than in "Furry Vengeance." The gist of the plot involves Fraser being an all around douche bag to everyone and everything and Mother Nature taking out a slapstick revenge upon him. Even extreme liberal film followers distanced themselves from this pile of junk and despite a modest budget, it failed to recoup even half of its expenses. Just go away, Brendan Fraser.
6. Vampires Suck - Jenn Proske, Matt Lanter, Ken Jeong If the vampire phenomenon wasn't bad enough (I'm talking to you, "Twilight" fans) now we have to suffer a spoof on shiny vampires? Really?! I mean, of course I'm not surprised. Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer have made a TON of money with their witless, brainless, pointless parodies like the "Scary Movie" franchise, "Date Movie," and "Meet the Spartans." But still, when is enough enough? Can we start some sort of petition or start sending threatening letters to these clowns or something? Please stop.
5. Killers - Ashton Kutcher, Katherine Heigl, Tom Selleck A woman (Heigl) meets and marries a mysterious man (Kutcher) who turns out to be a spy. Shenanigans ensue. This is the only film on this list which wasn't immediately tossed out of viewing consideration the minute I saw the trailer. For a very short period of time I went back and forth over whether this really was going to be terrible or if my own unquestionable hatred for Katherine Heigl was swaying my opinion. And then the reviews came rolling in and wow, what a Crapalooza this thing must be. Entertainment Weekly (not exactly known for taking much of a stand) dedicated a full page to the many reasons why they hated Heigl's character so much. Best EW article of the year, by the way. And I'm a little upset that this movie managed to smear its stink on the otherwise awesome Tom Selleck.
4. Marmaduke - Owen Wilson, Emma Stone, Lee Pace When did I know that "Marmaduke" was going to suck, you ask? When, approximately two weeks before its June 4th debut (coincidentally the same week as "Killers"), I looked at the movies coming to a theater near me in June and for the very first time saw ANYTHING concerning "Marmaduke." Look, it's possible that in all the prep work I do over the course of a year to stay in touch with coming attractions, I missed notes about this movie. That very rarely happens but it's possible. What isn't possible, however, is for me to miss any and all promotion of a summer movie. If a studio cares about a movie, anyone with cable, Internet, a car, or a pulse sees promos, billboards, etc. whether they want to or not. I swear I didn't see a single "Marmaduke" advertisement until a week before its debut. That's a terrible sign. My friend at Marshall and the Movies picked this as the worst film of the year. Again, I don't doubt it.
3. Alpha and Omega - Justin Long, Hayden Panettiere, Dennis Hopper The last kid's movie to make the list, "Alpha and Omega" centers around two wolves who are relocated to a national park to...are you ready for this?...repopulate the area with little baby wolves. If your reaction to this synopsis was anything less than, "Wait, what now?" to the combination of "kid's movie" and "repopulate" then either you helped make this movie or we need to have a serious talk about what's socially appropriate. If that insane plotline wasn't reason enough to stay away from this thing, the trailer, which I was inundated with over and over no matter what movie I was waiting to see, is one of the worst in recent memory. I love animated features and kid's movies in general. I really do. But I come from the Pixar school of thought which insists that, just because we're making a kid's movie doesn't mean we can't strive for greatness. This doesn't cut it.
2. The Bounty Hunter - Gerard Butler, Jennifer Aniston, Jason Sudekis Someday when our society is overrun by anarchists, I believe their leader may cite this movie as the final straw that broke the camel's back and forced him into a life of rebellion. And it's not just that it was obviously a brutally bad film but also the fact that somehow it managed to make $60 million in the US. I feel like every person who saw "The Bounty Hunter" should have to come before some sort of tribunal to defend their actions. (I'm talking to you, wives and girlfriends who maliciously dragged your well-intentioned other halves to see this train wreck.) And by the way, Gerard Butler, you have officially cashed in all the Awesome Manly Man chips you earned with "300" on the following films: "P.S. I Love You," "The Ugly Truth," and this heap of rubbish. You're done now.
1. Sex and the City 2 - Sarah Jessica Parker, Kim Cattrall, Kristin Davis, Cynthia Nixon Here are the three best/worst things about "Sex and the City 2." 1. Despite the fact that our country is going through the worst economic crisis of the last 25+ years, the people at New Line/HBO thought it would be a great idea to release a film about 4 Manhattan socialites spending exorbitant amounts of money vacationing in Abu Dhabi. Way to keep up with the times, guys. 2. The runtime for this movie is a whopping 146 minutes. Two and half hours of old, disconnected women sitting around and complaining! Quite ambitious, isn't that? 3. When looking at the movie's IMDB page, I noticed it had won an award. Shocked, I clicked to discover it had been named "Best Ensemble Cast" by the ShoWest Awards. Obviously I had to check out the ShoWest festival where I discovered that the clearly brilliant minds at this establishment had also named Katherine Heigl "Female Star of the Year," Jay Roach "Comedy Director of the Decade," and given Jerry Bruckheimer a "Lifetime Achievement" award. Note to the people at ShoWest: I will pay you to not invite me to your convention. Just bill me.
Not to be confused with the upcoming "Top 10 Favorite Performances of 2010," this column concerns the films, actors, and filmmakers I would cast my vote for were I given a vote in the Academy Awards, Golden Globes, etc. Please feel free to disagree.
Best Actor - Jeff Bridges, True Grit (Runner Up: Leonardo DiCaprio, Inception)
I've watched "Inception" twice since I saw it in July and coming into the final week of 2010 I was re-convinced that in my book, no leading actor had topped what DiCaprio did in that film. And then "True Grit" rocked my face off and I have to give Bridges his due. DiCaprio was near-perfect; it just so happened that Bridges was perfect, period. This category should be a good fight when the Academy Awards get here.
Best Actress - Jennifer Lawrence, Winter's Bone (Emma Stone, Easy A) This has always been the category that vexes me most. More often than not, the eventual nominees for Best Actress come from art house or period piece films that I have no interest in seeing. So I readily that my opinion here is less informed than the rest of this column. That said, Jennifer Lawrence was a revelation in "Winter's Bone." Stone is my runner-up almost by default because as much as I enjoyed her work in "Easy A," I just honestly didn't see many leading ladies this year that earned a mention here.
Best Supporting Actor: Christian Bale, The Fighter (Jeremy Renner, The Town) Always a dog fight of a category, Best Supporting Actor always seems to be rich with great choices. As with DiCaprio in "Inception," if you'd asked me on December 28 who should win this award, it would be Renner in a landslide...and then I saw "The Fighter" and Christian Bale humbled my previous assumptions. A stunning all around performance.
Best Supporting Actress: Hailee Steinfeld, True Grit (Amy Adams, The Fighter) Talk about bursting onto the scene. Making what is essentially her big screen debut, Steinfeld provided the driving force behind "True Grit" and made a lasting impression, at least on this writer. Adams, always a favorite here at The Soap Box Office, brought a great deal of spirit to "The Fighter" during the second act when it desperately needed it as well as some grit that I thought really added to the film's overall impact. On a side note, Marion Cotillard was perhaps my favorite Supporting Actress of the year, Steinfeld and Adams spent more time actually on the screen and therefore earned a bump in the rankings from me.
Best Picture: Inception (True Grit) I've thought long and hard about this category. I'd talked myself into voting for "The Social Network" but after watching "Inception" again, I found myself no less impressed the second (and third) time around than I was the first time. That's something special in my opinion. To spin a tale as immersive as "Inception" is and pull it off seamlessly is a tremendous accomplishment. "True Grit" came on strong at the very end of the year and honestly, you could probably convince me to go with either film.
Best Director: David Fincher, The Social Network (Christopher Nolan, Inception) Great films equal great races for Best Director. My heart would vote for Nolan whom I consider to be the best in the business. On the other hand, Fincher crafted what might be the most technically perfect film I've seen in a long time and deserves this accolade.
Best Adapted Screen Play: Aaron Sorkin, The Social Network (Joel and Ethan Coen, True Grit) This is darn near a tie in my book. Both of these scripts were amazing. If forced to choose I would go with Sorkin's work on "The Social Network" because as I was blown away by his work as I watched the film whereas it's usually afterwards that I think about that stuff. Maybe that's a bogus way to go but this is my blog so...
Best Original Screen Play: Christopher Nolan, Inception (Scott Silver, The Fighter)
Behind every completely original and highly complicated movie is an outstanding screenwriter. "Inception" hits on all levels from minute one. Complex but coherent stories are what make Nolan so great. "The Fighter" is more standard fare but still a significant, well written story.
Best Score: Trent Reznor, The Social Network I don't really notice a film's score unless it's utterly fantastic, which this one certainly is. Not since "There Will Be Blood" has a score driven a film like Reznor's frenetic, contemporary arrangements did in "The Social Network."
Best Animated Feature: Toy Story 3 (How to Train Your Dragon)
I feel bad that "Toy Story 3" is getting shut out here on a site that is unashamedly friendly to the animated feature. I simply can't vote for it over "Inception" or "True Grit." That said, no movie of 2010 had an emotional impact on me like this one did and it was truly a beautifully designed film. "How to Train Your Dragon" was a breakthrough for DreamWorks and leaves me hopeful for the future of their films.
Best Poster: True Grit (Inception)
One last category just for the fun of it gives me one more opportunity to praise my favorite movies of the year. "Inception" got a couple of different posters but the one posted above was my favorite. A rich design that gives away absolutely nothing about the film...love it. But seriously, I've become obsessed with the "True Grit" poster. Wow! Leave it to the Coens to make a perfect advertisement for their film.
