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.
In an era of film that has been dominated by money grabbing sequels and unnecessary remakes, history teaches us that it’s tough to competently put together a new take on a story that’s been told previously. More often than not, the remake is of a lower quality than the original and comes across as pointless. Even when these are good films, fans of the first take tend to get Good Old Days Syndrome and refuse to acknowledge the merits of the new film. Every once in a while you strike gold (see: “Ocean’s Eleven”) but more often than not, the result is received well by neither critics nor audiences (“The Day the Earth Stood Still” comes to mind for the first time ever). “True Grit” is a particularly tough film to rethink because A.) It is considered a classic, having brought John Wayne his only Oscar; B.) The Western is a dying/dead genre of film that generally has a tough time finding an audience; and C.) Western fans display perhaps the highest form of Good Old Days Syndrome of any genre and rigidly deny the quality of most Westerns made post-1980. That makes for a challenge that only an INCREDIBLE group of filmmakers could measure up to. Enter the Coens.
“True Grit” opens on 14 year-old Mattie Ross (Hailee Steinfeld), a firecracker of a girl with a sharp tongue and a quick wit, who comes to Fort Smith, Arkansas to take possession of the body of her father who was killed by hired-hand Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin). With her mind set on vengeance, Mattie hires US Marshal Rooster Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) to track down Chaney and bring him to justice. Cogburn is an unsophisticated drunk with a reputation for killing his targets over arresting them. Mattie insists on tagging along in the manhunt and soon finds herself riding through the Arkansas/Oklahoma wilderness with Cogburn and Texas Ranger LaBoeuf (Matt Damon), who has tracked Chaney from the Lone Star State and aims to bring him back there to hang for murdering a politician. Their situation quickly escalates when the trio becomes entangled with a group of outlaws who Chaney has joined, leading to a dramatic final showdown that any fan of the Old West would be proud of.
Very few names in film inspire confidence for me like Joel and Ethan Coen do. The writer/director team has proven themselves time and time again to be thoroughly trustworthy and dependable. They simply do not take any aspect of the filmmaking process for granted; from writing to casting, location to costume, every single detail is meticulously thought out and crafted. It’s not to say that every one of their films is perfect (“Ladykillers” anyone?), it’s that each one comes together seamlessly and hits a unified tone from beginning to end. And then there’s the signature, beautifully poetic dialogue that runs rampant through all Coen movies. It is, quite simply, sublime. “True Grit” is no exception in which every piece of the film hits the proper note. As always with the Coens, though, the real proof is in the characters.
Each of our heroes is magnificently crafted. LaBoeuf is cocky and overly proud of his position but like all good Texans (myself included) he doesn’t think he’s cocky. If this were a traditional comedy, LaBoeuf would be a perfect straight man to Cogburn’s jester. Cogburn on the other hand is pragmatic and up-front about his flaws. He makes no bones about his love for the drink or his penchant for firing upon his fugitives. At the same time, he genuinely cares about justice, he’s just not as self-righteous about it as LaBoeuf. The sarcastic and world-worn Cogburn and the high-minded LaBoeuf don’t exactly mesh and so more often than not it is left to the would-be-annoying-if-she-wasn’t-so-dang-entertaining Mattie Ross to be the voice of reason. By design, Ross is the driving force behind “True Grit” and it shows in the way she pushes her comrades. What makes her such a compelling heroine is that she is determined to track down her father’s killer, not desperate. In this setting, desperation would have made her a sympathetic figure but not an inspiring one. As it is, she strikes the perfect balance of vulnerability and (for lack of a better term) grit with just an ounce of naivety that makes her so likeable and accessible. Bridges, Damon, and newcomer Steinfeld are each brilliant in their roles. Like he always does, Damon fully embraces the psychology and the spirit of LaBoeuf. Steinfeld is an absolute natural who looks to have an extremely bright future. And Bridges continues his hot streak, giving a wily, witty edge to Cogburn that is utterly delightful. The differences between his take on Cogburn and Bad Blake from “Crazy Heart” (for which he won a Best Actor Academy Award) are astounding. Since both characters are essentially grizzled old country boys, it would have been so easy to play Cogburn and Blake the same and instead Bridges turns in dramatically different portrayals that could very easily bring him back-to-back Oscars.
Pulled together by fitting cinematography, strong supporting characters (including an appearance by Barry Pepper, a personal favorite), and a wicked sense of humor, “True Grit” provides an awesome film-going experience. Three years ago I called “No Country for Old Men” the Coen’s masterpiece and while I stand by that description, “True Grit” gives me hope that one day I’ll have to eat my words and pin that title on another film.
In an apparently human-free world, owls rule the sky. One young owl, Soren (Jim Sturgess), dreams of one day joining the ranks of the legendary Owls of Ga'Hoole, famed warriors and guardians of the owl race. When Soren and his brother Kludd (Ryan Kwanten) are kidnapped by a group of villainous owls who turn out to be the enemy of the Guardians from the stories Soren loves so much. When he escapes, Soren sets out to find the Guardians and warn them of the fight that is about to be at their door.
For reasons I still don't quite understand, I've really been wanting to see "Guardians" for some time now. Something about the trailer appealed to me, I guess, and I was quick to rent this when it hit the shelves. As such, I went in with relatively high hopes which may have been a mistake. The story is solid enough and the pace is good which makes for an entertaining viewing. Some of the animation, especially the battle scenes, displays extreme quality and you can definitely see the work director Zack Snyder ("300" and "Watchmen") put into the project. Two things, however, get in the way of "Guardians" reaching its full potential. One, a stop-down-for-a-song moment that makes absolutely no sense and completely destroys the rhythm of the story. It's a cheesy song by Owl City, no less, and it does not fit the overall tone of the movie whatsoever. Which leads me to the second issue: "The Guardians" doesn't know its identity. Is it a cartoon or an animated graphic novel? Is it targeting kids or teens and adults? I don't know the answer to these questions and it seems those behind the film didn't know, either. It jumps back and forth between kiddie fare that is wholly unimpressive to an adult and fairly gritty action scenes that can't possibly be geared toward the average 6 year old. This is a classic trap for modern animated features that want to measure up to Pixar but get lost in the process. The result is a mismatched movie that has its moments but ultimately fails to impress.
Once upon a time there was a movie called “Tron.” For all intents and purposes, “Tron” was at best mediocre and at worst relatively horrible. It did have amazing graphics for the time period, however, and a generation obsessed with arcade games came to embrace “Tron” despite its relative horribleness. For reasons no one can quite understand, Disney, the studio that owned “Tron,” decided to wait 28 years before releasing a sequel to the cult hit. “Tron: Legacy” cost about $300 million to produce and when it opened, a great number of fools (such as yours truly) went to see it. The end. That is easily the strangest intro I’ve ever written for a column but it seemed fitting.
“Legacy” opens with our introduction to Sam Flynn (Garrett Hedlund), the 26 year-old son of Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges), the man who invented the technology to enter the digital world in the original film. Sam is a disenfranchised rich kid whose net worth is several hundred million dollars but who would rather break into his own company’s headquarters to release its new software to the general public for free. When a mysterious page comes from his father’s old arcade, Sam discovers a hidden room where he, too, is digitized and sent into the alternate universe of sorts that his father is trapped in. Sam enters a world that is ruled by Clu (young Jeff Bridges), who strives to break into our universe to rid the world of “imperfection” (aka: humans). Only Kevin and Quorra (Olivia Wilde) stand in his way, a duo that Sam joins in a fight to preserve humanity.
There is no questioning the visual brilliance of “Tron: Legacy.” Even in the 2D format I chose (as is my custom), the vehicles, costumes, and graphics jump off the screen. It is a beautiful if sterile world that “Legacy” operates in. Special effects and CGI took up the bulk of this movie’s budget and that truly shows in almost every frame. The action sequences are bold and dynamic, sometimes moving so fast as to seem a blur on the canvas. Clu is also a stunning achievement. Played by Jeff Bridges, CGI is used to create a drastically younger face. It is the most lifelike CGI I’ve ever seen and for all but the very briefest of moments here and there, I don’t think the average audience member could tell that his appearance had been digitally altered. I suspect the work on this aspect of the film will have a tremendous impact on the industry as a whole.
The other components of the film, however, lag behind the computer work. In truth, everything else takes a backseat to the FX department. Rookie director Joseph Kosinski shows his inexperience by allowing his film to rely almost exclusively on the work added in post-production instead of drawing the most out of his cast. Hedlund plays his part well-enough but my feeling is he didn’t have a whole lot to work with. Sam is a bit stale and primal, displaying only the most basic of emotions and behaviors. Bridges is almost wasted as Kevin, coming off too often like a futuristic knockoff of The Dude (“The Big Lebowski”). When you have Jeff Bridges at your disposal, you highlight Jeff Bridges, not the CGI copy of Jeff Bridges. Honestly, it’s a bit of a lazy effort from the guy who won an Academy Award last year (“Crazy Heart”) and should probably win another this year (“True Grit”). Then we come to Wilde who, quite simply, cannot act, or at least I have yet to see her act. Quorra is one of the most one-dimensional characters I have ever seen and Wilde does absolutely nothing to help that disability. Meanwhile the story is overly complex and yet at the same time horribly underdeveloped, a combination I didn’t think was possible until now. In short, “Tron: Legacy” is a Michael Bay fantasy: tremendous style, very little substance.
I went into “Legacy” with tempered expectations and to be honest, I wasn’t disappointed. It’s a fun, eye-pleasing ride that I really enjoyed. Obviously that’s the goal of the film’s backers and on some level, you have to applaud decision makers who know their target audience and go after them whole hog. Still, with a $300 million budget and a marketing campaign that has lasted the better part of two years, you’d like to think that a decent script and layered characters wouldn’t be too much to ask.
Grade: B-
Olivia Wilde is making me question “Cowboys and Aliens,” Brian
When his wife unexpectedly takes ill and dies, Australian sports writer Joe Warr (Clive Owen) is suddenly left to raise his young son (Nicholas McAnulty) on his own. His life is further turned upside down when Harry (George MacKay), his teenage son from a previous marriage, comes to live with them. Joe's easy-breezy brand of discipline comes into question as he attempts to balance fatherhood, his career, and a potential love with another single parent.
There's not just a whole lot to say about "The Boys Are Back" other than a whole hearted, "Meh." The thing about this plotline, the "widowed spouse tries to cope with loss and learn how to be a parent" concept, is that there isn't much of anywhere to go. If you don't have great acting or an intriguing addition twist (like "Sleepless in Seattle") then the audience pretty much knows the drill. Owen gives a satisfactory performance but it's far from inspired or heartfelt and he, like the film he's operating in, simply goes through the motions. It's not boring per se, it's just that nothing much happens. The scenes are a bit choppy and I never felt like the characters or the story itself had room for development. Save for a scene or two, Joe doesn't really deal with his grief and we don't get a whole lot of bonding between father and son. Joe's form of parenting seems to be to let his boys do pretty much whatever they want up to and including riding on the hood of his Land Rover while he drives down a beach. I think the movie wants us to see how a carefree, fun dad learns to be a more well-rounded father figure but again, there's not much of a transition. It's not that "Boys" is a bad film, it's just simply not that good.
Grade: C+
It's never a good sign when I use "just" that many times in one post, Brian
As a kid I was raised on two very crucial symbols of pop culture: “Star Wars” and Disney movies (with Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles following close behind). My family didn’t really watch network TV, I was musically retarded until college, and sports didn’t take over my life until later on, so for a long time I knew a great deal about only two things and you certainly didn’t want to question my authority on those two subjects. We didn’t go to the movies that often so it was a big deal when a Disney movie debuted and subsequently when it came out on VHS. (VHS was a precursor to DVD. It was way bigger and much lower in quality and now I try to pretend they never existed.) I don’t think we ever missed a Disney movie between 1985 and 1995. My little brother’s first theater experience was a re-release of “Snow White.” We watched “The Sorcerer’s Stone,” “The Lion King,” and “Robin Hood” (still my all-time favorite animated feature) over and over again until our tapes were worn out. In short, a Disney movie used to mean something; its debut was significant. I’m not sure exactly when that allure disappeared but I think Pixar is more than partially to blame. Who cares about standard animation when Pixar can make a cartoon cowboy look so real and lifelike? The last Disney cartoon that made any sort of impact on me (and the rest of the world) was 2000’s “Emperor’s New Groove” and even that wavered at the Box Office. “Treasure Planet,” “Home on the Range,” “Meet the Robinsons,” etc. all came and went with little fanfare, leaving an entire generation that doesn’t know that a Disney animated feature used to be an important event. That all ends, however, with “Tangled.”
The re-imagining of the classic “Rapunzel” story, “Tangled” centers as much around the outlaw Flynn Rider (Zachary Levi) as it does the princess (Mandy Moore). On the run after a high-priced theft, Rider climbs into a hidden tower where he is ambushed by Rapunzel. Locked away in the tower for 18 years by Gothel (Donna Murphy), the woman she believes to be her mother, Rapunzel is eager to get out and explore the world she has been denied access to. The two strike a deal in which Rider will take Rapunzel to see the thousands of floating lantern the king and queen release on the birthday of their missing princess and Rapunzel will return Rider’s stolen property. Needing Rapunzel to stay young/alive, Mother Gothel sets out to reclaim her prize resulting in a twist-and-turn sequence of events that brings the lost princess ever closer to her family.
From its first moments, you can tell that “Tangled” is a different kind of Disney movie, a return to the old ways that made the company what it is today. It isn’t just in the stronger-than-expected dialogue, the fitting musical numbers, or the much more meticulously crafted plot than their recent animated features. There’s a sort of confidence on display here and try as I might, I can’t think of a better way to term that. It’s like watching a basketball player who’s on fire and seeing him nail shot after shot when he knows he can’t miss. Recent Disney offerings have come across as a bit desperate, begging the audience to remember the good times when “Aladdin” was rocking their faces off and give the studio a pass on “Chicken Little.” In contrast, “Tangled” has a full-on swagger, with every detail controlled and passionately crafted. It’s a fast paced ride that contains a great deal of fun and an extra dose of heart without venturing into cheesy or cliché territory.
Levi and Moore work seamlessly together and if there’s one thing Disney has done right over the last decade it’s allowing their big name voices to work within the framework of the film instead of overshadowing it (unlike Dreamworks). Rider is the classic cartoon hero, the “outlaw with a heart of gold” whose makeup balances his suave outward appearance with a host of internal insecurities. Rapunzel is wide eyed and naïve but her unbridled enthusiasm and sunshiny outlook on the world is endearing to everyone, including the audience. These two carry the film but they are provided with outstanding work from a lesser-known-but-no-less-talented supporting cast including Murphy, Ron Pearlman, and Jeffrey Tambor. Mother Gothel takes a page out of Ursula’s (“The Little Mermaid”) villainous handbook and provides a strong antagonist to bind the story together. Add to this some of that classic Disney magic (such as the flight of the lanterns) and a few of the old standbys, including a witty and unexpected stop for a tough-guys-sing-a-song moment that was truly a nostalgic touch, and you have an inspired animated feature.
You would never guess that “Tangled” underwent an extreme makeover in the last two years as almost every aspect was shifted and recut to focus more on the male-friendly Rider. Perhaps that forced rethinking made “Tangled” what it is but regardless, it is a magnificent departure from what Disney has done lately and a reminder of how great these movies once were. In a year that featured “Toy Story 3” and Dreamworks’ breakthrough “How to Train Your Dragon,” “Tangled” is likely to get lost in the animated shuffle but its ability to regain the allure of Disney is a serious achievement in my book.
In 1999, young Dave (Jay Baruchel) stumbles into an antique shop owned by the centuries-old wizard Balthazar (Nicholas Cage). In a moment of confusion, Dave accidentally frees Horvath (Alfred Molina), an evil warlock, and subsequently both magicians are (for reasons I didn't quite catch) get locked in a vase which doesn't open for 12 years. When it does reopen, both Balthazar and Horvath pursue Dave, looking for a lost article he took from the shop that holds unspeakable power. Balthazar tells Dave that he is (of course) this film's version of the ever-popular "chosen one" and quickly teaches Dave how to tap into his magical prowess. A showdown ensues, the events of which you can pretty much guess.
By now we all know what to expect from a Jerry Bruckheimer production, especially when he's paired with director Jon Turteltaub. You're going to get a lot of flair, some great special effects/stunts, a few well placed jokes, an inattention to anything that could be considered "acting," and a story that lacks all but the most basic of plot points. Consequently, there's really nothing wrong with a Bruckheimer action film while at the same time there's very little right about it. "The Sorcerer's Apprentice" is what it is: mildly fun, reasonably enjoyable, and entirely forgettable. Cage long ago ceased to be a good actor but in his defense, he's found a niche with Bruckheimer wherein he doesn't have to stretch himself too far and as a result, the audience isn't subjected to anywhere near the amount of punch-in-the-stomach-terrible-acting moments that have plagued him over the last two decades. He actually doesn't suck the life out of this movie the way I've come to expect. Baruchel, who had a HUGE year, does a good-enough job performing in a magnificently limited, two-dimensional role. As usual, "Apprentice" delivers some FX-heavy scenes that are almost entirely overshadowed by miserably cliched twists and turns and one of the worst soundtracks a movie has ever had. Altogether it's another notch on the "Truly Average and Unmemorable" belt for Bruckheimer (and Cage) that's just right for late night background viewing.
In 2008, Academy Award nominee Joaquin Phoenix announced that he was retiring from acting and would be focusing on his rap career. The strange story took hold of the media and culminated in one of the weirdest interviews in the history of the medium with Phoenix appearing blitzed out of his mind and disinterested and a clearly perturbed David Letterman going out of his way to poke fun at his guest. Shortly thereafter it came to light to Phoenix's brother-in-law, Casey Affleck, was filming his career transition for a documentary that would come to be titled "I'm Still Here." The bumbling attempt at hip-hop, however, takes a backseat to the no-holds-barred depiction of the chaotic and drug-fueled lifestyle that Phoenix lives. Soon after its release, Affleck let slip the fact that "I'm Still Here" was actually not a documentary but instead an insanely personal look at method acting. Where the truth actually lies is anyone's guess but there's no denying how fascinating this film is in its best moments.
In some ways the prior knowledge gained from Affleck's admission takes away from the impact of the film. At the same time, however, it leads the viewer down a dark path as you find yourself wondering how much of this is real and how much is just for show. This is one of the most authentic performances I've ever seen and whether all of "I'm Still Here" was done just for the camera or if Affleck's statement itself was a lie to protect Phoenix, there is some measure of reality to Phoenix's behavior. Let's not forget that Phoenix's brother, River, had serious issues adjusting to life in the spotlight and ended up dead from a drug overdose in front of an LA nightclub. The most telling moment of the entire film comes early on when Phoenix admits that he's tired of playing his most tiring role, that being the actor Joaquin Phoenix. It's a statement that wreaks of honesty, a truly sober moment amidst a drug-addled rant that goes on for several minutes. I'm left feeling unsure as to which parts of "I'm Still Here" should be taken as fiction and which parts hit too close to the mark to be anything but truth. That question, along with a few scenes that probably should have been left on the cutting room floor, distract from the would-be power of the film. Ultimately, "I'm Still Here" is a flawed and profoundly sad film that is highlighted by one of the most engrossing but hard-to-watch performances you'll ever see.
